A compleat history of the canon and writers, of the books of the Old and New Testament, by way of dissertation, with useful remarks on that subject ... by L.E. Du Pin ... ; done into English from the French original.

A Compleat History OF THE CANON and WRITERS OF THE OLD and NEW TESTAMENT, &c. (Book 2)

By Way of DISSERTATION. (Book 2)

VOL. II. (Book 2)

CAP. I. Of the Authority and Canon of the Books of the N. Testament.

SECT. I. Of the Revelation made by Jesus Christ, and of the Manner of its publica∣tion throughout the World.

THE Revelation which God made to Men by Jesus Christ his Son, does as much surpass those that he made by the Prophets, as the Dignity of the Person of Jesus Christ excell'd that of the Patriarchs and Pro∣phets. In the first Revelations God made use of Angels or Men to make known those Truths to Mankind, that he would have them taught. In this he made use of his own Son, whom according to the words of St. Paul he hath appointed Heir of all things, and by whom he made the World. But it is not only the Dignity of the Person whom God hath made use of in this second Revelation, which renders it much more considerable than the first; it hath di∣vers other advantages besides. For, 1. Those Antient Revelations were obscure and vail'd over with Figures and Parables that conceal'd the Mysteries and Truths. This is evident, and discovers clearly the most sublime Truths and profound Mysteries. 2. The first were imperfect and defective in abundance of things; they contain'd only a small number of Truths, a great many being re∣serv'd to the time of the Messia. This is complete and perfect, there is nothing more to be hoped for in this World; it is the perfection and end of all Revela∣tions. As there was never any like it before, neither will there be any like it

in time to come. It will continue till the end of the World. 4. The first was only for the Jews, they were known to none but that Nation; they were al∣ways confin'd to Judea, and the rest of the World knew nothing of them till the Coming of Jesus Christ. This was made for all Nations. It was spread through all the Earth, and this Light did shine, and shines still for the Use of all Men.

The Son of God being come then into the World to declare unto Men the Truths which his Father was willing to reveal to 'em: He spent the last Years of his Life in Preaching them in Judea, from whence the Light of the Gospel was to be carried into all Nations. Whilst he continued upon Earth, there was no difficulty to learn what his Doctrine was; there was no more to do but to address our selves to him, to hearken to him, and to understand the meaning of his words. He equally Instructed all Men, he allow'd them to ask him Que∣stions, and answered with Meekness such as came with a design to inform them∣selves, but on the other hand confounded those who came to ask him Questions meerly to take advantage of what he said. But since he was to stay only a little while upon the Earth, he took care to Instruct his Apostles and Disciples more particularly in the Truths he had a mind they should Teach the World after his Death. He hid nothing from them of what his Father would have re∣veal'd to Man. He says to them, John 15.15. I will not henceforth call you Servants, for the Servant knoweth not what his Master does, but I have called you Friends, because I have revealed to you all that I have heard of my Father; And cap. 17.18. speaking to his Father, he says, I have given unto them the words that thou gavest to me. The Apostles and Disciples being thus Instructed by the Mouth of Jesus Christ, might also give Testimony to his Doctrine. But that they should know it fully, and be infallible after he ascended to Heaven, he confirm'd them, and gave them New Light, by sending them his Holy Spirit, who completely instructed them in all the Truths of the Religion which they were to know. This Dispensation is represented in the last words of our Sa∣viour Jesus Christ to his Apostles. He order'd them to go through all the World to Preach the Gospel, to Teach the People, and to Baptize them in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, Matth. 28.18. All power, (says he) is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth. Go ye therefore and teach all Nations, Bapti∣zing them in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you. He assures them that to the end they might be enabled to Preach the Gospel, he would send them the Holy Ghost, his Father had promised them, and order'd them to stay in the City of Jerusalem. and wait for it, Luke 24.49. And behold I send the promise of my Father upon you, but tarry ye in the City of Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from on high. And eating with them, says St. Luke, Acts 1.4. He commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the pro∣mise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me, for John truly baptized with Water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence, v. 8. Ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the Earth. This is the Holy Ghost which he had promised them before his suffering, in the discourse he had with them at the last Supper in those Terms. John 15.16. I will pray my Father, and he will give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of Truth, &c. v. 26. The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my Name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your Remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you, John 16.12, 13. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now; howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth is come, he will guide you into all Truth, for he shall not speak of him∣self, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall be speak, and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorifie me, for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto

you. In fine, he promises his Apostles never to forsake them, Matth. 28. v. ult. Lo I am with you even unto the end of the World.

It results from those Promises of Jesus Christ; 1. That he chose and appoint∣ed his Apostles to Preach his Doctrine throughout the Earth, and to instruct those that would believe in him. 2. That he instructed them therein himself by his Word from the time he began to Preach, till the time of his Death. 3. That being raised again, he appeared to them several times during the forty days, to instruct them in, and to convince them of his Doctrine. 4. That he pro∣mised them his Holy Spirit, to make them remember the Doctrine he had taught them, to enlighten and confirm them in those Truths, and to enable them to maintain and Preach them. 5. That the descending of the Holy Ghost upon them, was so necessary to make them capable of acquitting themselves worthily of that Ministry, that he forbad them to depart from Jerusalem, or to Preach till such time as they had received it. 6. That after the Descent of the Holy Ghost, they were perfectly instructed in all the Truths of the Christian Reli∣gion, which they were to teach to those that would embrace it, and that Jesus Christ left behind him no other way for the World to be instructed in it than the Preaching of it by the Apostles throughout the Earth. This is the only way he left for Men to Learn those Truths that were necessary to Salvation, Mark 16 15. Go ye into all the World and Preach the Gospel unto every Creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned. It is sufficient for Salvation to believe what the Apostles taught, and if that be not believed, we shall be condemned. There's no having recourse to other Preachers, Jesus Christ hath appointed no other. It is in vain to seek for other means of Salvation, Jesus Christ hath left none. He hath promised no New Revelation after this that he hath made to Men. By his own Preaching, and the Mission of the Holy Ghost, he taught his Apostles all the Truths which he thought it needful Men should be instructed in. The Holy Ghost made them to remember all that he had taught them, and instructed them in all that they ought to know and teach unto Men.

When our Lord Jesus Christ was ascended into Heaven, the Apostles after having received the Holy Ghost in a visible manner, Preached the Gospel every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the Word with signs following, Mark 16.20. They taught Men what they had seen and learned. In a word, they executed the Order and Commission which they had received from Jesus Christ; and as he commanded them to Preach all the Truths that he had taught them, and instructed them in all those that were necessary for the safety of Men; It is not to be thought that in acquitting themselves faithfully, as they have done in their Ministry, they would conceal any of those Truths, which he had revealed to them to be taught unto Men; for if they had it, must either have been out of Ignorance, Malice, Policy, Fear or Neglect, because they were not instructed in all the Truths of Religion which they must teach unto Men, because they envied the knowledge of them to some of their acquaintance, or else because they were negligent in acquitting themselves of their Ministry. But we cannot suppose the Apostles to be guilty of any of those faults. We can∣not say they were ignorant of any of the Truths which Jesus Christ would have taught unto Men, for they could not be ignorant of them, but either because Jesus Christ had not revealed them to them, nor explained them clearly enough, which cannot be maintain'd without derogating from the Wisdom of Jesus Christ, or because they did not retain or understand the Truths that he taught them, of which there is not the least appearance, since they applied them∣selves wholly to understand him who taught them those things, whom they con∣sider'd as their Master, who had in his mouth, as St. Peter said, the words of Eternal Life, and whom the Heavenly Father had commanded them to hear by a Miraculous Voice. And tho' it should be said, that they did not retain nor per∣fectly understand all the Truths which Jesus Christ had taught them before the

descent of the Holy Ghost, it cannot be said so of the time that followed that descent, since the Gospel assures us in so many places that the Holy Ghost was sent on purpose to instruct them perfectly in all the Truths which Jesus Christ had taught them. Neither can we say that they maliciously conceal'd any of the Truths that Jesus Christ had taught them, they being uncapable of such a prevarication, nor could they do it from any Politick Reason, since Jesus Christ had commanded them to teach publickly all that he had taught them in private, Matth. 10.27. What I tell you in Darkness, that speak ye in Light; and what ye hear in the Ear, that Preach ye upon the House tops. And that when he com∣manded them to Preach the Gospel in all the Earth, he excepted no part nor person: Preach the Gospel to every Creature. He says not, make use of this Po∣licy and Precaution, do not Preach your Doctrine to all the World, keep some∣thing secret, which you are not to trust but to a small number of People, but Preach the Gospel to every Creature, Mark 16.15. To the great as well as to the small, to the poor as well as to the rich, to the ignorant as well as to the learned, to the simple as well as to those of the quickest apprehension. It is still less probable that they conceal'd any of those Truths out of fear, which they were immediately to teach after that Jesus Christ had order'd them to Preach upon the House tops that which they had heard in secret, and that he had fore∣warned them not to be diverted from it by the fear of Death: Do not fear those which kill the Body, but are not able to kill the Soul, Matth. 10.28. And the Event hath sufficiently verisied, that they well observ'd that Maxim, since there were no perils to which they did not expose themselves, no penalties they did not undergo, nor punishments which they did not suffer for Preaching the Gos∣pel, which most of them seal'd by their Death. They fear'd neither the perfi∣diousness of the Jews, nor the violence of the Gentiles; they Preached without fear, and in the publick places, they Preached Jesus Christ Crucified, a Doctrine which was a Stumbling-block to the Jews, and Foolishness to the Gentiles. Af∣ter this there was no need of being upon the Reserve as to other Truths; all the rest of the Articles were less odious than this, and would have made them less liable to Persecution. Who then in short can suspect as guilty of Negligence, persons of such Zeal and Fervency, and who applied themselves so much to ac∣complish their Ministry as the Apostles, who accounted that Office their chief happiness, who acted all things, suffered all things, and died every day that they might acquit themselves worthily. It must then remain uncontroverted, that the Apostles taught, discovered, Preached, and at last committed to writing the Truths of that Religion which Jesus Christ had taught them.

SECT II. Of the Manner how the Books of the New Testament were Composed.

OUR Saviour taught his Doctrine viva voce, without putting any thing in Writing. He left that to his Apostles and Disciples, and by a special Pro∣vidence order'd it so, that some of 'em after having taught by word of mouth the Doctrine they receiv'd from him, after having confirm'd it by Miracles, and spread it through the World, they did also faithfully write the History of his Life, to serve for a Pattern to Christians, and to be a perpetual Monument of the Doctrine which they taught in his Name, and wrote Epistles as occasion offer'd to instruct the Churches. St. Matthew and St. John Apostles and Eye∣witnesses of the Actions of Jesus Christ, wrote what they saw and heard, and St. Mark and St. Luke wrote what they learned from the Apostles themselves. The latter wrote also the History of the first Christians, and some circumstances

of the Sermons and Lives of the Apostles, particularly of St. Peter and St. Paul, of part of which he had been witness. St. Paul being instructed not by Men, but by Jesus Christ himself, having all the Churches of the Gentiles, whose Apostle he was, committed to his Charge, wrote several Epistles full of the Holy Spirit of the Lord which was in him. St. Peter, St. John, St. James, St. Jude, wrote likewise Epistles on different occasions. These are the Works which Compose what we call the New Testament, and contain the principal Points of the Doctrine of Jesus Christ.

Tho' our Saviour hath wrote nothing, it is no Argument why we should not believe what his Apostles and Disciples have wrote, both as to his Person and Doctrine. This St. Austin proves against the Gentiles, who call'd in question what was wrote of Jesus Christ, because he did not write it himself.

I ask them (says he) why they believe without any scruple what the Disciples of their most famous Philosophers write concerning them, tho' they wrote nothing themselves? Pythagoras for example, the best Philosopher that ever Greece produced as to the speculative part, hath wrote nothing of himself, nor upon any Subject. Socrates, who is preferr'd before all the rest of the Philosophers on the account of his Moral Doctrine, and whom the Oracle of Apollo declar'd to be the Wisest of Men, hath wrote nothing but Aesop's Fables, nor had he done that, if we may believe his Disciple Plato, had he not been forc'd to it by the Order of his Genius. This Book contains the Sentences of another Man, and not his Doctrine. What reason then have the Pagans to believe what the Disciples of those Philosophers have wrote concerning them, and not to believe what the Disciples of Jesus Christ have wrote concerning him, Lib. 1. de Doct. Chr. c. 7.

To prove beyond Contradiction the Authority of the Books of the New Testa∣ment, and the Truth of the Matters of fact there related: We must prove in the first place that those Books are really the Writings of those whose Names they bear, that is, of the Apostles and Disciples of Jesus Christ, who were Eye-wit∣nesses of what they wrote.

Secondly, That those Books have not been corrupted.

Thirdly, That the Writers of them are persons worthy of Credit, that they have not stuffed them with Fictions and Fables, but design'd to write such things as they would have believed to be true.

Fourthly, That they could neither be deceived themselves, nor yet deceive others. That is to say, they could neither be ignorant of the Truth of the Mat∣ters of fact which they related, nor of their Masters Doctrine, and that they could not impose upon People in relating Facts that were not true, or advance in their Writings a Doctrine contrary to that of their Master, as having receiv'd the same from him. Those four things being certain, there's no room to dispute the Authority of the New Testament. For there is nothing more easie than to make it evident.

SECT. III. That the Boohs of the New Testament are certainly the Works of those Authors whose Names they bear.

IT is certain at first view, that there is no Reason to doubt but the Gospels, Acts and Epistles of the Apostles, are wrote by those whose Names they bear, and that there's no cause to doubt of the Authors of all the rest, for there is no∣thing, the truth of which can be established by more Ancient, and more Authen∣tick Monuments; to wit,

1. By the Testimony of Authors, who wrote a little time after, and who have quoted them, as being without doubt the Works of those whose Names they bear.

2. By the Testimony of the Christian Churches spread through the Earth, who did at all times unanimously own those Writings as Authentick and True.

3. By Inspecting into the Books themselves, which have no mark of being sup∣posititious or Counterfeit, but on the contrary have all the Marks of Truth and Antiquity that any Authentick Monuments can have. Here is nothing contrary to History. It is manifest that the Authors wrote whilst Jerusalem was in being, and whilst the Jews carried the face of a Republick: This evidently proves that those Books are of that time wherein it's agreed the Apostles liv'd. It appears that the Authors of those Books are plain-hearted upright Men, who had neither the Parts, nor the Malice to forge or impose those Works upon the World. Not one thing has escap'd them contrary to History, or to the Circumstances and Customs of the Time, which would have been hard for them to have avoided, had they been Impostors. They agree with one another as to the Matters of fact they relate, but so nevertheless as 'tis evident, that it is not one Author who wrote those different Works, and that those who wrote them did not agree together to say all one thing. Their Stile is different, which makes it plain they are different Authors, and there are betwixt them seeming Contradictions and Diversities, which demonstrate plainly that the Writers did not concert those Works together. In fine, there is in those Works a certain Character of Ge∣nuinesse and Truth, which make it evident that it is not the production of an Impostor, but an Authentick and True Work.

Where is there any profane Work of the Ancient Greeks and Latin Authors of whose Truth so many Authentick proofs can be brought? For the most part they satisfie themselves with the Testimony of an Author that liv'd some Years after the Work is thought to have been Compos'd: Many times they gave their Judgment upon the Conformity of the Stile alone, or by the Title found in some Manuscripts, which are for the most part not very Ancient. Nevertheless they tell us with Confidence and Moral Certainty, that those Works were wrote by those whose Names they bear. With how much more reason may we say so of the Gospels, the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles, which are supported by much stronger Evidence, and a far greater Certainty? Let it be considered that those Gospels and Epistles were published in the time of the Apostles, not only in the Churches for which the said Gospels were Compos'd, or to whom those Epistles were directed, but also in the Neighbouring Churches, and that those Writings were publish'd every where in a little time. It was easie then to know the Authors of 'em, nor could they be deceiv'd, the thing being publick and certain: That the Persons who wrote those Works, those for whom, and to whom they were wrote, and the Churches who had receiv'd and own'd them, who read them, and made use of them for their Instruction, gave 'em such an Authentick Testimony, that no body doubted but they were the Writings of the Apostles. That there were Copies of 'em in all the Churches; that all the most Ancient Orthodox Authors have quoted and own'd them to be true; that when the Hereticks did afterwards Counterfeit the Works of the Apostles, or falsifie those that were true, they were immediately convicted of it, by Authen∣tick Testimonies: That their Writings were disown'd and rejected by the Dis∣ciples of the Apostles, and by the Apostolical Churches; and that in fine, all the Churches have at all times unanimously receiv'd, the Body of the Books of the New Testament, which they considered as their Law and Infallible Rule; and that they Repealed the others, as false, or as not having the same Authority. If I say we give but a little heed to those things, we cannot but be convinc'd in common sense, that the Books of the New Testament are really the Works of those whose Names they bear. This is the first Truth we had to demonstrate.

SECT. IV. That the Books of the New Tectament have not been Corrupted.

THE second Truth that those Books were not corrupted, is establish'd upon the same Evidence. It is certain in the first place, that the Originals of the Gospels, and of the Epistles of the Apostles and of the Evangelists, wrote by their own Hands, or by those to whom they had dictated them, did remain for some time in the Churches for which those Gospels were wrote, or to whom those Letters were directed. Tertullian seems also to assure us, that in his time there were Churches which had this precious Pledge in their keeping; when he says, speaking of those Apostolical Churches, that there they repeat their Au∣thentick Letters, Apud quas Authenticae Literae eorum recitantur; Terms which seem to design the Originals themselves. But tho' those words should be other∣wise understood, the Respect which they had in the Churches for the Gospels and the Epistles of the Apostles, leaves us no Room to doubt, but they preser∣ved the Originals a long time, and that Copies of them were immediately wrote, which were spread in a little time through all the Churches, where they read them publickly. Had those Copies been False, it had been impossible but the Fraud must have been discovered immediately by comparing them with the Originals. The Apostolical Churches who still had them, would soon have con∣victed of Forgery those falsified and interpolated Copies, and not have suffered them to have been made use of. All the Christians who had seen and read the Originals, would have been so many Witnesses to depose against them: Other∣wise how could all the Copiers agree together to make the same Falsifications? How could those False Copies have been spread through the World in a little time, without any of the Churches having preserved the True Ones? It cannot then be said, That the Writings of the Apostles were falsified, either during their Lives, or speedily after their Death; nor is it to be doubted, that St. Cle∣ment the Roman, Hermas, St. Polycarp, St. Justin, St. Ireneus, and the most An∣cient Authors, had the Genuine Writings of the Apostles. The Apostolical Churches preserved them as they received them from the Apostles: They were the same in all Churches of the Earth. How was it possible they could be cor∣rupted and falsified throughout in an uniform Manner? Is it credible, that all the Churches, and that all Christians should agree to falsifie Them, and that they could have concealed this Imposture? Would not the Jews and Pagans have upbraided them with this Change? The Hereticks that came after, would they have spared the Christians in such a Case? When Valentine and Marcion falsified the Gospels, they were convicted of the Crime, by proving, That the Gospels kept by the Churches were more Ancient than theirs, and that their Falsifica∣tion was of a later Date. In short, Can it be imagined that all the Copies of the New Testament, could have been changed and corrupted? How could that Falsification have been effected? Who was the Author of it? In what time can they say it was done? It cannot be said to have been since the time that we had the Writings of Christian Authors; for all the Passages of the New Testa∣ment which they quote, are agreeable to the Books we have, and they quote so great a Number of them, that 'tis, morally speaking, impossible that they changed them in their Works. Nor can it be said, That this Corruption was effected before any Christian began to write, that is to say fifteen or twenty Years after the Death of the Apostles, in a time when there were many Wit∣nesses still remaining that had received them from the Apostles themselves. Could there be then any Person so impudent as to change those Books? And sup∣posing

there were; is it possible that all Christians would have believed them, contrary to the Universal Testimony of the Disciples. How was it possible to impose upon so many entire Societies, who had received those Books of the A∣postles, who read them continually in their Assemblies, upon so many Chri∣stians who read them in private, had the Contents of them by Heart, and respected them as Sacred Books? Would not they have universally risen up against this Change? Those whom they suppose to have corrupted or altered them, they did so either in the Essential Part, that is to say in the Doctrine, or in things of small Consequence, and without touching upon the Essentials of the Doctrine. The latter is not likely; for if they left the same Doctrine remaining, to what purpose was it to corrupt the Text? And the first was impossible, because the Christians, who knew the Doctrine of the Apostles, and died every one in Defence of it, would rather have lost their Lives, than suffered their Ancient Doctrine to be overturned. In a Word, How was this Change effected? Was it all at once? Was it insensibly? The Former is extra∣vagant; for how can we suppose, that all the Christians of the Earth should agree to falsifie the Sacred Books all at once, and in one and the same Man∣ner, and that they could effect that Design every where without Opposition? The Latter is no less difficult to believe; for to bring that to pass there must of necessity have been many Men, living in different Times and Places, that had the same Design and End to corrupt the Books of the Apostles; and they must al∣ways have found the Spirits of Christians disposed to receive their Fictions. Whereas, on the contrary, it is certain, by the Testimony of Christian Authors, That from the time of St. Clement and St. Polycarp till now, there was no con∣siderable Change made in the Books of the New Testament. The Text is E∣qual, Uniform, of the same Stile, and contains the same Doctrine; nor does there appear therein any Interposiation, Contradiction or Difference; so that there is more Ground to believe, that they are entirely Suppositious than falsified or corrupted. 'Tis not denied, but some Mistakes may have slip'd into them, as into all other Books, by the Neglect of the Copiers; but this cannot be called a Corruption or Falsification that changes neither the Historyn or the Doctrine of those Books.

SECT. V. That the Authors of the Books of the New Testament, had no design to write Fables.

IT is no less certain, That the Authors of the Books of the New Testament had no design to write Fictions and Fables, like those of Poems and Ro∣mances; but their Invention was to write Things that they would have believed to be true, and that they fell out in the same Manner as they reported them. We need only cast our Eye upon their Works to be convinced of this. They as∣sure us throughout, That the Matters of Fact they relate are true. They write them with the same Simplicity, and in the same Natural Manner as they fell out. Their Scope is not to divert the Reader with Fictions, but to instruct them in Matters of Fact which it was important for them to know. In short, their Works contain nothing which can occasion the least Suspicion, that they had a Mind to forge any Thing or make a fabulous Narrative.

They set down the Time, the Place, the Persons, the Matters of Fact are circumstantiated, and related in a Natural Manner, without the least Air of Forgery. It's plain, that those Authors speak every where serious and positively. It is impossible to read the four Evangelists without being convinced, that the

Authors had no design to forge; and that their only design was to write a Hi∣story which they would have looked upon to be true. The Acts of the Apostles have no less an Air of Sincerity and Truth. They are exact Memoirs, which contain nothing that looks like Fable. How is it possible for any Man to think, that the Epistles of the Apostles are nothing else but pleasant Fictions; that they had no design to instruct those they wrote to, nor to teach them a Doctrine that they would have them believe to be True; and that they wrote only to divert themselves and others? To maintain those things, or to think there's any shadow of Truth in them, were the most absurd thing in the World. There's no Man then of good Sense, who can doubt, that the Books of the New Testament were wrote by those to whom they are ascribed, that those Books are such as they wrote them; and that those who were the Au∣thors of them did intend at least to make People believe, that the History they wrote was True. This being granted, there remains no more to con∣vince us effectually, That it is so, but to prove, That they were neither imposed upon themselves, nor designed to impose upon others, that is to say, that they were neither ignorant of the Truth nor disguised it.

SECT. VI. That the Authors of the Books of the New Testament were neither de∣ceived nor Deceivers.

TO demonstrate, That the Apostles and Evangelists could not be imposed upon in the Things they related, 'tis sufficient to observe, That they them∣selves heard and saw what they wrote concerning Jesus Christ, or had it from those that conversed Familiarly with him. St. Matthew, St. John, St. Peter, St. James and St. Jude saw and heard what they wrote concerning the Doctrine of Jesus Christ. They lived a long time familiarly with him. He had instru∣cted them carefully in his Doctrine, with a design that they should teach it to others, and publish it throughout the Earth. They received his Instructions with a teacheable Temper, applied themselves to understand them, and desired him to explain such Things as they did not. They retained them carefully, be∣cause they looked upon them, as Things necessary for the Salvation of them∣selves and others. The Respect they had for their Master, and the extraordi∣nary Things they saw him perform, made them give special Attention to every Thing he said to them. He explained himself to them in clear Terms, and dis∣covered to them all the Secrets of his Doctrine. They could not then be de∣ceived on this Subject, nor be ignorant of the True Doctrine of their Master. Much less could they be mistaken in the Miracles and Matters of Fact, which they saw him perform. It had been impossible to make them believe that Jesus Christ had cured those that were Paralitick and Lame, that he raised the dead, and that after death he rose again himself, if those Matters of Fact had been false. VVe are to make the same Reflections upon the Evangelists; St. Luke and St. Mark wrote only what they had from Eye-witnesses, and Persons worthy of Credit, in a time when the Memory of those things was fresh and recent. Had they been false, it is impossible but they must have known the falshood of them. St. Paul, who was a Persecutor of the Christians, could he have been ignorant of it? and after having been convinced of the Imposture, whilst he was yet their Enemy, could he have afterwards perswaded himself of the Truth of that which he formerly knew to be a Fiction? It cannot then be said, that the Au∣thors of the Books of the New Testament were deceived either as to the Doctrine or Actions of Jesus Christ.

It only remains then for us to demonstrate, That they were not Impostors neither; That 'twas impossible for them to conceive or effect a Design of impo∣sing upon all the VVorld, to make them believe Matters of Fact to be True the Falshood of which was known to them, by publishing their own Fancies, as the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, and writing Books on purpose to give Credit to that Imposture. It is fit we should enlarge a little more upon this Subject.

In the first Place, to accuse several Authors of an Imposture, we must have some Evidence of their Dishonesty, and be able to prove their Character of their being Cheats and Impostors. But nothing can be more opposite to this Character, than that which appears in their VVritings, which plainly shew, That they were poor, simple Men, without Learning, full of Ingenuity and Sin∣cerity, who were not capable of feigning, or of disguising Truth.

Secondly, No Man ordinarily turns Impostor for nothing. 'Tis either some Motive of Interest or Ambition that inclines Men to impose upon others. But it does not appear, That the Apostles and their Disciples could hope for any Advantage from such a gross Impostor, as that of making the History of Jesus Christ, which they themselves feigned, pass for a Truth. They could gain no∣thing by such an Enterprize, but Labour, Persecution and Punishment. The Doctrine they taught neither flattered their Covetousness nor Ambition: They had no humane Success to expect from their Enterprize, which was contrary to all the Rules of humane Prudence. They drew upon themselves the hatred of their own Nation, and became the Reproach of all the Earth. Jesus Christ crucified whom they taught, was a Subject of Scandal to the Jews, and was looked upon as Foolishness amongst the Gentiles.

Thirdly, The Matters of Fact they relate are not of such a kind as to be for∣ged, without a possibility of discovering the Imposture: They were publickly acted, made a great Noise, were known to all the VVorld. A Prophet who preached publickly in Judea, for a considerable time, whom many Jews saw and heard. VVhose Reputation was established all over the Country, who worked great Miracles in the Presence of all the People; who boldly reproved the Priests and Doctors of the Law; who was accused, taken and delivered to the Governour of Judea, by the Envy of his own Countrymen; who was cru∣cified, raised again, seen by many after his Resurrection; and, in fine, ascended unto Heaven. All those Facts could never be forged, in a Place and Time, where∣in they are said to have been done, but they must immediately have been con∣victed of Forgery and Imposture. VVith what Forehead dared the Apostles to have preached and taught those Things as Truths, had they known them to be False, and that they could be contradicted by the Testimony of the Public? How could they possibly conceive a Design of making them pass for Truths amongst Persons who must have been convinced of their Falshood. By what means could they imagine if they had conceived such a Fantastical Design, to put it in Execution, without having the lie given them by one other.

Fourthly, Supposing we could imagine any particular Person capable of so much Extravagancy, can we believe, that such a Thing could enter into the Minds of so many; and that a great Number of Persons could invent by Concert, so many evident Falshoods, agree to teach them every where, and to deceive all the Earth in that manner, without being forced to acknowledge their Imposture, by Fatigue, Poverty, misery, Torments, and death it self? VVhat probability is there, that all of them should resolve to lay down their Lives for the maintenance of a Lie, and that neither Remorse of Conscience, Interest, Hopes nor the Rigor of Punishment should ever be able to extort this Truth from their Mouths.

Fifthly, If the Authors of the Books of the New Testament, had been Im∣postors, they would have wrote by Concert the same things; there would not have been any difference or seeming contradiction in their Narratives, they would have wrote nothing but great and singular things, and such as would have com∣manded

Admiration; They would have conceal'd all that part of our Saviour's History that seem'd Mean and Weak in the Eyes of Men: But this they have not done, they have wrote what they knew of Jesus Christ, and without affe∣ctation, or omitting the Circumstances that might have render'd him despicable in the Eyes of carnal Men. They have wrote his History in a different Manner, and related it with different Circumstances. They have explained their Senti∣ments with Liberty, without Copying one from another, or making use of the same Terms.

Sixthly, Nothing can be more opposite to a Spirit of Imposture, than the Doctrine of the Religion that they Teach in those Books, tho' our Enemies will have them to be full of it. Is it credible, that People who were persuaded that it is a Crime to Lye, who make it their profession to say nothing but the Truth, and to die for it, should be so wicked as to teach and write nothing but Impo∣stures? Their Books are full of a most pure and holy Morality. Their Practice was agreeable to their Maxims, that is to say, Regular, Holy, Innocent, full of Zeal for God, Truth and Religion; how then can all those things be reconcil'd with a continual Imposture, whereof they are suppos'd to be Culpable?

Seventhly, If the whole History of the New Testament were nothing but a Continuation of Impostures, how was it possible that it should be own'd as true both in Judea and throughout the whole Earth, that the Books which contain the same, should not only have been regarded as true, but lookd upon as Divine, and that the Doctrine which they teach should be established throughout the World, notwithstanding all the Opposition that hath been made thereunto?

Eighthly, The History of the Evangelists agrees perfectly with all that the Jew∣ish and Pagan Historians inform us of those Times. 'Tis not from them alone that we know there was in Judea a Person called Jesus Christ, the Author of a new Religion, whom the Jews put to death. Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius, Lucian, Pa∣gan Authors have also made mention of it, and even those who wrote against the Christians don't contradict it. The Governours and Princes of Judea, spoke of in the New Testament, are also made known to us by the History of Jose∣phus, who speaks of Quirinius, Pontius Pilate, Festus, Felix, Caiaphas, Herod, Herodias and Agrippa. What he says of them, agrees with what the Evange∣lists have wrote, so that those are not Supposititious Names or a pure Fiction. In short, all the Circumstances of the Narrative of the Evangelists agree with what other Historians have left us of the History of that Time. There are neither Contradictions nor Anachronisms, into which Impostors must of neces∣sity have fallen. In a Word, there are no Authors that can less be suspected of Imposture, than those of the New Testament, nor any History that we can with more reason believe to be true, than that of the Evangelists and Apostles. If we question the Credit of those Witnesses, and of the Truth of the Facts, which they relate. We must call in question the Truth of all the Histories of the World, and by Consequence overthrow the Foundation of the greatest part of our Knowledge. We may doubt, whether there ever was such a Person as Julius Caesar, if he conquered the Gauls, defeated Pompey or was killed by Brutus, none of those Things being established upon Testimonies and Writings, so Authentick as the Birth, Death and Life of Jesus Christ. This is what may be said as to the Moral Certainty of the Truth of the Books of the New Testament, and of the Matters of Fact therein related. We shall now pro∣ceed further, and shew that those Books are Divine, and were composed by Men divinely inspired.

SECT. VII. That the Authors of the Books of the New Testament were divinely inspired, and that Their Writings are Divine.

IF the Apostles were not Impostors, but true and honest Men, as we have just now proved, It cannot be denied, but they received the Holy Ghost to confirm them in the Truths that they had learnt from Jesus Christ, that they might preach them, through the Earth, for that is one of the Signal and Pub∣lick Matters of Fact, as to that which the Apostles could not be deceived nor yet deceive others. Jesus Christ promised to send them the Spirit of Truth which should lead them into all Truth, and teach them what they should say, when they came before Kings, Governors and Judges, to give an Account of their Religion. This Promise was fulfiled on the Day of Pentecost, but in such a visible manner, and with so sensible Effects, that no Body could doubt the Truth of that Inspiration. The Holy Ghost descended upon them in form of Tongues of Fire, and they received the Gift of speaking all sorts of Lan∣guages. These were such Marks and Effects as Men could not be deceived in. The Standers by who were numerous, saw those Tongues of Fire, all the People heard the Apostles and Disciples speak different Languages. This was speedily followed by Miracles performed by the Apostles, to confirm the Doctrine they preached. The Apostles being endowed with those Gifts, and animated by the Holy Ghost, preached with boldness and zeal the Truths which the Holy Ghost put into their Mouths; so that it was not so much they as the Holy Ghost which spoke in them, declaring, That the Doctrine which they taught was not their Doctrine, but that of Jesus Christ which the Holy Ghost inspired them with, and that what they Preached unto Men was the pure Word of God. St. Paul him∣self says, that he was not instructed by Men, but by the Revelation of Jesus Christ, Gal. 1.12. All those things attested by the Apostles themselves, whom we cannot suspect of Trick or Imposture, leave no room to doubt that the Holy Ghost inspi∣red the Apostles in their Sermons. And if it was necessary they should be con∣ducted, inspired and directed in a particular manner to Preach the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, there was much more Reason they should be inspired with it to Compose those Writings which ought to subsist as Eternal Monuments of the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, and the Rule of Faith to all Christians; if they had not been so, they might have fallen into Errours as to the Matters of Religion; and if God had permitted it, he should have exposed his Church to almost an unavoidable danger of following those Errors, which would not have been con∣sistent with his Wisdom, and the Promise he made, that it should subsist until the End of Time.

The Testimony of the Ancient Church is a strong Argument to prove that the Books of the New Testament are divinely inspired, for all the Churches have at all times received them as Divine and Sacred Books, and made a great difference betwixt those Books and all others: They were receiv'd and quoted by all, as containing nothing but what is true, as the Rule of their Doctrine and Faith, as Books whose Authority could not be rejected, nor the least of those things that they teach or relate doubted of, whereas they had not the same respect nor veneration for other Books, whoever their Authors were, or however good they might be. Whence could this Difference come, but that the Ancient Christians were persuaded there were some Writings Inspired by God, and that the others were meerly of Humane Authority.

The Predictions of future Events, every where in the Books of the New Te∣stament, all of which were accomplish'd a long time after the Death of the

Authors of those Books, as the Ruine of Jerusalem, the unbelief of the Jews, the Persecutions of the Christians, the Establishment of the Gospel throughout the Earth, that Heresies should arise, are Authentick Proofs that those Books are divinely inspired; for those Events not having fallen out till after the time they were wrote, those that wrote them must of necessity have been Prophets divinely inspired.

In a word, those Books have a Character wholly Divine; whether we consi∣der the Things they relate, or the Doctrine they teach, there's nothing humane in it. In Wisdom they surpass the Books of the wisest Pagans: Yet they were composed by simple unlearned Men. There we find the most sublime Maxims of Moral Philosophy, and Precepts far above any thing that Nature can teach us. Those Books are likewise infinitely more excellent, than all those that have since been wrote by Christians. They are free of that humane Weakness, and of those Passions and Partialities, which Authors who have no other Con∣duct but that of their own Reason can scarcely avoid. In short, every Thing there is True, Great, Sublime and Divine. This is better perceiv'd in reading them, than can be express'd by Words or Examples. The Doctrines taught in those Books are above the reach of humane Wit. They are not then the In∣vention of Men. The Precepts they give are more perfect than those that meer Reason prescribes us: They are not therfore the Product of ordinary Medita∣tion and Reflexion. And, by consequence, it is God who hath revealed those Truths, and given those Commandments; whence it follows, that the Books which contain them are Divine.

SECT. VIII. That 'tis by the Testimony of the Church and Tradition that we know the di∣vinely inspired Books of the New Testament.

THree Things are necessary to establish the Divine Authority of a Book. 1. It must be wrote by a Person inspired by the Holy Ghost. 2. The Author must have been inspired when he wrote, and composed it by a Divine Inspiration, Inspiratione Divina, and not meerly with the Exactness of an Histo∣rian, Historica Diligentia. 3. That we be sure both of the one and the other. The Inspiration not having been continual in the Apostles, neither in their Discourses nor Actions. Nor can we be assured that all their Writings were di∣vinely inspired. There may have also been Authors divinely inspired, that are not known to be such. In short, we may be at an uncertainty, that an Apostle whom we knew to have been divinely inspired, is the Author of the Work ascrib'd to him. We must then find a certain and infallible Rule to assure us of those things.

But there is no other of that Nature, except the Tradition of the Church. For, 1. It is by her Testimony we know the Apostles to be the Authors of the Books which bear their Name. This we are sure of, as we have shew'd, be∣cause the most ancient Christian Authors ascrib'd them to them, and that all the Churches with an unanimous Consent, have own'd them as theirs. 2. We cannot be certain that those Works in particular are wrote by divine Inspiration, but because the Churches receiv'd them as such from those who compos'd them, and have always own'd and regarded them as Sacred and Divine. We can have no other undoubted Proof of their Inspiration, as that certainly is, because 'tis not possible that the Apostles and the first Guides of the Churches would have proposed to them for a Rule of Faith and Manners, Books as divinely in∣spired that really were not so: And 'tis no way credible that the Churches

would have own'd those Books as Divine and Sacred, had they not been as∣sur'd of it by credible Witnesses. It is then certain, That the Books of the New Testament, which the Churches receiv'd in the Primitive Times, as Genuine and Sacred, were deliver'd to them as such by the Apostles or their Disciples, who are unexceptionable Witnesses of those two Matters of Fact; and, by conse∣quence, there's no Reason to doubt but they are true and divinely inspired.

It, is also by this infallible Rule of Tradition, and the Testimony of the anci∣ent Churches, that the holy Fathers judged of the Truth and Canon of the Books of the New Testament.

St. Ireneus in his third Book against Heresies, Cap. 1, 2, 11. demonstrates against Hereticks, that the four Gospels are the only true ones, because the Church that was spread over all the Earth own'd them, and the Hereticks them∣selves bear Witness to them, because some of them receiv'd one Gospel and others another.

Tertullion alledges the Testimony of the Apostolical Churches, to prove the Authority of the Gospel of St. Luke, and the rejecting that of Marcion.

I maintain, says he, that our Gospel of St. Luke is receiv'd in all the Apostolical Churches, and even in all the Churches ever since it was published, and that that of Marcion was scarcely known to most part of them. This Authority of the Apostolical Churches will also serve to authorize the other Gospels. In another place, he says, That the Book of Pastor is not Canonical, because 'tis rejected by all the Churches. Ab omni Concilio Ecclesiarum vestrarum in∣ter Apocrypha Numerari. Lib. de Pud.

Serapio in a fragment related by Eusebius, Hist. lib. 6. cap. 12. proves the falshood of the Gospel ascrib'd to St. Peter, by the difference betwixt the Doctrine of that Gospel, and that which the Church receiv'd by the Apostles, and because it was not authoriz'd by Tradition.

We receive, says he, that which St. Peter and the other Apostles have said, as that which Jesus Christ himself hath said; but we reject the Writings which are falsly call'd by their Name, without suffering our selves to be imposed upon by them, because we know we did not receive them from the Ancients.

It is by the Testimony of the Ancients that Melito maintains his Catalogue of Sacred Books. It is also upon Tradition that St. Clement builds, when he rejects the Authority of the Gospel according to the Egyptians, because there are no more than four Gospels, that were given us by Tradition, Clemens Alex. Lib. 3. Stromat.

It is the Rule which Eusebius makes use of in imitation of Origen, to distin∣guish the Canonical from the Apocryphal Books, and those that are certainly suppositious from those that are doubtful. He examines which have been re∣ceiv'd at all Times and by all Churches, without having ever been called in question by any Man, which are those that have been doubted of by some few, and have fince been receiv'd by all the Churches; those which are not yet re∣ceiv'd but by part, and those, in fine, that are rejected by unanimous Consent. It is by those Differences that he distinguishes the different Classes of Canoni∣cal and Apocryphal Books. Hist. lib. 3. c. 13. l. 4. c. 24, 5. l. 6. c. 25.

St. Epiphanius says, That as those Persons are convicted who falsifie a Princes Letters by producing the Originals that are preserv'd in the Archives; the False∣hood of the Gospels composed by Hereticks is also discovered by producing the Gospel which is preserv'd in the Church, as the Archives of Law are in the Palaces of Princes. Epih. Haeres. 42.

St. Jerome reckons amongst the Canonical Books of the New Testament, all those that the Church Universal receives as such, and even those whereof some Churches doubted at first, as the Epistle to the Hebrews; of which the Church of Rome did sometimes doubt: The 2d Epistle of St. Peter, the Epistle of St. James, and the Epistle of St. Jude, of which he says, it acquir'd Authority by its Antiquity, and the use that was made of it: Auctoritatem jam vetustate

& usu meruit. In prologo Galeato. Praefat. in Judith & Tobiam. Lib. de Script-Eccl. in voce Juda.

But, of all the Fathers, there's none who more values the Authority and Testimony of the Synagogue and of the Church, for distinguishing the Canoni∣cal from the Apocryphal Books, than St. Augustin; insomuch, as he said,

That he would not have believ'd the Gospel, had he not been determin'd to give Credit to it by the Authority of the Church: Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret Auctoritas. Contr. Epist. Ma∣nich. cap. 5. Not that the Gospel in it self derives its Authority from the Church. It hath it from God himself, who hath reveal'd and inspir'd it: But we are not sure of that Revelation but by the Authority of the Church, which teaches us that 'tis the same Gospel which was wrote by the Apostles. Thus it is S. Augustin explains himself in his 11th Book against Faustus, Man. c. 2. It is one thing, says he, to say that we will not receive Books, and that we don't think our selves oblig'd to believe them, as the Pagans say of all our Books, the Jews of the New Testament, and the Catholicks of the Heretical and Apo∣cryphal Books, and another not to acknowledge the Authority, neither of those Books, nor of the Authors that compos'd them; it is one thing to say, that Man was a Saint, what he wrote is true; and that Letter is his, but another to say in that Letter, this is his, and that not. In this latter Case, when a Man is requir'd to prove what he advances, he must have recourse to Copies, either to the Truest, the most Ancient, the greatest Number, or the Original Text; for 'twould be ridiculous in him to say, I prove that that is his, be∣cause it makes for me; and that that is not his, because 'tis against me..... If another maintain the quite contrary, what will you do? you will produce to him another Book: But he will tell you, that 'tis utterly false. What will you do then? Where will you be? What Original can you shew for the Book you have produced? What Antiquity will you alledge? What Traditi∣on will you bring in Testimony? ..... You see of what value the Autho∣rity of the Catholick Church is in this Case, which hath been kept up since the time that the Sees were establish'd by the Apostles, by an uninterrupted suc∣cession of Bishops, and by the Consent of so many People. If the Contro∣versie then were only about the faithfulness of the Copies, as in some variety of Sentences, which are very few in Number, and well known to those that are vers'd in the Sacred Scripture; we might decide that Doubt by the Co∣pies of other Countries from whence that came; and if those Copies were also different, we would prefer the Ancient to the Modern, or the greatest Number to the least, and if still there remain'd an uncertainty, we should have recourse to the Original. Ibid. c. 5. He says, We distinguish the Excellence of the Canonical Authority of the Books of the Old and New Testament, which being establish'd from the Time of the Apostles, was preserv'd by the Succes∣sion of the Bishops and the Establishment of the Churches, and set as it were upon a Throne, to the End that all the Faithful should obey it. If we meet with any thing there that seems absur'd, it is not lawful for us to say, That the Author of that Book stray'd from the Truth; but we must say, that the Copy is faulty, the Translator is mistaken; or that we don't understand it. Ibid. Lib. 33. c. 6. He says further, of what Book can we be certain, that 'tis such an Authors; if it be uncertain, whether the Epistles which the Church says and believes are those of the Apostles, be theirs; and how can we be∣lieve it to be certain, that the Apostles have wrote those, which the Hereticks produce against the Church, and which bear the Name of their Heads and Leaders, who liv'd so long after the Apostles? As if even in Prophane Books we had not the undoubted Works of certain Authors, under whose Names others have been since produc'd that have been rejected, either because they did not agree with those that were certainly theirs, or because they did not appear in the time of their Lives, or were not publish'd and transmitted to

Posterity by them, or by their Friends. He proves this by the Instance of Books falsly ascrib'd to Hippocrates, which were rejected because they had not the Energy of his true Works, and were not during his Life-time known to be his; whereas one could not call in Question his true Works, without ex∣posing themselves to be mock'd by all Men, and accounted to be Persons void of Sense, because they were own'd to be his by constant Tradition from that, down to the present Time. It is the same as to those of Plato, Aristotle, Ci∣cero, Varro, &c. And, in fine, as to the Books of divers Ecclesiastical Authors, of which we cannot know the Author, but that he own'd it himself at the time of its Publication; and the knowledge of this was afterwards convey'd to Posterity, and so fix'd, that when we ask whose such a Book is, they tell it us without any hesitation.

In a word, St. Augustin was so much persuaded, that the only way to distin∣guish betwixt such Books as are Canonical and such as are not, was the Te∣stimony of the Churches, that he proposes it as a Rule in his Book of Christian Doctrine, where he says,

That upon this Subject we are to follow the Autho∣rity of the greatest Number of the Catholick Churches, and particularly that of the Apostolical Churches; and that an equitable Person should prefer the Scri∣ptures which are receiv'd by all the Churches, to those which some of them reject; and that amongst those which are not receiv'd by all the Churches, we must prefer those that are receiv'd by the greatest Number, and most con∣siderable of the Churches: And that, in fine, if there be some that are receiv'd by the greatest Number of the Churches, and others that are receiv'd by those that have most Authority, tho' they be not the greatest Number

(which, however, he thinks can scarce come to pass) that then the Books should be of equal Authority.

SECT. IX. Of the Canon of the Sacred Books of the New Testament; and in parti∣cular, of those whereof there hath been some Doubt, whether they were Canonical.

THE Principle which we have laid down beeing granted, it will not be dif∣ficult to distinguish the Canonical Books of the New Testament, from the Apocryphal or Doubtful Books, and to explain in what manner the Canon of the Sacred Books of the New Testament was made. We cannot say, that it was drawn up by any Assembly of Christians, or by any particular Person; but we must say, that it was formed by the unanimous Consent of all the Churches, who receiv'd it by Tradition, and always acknowledg'd certain Books to be wrote by Authors divinely inspired, and by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost. It is this Consent of all the Churches, which served as a Rule in the first Ages, to distin∣guish the Canonical from the Doubtful and Supposititious Books. It was by following this Rule that Eusebius, who is the first that made an exact Enquiry into those things, distinguishes three sorts of Books, appertaining in some Mea∣sure to the New Testament.

The first Class comprehends those that were always receiv'd by the unani∣mous Consent of all the Churches, which are the four Evangelists, & the fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, excepting that to the Hebrews, which some Authors did not put in the same Class with the others, because they did not believe it to be St. Paul's, and the first Epistles of St. Peter and St. John.

The second Class comprehends those which not having been receiv'd by all the Churches of the World, have always been considered by some as Canonical Books, and quoted as Books of the Scripture by Ecclesiastical Authors; but this Class is still divided into two; for some of those Books have been receiv'd since by all the Churches, and acknowledg'd as Genuine, such as the Epistle of St. James, the Epistle of St. Jude, and the 2d Epistle of St. Peter, the 2d and 3d Epistle of St. John. Others on the contrary have been rejected, either as counterfelt, or as unworthy to be put amongst the Canonical Books; tho' they might otherwise have been useful; such as the Book of Pastor, the Letter of St. Barnabas, the Gospel according to the Egyptians, another according to the Hebrews, the Acts of St. Paul, the Revelation of St. Peter.

The last Class contains the Books forged by Hereticks, which were always rejected by the Church; such as are the Gospels according to St. Thomas, and St. Peter, &c.

In regard of the Apocalypse, of which we have said nothing, Eusebius ob∣serves, that some plac'd it in the first Rank; that is to say, amongst Books that are undoubtedly Canonical; and others put it amongst those of the second Class, (a) 1.1.

This Observation of Eusebius, which is confirm'd by the Testimonies of the Ancients, and which he repeats in divers Places of the History, shews us, that the Canon of the Books of the New Testament hath almost constantly been the same; for tho' there were some of the Epistles wrote by the Apostles, that were not unanimously receiv'd at first by all the Churches, they were always considered as having great Authority; and in a little time obtain'd the same Authority with the rest. This is confirm'd by the ancient Catalogue of the sa∣cred Books of the New Testament, wherein are comprehended the Books that we receive at present. There all of 'em are to be found, excepting the Apo∣calypse, in the Canon of the Council of Laodicea, which St. Cyril of Jerusalem followed. They are all of 'em receiv'd by St. Athanasius, St. Jerome, St. Gre∣gory Nazianzen, by Amphilochius, in the Council of Carthage, in the Roman Council, by Pope Innocent, and by all the other Greek and Latin Authors since Eusebius. They are all quoted as Sacred Books by the Authors, who were nearest the Times of the Apostles, (b) 1.2. In short, it is without doubt, as we have

formerly made it appear, that they are theirs whose Names they bear. The Epistles themselves that were called in Question, contain nothing but what is agreeable to the Law and the Doctrine contained in the other Books that were received by all the Churches from the beginning.

The Epistle to the Hebrews was receiv'd as Canonical, with Consent almost of all the Churches. There were none but some Latins, such as Caius and Hyppolitus, who question'd its Authority, because they did not believe it to be wrote by St. Paul. But admitting it were not his, which is not at all proba∣ble, as we shall make it evident, it must always pass for Canonical, it being certain that 'twas wrote by some of his Disciples, if not by himself, and that it was receiv'd as Canonical almost by all the Churches of the World as soon as ever it appeared. It is quoted by St. Clement the Roman in his Epistle to the Corinthians, by St. Clement of Alexandria, and by Tertullian, who assures us that it was more receiv'd in the Churches than the Books of Pastor; by Origen, by St. Cyprian (c) 1.3, and by all those that have lived since, as a Writing undoubted∣ly Canonical. St. Jerome acknowledges, that all the Churches of the East, and part of those of the West, did always receive it as Canonical; and he himself is of that Opinion, tho' some Latins have doubted of it. Philaster accounts them Hereticks who call it in Question.

We find no particular Author that doubted of the Epistle to St. James; it was quoted by St. Clement of Alexandria, by all the Ancients, and put in the Number of the Canonical Books in all the Catalogues that we have.

The same may be said of the 2d Epistle of St. Peter, which is certainly that Apostles, as we shall make it appear. It is quoted by St. Justin, by St. Clement of Alexandria, by Origen, and divers others of the Ancients.

The Epistle of St. Jude was rejected by some, not that they had any law∣ful ground to doubt that St. Jude was not the Author of it, but only because of the Quotation of the Book of Enoch. This Reason did not prevent its being put in the ancient Catalogues of the Books of the New Testament, or being quoted by Tertullian, St. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, St. Cyprian, St. Gre∣gory Nazianzen, and divers others: St. Jerome says, That tho' several had reje∣cted it because of the Quotation of the Book of Enoch, yet it was received in his time because 'twas ancient and approv'd by the Custom of the Church. Auctoritatem, vetustate jam, & usu meruit.

The two last Epistles of St. John were very short, and containing nothing but what was like to the Contents of the first, could not occasion any difficulty. They are of the same Author with the first, as the resemblance of the Style makes it evident. The second is quoted by St. Ireneus in his first Book; cap. 12. and in his third Book, cap. 18. by Tertullian, by Origen, by St. Denys of Alexandria, and divers others. In short, they were both of them put in the

Number of the Canonical Books, in all the ancient Catalogues of the Books of the New Testament.

There remains nothing more to be spoken of, but the Revelation which some of the Ancients, according to the Testimony of Eusebius, have put amongst those that were not doubted of; and others have placed them amongst the Number of those that were doubtful or suppositious. It was rejected by Caius, an ancient Priest of Rome, who ascrib'd it to the Heretick Cerinthus, as Eusebius testifies in the third Book of his History, cap. 28. On the contrary, St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, Origen, St. Cyprian, St. Clement of Alexandria and Ter∣tullian quote it in divers places, and ascribe it to St. John the Evangelist. St. De∣nys of Alexandria observes, that divers before him had rejected and refuted the Apocalypse, as a Book full of Fictions and Falshoods, but that divers others ap∣prov'd it; as for himself, he dar'd not to reject it, that he believ'd it had a my∣sterious Sense, but that he was persuaded it was not wrote by St. John, as he endeavours to prove by several Reasons. St. Jerome says in his 129th Epistle, That in his time most of the Churches of Greece did not receive that Book, no more than the Latins did the Epistle to the Hebrews, but that he receiv'd both, as making no account of the Custom of his Time, but of the Authority of the Ancients. Amphilochius also observes, that in his time some receiv'd it, but that there were many more who rejected it. In effect it is not, as we have ob∣served, in the Catalogue of the Council of Laodicea, nor in that of St. Cyril. But it hath since been receiv'd by the Greek and Latin Churches, and quoted by St. Epiphany, St. Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, St. Hillary, St. Jerome, St. Austin, and by all those that have wrote since. In fine, it was put amongst the Canonical Books by the Council of Carthage, by the Council of Rome under Gelasius, and by Pope Innocent. The 4th Council of Toledo, held in 633, decided in their 17th Canon, that it was wrote by St. John, and ought to be placed amongst the Sacred Books. And the Council of Trent hath decreed, that it should be accounted Canonical.

These Observations make it evident, That it's only a small Number of the Books of the New Testament that ever was called in question, that there were but few Churches who doubted of them, and that their Doubt was not of any long duration.

This being once granted, it is no ways difficult to explain, how without a new Revelation, the Church might become more assured of the Genuiness of a Work than she was at first: The manner as follows. When St. Paul, for ex∣ample, wrote his Letter to the Romans, it was at first known only to those to whom 'twas wrote, to those who saw him write it, or had heard from himself that he had wrote it: There were none but those that could be assured of it: By degrees it was publish'd, many Copies of it were wrote, it became more common and known, and more People were assured of it. In a word, it became so publick that St. Paul had wrote it, that no Body could be ignorant of it. But there was some time required to bring it to this. Let's suppose that St. Paul did not set his Name to it, as he did not to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and that he would not have been known to any but those he wrote to; it is certain People would have been longer in doubt of it; and that, nevertheless, in the close they might have been certain of it, by the Testimony of those to whom it was wrote, and of those to whom he had entrusted the Secret. Let's suppose that the knowledge of this had not for some time reach'd a particular Church, but had at last come to them, should the Temporary Ignorance of that Church hinder the Things becoming certain at last. Let us further suppose, That a Letter be wrote to particular Persons, as the two last Epistles of St. John, they could neither be so famous, nor so speedily known, as those that were wrote to great Churches: There must be time to multiply the Copies; but when once they are publick, there's no further Doubt concerning them. In fine, let us suppose, That some Authors reject a Piece, because they find extra-ordinary

ordinary Things in it that they do not understand, as in the Revelations; or, be∣cause they meet with something that offends them, as in the Epistle of St. Jude. If afterwards those Difficulties be removed, and the Antiquity of those Monu∣ments demonstrated, ought not that to remove the Doubt? This may be ex∣plain'd by the Example of other Works which are not Canonical. Tho' some Cotemporary Authors have called in Question the Works of Writers of their Time, or raised Objections against 'em, yet afterwards they have receiv'd them, and been persuaded that they were wrote by those Authors, either by the Agree∣ment of Style, by new Testimonies they had of it, by Manuscripts they disco∣ver'd, or because the Objections which occasion'd their Doubt were remov'd. It was very possible then, as we have demonstrated, that some of the Apostles Writings, whereof some People doubted, and which some Churches did not at first receive, were afterwards receiv'd and acknowledg'd by all the Churches, and that subsequent Testimonies gave them a Canonical Authority, which they would not have had, if the Doubt had continued.

CHAP. II. Concerning the Authors of the New Testament, and the Books themselves.

SECT. I. Of the Names of the New Testament and Gospel, and of the Titles of the Gospels.

WE have already explain'd in what Sense the Name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Latins have translated into that of Testament, is taken when made use of to signifie the Sacred Books; and we have shew'd that that Term is to be understood of a Promise and a solemn Alliance, by which God made known his Will unto Men. But we must add here, That this Name agrees in a more proper and particular Sence to the New than to the Old Testament: For, if we take it to signifie an Alliance, that which God made with Men by Jesus Christ his Son, hath all the Conditions requir'd in a perfect Alliance: It is not only a so∣lemn Covenant which he contracts with Men, but is moreover confirm'd by the Blood of Jesus Christ the Mediator of this New Alliance or Covenant. It may also be called a Testament in a more special manner than the old Alliance or Covenant; because in this the Death of him that ordered it interveen'd: And 'tis for that Reason as the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews observes, chap. 9. ver. 15, 16, 17. that it is, properly speaking, a Testament, because it is the last Will of Jesus Christ, confirmed by his Death.

The Epithet of the New Covenant or New Testament, is given it in the Go∣spel, and in the Epistles of the Apostles, in opposition to the Covenant which God madewith Man by Moses a long time before this. That was the First Cove∣nant, the Ancient Covenant, the Old Testament; and this, the New Covenant, and New Testament. It is new both in respect of the Time and Things, be∣cause the Laws of this Covenant, the Ordinances of this Testament, as well as the Rewards promised to those who shall observe them, are new, much grea∣ter, and more perfect. The Differences betwixt them are distinctly observ'd in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

The Name of Gospel, which is given in general to all the new Law, and particularly to the History of the Life and Sermons of our Saviour, signifies li∣terally, Good Tidings, (a) 1.4. The Apostles and the Disciples of Jesus Christ made use of this Term to signifie the Peaching of Jesus Christ, which was good Ti∣dings to all the World. They called it the Gospel, or Evangel of Peace, the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. Expressions made use of among the Hebrews to signifie Prosperity and Happiness. St. Mark begins his Narrative with these words, The beginning of the Evangel, or Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God; that is to say, the History of the blessed Preaching of Jesus Christ; because that is the principal Subject of his Narrative: Therefore it was the Primitive Chri∣stians took the word Evangel, to signifie particularly the History of the Life of Jesus Christ, where his Sermons are related, and the Name of Evangelist, which was formerly given to all those that preached the Word of God, was only given to the four Historians of the Life of Jesus Christ; whose Histo∣ries were own'd as Authentick by the Primitive Christians, and called in the first Centuries the four Evangels. This St. Justin observes in his Apology to the Emperor Antoninus, the Apostles, says he, have taught us so (that the Eu∣charist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ) in their Writings that are called the Evangels.

Those Books bear in their Titles the Names of their Authors; but 'tis not certain that those Titles were wrote by the Authors themselves; it is more likely that they were not. For when the Authors put their Names at the Head of their Works, they inserted them in the Text it self, as the Prophets and St. Paul have done in their Writings: It is not the same as to the Names of the Evangelists, which have no connexion with the rest of the Discourse. It appears also by the beginning of the Gospel of St. Mark, that he did not call his Gospel by his Name, but by that of Jesus Christ. The same Title is found in some ancient Inscriptions of the Gospel of St. Matthew. St. Chrysostom ob∣serves in his first Homily on the Epistle to the Romans, That Moses did not put his Name to the Five Books that he wrote, no more than those did that wrote the History after him: That St. Matthew, St. John, St. Mark, and St. Luke, had not put their Names to the beginning of their Gospels, but that St. Paul had put his at the Head of all his Epistles, except that which was wrote to the Hebrews, where he designedly left out his Name, because he was odious to them: And the Reason that Father gives for this Difference is, that he first wrote to Persons that were present; whereas St. Paul sent Letters to those that were absent. But tho' those Titles that bear the Name of the Evangelists were not wrote by the Evangelists themselves, they were almost as ancient as the Evangelists; and tho' it were not so, the Testimony of the Ancients assures

us in a convincing manner, of their Authors, as we have made it ap∣pear.

Tho' we may call the Gospels simply by the Name of their Authors, and en∣title them the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke and St. John; it is however thought proper to express it otherwise, and to intitle them, The Go∣spel according to St. Matthew; according to St. Mark, &c. that we may not dif∣fer from the Apostles manner of speaking, and especially of St. Mark, who calls his Gospel, The Gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore this Greek Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is religiously translated Sccundum, according to the Latin Version: And some ancient Fathers, as Tertullian, have preserv'd the Greek Word. It is true, that according to the Sense of the Greek Phrase, the Gospel according to St. Mat∣thew, signifies the Gospel of St. Matthew. But we may also give it this Sense, The Gospel of Jesus Christ, according to what hath been wrote by St. Matthew, St. Mark, &c.

SECT. II. Of the ancient Gospels: That the Church never receiv'd any more than four as Canonical, and why? Symbols ascrib'd to the four Evangelists. Of the Harmony and Difference found betwixt the four Gospels. The Order in which they were compos'd.

IT was so necessary to all Christians, to know the History of the Life and Preaching of Jesus Christ, that we are not to wonder that in the first Ages of the Church many Persons undertook the writing of it. This is what St. Luke tells us in the beginning of his Gospel. Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in Order, a Declaration of those Things which are most surely be∣lieved among us, even as they deliver'd them unto us, which from the beginning were Eye Witnesses and Ministers of the Word. It seemed good to me also, ha∣ving had perfect Understanding of all Things from the very first, to write unto thee in Order. Divers Interpreters understand what St. Luke says in this Place, of the Gospels (a) 1.5 forg'd by Hereticks, others apply them only to the Gospels

of St. Matthew and St. Mark that were composed when St. Luke wrote his: But it would seem to me, that a Medium might be found betwixt those two Opini∣ons, which is that St. Luke speaks in General of all those who before him had undertaken the History of the Life and Sermons of Jesus Christ; for it seems probable enough, that many Christians wrote during the Lives of the Apostles themselves, and also after their Death, what they had learned of the Life and Doctrine of Jesus Christ from the Apostles and Disciples that had seen and heard him. VVe may then suppose that at the beginning of the Church there were many Evangels or Gospels, but tho the Ancients knew & quoted those Gospels, the Church never own'd any other as Canonical and diviniely inspired, but the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke and St. John. 'Tis a Matter of Fact attested by the most Ancient Christian Authors: There cannot, says St. Irenaeus, l. 3. c. 11. be either more or fewer Gospels than Four, which are as the four Columns of the Church, whose Authority is so certain that the Heresticks themselves make use of them to confirm their Doctrine. St. Clement of Alexandria in the third Book of his Stromata, answering the Heretic Cassienus, who opposed to him a Passage taken from the Gospel according to the Egyptians, declares immediately that he is not obliged to give any Credit to what it alledged, Because it is not found in the four Gospels which we have received by Tradition.

Origen in his first Homily upon St. Luke observes,

That as amongst the Jews there were many Persons that call'd themselves Prophets, some of them were True and others False, as Ananias the Son of Agot; and that the Peo∣ple had the Gift of discerning the Spirits, by Vertue of which they put the one amongst the Number of the Prophets, and rejected the others as the Ban∣kers reject false Money; so in the New Testament many undertook to write Gospels, but that all those Gospels were not received. You may (says he) learn from the beginning of the Gospel according to St. Luke, conceived in those Terms, Many have taken in hand to give a History of those Things, that

there were many Gospels, amongst which they chose and left to the Churches, by Tradition;

the four that we have, St. Ambrose, St. Jerom, Titus of Bostra and St. Augustin, make the same Reflection upon the Passage of St. Luke, and observe, that the Ancient Church received no more than four Gospels, be∣cause 'tis they alone that she thought deserv'd Credit, and that she believed to be wrote by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and that she rejected the rest as being wrote by Authors that had no infallible Authority, or whose Writings were full of Falshoods and Errors. Many, says St. Ambrose, under∣took to write the History of Jesus Christ, but they were destitute of the Grace of God, and sill'd their Gospels with poisonous Doctrine. There were di∣verse Persons, says St. Jerome,

who without having the Spirit and Grace of God rather undertook a Narrative than to write the Truth of History, to whom may be applied those Words of the Prophet, Wo to those who prophesie out of their own Heart, who follow their own Fancy, and say, Thus saith the Lord, though the Lord hath not sent them.

The Difference that Titus of Bostra puts betwixt those Writers and our Evangelists is, that the former were not assisted by the Spirit of God to write their History, whereas the latter were. St. Augustin extends this Thought yet further,

All the rest, says he, who have undertaken or dar'd to write any thing of the Actions of Jesus Christ or of the Apostles, were not Men of such Reputation in their time, as the Church could give Credit to their Writings, or receive them into the Number of the Books that have a Canonical Authority, either because they were such Men, as we were not necessarily obliged to believe what they related, or because they mixed Errors with their Writings, which the Rule of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, and sound Doctrine rejected.

So that the positive Reason for which none but the four Gospels were receiv∣ed into the Churches, was because there were only those four that were con∣stantly believed to be divinely inspired, and which all the Churches received as Divine and Canonical.

The Fathers fought for divers Mysteries in this Number of Four. St. Irenaeus says, That as there are four Parts of the World, and four principal Winds. It was also convenient, there should be four Gospels in the Church, as the four Columnes that maintain it, and four Breathings of Life to render it Im∣mortal. St. Austin makes use of the same Allegory of the 4 Parts of the World:

Perhaps, says he, the Reason for which there are four Gospels, is be∣cause there are four Corners of the World, into which the Church is spread. St. Jerom compares them with more likelihood to the four Rivers which is∣sued out of the Terrestrial Paradice, and to the four Angles or four Rings of the Ark.

But those sort of Allegories have no other Foundation but meer Fancy. The true Reason for which the Church hath only four Gospels, is be∣cause there are only those four that have at all times been own'd as divine∣ly inspired. But why are there no more than four of that Nature? God would have it so. 'Tis in vain to seek any other Reason for it, than his own VVill. All that can be said is to observe with St. Chrysostome, That it was fit there should be several Evangelists, that the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ should have the more Authority.

Was it not enough, says that Father, that there should be but one Evangelist? Could not one alone relate all that is in the four? That might be: But four different Persons having wrote the same thing at different times and in different Places, without speaking to one another, and yet agreeing perfectly, are without doubt a much greater Proof of the Truth.

The Ancients thought they found the Figure of the four Evangelists in the beginning of the Prophecy of Ezekiel, and in the 9th Chapter of the Reve∣lation, where mention is made of four Living Creatures, the first having the Face of a Man, the second the Face of a Lion, the third that of an Ox, and the fourth that of an Eagle. These are the Symbols that are usually given

of the four Evangelists: But the Fathers are not at one amongst themselves, to which of them each Symbol agrees, nor in the Reason why those Symbols agree to them (b) 1.6 so that we can build nothing on their Conjectures, which are purely Arbitrary, nor necessarily determine to the four Evangelists, the Sense of the Visions of Ezekiel and St. John, which are very obscure. The Pro∣vidence of God order'd it, that of the four Evangelists two should be Apo∣stles, St. Matthew and St. John, Eye-witnesses of the Life and Actions of Jesus Christ, and two Disciples of the Apostles St. Mark and St. Luke, who wrote their Gospel upon the Relations of others, to the end it might be known, that there was no Difference betwixt that which the Apostles had wrote, and that which they preached Viva Voce.

The Differences, nay, even the Contrarieties found betwixt them, is so far from diminishing their Authority, that it serves to establish it, and shews that they wrote the Truth from an honest intent.

For, as St. Chrysostom observes, if they agreed in every thing with too nice Exactness, even to the least Cir∣cumstances and Terms, our Adversaries would have believed, that they had met together and agreed to impose upon us. 'Twould never have been be∣lieved that so great a Conformity could be found amongst People that had acted with singleness of Heart; whereas the seeming Contradiction that is found betwixt them in small things removes that Suspicion, and is a Proof of their honesty. If there be any Difference betwixt them as to Time and Place, that does no prejudice to the Truth. Observe, that there is not one as to the principal Points of our Faith, as those that God made himself Man, that he was crucified and buried, that he rose again and ascended into Heaven, that he will come to judge Men, that he hath given forth saving Command∣ments, that he did not bring a Law contrary to the former, that he is the only Son of God, of the same Substance, and upon other Points of that Nature. VVe find them all perfectly agreed as to those Articles. But if in that which relates to Miracles, they have not all related all of them, but some one and some another; VVe are not to wonder at it; for if one alone had re∣lated all, the rest would have been useless, and if all of them had wrote different and new Things, we should have had no proof of their Agree∣meent. Therefore all of them have wrote Things which are common to them, and each of them relates things peculiar to themselves.

VVe will not here undertake to shew, that there is no real Contradiction in the Narratives of the Evangelists, to reconcile the Differences that are found there, or to make a Compleat History of the four Gospels, divers Ancient and Modern Authors have performed that with success. VVe shall only ob∣serve, 1. That the Omission or Addition of a Matter of Fact, being neither a Lye nor a Contrariety, the Narrative of the Evangelists can neither be accu∣sed of Falshood nor Contradiction, because some relate the Matters of Fact,

that were omitted by others. 2. That the Difference of the Order in which they relate the Facts, being no way prejudicial to their Truth, it is not at all strange, that the Evangelists have not always observed the same Order. It is not a Proof that the Facts which they relate are not true: But it is one that they wrote naturally and in simplicity, without Cunning or Contrivance. 3. Though a Thing may be related in different Terms, it is not a Contra∣diction, though one relate a Saying of Jesus Christ, in one sort of Terms, and another express it in other Terms, tho' one enlarge his Thought upon it, and the other relate it in a more compendious Manner. 'Tis almost impossible for two Men to relate one and the same thing in the same Terms. Nay, it would be a hard thing for one Man to make the same Narrative twice, without changing any thing. In a word, I maintain it is morally impossible to find four different Persons, who write a History so full of wonderful things, accompanied with so many Circumstances and Events, fill'd with so many Precepts, Maxims, Sentences, and Points of Doctrine, as is that of Jesus Christ, betwixt whom there is not to be found as much apparent difference as betwixt the four Evan∣gelists.

The Order according to which the four Gospels were composed, is (c) 1.7 accor∣ding to the Testimony of all the Ancients, that in which they are still placed: VVe will endeavour to observe more precisely the Order and the Occasion of 'em, by treating of each Gospel apart.

SECT. III. Of St. Matthew and his Gospel. In what Language he wrote it. If it differ from the Gospel of the Nazarens. Of the Authenticalness of the Greek Text. Of some Additions made to the Text.

ST. Matthew hath informed us himself in his Gospel, chap. 9. ver. 9. That he was a Publican, and that being sat (a) 1.8 near the City of Capernaum at one of the Receipts of Custom, Jesus Christ said to him, Follow me: That he arose immediately and followed him into his House, where our Lord and his Disci∣ples sat down at Table with Publicans and Sinners, which gave occasion to the Pharisees to murmur against him. St. Mark, ch. 2. ver. 34. and St. Luke, ch. 5. ver. 29. relate the same History with the same Circumstances, and agree on the same Time and Place, but they name the Publican call'd by Jesus Christ Levi, which makes divers Interpreters believe, that the Publican mentioned in

those two Evangelists was not the Apostle St. Matthew (b) 1.9 but the Circum∣stances of the Time and Place of the History being the same, there's great likelihood that 'tis the same Man (c) 1.10 who was called Levi before he was Christ's Disciple, and was afterwards called Matthew. St. Mark gives him the Name of Levi, the Son of Alpheus. He was in a little time after made one of the Apostles by our Lord, and after having been a witness of his Sermons and Actions and Ascension, he lived at Jerusalem, and received with the other Apostles the Holy Ghost to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is all that the Scripture tells us of the Life of St. Matthew, and all that we can be sure of concerning it.

Rufinus, Socrates and most Authors say, that he preached the Gospel in E∣thiopia. St. Ambrose makes him the Apostle of Persia. St. Paulinus says, he died in Parthia, of which the Greek Menologists make him the Apostle. The false Abdias makes him to have suffered Martyrdom in the City of Naddaver in Ethiopia, where Fortunatus of Poitiers says he is buried. The Martyrology ascribed to St. Jerom, and the other Martyrologies import, that he suffered in Persia or Parthia. Metaphrastes says, That he preached in Syria. Isidore of Seville, in his Book of the Life and Death of some Saints, assigns to St. Mat∣thew, Judea and Macedonia, as the Place of his Apostleship. St. Clement of Alexandria, Lib. 2. de paedagog. c. 1. writes, that that Apostle practised a con∣tinual Abstinence during Life, and lived only on Roots, Lettice and other Herbs, without ever eating any Meat?

As to the Manner of his Death Heracleon the Disciple of Valentine, quoted by the same St. Clement, Lib. 4. Stromat, says, he was one of those Apostles who did not suffer Martyrdom. The Greek Menologists seem to be of the same Mind. On the contrary, Nicephorus, Abdias and the Latin Martyrologies, rank him amongst the Martyrs, and likewise describes the Kind and Circumstances of his Martyrdom. But what credit can we give to those Monuments.

We must therefore keep wholly to what the most ancient Christian Authors have related to us as certain. That St. Matthew having preached the Gospel for some Years in Judea, did there write his Gospel in Hebrew; that is to say, in the Language which the Jews, who dwelt at Jerusalem and in the Land of Ju∣dea, did then speak, which was the Syriack. This the Design of the Work demands that we should treat of more at large.

The greatest Question to be asked on this Subject, is concerning the Lan∣guage in which that Gospel was compos'd by St. Matthew. All the Ancients assure us with one Consent, that he wrote in Hebrew; Papias, St. Irenaeus, Ori∣gen, Eusebius, St. Cyrillus of Jerusalem, St. Jerome, St. Epiphanius, St. Chry∣sostom, St. Augustin, the Author of the Latin Commentary on St. Matthew, which is ascrib'd to St. Chrysostom, and the Author of the Synopsis of the Scri∣pture, which carries the Name of Athanasius, are a Cloud of Witnesses, who depose that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, (d) 1.11. Yet some Modern Authors call it in Question, and have dar'd to maintain, that it was never wrote but in Greek.

Before we examine their Conjectures we must clear another Question, viz. Whether the Hebrew Tongue, in which the Ancients say the Gospel was wrote by St. Matthew, is the ancient Hebrew Tongue of the Books of the Old Testa∣ment; or, the Syriack, which was spoken at Jerusalem, and is commonly cal∣led the Hebrew in the New Testament. It appears evident to us on this Head, That 'tis of the latter the Ancients speak when they assure us that St. Mat∣thew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. For, 1. Almost all the Ancients say, That St. Matthew wrote for the Hebrews, or converted Jews, who dwelt in Judea. Now those Jews did not commonly at that time speak the Hebrew but the Syriack Tongue. 2. St. Irenaeus and Eusebius say positively, that he wrote in the Language of the Country, in the proper Language of the Jews who dwelt in Judea. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It is certainly the Syriack Tongue. 3. The Reasons for which they say St. Matthew compos'd it, shews still that it was in the common Language of the Jews of Palestine. They all agree that

it was made for the use of the Hebrews; to the End, that in St. Matthew's ab∣sence they might read the Gospels that he had preach'd to them. He must then have wrote it in a Language that was common amongst them, and in that same Tongue wherein he had preached to them. 4. St. Jerome makes no doubt that St. Matthew's Gospel was wrote in Syriack; for in his Commentary upon the 12th Chapter of that Gospel, he says, That some believe that the Gospel of the Nazarens was the Original Hebrew of St. Matthew; and does not at all reject that Opinion as improbable. It is St. Epiphanius who says, That the Nazarens have the Gospel of St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, and intire. Now St. Jerome in his 3d Dialogue against the Pelagians, says, That the Gospel of the Nazarens was wrote in Chaldee or Syriack, with Hebrew Characters. In Evangelio juxta Haebreos quod Chaldaico quidem Syroque Sermo, sed Hebraicis li∣teris Scriptum est, quo utuntur usque hodie Nazarei, Secundum Apostolos, sive ut plerique autumant, juxta Matthaeum. It is then certain, that St. Jerome was persuaded that the Original of St. Matthew was wrote originally not in ancient Hebrew, but in common Hebrew; that is to say, in the Tongue that the Hebrews spoke then in Palestine. So it is we must understand the other Fathers when they say, that Matthew composed his Gospel in Hebrew.

I lay it down as a Thing certain, That the common Language of the Jews, who inhabited Jerusalem and Judea, was the Syriack; that is to say, a Dialect of the Chaldee, as it was spoke in Syria, mix'd with some Hebrew Terms, be∣cause this is clearly prov'd by many Places of the New Testament. For the Evangelists relate Chaldee Words very often, which they call Hebrew, as being the Terms commonly made use of in the Country. St. Luke, Acts 1.10. says, That the Field bought by the Jews, with the Money that Judas brought, was in their proper Tongue, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Haceldama; that is to say, the Field of Blood: This word is Syriack; those of Bethsaida, Golgotha, and Gabbatha, which St. John observes as Hebrew Names used in the Country, are also Syriack Words. The Inscription on the Cross in Greek, Latin and Hebrew, shows that those three Languages were in use in Jerusalem for the Natives of the Coun∣try, and the other two Languages for strangers. It is very likely that our Sa∣viour when giving up the Ghost on the Cross, pronounc'd his last Words in the Language that he usually spoke. Now the Terms reported by the Evangelists, Eli, Eli, according to St. Mark, Eloi, Eloi lamasabactani, are Syriack. It is said in the Acts of the Apostles, That St. Paul made a Discourse in Hebrew to the Jews; who listen'd to him with more Attention when they heard him speak in the Hebrew Tongue: That was the most common Language, and best under∣stood by the People of Jerusalem. This is so true, that St. Paul having pray'd the Tribune or chief Captain to give him leave to speak, the chief Captain ask'd him if he would speak Greek? A Question which he would not have ask'd him, if Greek had been the ordinary Language of the Jews: But since they spoke Syriack, and that some of them did not understand Greek, he would know if St. Paul understood it, to the end he might speak in that Language. It is agreed, that there was at that time abundance of Jews at Jerusalem who could speak Greek and Latin; yet we cannot doubt but the Syriack was the common Language of the Nation. Therefore it is that Josephus assures us, That at first he wrote his History in the Language of his Country, which he calls the Chaldee, for those of his own Nation, to whom the Greek Tongue was unknown. The Romans when they made themselves Masters of Judea and Jerusalem, brought thither, as into other Countries, the knowledge of the La∣tin Tongue; and the Commerce the Jews had with the Greeks and other Hel∣lenist Jews, oblig'd several of them to learn and speak that Language. But it is not possible, that the Language of the Country should be intirely forgot by its ancient Inhabitants. It's not to be doubted that, on the contrary, it remain'd common among the People, who spoke it for a long time, and that even after the Destruction of Jerusalem.

This matter of Fact being certain, if it be true as all Antiquity assures us, That St. Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Jews of Jerusalem and Judea, and in their Language; it is most certain that he wrote it in Syriack or Syro-Chaldaick, which was the common Hebrew. This is the most common Opinion amongst the Interpreters of the Holy Scripture. Yet Erasmus, Cajetan, and many Pro∣testant Commentators vary from it, and think they have Reason to reject the Opinion of the Ancients on this Head, and to lay down, that the Gospel of St. Matthew was wrote in Greek. We must examine if what they say be of Weight enough to ballance the Testimony of so many positive Authors, who as∣sure us of the contrary.

They say in the first place, That many Hebrew or Syriack words, as Emma∣nuel, Golgotha, Haceldama, Eli, Eli, Lamasabactani, are explain'd in the Gospel of St. Matthew, and that their signification is there set down in Greek. Which Explication cannot be the Authors if he wrote in Syriack; and there's no ap∣pearance that it is the Interpreters, who would have contented themselves to render the Syriack Terms in Greek. But it is easie to answer, That Interpre∣ters usually preserve in their Version remarkable Words, and particularly pro∣per or appellative Names, by joining an Interpretation thereunto. Many Ex∣amples of this are to be found in the Septuagint and Vulgar Translation, where the proper and appellative Names are related in Hebrew, and explain'd by the Interpreter, as in Genesis 31.49. Galaad, that is to say, the heap witness, chap. 35.18. Benoni, that is to say, the son of my grief, Exod. 12. Phase, that is to say, the passage of the Lord, and chap. 16. Manhu, which signifies what is that. 1 Kings 7.12. The Septuagint have related the word Abenezer, and explain'd it by those of a stone of help. In those Places and many others, the Interpre∣ter could not dispence with omitting the proper Hebrew Name, otherwise the true Names of those he spoke of would not have been known; and to know the signification of them an Explication must have been added. It is the same as to the Examples adduc'd, which are taken from the Gospel of St. Matthew. The three first, Emanuel, Golgotha, Haceldama, are proper Names, and it was ne∣cessary to relate the Words of Jesus Christ on the Cross in their proper Terms, for making what follow'd to be understood: That those who heard him thought he called upon Eli. If the Syriack word Eloi, or the Hebrew Eli, had not been set down, that Allusion could not have been understood. We may add to the Objection just now proposed, That there is in the Gospel of St. Matthew Latin words, which would rather seem to have been used by an Author that wrote in Greek, than by one that wrote in Hebrew, because the Greeks had more Commerce with the Latins than the Hebrews had, and that there's a greater Affinity betwixt their Languages. They also alledge what is said to St. Peter in the Gospel, Tu es Petrus, & supra hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam. This Allusion of the Word to the name Peter, which signifies a Rock, is only found in the Greek and Latin. The first Instance hath no Difficulty, these Latin Names, or Greek ones Latiniz'd, are the Interpreters; and the Example brought in the second place, can occasion no Difficulty to any but such as suppose that the Name which our Lord gave to Simon the Son of Jonas, was the Greek Name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whereas there's reason to believe it was the Syriack Name Ce∣phas, which the Greeks have translated into that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because the Name Cephas signifies a Rock in Syriack.

It is objected in the second plnce, That it does not appear that the Fathers ever saw the Original Hebrew of the Gospel of St. Matthew; and that they only said it was wrote in Hebrew, because there was a Gospel of the Naza∣reens wrote in Hebrew or Syriack different from that of St. Matthew. That that is the Gospel which the Fathers, and even St. Jerome himself, took for the Original of St. Matthew, tho' it was corrupt, and differ'd very much from the Greek Copy we have, of whose Purity no Man can doubt. It is answer'd, That this cannot be said of the ancientest of the Fathers, as Papias and St. Irenaeus:

And tho' the Gospel of the Nazareens differ'd from that of St. Matthew in some places, there was great likelyhood that it was taken from the Original which had been alter'd and corrupted in many places.

A third Objection they make is, That the Passages of the Old Testament are quoted in the Gospel of St. Matthew according to the Version of the LXX. Whereas had that Gospel been wrote in Hebrew, what probability is there that they would rather have taken the Passages out of the LXX than from the He∣brew Text? What is alledg'd here is not altogether true, for there are in St. Matthew Passages quoted according to the Hebrew Text, as we have made it appear. And further, tho' they should all have been quoted according to the Septuagint, there would be no reason to wonder that the Greek Transla∣tor should have taken the Version of the Passages of the Old Testament, quoted according to the LXX's Translation, which was in use amongst the Jews, ra∣ther than make a different one.

It is said in the fourth place, That the Gospel of St. Mark is like that of St. Matthew, that St. Mark only follows and abridges St. Matthew, makes use of the same Terms that are in his Greek, and that therefore there's great proba∣bility that he wrote from a Gospel in Greek. It is not true, That the style of St. Mark is altogether like that of St. Matthew. St. Mark softens ma∣ny Hebrew or Syriack Expressions that are rougher in St. Matthew. But fur∣ther, The resemblance of the style betwixt those two Evangelists, is not a Proof that St. Mark wrote from St. Matthew's Greek Copy. It may be that the Translator of the Gospel of St. Matthew, imitated and followed St. Mark. It may be they agreed in some things. In short, it may be, that St. Matthew's Greek Version was made when St Mark wrote his Gospel. This is what I be∣lieve to be the most probable.

In fine, many Conjectures are proposed to make the System of the Ancients improbable. Is it possible, say they, that they would have suffered St. Mat∣thew's Original Gospel to have been lost in the Church? What probability is there that this Evangelist wrote in that Language, he who was a Greek or Ro∣man, since he had the Office of a Publican, which is so odious among the Jews? Why should that Gospel rather have been wrote in Hebrew than the rest? The Jews did commonly understand Greek; Jerusalem was to be speedily destroy'd, and the Jews dispers'd. What necessity was there of giving them a Gospel in a Language that was speedily to be of no use? The Gospel was to be for all Na∣tions, then why should it be wrote in a Tongue that was only known to one Nation, which was speedily to perish? These are nothing but Conjectures, that are not to be opposed to matter of Fact attested by credible Witnesses.

We may answer by other Conjectures. The Original Hebrew of the Gospel according to St. Matthew was lost, because the Jews of Jerusalem and Judea for whom it was made, being converted to Christianity, they ceased in a little time to speak Chaldee; and being Christians had much more Commerce with the converted Gentiles that spoke Greek, than with the Jews that continued in their hardness of Heart; and that after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, the Greek Tongue was abundantly more common in Judea. Therefore this Original becoming useless, there was no Care taken to preserve it. It con∣tinued nevertheless in the Hands of the Nazarens, and came afterwards to the Ebionites, who corrupted and changed it, whilst the ancient Greek Version was preserved in the Catholick Churches without Alteration. And why St. Mat∣thew composed his Gospel in Hebrew, the Ancients have given us a very pro∣bable Reason. He did it for the Jews of Jerusalem and Judea, tho' many among them understood Greek, the Syriack was however common among the People, as we have proved: St. Matthew had preached the Gospel to them in that Tongue; it was just then that writing his Gospel at their Desire, and for their Use, he should do it in that same Tongue. He might well foresee it would be speedily translated into Greek, and that that Translation would be

as useful to all Nations as if he had wrote the same in Greek. This is suffici∣ent to shew the Weakness of those Conjectures which are alledg'd against the Testimonies of ancient and credible Authors.

Eusebius relates in his History, Lib. 5. cap. 10. That Pantaenus having tra∣velled to the Indies, found there the Gospel of St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew Characters, which St. Bartholomew had left among the Indians, and preserved until that time. St. Jerome adds, That Pantaenus brought that Copy into the City of Alexandria. Eusebius doth not observe this Circumstance, nor does he assert the History as a thing certain: He contents himself to say, it was a com∣mon Report. We have observed elsewhere already, that there's no appearance that St. Bartholomew had left to the Indians a Gospel wrote in Hebrew or Sy∣riack, and that this Gospel was preserved till the time of Pantaenus. St. Je∣rome says further, That there was in the Library of Caesarea a Hebrew Copy of St. Matthew's Gospel, which Pamphilus the Martyr had wrote with abundance of Care. But what he adds, That this Copy agreed with that which he had of the Nazarens, shews us that it was not the true Gospel of St. Matthew in its Purity, but the Gospel according to the Nazarens, who had made several Addi∣tions thereunto.

Theodorus Lector says, That under the Empire of Zeno there were found in the Isle of Cyprus the Relicks of St. Barnabas, with a Gospel of St. Matthew upon his Breast, wrote with St. Barnabas's own Hand, and that the Emperor Ze∣no put it in the Chaple of his Palace. He says not, whether this Gospel was in Hebrew or Greek: But there's a great probability that it w as in Greek, since the Author of the History of finding that Apostle's Body related by Surius, says they made use of it to read the Gospel out of on Holy Thursday in the Emper∣or's Chapel. Now 'tis not to be doubted but it was in Greek the Gospel was read; for, had it been in Hebrew, the Author of the Relation would not have failed to have observed it, as an extraordinary thing. The Gospel supposed to have been found in St. Barnabas's Tomb, must then have been that of St. Mat∣thew in Greek: But I would not warrant the Truth of the History, which per∣haps was an Invention of the Bishops of Cyprus, to maintain themselves in their Independency on the Patriarch of Antioch: For Theodorus says, That by this means they obtain'd that their Metropolis was its own Head, and no more sub∣ject to the Church of Antioch. Be that how it will, this History does not prove that the Original Hebrew of the Gospel of St. Matthew was still in be∣ing during the Reign of the Emperor Zeno; that is to say, towards the End of the 5th Century.

But we may discover the Fate of that Gospel by more certain Monuments. As St. Matthew wrote it for the Jews of Jerusalem, who were converted to Christianity, they preserv'd it till the ruine of that City, and carried it with them to Pella, whither they retir'd before Jerusalem was besieg'd. Most of the converted Jews having retain'd a part of their Judaism, they form'd a Sect cal∣led Nazarens, which afterwards degenerated into that of the Ebionites: But the former added thereunto several Histories which they had learn'd by Tradi∣tion, and believ'd to be true; and the latter cut and altered it in several Places.

This lets us see in what Sense the Gospel of the Nazarens was, and was not the Original of St. Matthew: It was his Original, because all his Gospel was therein contain'd without much alteration. This made St. Epiphanius say, That they had St. Matthew's Gospel whole and entire; and St. Jerome to say, That the Gospel of the Nazarens, which he had translated, was the Gospel of St. Matthew. But since there were many things added thereunto, they might also truly say, That it was not the Gospel of St. Matthew in its Purity. As to that of the Ebionites, it was a corrupt and alter'd Gospel, in which they had cut off abundance of things.

The ancient Fathers of the Church have preserv'd us many of those Addi∣tions made to the Gospel of the Nazarens or Hebrews, which Origen calls also the Gospel of the Twelve. The first who is quoted on this subject is Papias, who is supposed to have taken out of that Gospel the History of the Woman ac∣cused of Adultery before our Lord. But Eusebius does not say, That Papias took it out of the Gospel according to the Hebrews; he only observes that Pa∣pias related this History, and that 'tis found in the Gospel according to the He∣brews. It may be that Papias related it, as knowing it by Tradition; and that afterwards the Nazarens, who had added divers Histories of that Nature to the Gospel of St. Matthew, did likewise add this. It is not known, whether it be that of the adulterous Woman which is at present in the Gospel of St. John, and was not formerly found in many Copies; which made several Criticks think, that it was transscrib'd from the Gospel of the Nazarens into that of St. John. Be that how it will, there's no Evidence that it was originally in the Gospel of St. Matthew in Papias's time; but we know, that in time of Eu∣sebius and St. Jerome it was in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.

It is the same as to that Passage taken from St. Ignatius's Epistle to the Smyrneans. I saw him (Jesus Christ) in the Flesh after the Resurrection, &c. and of those other Words which they make our Saviour say after the Resur∣recton, Touch me, and see that I am not a Demon without a Body; related by the same St, Ignatius. Those Passages were indeed, according to the Testimony of St. Jerome, in the Gospel of the Nazarens; but St. Ignatius does not say they were taken out of it. Eusebius says, Hist. lib. 4. cap. 22. That Hegesippus some∣times quoted the Gospel according to the Hebrews: But, perhaps, he thereby understands the Original of St. Matthew.

St. Clement of Alexandria is the first who positively quotes the Gospel ac∣cording to the Hebrews; whence he takes this Sentence, He who shall have ad∣miration, shall Reign; ad he who shall Reign, shall be at rest. Which he relates in the 2d Book of his Stromata; where, he says, it is wrote in the Gospel ac∣cording to the Hebrews.

It is alledg'd also, That Tatian made use of this Gospel in his Harmony of the Evangelists, and that 'tis upon this Account that some call it the Go∣spel of the Five: But it is a meer Conjecture, of which there's no manner of Assurance.

St. Jerome says, That Origen frequently made use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. We find a Fragment of it in his eighth Treatise upon St. Mat∣thew in those Terms. It is wrote in a certain Gospel, Intituled, According to the Hebrews; if People would receive it; not to give it Authority, but to il∣lustrate the Question proposed. One of the rich men said to Jesus Christ, Ma∣ster what shall I do, that I may live well? Jesus Christ says to him, Do that which the Law and the Prophets command. He answered, I have done it. He replied to him, Go sell all that you have, distribute it amongst the poor, and follow me: Then the rich man began to scratch his head, and that did not please him. The Lord said to him, How say you, that you have fulfilled that which the Law and the Prophets command, since it is wrote in the Law, you shall love your neighbour as your self? And behold, there are many of the Children of Abraham covered with mire, and who starve for hunger, whilst your house is full of wealth, and you give nothing to them. And being returned, he said to Simon his Disciple, who was very near him, It is more easie for a Camel to pass through the eye of a Nee∣dle, than for a rich Man to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. In the 2d Tome of his Commentaries upon the Gospel of St. John, he cites another Passage taken out of that Gospel, where the Holy Ghost is called the Mother of Jesus Christ. Some, says he, may produce the Gospel of the Hebrews, where our Saviour says, My Mother, the Holy Ghost, took me by one of my Hairs and carried me up to the great mountain Thabor. He also relates that Sentence of Jesus Christ several times from that Gospel; Be ye good Bankers.

But, of all the Fathers, there's none gives us more Light, as to the Quality and Additions to the Gospel according to the Hebrews or the Nazarens than St. Jerome, who not only saw and read, but also translated it into Greek and Latin; which the Nazarens of Berea, a City of Syria, furnished him, as he assures us in his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers. He supposes, that originally this Gospel was the Original of St. Matthew. He observes, that it was wrote in Chaldee, Syriack and Hebrew Characters, and that the Passages of the Old Testament quoted in that Gospel, were related according to the Hebrew Text, and not according to the Version of the LXX. He instances in this Passage, I have called my Son out of Egypt; and in that, he shall be called a Nazaren. He hath inserted besides, in his Commentary upon St. Matthew, and in his other Writings, many considerable Additions which are found in that Gospel.

He relates one upon the Baptism of Jesus Christ, in his 3d Book against the Pelagians, and in his Commentary upon the 11th of Isaiah. The Contents are as follow. The Mother of Jesus and his Brethren said to him, John the Baptist baptised for the remission of sins, let us go and receive his Baptism. Jesus said to them, Wherein have I sinned, to go and be baptised by John? If it be not that what I just now said is Ignorance. And after, Jesus being come out of the Water, the source of the Holy Ghost descended upon him, rested on him, and says to him, My Son. I expected you in all the Prophets, to the End that being come, I should rest upon you; for you are my Rest and my first-born Son, who reigns for ever.

He reports another matter of Fact, as to the History of the Cure of the Man who had the wither'd Hand, related in the 12th of St, Matthew. There they make this Man to say, I was a poor Mason, who gain'd my livelihood by the la∣bour of my hands: I pray you, Jesus, restore my health, that I may not be obliged shamefully to beg my living.

There was likewise an Addition in the 8th Chapter, to what Jesus Christ says as to forgiving our Enemies. St. Jerome gives us an Account of it in his 3d Book against the Pelagians. It is as follows: If your Brother sin against you in Word, and satisfie you, receive him seven times a day. Simon his Disciple said unto him, Seven times a day? Yes, answered our Lord; and added, I say to you, Seventy and seven times.

In the 27th Chapter, where 'tis said, That the Veil of the Temple was rent when our Lord died. St. Jerome observes, That in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, it was said, That the middle of the Gate of the Temple, which was of a prodigious bigness, was bruised and broken in two.

He relates, in fine, in his Book of Illustrious Men, a considerable Passage concerning St. James, taken out of that Gospel. What he quotes of it is as follows: The Lord having given a Shift to the High Priests servant, went to find James, and appeared to him; for James had sworn that he would eat no Bread from the time be had drank of the Lord's Cup, until he saw him raised again from the dead. And, a little after, the Lord says, Bring a Table and Bread. Bread was brought, and he blessed and brake it, and gave it to James the just, and says to him, My Brother, eat your Bread, because the Son of Man is raised again from the dead. We may easily perceive that this History is a Tradition of the Christians of Jerusalem, who had St. James for their Bishop. And it may be said in general, That most of the Additions the Nazarens made to that Gospel were of the same Nature. They thought simply, that they might insert into St. Matthew's Work, the Stories which they had heard from their Fathers, and that they believed to be true, because they were commonly spread about through Judea. Tho' they have not the same certainty as those wrote by the Evange∣lists, yet we cannot say, that they were absolutely false, because it may be, that in Judea they knew by Tradition many Circumstances of the Life of Jesus Christ, which were not wrote by the Evangelists. But we cannot approve the Liberty that the Nazaren's took to themselves, of adding to the Original Text

of St. Matthew. In the mean time that does not hinder, but they may be con∣sulted on other Places, and profitably made use of for understanding the Greek. Thus it is that St. Jerome hath recourse to this Gospel for explaining the Term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is in the Lord's Prayer in the 6th of St. Matthew, where he ob∣serves, that the Word which is found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, signifies to morrow, and that therefore the Sense of the Passage is, Give us this Day Bread for to morrow; that is to say, The Bread of every Day, as it was in the ancient Vulgar, and as St. Jerome hath preserved it in St. Luke, chap. 5. St. Jerome also made profitable use of this Gospel to solve a considerable Dif∣ficulty concerning Zachary; of whom Jesus Christ says, Matth. 23. That he was killed betwixt the Temple and the Altar. He is called in the Greek Text, the Son of Barachias. In the mean time, this no ways agrees to this Zachary, but to Zachary the Son of Jojada; the manner of whose Death agrees with what Jesus Christ says of it. This Difficulty is removed by the Gospel accord∣ing to the Hebrews, which has, as St. Jerome observes, Zachary the Son of Joja∣da, and not Zachary the Son of Barachias.

St. Epiphanius says, That the Nazarens had the Gospel of St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew and intire, and that they had certainly preserved it until his Time: He adds, That it was wrote in Hebrew Characters, and that he knows not whether they had not cut off the Genealogy of Jesus Christ from the time of Abraham: He assures us on the contrary, That the Gospel of St. Matthew which the Ebionites made use of, which they called, The Gospel according to the He∣brews, was not entire, but corrupt and alter'd; that the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, and what preceded the Baptism of St. John, were cut off from it: Which he began with these Words; There was a Man called Jesus, of about 30 Years old, who hath chosen us, who coming to Capernaum, and entring into the House of Simon Peter, said, As I went along the Lake of Tiberias, I made choice of John and James the Sons of Zebedee, of Simon, Andrew and Thaddeus, of Simon Zelotes and Judas Iscariot, and you Matthew I called you, when you sat at the re∣ceipt of Customs, and you followed me; I will then that you be twelve Apostles to give Testimony to Israel. After this Title begins the Gospel it self in these Terms; It happened in the time of Herod the King of Judea, under the Prince of the Priests Caiphas, that a certain Man called John, baptized the Baptism of Repentance in Jordan: They said he was of the Race of Aaron, Son of Zachary and Elizabeth, and all went out to receive his Baptism, &c. St. Epiphanius ob∣serves that afterwards it is said, That St. John's Food was wild Honey, which tasted like Manna, and like a Cake baked with Oil. Changing the Greek Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies Locusts, into that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies Cakes. The Baptism of Jesus Christ was related in that Gospel in manner following: The People being baptised, Jesus came also and was baptised by John; and being come up out of the Water, the Heavens opened themselves, and he saw the Spirit of God descending and entring into him, in the form of a Dove: And a Voice was heard from Heaven, which said, You are my well-beloved Son, in whom I have set my de∣light. John thereupon casting himself at his Feet, I pray you Lord, says he, Bap∣tise me. This Relation of the Baptism of Jesus Christ differs much from that which St. Jerome relates, as taken out of the Gospel of the Nazarens. Which makes it evident, that the Ebionites had changed the Gospel of the Nazarens. This Testimony of St. Epiphanius, makes us still to know, that they had cut off abundance of things from it, and that they had changed and corrupted the same in many Places to favour their Error. Therefore 'tis, when St. Jerome says, that the Nazarens and Ebionites make use of the same Gospel of St. Mat∣thew, that it is to be understood in a certain general Sense, and not precisely, nor rigorously of the same Gospel in every respect.

From what we have related hitherto, may be inferr'd, That the Gospe lof St. Matthew wrote in Chaldee, did not continue long in its Purity, that the Na∣zarens made several Additions thereunto, and that afterwards the Ebionites al∣ter'd

and changed it. That the Copies of which St. Clement of Alexandria, Origen and St. Jerome made use, were those of the Nazarens, that St. Epipha∣nius saw a Copy of the Ebionites, and that the Original of St. Matthew it self was not existent in its Purity in their time. We have not now in being that Gospel augmented by the Nazarens, or alter'd by the Ebionites, and the Versions that St. Jerome made of it in Greek and Latin, have not descended so low as our Times. We have two Versions of the Gospel of St. Matthew in Hebrew, the one by Tilius, and the other by Munster; but it is certain, that 'tis neither the Original of St. Matthew, nor that of the Gospel of the Nazarens. The Sy∣riack publish'd by Widmanstadius, is neither the Original of St. Matthew, which was lost long ago, nor the Gospel of the Nazarens or Ebionites, since none of those Additions or Alterations, observed by the Fathers, are found therein; and besides, it appears that the Text was translated from the Greek.

The Greek Version of the Gospel of St. Matthew, which to us supplies the Place of the Original, is very ancient, and coaevous with the Apostles, as St. Je∣rome and St. Augustin observe. It is not known who is the Author of it. Pa∣pias seems to say, That it was composed by several of the first Christians, for he observes that every one translated it as he could. St. Jerome says, 'Tis not known who is the Author of that Translation. quod quis postea in Graecum transtulerit, non satis certum est. If those Fathers had not had any knowledge of the Author of the Greek Translation of the Gospel of St. Matthew, how could Writers that are much later know whose it was? Yet there are some who have made no scruple to name the Author. It is said in the Abridgment of the Scripture ascrib'd to St. Athanasius, that it was made by St. James Bi∣shop of Jerusalem; Theophilus ascribes it to St. John; and Anastasius the Si∣naite to St. Luke and St. Paul. But all this is spoke without ground. It is certain that the Version we have is as ancient as the time of the Apostles, that it was publish'd from the beginning of the Church in all Christian Nations, that it was look'd upon as good as an Original by the Greeks and Latins, that it was preserved without any Alteration, and always look'd upon to be Authen∣tick and Canonical. Whereas the Original Hebrew continued not long the same that it was left by St. Matthew: That several Additions were immediately ad∣ded thereunto, and afterwards Alterations; and that in the fourth Age there was no part of it in its Original Purity. Therefore 'tis when St. Jerome had corrected the Latin Translation of that Gospel, he did it from the Greek, and not from the Syriack Copy of the Gospel of the Nazarens that he had in Hand, which he look'd upon as another Gospel, because of the Additions it contain'd.

All the Ancients agree as we have already observed that the Gospel of St. Mat∣thew is the first of the four in order of Time, but it's hard to say positively in what Year 'twas composed. The Ancients have indeed observ'd, that the Au∣thor wrote it whilst he was in Judea, but they don't mark the Year. The Au∣thor of the imperfect Work upon St. Matthew, which falsly bears the Name of St. Chrysostom, says it was composed before the Apostles left Jerusalem. The time of their leaving it is not certain, and it is no way likely that 'twas all at once, or by a premeditated Design. St. Irenaeus assigns the Gospel of St. Mat∣thew the first Place; and yet he says, That he did not compose it, till the time that St. Peter and St. Paul preached at Rome, and settled the Gospel there. If those Words be taken in their rigour, the Gospel of St. Matthew could not have been composed till towards the Year 63 or 64. It is observed in some Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament, that the Gospel of St. Matthew was published at Jerusalem eight Years after Christ's Ascension; but as we are not certain of the Antiquity of those sorts of Remarks, we are not to insist upon it, no more than upon the Testimony of Nicephorus, and of the Chronicle of Alex∣andria, who say, that this Gospel was composed 15 Years after our Lord's Passion. So that nothing positive can be said, as to the Year when this Gospel was wrote and published.

We have already observed, that there was in the Hebrew Gospel of the Na∣zarens a considerable Addition to the History of the Baptism of Jesus Christ, related in the third Chapter of the Gospel according to St. Matthew; but we must further observe here, that the Greek and Latin Copies have also had some variation in this Place; for formerly instead of those Words, This is my well∣beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, some Copies had the Words of the 2d Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. This Variation is very ancient, since St. Austin read it so, as it appears by this Place of his Dialogue against Tryphon. The Holy Ghost, says he, descending upon Jesus Christ in the form of a Dove, a Voice was heard from Heaven; which was also that of the Prophet David, saying, as in his Person, what ought to be said one day by the heavenly Father, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Which makes it plain, that in the time of this ancient Father, those Words were referr'd to the Baptism of Jesus Christ. Methodius thus reads also the History of the Bap∣tism of Jesus Christ in the Gospels which he had. Nothing, says he, agrees better with that which we have said, nor more clearly shews the Truth of it, than the ancient Oracle directed from the Father to Jesus Christ, when he was baptised in Jordan; Thou art my Son, it is this day that I have begotten thee. St. Hilary reports them also in his Text in this Place of the Gospel of St. Mat∣thew, and explains them of the Baptism of Jesus Christ, both in his Commen∣tary on that Passage, and in the 11th Book of the Trinity, where, he says, 'Tis visible that Jesus Christ received the Unction of the Spirit, and of the Power of God, when upon his coming up out of Jordan this Voice of his Father was heard; Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

St. Augustin observes in his 2d Book of the Concord of the Evangelists, chap. 14. that those Words, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee, are found in divers Copies of the Gospel of St. Luke; and tho' it be said, that they were not in the oldest Greek Copies; he adds nevertheless, That if they can prove by Copies worthy of Credit, that those are the Evangelists Words; we must say, that both those Sentences were heard from Heaven. What St. Au∣gustin observes of the Gospel of St. Luke, is as true of the Gospel of St. Mat∣thew, since St. Hilary relates those Words in his Text, and that Juvencus in his Paraphrase on that Evangelist, gives us these Words, and not those which our Copies bear.

Tunc vox missa Dei longum per inane cucurrit, Ablutumque undis Christum flatuque perunctum Alloquitur: te Nate hodie per gaudia testor, Ex me progenitum, placet haec mihi Gloria prolis.

That same Author Paraphrases an ancient Addition, which is found in that same Place of the Gospel of St. Matthew in the Latin Editions, and which is still to be found in a Manuscript of the ancient Vulgar, in the Library of the Abbey of St. German de Prez, Et cum batizaretur Jesus, lumen magnum ful∣gebat de aqua, ita ut timerent omnes qui congregati erant. Whilst they were baptizing Jesus, there issued a great Light out of the Water, so that all that were there were astonished at it. This Jusencus Paraphrases likewise upon thus:

Haec memorans vitreas penetrabat fluminis undas, Surgenti manifesta Dei praesentia claret.

There is another far more considerable Addition in the 20th of St. Matthew, which Juvencus hath also put in his Paraphrase, and is to be found in the Greek Copy of Cambridge, in some ancient Copies of the Vulgar Latin, and in the Anglo-Saxon Version; for after those Words of the 28th Verse, The Son

of Man came not to be ministred unto, but to minister, and to give his Life a Ransom for many. This Sentence is found added. [But you seek from less to grow more, and of great to become little] Which is not in any Place of the Gospels. Afterwards the following Words are added, whose sense is in the 14th of St. Luke; [But when you enter, being invited to a Feast, don't take the chief Places; left some one who is higher than you come, and he who invited you to the Feast come to you, and say, Sit lower, and you be thereby put to shame. Whereas if you take a lower Place, and there be found a Person inferior to you, he who invited you will say, Sit up higher; which will be more to your Ho∣nour.] It seems that St. Hilary had that Addition in his Copy, for in his Ti∣tles of the 20th Canon upon St. Matthew, after the Title of the Sons of Ze∣bedee, de Filiis Zebedei, comes this other of the chief Place, de primo accubitu, which only agrees to this Addition: And he explains himself in his Text, in these Terms:

For the Glory of Humility, our Lord instructed them by the Example of a Feast, and advises them, That he who is thereunto invited, ought not to set himself down in the chief Place, for fear that one of a higher Dignity should come; and in that case, the Master of the Feast should oblige him to leave the Place he had taken to himself: Whereas if he put himself in an inferior Place, and that a Person below him happen to come, he shall be honoured by being moved to an higher Place.

The same thing is implied in the Addition, and almost in the Terms in which it is conceiv'd in the ancient Vulgar. Juvencus found it also in his Copy, and put it in Verse as follows:

At vos ex minimis opibus, transcendere vultis, Et sic e summis lapsi, comprenditis imos. Si vos quisque vocat caenae convivia ponens, Cornibus in summis devitet ponere Membra, Quisque rapit veniet forsan si Nobilis alter Turpiter eximio cogetur cedere cornu, Quem tumor inflati cordis per summa locarat Sin contentus erit mediocria prendere loca Inferiorque debinc si mox conviva subibit Ad potiora pudens transibit strata tororum.

St. Leo, in his 79th Epistle to the Empress Pulcheria, after having quoted these Words, Let him amongst you who would be the chief, be your servant; for the Son of Man came not to be ministred unto, but to minister: He adds, These thins were proposed to Persons who of little had a mind to become great, but not to go up from a low Place to an high one. Haec illis insinuabantur qui de pusillo volebant crescere & de infimis ad summa transire. Which agrees to the first words of the Addition thus expressed in a Manuscript of the Abbey of St. German des Prez: Vos autem quaeritis de pusillo crescere & de minore ma∣jores fieri. Whereas the 2d Part of that Sentence is expressed in another man∣ner, both in the Greek and in the Latin of the Cambridge Manuscript: Vos au∣tem quaeritis de minimo crescere, & de magno minui. In that of Corbie in these Terms: Vos autem quaeritis de pusillo crescere, & de majore minores fieri. And in that of the Monastry of St. Andrew in the manner following: Vos autem quaeritis de pusillo crescere & de magnis majores esse. It is observable, That there's nothing but that Sentence added in the Manuscript of St. Germain des Prez, and that all the rest of the Addition is wanting there.

The Testimonies of St. Hilary, St. Leo, and Juvencus, leave us no room to doubt that that Addition was anciently in some Latin Copies, but we have no Greek Fathers that mention it. Therefore 'tis we don't believe that they can say, it was formerly in the Greek Copies of the Gospel of St. Matthew: We believe on the contrary, that 'tis an Addition made by the Latins, that the

Writer of the Cambridge Copy, or some other, hath translated it into Greek, and inserted it in his Text. We don't believe neither, that this Addition was in all the Copies of the ancient Vulgar Latin, since many of the Latin Fathers don't receive it; that St. Jerome makes no mention of it; that it was never known in the Church of Africk; that 'tis expressed differently in several Copies; and that there are some where the greatest part of this Addition is not to be found. In a word, we are persuaded that this Edition ought to be held of no Authority. In the first place, because the ancient Greek Fathers, as Origen, St. Chrysostom, &c. never take Notice of it; and that, by consequence, it was not in the most an∣cient Greek Copies of the New Testament. Secondly, Because the greatest Part of the Latin Church, did not approve it. Thirdly, Because the new Sentence they put in our Saviour's Mouth, hath almost no Sense, as 'tis expressed in the Cambridge Manuscript. Fourthly, Because 'tis visible enough, That the greatest Part of this Addition is taken out of the Gospel of St. Luke; whose Text they have altered in a very gross manner. Fifthly, Because the Occasion on which Jesus Christ pronounced those Words, is quite different from that to which they ascribe this Addition: For St. Luke says, That Jesus Christ had this Discourse at Jerusalem, in the House of one of the chief Pharisees, where he was about to refresh himself, after having cured a Man that was sick of the Dropsie; on which Occasion those that were invited made choice of the up∣permost Places: Whereas in the Addition, they make our Saviour say the same Thing on occasion of the Request of the Mother of Zebedee's Children, a lit∣tle before his Passion without Jerusalem, being on his Way thither. The Time, Place, Occasion, and Circumstances are wholly different; and there's no Man but must needs see, that the Comparison is in its proper Place in the Gospel of St. Luke: Whereas it is wrong plac'd, and nothing to the purpose in that of St. Matthew.

In the 24th of St. Matthew, ver. 36. where 'tis said, That no man knows any thing of the day of Judgment, no not the Angels in Heaven. There's those words added in the Cambridge Manuscript which are found in the Gospel of St. Mark, chap. 13. v. 32. Nor the Son. Origen follows this reading in his Commentary upon this Place of St. Matthew; St. Chrysostom and Theophilact, explain also those Words in their Commentaries upon that Evangelist; St. Jerome observes that they are found in some Latin Copies of St. Matthew, but that they were not in most part of the Greek Copies, and particularly in those of Origen and Pierius. St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustin read also those Words in St. Matthew, as in St. Mark. In fine, the Manuscripts of the ancient Vulgar Latin of the Gospel according to St. Matthew, do also bear these Words. Nay, 'tis more probable that they were razed out of the Gospel of St. Matthew, than added to that of St. Mark, or transferred from the latter to the former.

In that same Chapter, ver. 41. after those Words, of two Women grinding in a Mill, one shall be taken and the other left; there is also in the Cambridge Manuscript, and some others, an Addition taken out of St. Luke, ch. 17. v. 34. of two Persons who shall be in one Bed, one shall be taken and the other left, Lucas Brugensis hath found it in divers Latin Manuscripts. It is in the English Saxon Version. Origen, St. Hilary and St. Chrysostom explain it in this Place: But Theophilact takes no Notice of it. In the Manuscripts of the ancient Vul∣gar, it is found in the Place of the Words which we have related of two Women who shall be grinding at a Mill. And there be also Greek Manuscripts wherein these Words are not found.

SECT. IV. The Life of St. Mark: Concerning his Gospel: Of the Truth of the last whole Chapter of it.

THe Ancients inform us, That the Evangelist St. Mark was St. Peter's Dis∣ciple and Interpreter: Therefore it can't be doubted, but 'tis he whom he calls his Son, in his first Letter wrote from Babylon, (a) 1.12. But there's great probability that he is a different Person from John, Surnamed Mark, the Son of Mary, the Companion of St. Paul and of St. Barnabas, who is frequently spoken of in the Acts (b) 1.13; who is, it may be, also this Mark the Cousin of Barnabas, who is mentioned in the Epistles of St. Paul. The Evangelist is no where called by the Name of John, which was the proper Name of this Per∣son. He was St. Peter's Disciple, and kept close to him, at the time when the other was with St. Paul and St. Barnabas. Some Authors have been of Opi∣nion, that the Evangelist was one of the 72 Disciples of our Lord, (c) 1.14. There's

more likelyhood that he did not receive the Gospel from Jesus Christ himself, but from the Apostles, and particularly from St. Peter, who calls him his Son; perhaps, because he had begotten him in Jesus Christ. The style of his Gospel shews us that he was Jew, and rather a natural Hebrew than an Hellenist. The Name of Mark is not indeed an Hebrew Name, but it was apparently a Name that answer'd to the Hebrew Name he bore, or a Roman Surname he had as∣sumed to himself, according to the common Custom of that Time. It is an ancient and certain Tradition, That the Evangelist St. Mark was the Founder of the Church of Alexandria: The other Circumstances of his Life and Death, re∣lated in his Acts, and by new Authors, are uncertain or fabulous, (d) 1.15.

The Ancients neither agree as to the Time nor Place where St. Mark com∣pos'd his Gospel; St. Irenaeus says, 'twas after the Death of St. Peter and St. Paul, (e) 1.16. If it be so, we must place the Death of St. Mark in 67, with the Author of the Oriental Chronicle; or in 68, according to his Acts. In which Case he must have survived those two Apostles for two or three Years, and composed his Gospel in that Interval: But, if with Eusebius we place his Death in 62, before the Death of St. Peter, we cannot defend this System.

St. Clement of Alexandria, in his Hypotyposis, supposes that St. Mark wrote his Gospel whilst St. Peter was alive: For he says,

That that Apostle ha∣ving preached the Word of God, and published the Gospel in the City of Rome, many of the People pray'd St. Mark, who had been a long time his Disciple, and remembred his Words, to write what he had learned from his Master: That he then wrote his Gospel, and gave it to those that desired it of him: That St. Peter having understood that he was about it, he would neither hinder nor exhort him to go on with it.

Papias says also, That St. Mark wrote what he had learned from St. Peter. Eusebius and St. Jerome add to those Authorities, That St. Peter approved that Gospel when 'twas fi∣nished, to the End it might be received in the Churches. Tertullian is Witness that it was look'd upon as a certain Thing, that the Gospel published by St. Mark was from St. Peter. Licet & Marcus quod edidit Petri affirmetur, l. 4. contra Marc. c. 5.

St. Gregory Nazianzen in his Poems, 33, 34. wrote, that St. Mark compos'd his Gospel for Italy upon St. Peter's Relation. The Author of the Synopsis ascrib'd to St. Athanasius says, That that Apostle dictated his Gospel to him: But that does not agree with St, Clement and Papias. All those Authors sup∣pose that it was at Rome, and on the desire of the Christians of that City that St. Mark composed his Gospel. On the contrary, St. Chrysostom in his first Homily on St. Matthew, believes that 'twas in Egypt, and for the Christians of that Country that he composed it. It would seem that this Contradiction may be solv'd by saying, That St. Mark wrote his Gospel at Rome a little before St. Peter's Death, that that Apostle approved it, and that St. Mark after his Death being gone from Rome, carried and published it in Egypt. By this means all the Authors are reconcil'd in supposing that St. Mark did not come to Alexandria till after St. Peter's Death; that is to say, in 66, and that he did not die till 67 or 68. What St. Irenaeus says, That he didnot publish his Go∣spel till after the Death of St. Peter, will also be found true; for though he

mght have done it some little time before the Death of that Apostle, it was not however made publick till some time after it. It is observed in Euthy∣mius and some Manuscript Notes of the New Testament, that the Gospel of St. Mark was composed 10 Years after the Passion of our Lord; that is to say, in the 43d Year of the Christian Era. But that cannot be, if it was done at Rome whilst St. Peter was there, since St. Peter did not come to Rome till a long time after, as we have shew'd in another Place. Besides, those sorts of Remarks are not worth our insisting upon.

It would seem there's no room left to doubt but St. Mark wrote his Gospel in Greek, and that the Greek which we now have is the Original. All the An∣cients who have observ'd it as a particular thing, That the Gospel of St. Mat∣thew was wrote in Hebrew or Syriack, never said any such thing of St. Mark. They must needs have supposed then that it was wrote in Greek, as the other Books of the New Testament. St. Jerome, Ep. 123. and St. Augustin, Lib. 1. Consens. Evang. c. 2. have also assured us, That all the Books of the New Testa∣ment, excepting the Gospel of St. Matthew and the Epistle to the Hebrews, were originally wrote in Greek. Besides those Authorities, there is in the Gospel of St. Mark abundance of Grecisms, which make it plain that it was wrote in Greek and not in Latin, as Cardinal Baronius would maintain, but upon Reasons of so little weight, that they deserve not be insisted upon, (f) 1.17.

St. Mark hath followed the Gospel of St. Matthew, and many times hath only abridg'd it, either by contracting his Narrative, or by leaving out some things, especially what relates to Doctrine. This occasioned St. Augustin's cal∣ling him the Abbreviator of St. Matthew. There are nevertheless Histories that he relates more at large, and of which he observes some Circumstances that are omitted by that Apostle. He relates few things which are not only in the Gospel of St. John, and yet fewer which are not only in that of St. Luke; the whole is almost taken from the Gospel of St. Matthew, whose Order he follows for the most part, and very often makes use of the same Terms; which makes me believe that St. Mark rather wrote from the Greek Version of the Gospel of St. Matthew, than from the Original Syriack. St. Jerome observes in his Letter to Hedibia, that the last Chapter of the Gospel of St. Mark (be∣ginning

at the 9th Verse of our last Chapter) was only in few Copies, and that almost all the Greek Copies wanted it. Aut enim non recipimus Marci Testimonium quod in raris fertur Evangeliis, omnibus Graecis Libris hoc Capitulum in fine non habentibus.

St. Gregory Nyssen in his 2d Oration upon the Resurrection says, That in the most correct Copies, the Gospel of St. Mark ended with those Words; for they were afraid: That nevertheless what follows is found added in some Copies. Euthymius makes the same Observation, which is also found in some Greek Co∣pies of the New Testament. There are none at present in which the Chapter of St. Mark is not found entire. But in a Manuscript of the King's Bibliotheck we read after those words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, this Remark, which is also found in We∣kel's printed Greek Bible: They told in a few words to Peter what had been com∣manded 'em; and afterwards Jesus published by their Ministry from the East unto the West, that holy and incorruptihle preaching of eternal Salvation. This we may easily find to be an Addition made by the Hand of some Stranger, who supposed that this was the End of the Gospel. Nevertheless, there follows afterwards in this Manuscript, and wrote by the same Hand, On trouve aussi apres ces mots: There is found also after these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ce qui suit, that which follows 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the rest unto the end of the Gospel: But there is not in the Margin the Letters of the Alphabet to mark the Section. In the Cambridge Manuscript, the 9th Verse and the following to the 16th, are wrote by the same Hand; but the 16th and the following are wrote by a later Hand. Nevertheless, there are many Reasons to prove that we ought to own that Chapter to be Genuine in all its Parts.

In the first place, the eight first Verses were never called in Question. For when St. Jerome says, That the last Chapter of St. Mark is not in many Greek Copies: By Chapter he understands only the 11 last Verses; the Sections or Chapters being then less than our Chapters are at present. Besides, it cannot be said, that St. Mark did not speak of the Resurrection of our Lord. 2. Tho' these 11 last Verses were not in many Greek Copies in St. Jerom's and St. Gre∣gory Nyssen's time, they were nevertheless in some Greek, and in all the Latin, Syriack and Arabian Copies. 3. The most ancient Fathers own'd them as true. St. Irenaeus in his 3d Book against Heresies quotes the last Verse but one: St. Mark, says he, relates at the close of his Gospel, that our Lord, after having spoke, entred into Heaven, and that he is sat down at the right hand of God. The Apparition to Magdalen is quoted by Tertullian in his Book de Anima. St. Am∣brose, St. Augustin, the Author of the Synopsis, the Author of the Concord as∣crib'd to Ammonius, Cassian, &c. quote also the last Verses of that Chapter. St. Jerome himself and St. Gregory Nyssen explain them, and reconcile them with the other Evangelists. 4. Its easie enough to be seen, that the Reason for which they have been cut off in some Copies, is the seeming Contradiction that is found in that place betwixt St. Matthew and St. Mark. But we see no Rea∣son why they should have been added, nor from whence they could have been taken. In a word, the last Verses are of the same Style, wrote with the same Simplicity, and relate to what the other Evangelists have wrote, but so never∣theless that it may be plainly seen, that they were taken from them. There's no Ground then to doubt of their Antiquity or Truth.

It is not the same of an Addition St. Jerome speaks of in his 2d Dialogue against the Pelagians, which came after those Words of the 14th Verse. Je∣sus Christ appeared to the Eleven whilst they were at Table, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of Heart, because they believed not them that had seen him after he was risen. The Addition is this, They an∣swered him saying,

This Age is the substance of Iniquity and Unbelief, which hinders by means of unclean Spirits, that they don't embrace true Vertue; there∣fore

discover your Justice.

St. Jerome says, That those Words were found in some Copies, and particularly in the Greek, but he makes no great Account of that Addition; which, in all appearance, was taken from some Gospel that was forg'd or falsified by the Hereticks.

SECT. V. The Life of St. Luke: Of his Gospel: How it was corrupted by the Mar∣cionites. Of the Truth of Jesus Christs sweating Drops of Blood. Of the Alterations and Additions in the Cambridge Manuscript.

ST. Luke was a Native of Antioch, the Metropolis of Syria (a) 1.18, and a Phy∣sician by Profession, (b) 1.19. He was not our Lord's Disciple, and one of the 72, as some of the Ancients believed (c) 1.20: Nay, there's no likelyhood that he was a Jew (d) 1.21. He was rather a Gentile, and uncircumcised. He was St. Paul's Disciple, he accompanied him almost in all his Travels, and (e) 1.22 assisted him

continually in the Ministry of the Word, as we learn from the History of the Acts, and the advantagious Testimonies which St. Paul gives of him in his Let∣ters. It is also believ'd, that 'tis of him the Apostle speaks, without naming him, when he signifies to the Corinthians (f) 1.23, 2 Cor. 8.18. That he hath sent them a Brother, whose Praise is in the Gospel throughout all the Churches: Cujus laus est in Evangelio per omnes Ecclesias. There's no Reason to confound him with Lucius (g) 1.24, whom St. Paul also mentions in his Epistle to the Ro∣mans. We find in St. Jerome's Book of Illustrious Men, that he lived in Celi∣bacy, that he died in Achaia, aged 84 Years, and that his Relicks were tran∣slated thence to Constantinople: But this Passage is very doubtful, (h) 1.25. St. Epi∣phanius says, he preached the Gospel in Dalmatia, in Gaul, in Italy and Mace∣donia, (i) 1.26. Other Authors say, he preached in other Countries: There is no∣thing certain in this Matter, nor yet of the Manner and Place of his Death, (k) 1.27.

St. Luke himself in the beginning of his Gospel, gives an Account of the Mtive that made him undertake it, and of the Design he had therein; for he says, That many having undertaken before him to write the History of Je∣sus Christ and of his Preaching, he believed that after having been exactly in∣form'd

of all those Things from the beginning, by those who had been Wit∣nesses of it, and Ministers of the Word themselves, he ought also to put it in Writing, to the End that Theopbilus, to whom he directed (l) 1.28 that Work, might know the Truth of what he had preach'd. As he was a Disciple, and almost an inseparable Companion to St. Paul, it is not to be doubted but he made use of his Knowledge and Instructions in composing his Gospel, and that he wrote what he had learn'd from him. Thus all the Ancients have ob∣serv'd (m) 1.29, and some of 'em have pretended that it is of the Gospel of St. Luke this Apostle speaks when he makes use of those Terms according to my Go∣spel (n) 1.30. St. Jerome says, he composed it in Achaia or Baeotia: In Achaiae Baeotiaeque partibus. St. Gregory Nazianzen says also, that it was for the Chri∣stians of Achaia that he composed it. If it were in the time that St. Paul was at Corinth, towards the Year 53, it is certain that the Gospel preceded the Book of the Acts, and that this was wrote two Years after St. Paul's arrival at Rome; that is to say, in 63, since the History of that Book concludes precisely at that time: Perhaps he publish'd both the one and the other in Achaia, whi∣ther he returned at the end of the two Years that St. Paul was detain'd at Rome, after having composed them in that City. Euthymius and some Notes of Greek Manuscripts say, that it was composed 15 Years after our Saviours Resurrecti∣on; and some Inscriptions of that Gospel in Syriack and Persian add, that it was at Alexandria. The Author of the Apostolical Constitutions supposes that St. Luke had made a Journey into Egypt; which Metaphrastes and other mo∣dern Greeks have followed. But none of those Monuments deserving any Credit, we must keep to what St. Jerome hath said of it, as being the most reasonable.

The Gospel of St. Luke is better wrote in Greek than the rest, as St. Jerome observes, because that Evangelist was an able Physician and wrote for the Greeks: Lucas igitur qui inter omnes Evangelistas Graeci Sermonis eruditissimus fuit; quippe ut Medicus & qui Evangelium Graecis scripserit. Epist. 145. ad Damasum. Nay, he understood Greek better than Hebrew, according to the Te∣stimony of that same Father on Isaiah, chap. 6. There are however some He∣braisms or Syriacisms in his Discourse, yet 'tis not doubted but he wrote in Greek.

The Gospel of St. Luke is the only one that Marcion and his Disciples re∣ceiv'd; but they had retrench'd divers things in it, and corrupted it in several Places, as St. Irenaeus, Tertullian and St. Epiphanius have observed. But the Falshood of the Gospel of Marcion was evident, because that of the Catholick Church was the more ancient. Marcion alledg'd to no purpose, that his was the true one, it being convicted of Forgery and Corruption by the Antiquity of that of the Church.

I maintain that my Gospel is true, saith Tertullian;

Marcion says his is so; Who shall judge betwixt us? It shall be the Order of Time that shall give Authority to the eldest, and make it evident that the latest is corrupted: For Falshood being a depravation of Truth, Truth must of necessity go before Falshood. But it is so true, that ours is the most ancient, that Marcion himself believed it before he separated from the Church. In correcting our Gospel he confirms it, and shews that 'twas the more anci∣ent; and we have no Reason to doubt, but that which was received as Sa∣cred by the Apostolical Churches, is that which the Apostles gave by Tra∣dition.

Marcion had cut off from his Gospel, all the beginning of the Gospel of St. Luke, as far as these words; The fifteenth Year of the Reign of Tiberius Cae∣sar; that is to say, our first two Chapters. He also cut off and alter'd many things in the Body of the Gospel; all which St. Epiphanius hath collected in his 42d Heresie, which is that of Marcion. We shall not stay to report them, and shall be far from justifying them, as a late Author hath done.

St. Epiphanius observes in Ancorat. n. 21. that there were Copies of St. Luke where they had cut off what was said of Jesus Christ's weeping, chap. 19.42. But he adds, That this was found in the most correct Copies, and makes use of St. Irenaeus's Authority, who relates this Passage in his first Book against Here∣sies, cap. 21. to shew that 'tis true. He believes that it was some of the Or∣thodox who had left out those Words through scrupulousness, as fearing that it might appear to be Weakness in Jesus Christ.

It is, perhaps, for the same Reason, that in some Greek and Latin Copies of the Gospel of St. Luke, the History related, cap. 22. v. 43, and 44. of the Angel which appeared to our Lord in the Garden of Olives, of his Agony, and sweat∣ing Blood, is left out. St. Hilary says, that that Passage was not found in many Greek and Latin Copies. Nec sane ignorandum nobis est in Graecis & Latinis codicibus complurimis, vel de adveniente Angelo, vel de sudore sanguineo nihil scriptum reperiri. St. Jerome also quoting this Place in his 2d Book against the Pelagians, says only, that 'tis found in some Greek and Latin Co∣pies: Which supposes that it was not in divers others. But we are to have more regard to the Testimonies of St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, and other ancient Fa∣thers who quote it, than to some Manuscripts from whence some Christians might perhaps have retrench'd it, because they were afraid of ascribing to Jesus Christ Marks of humane Weakness.

The Cambridge Manuscript differs much more from our Copies in this Gospel than the rest; but it is visible, that they are either Paraphrases, Explanations, Transpositions, or Additions taken from other Gospels. Amongst those Diffe∣rences there be two which are most considerable. The first is in cap. 3. where the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, until David, is reformed according to that of St. Matthew; to which they have added the Kings Achazias, Joash, and Ama∣sias, that are not in St. Matthew, but in the Book of the Kings. It cannot be said, that this is the ancient reading of the Text of St. Luke, and that that which we have is corrupted, since the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke were from all Antiquity different in the Genealogies of Jesus Christ, as we are inform'd by Africanus and St. Irenaeus. The Pagans, the Marcionites, and Ma∣nichees, have upbraided the Christians with this seeming contrariety, who never answer'd them, that the Copies of St. Luke were false in this place. Since this Answer had been the most ready and easie, they would not have omitted it had there been any Foundation for it: Or, at least, they would have observed that there were Copies wherein those Genealogies agreed. Yet never any of the Ecclesiastical Authors, nor Commentators knew any thing of this Observation; which makes it evident, that not only this Conformity of the Gospel of St. Luke with that of St. Matthew in the Genealogies is not ancient, but also that 'twas not common, and that it hath been peculiar to this Cambridge Copy.

The second considerable Difference of that Copy in the Gospel of St. Luke is an Addition which is found, ch. 6. v. 5. in those Terms, That same Day Je∣sus having seen a Man who worked on the Sabbath-Day, he say'd to him, My Friend, if thou knowest what thou dost, thou art happy; but if thou dost not know, thou art unhappy, and a Transgressor of the Law. This Addition is not found in any other Copy: None of the Ecclesiastical Authors have made men∣tion of it: Nor can we understand the Sense of it: For if our Lord would say to that Man, That he should not sin by Working on the Sabbath-Day, if he knew that he was not forbid to work on that Day, 'tis a manifest Error, be∣cause 'tis certain, that the Jews were obliged to observe the Sabbath, since God had commanded it them by Moses, and that they were not yet discharged from the Obligation to observe the Law. This may give us Ground to believe that it was an Addition of the Marcionites or Manichees, Enemies to the Law, which had crept into the Cambridge Copy: Nevertheless St. Epiphanius does not place it amongst the Passages added or altered in the Gospel of St. Luke by the Marcionites. We don't read, that those Hereticks made use of it, nor that the Fathers explained it, or observed that they found it in any Copies. 'Twas not then in many Greek and Latin Copies of the first Ages of the Church.

SECT. VI. The Life of St. John. Concerning his Gospel. The History of the Woman taken in Adultery.

ST. John the Evangelist, a Native of Bethsaida in Galilee, Son of Zebedee, a Fisherman, and of Salome (a) 1.31, was called by our Lord (b) 1.32, with his Brother James, at the time when they were mending their Nets on the Bank of the Sea of Galilee. They forthwith left their Father, and their way of Living, to follow Jesus Christ, who having ranked them amongst his Apostles, gave them the Name of Boanerges, that is to say, Sons of Thunder, perhaps because of their fiery and vehement Zeal, of which they gave a certain E∣vidence, when they demanded Fire from Heaven upon the Samaritans, who would not receive them. St. John was then very young (c) 1.33. He was his Ma∣ster's beloved Disciple, and describes himself by that Name (d) 1.34 in his Go∣spel, Chap. 13. v. 23. c. 19. v. 26. c. 20. v. 2. & c. 21. v. 20. He was willing to give his Master a Proof of his Zeal, by preventing a Person who was none of his Disciples, from casting out Devils in the Name of Jesus Christ. He assist∣ed with his Brother at the Transfiguration, Luke 9.51, 56. He was sent to St. Peter to prepare the last Passover for our Lord. During Supper, he leaned upon his Breast, and took the Liberty to ask him, Who it was that should betray

him: Which St. Peter dared not to do. He accompanied our Lord to the Gar∣den of Olives, with St. Peter and St. James. He followed him alone to his very Cross (e) 1.35, where our Lord recommended his Mother to him, by saying to her, Woman, behold thy Son; and to that beloved Disciple, Behold your Mother: After which time St. John took her Home to his House (f) 1.36, and took Care of her till the time of her Death. Being told by Mary Magdalen, that they had carried away his Master's Body, he ran to the Sepulchre with Peter, and came to it first. He was the first who knew our Lord, when he appeared to his A∣postles upon the Bank of the Sea of Galilee. Some Days after St. Peter ha∣ving asked Jesus Christ, what should become of that beloved Disciple, he re∣ceived this Answer, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Then went this Saying abroad among the Brethren, that that Disciple should not die: Yet Jesus said not unto him, he shall not die; but if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? When our Saviour was ascended into the Heavens, he dwelt at Jerusalem with the other Apostles. After the Descent of the Holy Ghost, he preached Jesus Christ with St. Peter, and was thrice put into Prison. He was sent with St. Peter to Samaria to give the Holy Ghost to those that Philip the Deacon had converted. He preached in that Country. Afterwards he assisted at the Assembly of the Apostles in Jerusalem, about the Observation of the Law. This is what the History of the Gospels, and of the Acts, informs us of the Life and Actions of St. John.

That which follows is not supported by the like Authority, but is reported however by the Ancients. He went into Asia Minor, (it is not known when, perhaps about the Year 70) (g) 1.37 there he found divers Churches, and gover∣ned

them a long time in Peace, until that under the Empire of Domitian, he was brought to Rome, during the Persecution in the 95th Year of our Lord. He was (if we may believe Tertullian) thrown into a Vessel of boiling Oyl, without receiving any hurt, but came (h) 1.38 out more healthful and vigorous than when he went in. He was afterwards banished to the Isle of Patmos, to work in the Mines there (i) 1.39, if we may believe some of the Ancients. He returned to Ephesus after the Death of Domitian in 97. continued to take Care of the Churches of Asia, and lived till the time of Trajan, when he died the last (k) 1.40 of the Apostles, in the 101 Year of the Common Era, aged certainly a∣bove 90 Years, and according to some near 100. The Antients assure us, that he never married (l) 1.41, Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus says, that he carried a Plate of Gold on his Forehead, as Priest of Jesus Christ. He assures us also, that he celebrated the Passover with the Jews. St. Clement of Alexandria tells us a considerable Story of a Robber that he converted. Appolonius assures us, that he raised a certain Man from the dead at Ephesus. Tertullian observes, that he reproved a Priest who had forged the Acts of St. Paul and of St. Thecle. St. I∣renaeus an unexceptionable Witness, assures us, That they had it by Tradition from St. Polycarp, that St. John having entred a Bath to bathe himself, and understanding that Cerinthus was in it, he retired speedily without bathing him∣self, saying

Let us escape, lest the Bath fall upon us, because Cerinthus, an Enemy to the Truth is in it.

St. Jerom says in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, that that Apostle in his old Age, was reduced to such Weakness that his Disciples were forced to carry him to Church; and that not being able to make long Discourses, he said nothing else in those Assemblies but this Sen∣tence, My little Children, love one another; that those that heard him, being weary with his constant Repetition of the same thing, said unto him,

Master, why do you always say that?

and that he made them this Answer worthy of St. John,

'Tis because it's a Precept of the Lord, which alone is sufficient if it be executed.

This is all that we have from any Authors of Credit, con∣cerning the Life and Actions of St. John.

St. John wrote his Gospel the last at Ephesus, apparently after his Return from the Isle of Patmos (m) 1.42, at the Desire of the Christians and Bishops of

Asia (n) 1.43. The Ancients give two Reasons for his undertaking it: The first al∣ledged by Eusebius, in his History, Lib. 3. Cap. 24. and by St. Jerome in his Book of illustrious Men, is that having read the three other Gospels, he found there was nothing, but what was exact Truth in them, and approved them, but that there was wanting the History of the begining of Jesus Christ's Preaching, until the Imprisonment of St. John the Baptist; and therefore to supply that Omission, he wrote his Gospel, in which he hath applied himself particularly to relate that History. The second is because he would confound the Errors of Cerinthus and the Ebionites, of the Nicoliatans and Gnosticks then beginning to spread, by asserting the Godhead of Jesus Christ, and declaring in the beginning of his Gospel, That Jesus Christ was the Word that was God. This Reason is proved by St. Irenaeus, Lib. 3. Cap. 11. by St. Clement of Alexan∣dria, in Euseb. Hist. Lib. 6. Cap. 14. by Victorin upon the Apocalips, by St. Jerome in his Preface on St. Matthew and his Treatise of Illustrious Men, by St. Epipha∣nius, Heresie 51. and many others. This made St. Clement of Alexandria call his Gospel the Spiritual Gospel; and it is on this Account that St. Jerome said of the Evangelist, that he wrote of our Saviour's Divinity, in a very sublime Manner; and that he raised himself, so to speak by a Temerity, more happy than bold unto the Word of God it self. There be Pagan Philosophers who have admired the Height of this Gospel (o) 1.44: St. Irenaeus observes, That the Valentinians made use of the Gospel of St. John to justifie the Combinations and Generations of their Aeons; but that Gospel is so far from establishing them, that it convinces them of Falshood. St. Epiphanius tells us of a Sect of Heretick he calls Alogians, that rejected all the Writings of St. John and par∣ticularly his Gospel, and ascribes them to Cerinthus, in which they are foully mistaken, since there's no Gospel more opposite to that Heresie, which taught that Jesus Christ was a meer Man, than that of St. John, who teaches through∣out, That Christ is the Word which was made Flesh.

Tho' St. John was a Jew and of a low Condition, yet he wrote in very good Greek, according to St. Dennis of Alexandria. This Author says, That he was also very elegant in his Terms, his way of Arguing, and Construction: That there was nothing barbarous in his Discourse, and that there were neither Solecisms nor Idiotisms to be found in it, because God had given him both Knowledge and Eloquence: But at the same time we must confess, that he wrote with a great deal of Simplicity: If we seek for Elegancy in his Words, we don't al∣ways find it: There are diverse Syriac Phrases in his Discourse: His Stile is not coherent enough, and he oftimes repeats the same Names, without making use of the Articles that were not customary to the Hebrews.

The History of the Woman taken in Adultery, related in the 8th Chapter, that is to say, in the 11 first Verses of that Chapter, and the last of the preceding, were not explained by Origen, St. Chrysostome, St. Cyrillus of Alexandria, Nonnius

nor Theophilact in their Commentaries upon the Gospel of St. John, which shews, that it was not in the Copies they made use of. Eusebius, as we have already said, observed, that Papias related that History, which was found at his time in the Gospel according to the Nazarens. St. Jerome alledging this History in his third Book against the Pelagians, contents himself to say, that 'tis found in abundance of Greek and Latin Copies of the Gospel of St. John. St. Augustin in his third Book of Adulterous Marriages, believes that it may be, that some Persons of little Faith, or rather Enemies of the true Faith, had razed it out of their Copies, fearing that it might harden Women in their Crimes in hopes of Impunity. Nonnulli modicae fidei, vel potius inimici verae fidei, credo metuentes peccandi impanitatem dari mulieribus suis; illud quod de adulterae indulgentia Dominus fecit, auferrent de codicibus suis. This Father owns it to be true, and explains it in his Commentary on St. John. St. Am∣brose hath wrote a Letter on purpose upon this History: 'Tis also found in the Evangelical Harmonies ascribed to Ammonius and Tatian. The Author of the Synopsis ascribed to St. Athanasius, owns this History. St. Chrysostom quotes it for an Example in his 60th Homily on St. John: But since he doth not ex∣plain it in its proper Place, 'tis supposed that this Example is added in this Homily. Euthymius is the only Person of the Greek Commentators who hath explained it; but he observes at the same time, that it is not found in the exact Copies, or that it was marked in them with an Obelisk, which shows, says he, that it was wrote afterwards. And it is a Proof of this, that St. Chrysostome hath made no mention of it. Neither is it in the Syriac Version. In short, there are a bundance of Greek Manuscripts, and those of the most Ancient, where those two Verses are not found, or in which they are marked with an Obelisk, or added afterwards. There are nevertheless many other Copies, where they are found inserted at first, and others in which they were added afterwards. It is observed, that they were in Ancient Copies. Sixtus of Sienna and Grotius believed, that that History was taken from the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and inserted afterwards in that of St. John. Others pretend, that 'twas the Novatians who had raz'd it out of St. John's Gospel. St. Augustin, as we have just now seen, thinks they were good Orthodox People, that struck it out for fear their Wives should make use of it, to prevent that Chastisement, which their disloy∣alty might deserve. 'Tis more natural to say, that from the first Centuries of the Church, there were Copies of St. John's Gospel, wherein that History was not, and others in which it was.

Some Criticks have thought, that the Gospel wrote by St. John, ended at the 20th Chapter, in those Words, Jesus did many other signs in the Presence of his Disciples, which are not written in this Book; but these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, ye might have Life thro' his Name. They pretend that those Words are the Con∣clusion of the whole Book, and that the following Chapter was added after the Death of St. John, by the Church of Ephesus. This hath no Foundation as to a great Part of this Chapter, but only for the 24th Verse, which saith

This is the Disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things, and we know that his Testimony is true.

This way of speaking seems to in∣timate a third Person, who speaks of the Author of the Gospel that preceeds. Mean time, it may be said, that those Words, We know that his Testimony is true, are said by St. John himself, in his own Name and the Name of others. We know 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, may also be put instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I know, St. John made use of that same Phrase before, though in the singular Number, chap. 19. v. 35. He that saw it, bare Record, and his Record is true, and he knoweth that he saith true. This sort of Declarations are Proofs of the Candor of the Simplicity and of the belief the Christians had in St. John's Fidelity. 'Tis not then necessary to say, that there is any thing added to the Gospel of St. John.

SECT. VII. Of the Books of the Acts of the Apostles.

ST. Luke declares himself to be the Author of the Acts of the Apostles in the beginning of this Work, which he dedicates or directs to the same Theo philus, to whom he dedicated his Gospel. I spoke, says he, in my first Book, of all that Jesus did and taught. The Gospel is his first Book, the Acts are the second; the one contains the Miracles of Jesus Christ, and the other those of the Holy Ghost. In the first he wrote such Things as he had from the Rela∣tion of others; and in the second, those of which he had been in part an Eye-Witness. It is Intituled Acts, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the Apostles, because it contains the History of what the Apostles did at Jerusalem, and at Judea, after the Ascension of Jesus Christ. He continues this History until the time that they dispersed themselves to preach in different Provinces, and afterwards gives an Account of the Sermons, Travels and Actions of St. Paul, until the time he was carried to Rome in the Empire of Nero. There we see the beginning of the Church in Judea, and in what manner the Light of the Gospel was afterwards com∣municated to the Gentiles, and carried by St. Peter and St. Paul into the re∣motest Countries. He says nothing of the Travels and Sermons of the other Apostles, because he had not been Witness of them, and could not learn them from his Master St. Paul. The time in which he finished his History shews us, that he wrote it at Rome, and published it at the end of the two Years that St. Paul dwelt there in his hired House; that is to say, in the 63d Year of the Christian Era. So that this Book contains an History of thirty Years, or thereabouts. It is wrote with Eloquence and Art. The Narrative of it is Noble, and the Discourses inserted therein Eloquent and Sublime. St. Chryso∣stom complains, That in his time Christians neglected that Book; and St. Je∣rome says, That all the Words of that Work, composed by one who was a Physician by Profession, are as many Cures for a sick Soul. Acta Apostolorum nudam quidem videntur sonare Historiam, & nascentis Ecclesiae infantiam tex∣ere: Sed si noverimus Scriptorem eorum esse Lucam Medicum cujus Laus in Evangelio fuit; animadverteremus pariter omnia verba illius animae languentis esse Medicinam. Hieronym. in Lib. de Vir. Illust.

SECT. VIII. The Life of St. Paul: Of the Time, Occasion and Subject of his Letters. That the Epistle directed to the Hebrews is St. Paul's: In what Lan∣guage it was wrote.

ST. Paul was called Saul, or rather Saül, from his first Name. He was an Hebrew, born of Hebrew Parents of the Tribe of Benjamin (a) 1.45, of the Ci∣ty of Tarsus in Cilicia, and in that Quality a Roman Citizen. His Father,

who was a Pharisee, sent him to Jerusalem, where he was bred and instructed by Gamaliel the famous Pharisee, in the most exact manner of observing the Law. It is not known if it was at that time, or after, that he learn'd to make Tents. He was zealous for the Law of the Jews. He was one of those who rose up against Steven, and consented to his Death. It was he at whose Feet, the Witnesses who ston'd this Proto-Martyr laid their Cloaths. This happened the first Year of our Lord's Passion, the 34th Year of the Vulgar (b) 1.46 Era: St. Paul was then very young.

After St. Steven's Death there arose a great Persecution against the Christi∣ans of Jerusalem, in which St. Paul discovered his Zeal against them. He went into the Houses, drew Men and Women out of 'em by force, made them be put into Prisons, and loaded them with Chains. He went into the Syna∣gogues to get them punish'd, he forc'd them to Blaspheme, and made them be condemned to Death.

This Persecution having scatter'd the Faithful into divers Places of Judea, they preach'd the Word of God where ever they went. Saul full of Threats, and breathing forth nothing but the slaughter of the Lord's Disciples, he perse∣cuted them even in Foreign Cities. It was for this Design he sought Letters from the High-Priest to the Synagogues of Damascus, to the End that if there were found any of that Sect, he should carry them Prisoners to Jerusalem to be punish'd there. Being gone to put this Order in execution, when he drew near Damascus in the beginning of the 35th Year of the Vulgar Era, he was converted in that miraculous manner related Acts 9.22, and 26. He was bap∣tised by Ananias at Damascus, and afterwards without having any regard to Flesh and Blood, which would have called him back to Jerusalem, he went in∣to Arabia, as he says himself in his Epistle to the Galatians, chap. 1. v. 15. and having staid there some time, he return'd to Damascus, and there preach'd Je∣sus Christ in the Synagogues. As he confounded the Jews, they had a design to kill him; and having for that End applied themselves to him who was Go∣vernor of Damascus, under King Aretas, at that time Master of that City, they engaged him to set Guards at the Gates of the City to apprehend Paul. But the Disciples let him down by Night in a Basket through a Window in the Wall, as he says himself, 2 Cor. 11.32. and as it is related Acts 9.25. He came from thence to Jerusalem (three Years after he left it) to see St. Peter, who was returned into that City, after having laid Hands upon, and given the Holy Ghost to the Christians of Samaria. He would have joined himself to the Disci∣ples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a Disciple, be∣cause until that time he had staid in Arabia or Damascus. But Barnabas ha∣ving made him known, and brought him to the Apostles, he stay'd 15 days with Peter, and preached boldly to the Grecians, who sought an occasion to kill

him. The Brethren having Notice of it, brought him to Cesarea, and sent him to Tarsus. He preached the Gospel in Cilicia, and afterwards in Syria for three Years; after that he returned to Tarsus, where St. Barnabas sought him to bring him to Antioch. They instructed there so great a Number of Persons, that it was then the Name of Christians was first given to the Disciples. At the same time the Prophet Agabus being come from Jerusalem to Antioch, foretold the Famine that was speedily to happen, in the fourth Year of the Emperor Claudius, before the death of King Agrippa. Barnabas and Saul were sent to Jerusalem to carry thither the Alms of the Christians of Antioch, and arrived there in the Year (c) 1.47 44, at the time when that Prince persecuted the Disciples; therefore it was they saw none of the Apostles, and return'd to Antioch, having taken with them John surnamed Mark. When they were re∣turn'd to Antioch they were separated and sent by the Order of the Holy Ghost to preach the Gospel. They converted in the Isle of Cyprus the Pro-Consul Ser∣gius Paulus, and 'tis believed that 'twas from him that Saul took the Name of Paul (d) 1.48, because that's the first time St. Luke calls him so. After having preached the Gospel in many Places, they returned to Antioch in 48, where the Question about observing the Precepts of the Law being started, they were sent to Jerusalem to consult the Apostles and Elders on that Subject. This was the third time that St. Paul came to Jerusalem, 14 Years after the first time that he came thither after his Conversion (e) 1.49, as he says in his Epistle to the

Galatians; and, by Consequence, towards the end of the Year 51. The Coun∣cil being finished, St. Paul and St. Barnabas returned to Antioch with Judas and Silas. 'Twas at this time that St. Paul did freely reprehend St. Peter there, because he separated from the Gentiles, for the sake of those Jews which St. James had sent from Jerusalem to Antioch. A little time after fell out the Difference which he had with Barnabas, on the Occasion of Mark, that caused their sepa∣ration. St. Paul having taken Silas with him, travelled into Asia and Greece, preaching Jesus Christ every where, till he returned to Jerusalem the 4th time, Anno 58. He was seised there by the chief Captain Lysias, and carried to Fe∣lix the Governor of Judea, who kept him Prisoner for two Years at Cesarea, and when he went off, left him Prisoner to please the Jews. His Successor Fe∣stus being come to Jerusalem, three days after his arrival the Jews accused Paul before him. Festus being returned to Cesarea gave him Audience. But as he was designing to bring him to Jerusalem to try him, Paul appealed from him to Cesar. He was heard again some days after before King Agrippa, and afterwards went to Rome. Having suffer'd Shipwrack, he spent three Months of the Winter in the Isle of Maltha, and arrived at Rome in the beginning of the Year 61 (f) 1.50 He left it about two Years after. Many were of Opinion, that he travelled into Spain at that time; but we have shew'd elsewhere that this is very uncertain. It is more likely that he returned into Asia and Greece. Be that how it will, it is certain that having return'd to Rome with St. Peter, he was beheaded there during the time of Nero's Persecution, and probably in the 65th Year of Jesus Christ, as we have shewed elsewhere.

We have 14 of St. Paul's Epistles, which all of 'em, that to the Hebrews ex∣cepted, carry the Name of that Apostle. They are not placed in the New Testa∣ment according to the Order of Time in which they were wrote. Those are placed first that were wrote to whole Churches, and afterwards those which are directed to particular Persons. Amongst the former, that which is wrote to the Romans has the first Place, either because of the Dignity of that Church, or because of the Subject. The Epistle to the Hebrews is the last, because it does not bear the Name of St. Paul, and that 'twas doubted of old whether it was his. Nevertheless, the Author of the Synopsis ascrib'd to St. Athanasius puts it in the 10th Place; that is to say, the last of those which are wrote to whole Churches, and before the four directed to particular Persons. He also puts the Canonical Epistles before those of St. Paul; but the Order in which those Epistles are placed at present, is the most common in Antiquity, as may be proved by St. Jerome, by the ancient Commentators, and by all the Greek and Latin Manuscripts. We will follow this Order, but observing, nevertheless, the Time when these Letters were wrote, to the End the Subject and Occasion of 'em may be the better known.

The Epistle to the Romans is wrote from Corinth, as Origen proves by many Reasons: For, in the first place, it was sent by Phebe, a Servant of the Church of Cenchrea, the Port of Corinth. Secondly, St. Paul names his Host, Caius cap. 16. v. 24. who dwelt at Corinth, as appears by the first Chapter of the first

Epistle to the Corinthians, v. 14. Thirdly, Because amongst those whose Salu∣tations he sends, chap. 16. he names Timothy and Sosipater, who were in his Company when he came from Achaia to Jerusalem, Acts 20.4. Caius and Era∣stus who were at Corinth. Fourthly, Because he says in that Epistle, chap. 15. v. 25. That he is going to Jerusalem to carry the Saints the Alms he had col∣lected. Now it is certain, that at his leaving Ephesus, he went by Macedonia and Achaia to go to Jerusalem, Acts 19.20. and that after having been some∣time in Macedonia he came into Greece, and apparently to Corinth, where he staid three Months, Acts 2. v. 2, 3. and afterwards he went up to Jerusalem. It was probably during this stay of three Months that he wrote his Letter to the Romans, towards the End of the Year 57, or in the beginning of the 58th of our Era, after the two Epistles to the Corinthians, since he exhorts them in the 2d to get ready that Alms or Contribution that was design'd for the Chri∣stians of Jerusalem. In that Letter he gives Notice to the Corinthians, that he was about to come and see them the third time, c. 13. v. 1. He came then to Corinth, and spent part of the three Months there which St. Luke said he staid in Greece, Acts 20.2.

This Epistle is wrote to the Church of Rome, composed of Jews and Gen∣tile Converts, on occasion of the Difference that might be betwixt them up∣on the Account of Preference. The Jews boasting that God had given them the Law and the Prophets, that they had adored the true God, that 'twas to them the Messiah was promised, and that he was descended of their Nation. The Gentiles on the contrary maintaining, That tho' they were not so much enlightned by God as the Jews, yet their Philosophers knew him; that if the Messiah had been promised and given to them, they had rejected him; and that the greatest part of them continued Unbelievers. St. Paul makes it plain, that neither the one nor the other have any Cause of Glory; the Gentiles, be∣cause the wisest among them having known the true God by the Light of Na∣ture, had not honoured him, but gave themselves up to Idolatry: And the Jews, because they had not kept the Law, nor made use of the Advantages which they had thereby; and he confounds both of them, by shewing that they are only justified by Faith in Jesus Christ; to which God in his Mercy had called both Jews and Gentiles, without any Merit in either of them. Af∣ter having treated this Question in the 11 first Chapters, in the five last he gives Instructions to the Christians, to whom he writes.

The first Epistle to the Corinthians is wrote from Ephesus, as appears by chap. 16.18. (and not from Philippi, as 'tis observed in some Greek Inscripti∣ons) in the time when he went to go for Macedonia. Ibid. v. 5. and some time before Pentecost, in the Year 57. He speaks there of the Fight he had maintain'd against Beasts at Ephesus; which made some modern Greeks believe he had been exposed to wild Beasts. But this Expression of St. Paul is Figu∣rative, and he means thereby, that at Ephesus he had Men to fight with that were as cruel as Beasts. As when he says in the Epistle to Timothy, that he was delivered out of the Mouth of the Lion, to signifie the Cruelty of Nero: In that same Sense that St. Ignatius says also in his Epistle to the Romans, that he fought continually with Beasts from Syria to Rome; that is to say, that the Guards sent with him, were as cruel to him as wild Beasts. It is so likewise that Tertullian, St. Chrysostom, Theophilact, Oecumenius, the Author of the Commentary ascrib'd to St. Ambrose, Sedulius, and many others, understand that Passage. St. Jerome in the third Book of his Commentary on the Ephesi∣ans, explains these Words of St. Paul, of the Devil, and of his Guards; but that is not natural. St. Chrysostom understands this positively of the Tumult raised against St. Paul at Ephesus, by the Goldsmith Demetrius. If that be true, this Letter should have been wrote a little time before his departure, for he did not stay there long after that Tumult: But 'tis more likely that 'twas wrote some time before, since he speaks in the 2d Epistle to the Corinthians,

of the Evils he had suffered; and that he changed the Design he had of going straight into Achaia, before he went over into Macedonia. So that his Fight with Beasts must he understood of some other Persecution.

The Occasion of St. Paul's writing this Letter, was his understanding by Ste∣phanus, Fortunatus and Achaicus, who came from Corinth to see him at Ephe∣sus, and by the News he had received from the Family of Chloe, that there were Disputes amongst the Corinthians on the Account of Apollo, the con∣verted Jew, who had been to preach at Corinth after St. Paul left it. There they had form'd to themselves several other Heads of Parties besides St. Paul: Which occasioned some of them to say, I am of Paul; and others, I am of Apollo; and a third, I am of Cephas.

St. Paul reproves them for this Affectation, and teaches them that they must not say, I am of this or that Man, but I am of Jesus Christ. That Ministers ought not to boast, or to ascribe to their own Eloquence or Knowledge, the Conversion of the People. He shews that God did not convert the World by this humane Wisdom, but by the Preaching of the Foolishness of the Cross. He reprehends them for entertaining amongst them an incestuous Person, and for going to Law one with another. He answers the Questions they had pro∣posed to him, concerning Marriage, Celibacy, and Meats offered to Idols. He speaks afterwards of his own Impartiality in the Ministry, of Christians being united in one Body, of the last Supper of our Lord, and of the Disposition we must be in for eating of that Supper, of the Veils which the Women were to wear, of the different Gifts of the Holy Ghost, of the Excellency of Charity, of the Gift of Tongues, and of Prayer in a known Tongue, of the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and of the Resurrection. In fine, he recommends to them the preparing of Alms, and promises to see them in a little time.

Some Authors have concluded from a Passage of this Epistle, chap. 5. v. 10, 11. that St. Paul had wrote a Letter to the Corinthians before this, because in the place just now quoted he says to them, I have wrote to you in my Letter, not to keep Company with Fornicators, &c. But, as St. Chrysostom observes, the Letter he speaks of in that place, is the same he was then writing, and the Sense is, When I just now bid you in this Letter, not to keep Company with Fornica∣tors; I don't understand it of the Fornicators that are amongst the Gentiles, but of those that are accounted Brethren; that is to say, Christians. For the prohibition of entertaining any Commerce with Fornicators, mentioned in this place, is in the beginning of this very Chapter.

St. Paul before he wrote his first Letter to the Corinthians, had sent Timothy into Macedonia, Acts 19.22. and recommends him to the Corinthians, in case he come to them, 1 Cor. 16.11. He had returned again to St. Paul when that Apostle wrote his 2d Letter to the Corinthians: It's in the Name of both. He was then in Macedonia, for he excuses himself in the beginning of that Letter, that he went to Macedonia before he came to Corinth; and he says, that being come to Troas to preach the Gospel there, he was troubled that he did not find Titus there, whom he had sent to Corinth, and who had passed that way into Macedonia; where he adds, That he was comforted by the arrival of Ti∣tus, who had brought him News from Corinth, and signified the desire they had to see him again. He had understood by him, that some of the Christians of Corinth complained of his not coming to see them as he had promised, that they had put away the incestuous Person, and were resolved to contribute to the Saints at Jerusalem. St. Paul being informed of those things, thought he ought to write a 2d Letter to them, by which he excuses his not coming di∣rectly to Corinth, for fear of occasioning their Sorrow. He commended the Zeal they had shew'd against the incestuous Person, and allowed them to be re∣conciled to him. He justifies his Conduct in the Ministry of the Gospel, and speaks of the Dignity, Obligations, Vertues and Persecutions of the Ministers

of the same. He exhorts them by the Example of those of Macedonia to contribute liberally and cheerfully. He declaims against the false Apostles, who seduced the Corinthians and estranged them from him. He is obliged in his own Defence to Glory of his Revelations of his Sufferings, and of his not seeking his own things. In a word, he speaks to them with Authority, and testifies that he was as firm and bold as ever. He sent this Letter by Titus, whom he pray'd to return to Corinth, accompanied by two of his Brethren. It is directed to the Church of God which is at Corinth, and to all the Saints which are in Achaia; and wrote from Macedonia, perhaps a City of Philippi, as the Inscription has it, towards the middle of the Year 57.

The Epistle to the Galatians was wrote some time afore, nay, even before the first to the Corinthians, where, chap. 16.1. he recommends to them, as to the Contribution which was gathering for the Saints at Jerusalem, that they should use the same Method he had appointed to the other Churches of Gala∣tia; which seems to refer to what he had wrote to the Galatians, chap. 15.25, & 26. to do good when they had opportunity, but especially to the House∣shold of Faith. This points clearly enough at the Christians of Jerusalem, and by Consequence this Letter was wrote at the time when they collected that Charity towards the end of the Year 56 or 57. Tertullian thinks 'twas wrote a long time before; but there's no probability of it. Theodoret on the con∣trary, and some Greek Inscriptions, suppose that it was much later, and wrote from Rome: But that cannot be, since St. Paul speaks nothing of his Bonds; which he does ordinarily in the Letters he wrote at that time; and that he sup∣poses the Galatians had not been long converted, since he reprehends them for suffering themselves to be so speedily seduced. It's then more probable, that it was wrote from Ephesus, as some Latin Inscriptions have it.

Galatia is a Province of Asia Minor, where St. Paul had preach'd the Gospel, after having left Barnabas, An. 51, Acts 16.6. and in the Year 54, Acts 18.23. Those whom he had converted were troubled a little time after by false Teach∣ers, who would persuade them that the Gospel would be of no use to them, unless they were circumcised and observed the Law. Those false Teachers en∣deavoured to render suspected the Authority of St. Paul, who had taught them the contrary, by saying that he was no Apostle, that he had not seen Jesus Christ, and that the other Apostles were not of his Opinion: This is that which makes St. Paul vigorously assert at first the Truth of his Apostleship, and the Sincerity of his Doctrine, known and authorized by the Testimony of the other Apostles. He declares, that he was obliged publickly to reprove St. Pe∣ter, for his too great Condescension to the Jews. He brings afterwards divers Proofs, to shew that Christians are no more Slaves to the Law, but that they ought to enjoy the Liberty of the Children of God. He concludes with many Moral Instructions. St. Paul had wrote that Letter with his own Hand, as he observed, chap. 6. v. 11.

The Epistle to the Ephesians is wrote whilst St. Paul was a Prisoner at Rome. We cannot doubt of it, when we read what he says of his Prison and Chains, chap. 4. v. 1. & c. 6.20. But we are not certain whether it is in the time of his first or 2d Journey; that is to say, in 62 or 65. That which makes us be∣lieve it to be wrote during his first Journey, is that he sends it by Tychicus, who also carried that to the Collossians wrote in that time. But we understand by the 2d Epistle to Timothy, wrote certainly during St. Paul's last Imprisonment, that he had then also sent Tychicus to Ephesus, chap. 4. v. 12. There's also one Reason which may induce us to believe that 'twas not wrote at the same time with the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians, sent in 62; that is, that it doth not, as those two, bear the Name of Timothy join'd to that of St. Paul, but that 'tis wrote in the Name of St. Paul alone. This Letter is directed to the Christians of Ephesus, the Metropolis of all the Diocess of Asia: And there are still Greek Copies in which the Name of Ephesus is forgotten in the Greek,

and where we read, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. To those who are Saints and Believers in Jesus Christ; instead of, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. To the Saints that are at Ephesus, and to the Faithful in Jesus Christ. This Omission is visibly a Blank, as St. Jerome hath observed. But the Title shews that the Letter is not only directed to those of Ephesus, but also to other Believers: And there's room to believe that 'twas a Circular Letter directed to the Church of Ephesus, for all the Churches of Asia: Perhaps it is because of this that Marcion had intituled it, The Epistle to the Laodiceans, as we under∣stand from Tertullian and St. Epiphanius.

St. Paul, who had laboured more than any other in the Conversion of the Ephesians, and dwelt three Years for that End in that City, as he went from Macedonia, pray'd Timothy to stay at Ephesus, and to signifie to some that took upon them to Preach in that Church, not to teach a Doctrine different from his, and not to amuse themselves with Fables and endless Genealogies. He was in∣formed afterwards, that the Believers of that Church continued in the Faith and in Charity; but fearing that they should suffer themselves to be surprized at last, either by the Fables of the false Gnosticks, or by the Discourses of the con∣verted Jews, who would oblige the Christians to observe the Law, he wrote this Letter to them to encourage them to continue firm in the Doctrine which he had taught them. To induce them to love and respect it, he sets before their Eyes the extraordinary Graces which they had received by the Redempti∣on of Jesus Christ, and by the Faith which they had in him; and he afterwards gave them Precepts to live like Christians in all Conditions.

The Epistle to the Philippians is wrote in the Name of St. Paul, To all the Saints in Jesus Christ which are at Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons. Philippi was one of the chief Cities of Macedonia, where St. Paul had preached the Gospel, when 'twas signified to him by a Vision in the Night, that he must go into Macedonia, Acts 16. He returned thither afterwards, many times, and re∣ceiv'd from the Christians of Philippi, on several occasions, Marks of their Af∣fection; chiefly, when being Prisoner at Rome, the first time, they sent him abundantly to supply his Necessity, as they had done twice before when he was at Thessalonica, chap. 4.10. and the following. St. Paul in acknowledgment of their Charity, wrote to them by Epaphroditus, who had brought him their Pre∣sents, a very affectionate Letter, in which he speaks of the Fruit of his Bonds, of the Love, of the Sufferings and of the Humility of Jesus Christ; which they ought to propose as a Model of theirs. He exhorts them to appear as the true Children of God, and as Stars among the Pagans that encompassed them. He strengthens them against the Doctors of Judaism, and exhorts them to continue always subject to Jesus Christ, to be Enemies to Disputes, Friends to Prayer, humble and charitable among themselves, firm in their Afflictions, and full of Peace and Joy. It is wrote in the first Journey of St. Paul to Rome, at the end of the 61st or 62d Year, since he put them in hopes, chap. 2.26. that he shall see them again.

The Epistle to the Colossians was wrote some time after in 62. The City of Colosse, to the Inhabitants of which 'tis directed, was in Phrygia near Laodi∣cea, (g) 1.51. St. Paul had not preached in that City (h) 1.52, but they had been in∣structed in the Faith by Epaphras, who came to see St. Paul, and being also

made Prisoner there himself, had informed him concerning that Church. This holy Apostle writes to them to testifie the Joy which he had at their Conversion. He advises them at the same time to continue firm in the Faith in Jesus Christ, and to take heed that they did not suffer themselves to be seduc'd with the Reasonings of humane Philosophy, by superstitious Practises in making diffe∣rences of Meats and Days, and by the worshipping of Angels. He gives them afterwards an Abridgment of the principal Maxims of the Christian Life. This Letter was sent by Tychicus and Onesimus, in the 62d Year of the Vulgar Era.

In the end of this Letter, chap. 4.15, 16. St. Paul recommends to the Colossi∣ans, to salute in his Name the Brethren at Laodicea; and adds, that when his Letter shall be read amongst them, they should also read that of the Laodiceans. The Greek has it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that which was wrote from Laodicea. The am∣biguity of the Latin, which is rendred that of the Laodiceans, made some Peo∣ple believe that St. Paul had wrote a particular Letter to the Laodiceans. But according to the Greek Text, it is not a Letter wrote unto the Laodiceans, but from Laodicea. In effect, if St. Paul had wrote at the same time to the Laodi∣ceans, he would not have charged the Colossians to salute them in his Name. Some have understood it of a Letter of St. Paul's wrote from Laodicea, and there are those who think it is one of the Epistles to Timothy. Others think it to be an Answer which the Laodiceans made to the Colossians upon St. Paul's Letter. It is more natural to understand it of a Letter which the Laodiceans had wrote to St. Paul, which this Apostle judged might be useful to the Colos∣sians; so it is, that St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Photius and Oecumenius have ex∣plain'd this Passage: It is in this Sense that it is called in the Vulgar, The Let∣ter of the Laodiceans. Yet Philaster, St. Gregory, and some Latins, believ'd that St. Paul had wrote to the Laodiceans. Formerly there was a Letter forged from St. Paul to the Laodiceans, which St. Jerome looks upon to be a Piece certainly forged, and rejected by all People: Quae ab omnibus exploditur. Tho' Philaster thinks it Genuine, he confesses that it was not read in the Churches, because the Hereticks had added some things to it. There's one at present to be found in St. Anselm, and in the others, that Sixtus of Sienna relates, and which is in some of the German Bibles. This differs from that spoke of by the Fathers, for it contains nothing Erroneous, whereas the ancient one was full of Errors, according to Philaster. That which St. Epiphanius quotes was com∣posed of many Sentences out of the Epistle to the Ephesians. That which we have is not of St. Paul's Style: It is very short, yea shorter than the Epistle to Philemon, and hath no certain Argument. It is a Piece visibly forged. The first Epistle to the Thessalonians is also the first of all the Epistles of St. Paul. This Apostle having preached in Anno 52 the Gospel in Thessalonica, the prin∣cipal City of Macedonia, was forced thence by a Tumult that the Jews raised against him, and went to Berea, and from Berea to Athens, Acts 17. Silas and Timothy dwelt at Berea, and returned to Macedonia, during his Journey to Athens. At his departure from Athens St. Paul came to Corinth, where Timo∣thy and Silas being returned from Macedonia, came to see him, Acts 18. v. 5. It was from thence then that he wrote his first Letter to the Thessalonians in his Name and in the Name of Silas, (who is called Silvanus in the beginning of the Letter) and of Timothy, to congratulate the fervency of their Faith and Charity, of which he had heard by Timothy, and to put them in remem∣brance of his pure and disinteressed Method of preaching the Gospel amongst them, and of the Commands he had given them. He exhorts them to Con∣stancy

in their Persecutions, teaches them to mourn for their Dead in a Chri∣stian manner, and gave them excellent Instructions for leading a Christian Life.

The second Epistle to the Thessalonians was wrote a little after the first, tho' Grotius thought that it precedes it, because St. Paul makes mention in this of a Letter that he had already wrote to the Thessalonians: Keep, says he, the Traditions which you have learned from us, whether it be by Word or by our Letter. It carries also the Name of Timothy and Silvanus, which shews that it was wrote not long after the first. He had promised to the Thessalonians in his first Letter, that he was coming to see them; and not being able to do it, he makes it up by this second Letter: And because some took occasion from what he had said of the Day of Judgment in his first Letter, chap. 4.15. or rather, from a Letter forged in his Name, to make People believe that the Day of the Lord was at hand, 2 Thess. 2. v. 2. he gives them warning not to suffer themselves to be so seduced by those false Doctors; and assures them, that tho' the Mystery of Iniquity was working then, the Day of Judgment however should not come, until the Man of Sin was come and destroyed. He likewise severely reproves those among 'em that were idle, disorderly and busie Bodies; and orders them not to keep Company with them, but to rebuke them. In short, upon suspicion that a Letter was counterfeited in his Name, that they might not be deceived, he observes to them, that he had sign'd this with his own Hand; which was the Token in every Epistle.

The Letters directed to private Persons follow those that are wrote to whole Churches. The two to Timothy are put in the first Place, as being the most considerable. Timothy, whom St. Paul calls his dear and true Son in the Faith, was a Native of Derbe or Lystra, a City of Lycaonia, where St. Paul met with him in the 50th Year; his Father was a Gentile, and his Mother called Eunice was a Jewess: He had a Grand-Mother called Lois. Those two Women had embrac'd the Faith before Timothy, and had instructed him in the Scripture du∣ring his Youth. The Brethren of Lystra and Iconium having given an advan∣tagious Testimony to St. Paul, he desired he might come with him, and cir∣cumcised him because of the Jews. He was afterwards that Apostles Assistant in Preaching, and his Companion in his Travels. After having accompanied him in his Travels, and been sent on his Account into different Places, he was at last left at Ephesus, in the last Journey that St. Paul made thither as he tra∣velled into Macedonia, to the end he might take Care of the Churches of Asia. These Matters of Fact are founded upon the Authority of the Acts of the Apostles, and of the Epistles of St. Paul, but the rest of his Life and of his Martyrdom being founded only upon modern and uncertain Acts or Writings, there's no relying upon them.

St. Paul did not write his first Epistle to him till after he had left Ephesus, in his way to Macedonia, as he says himself in the third Verse of the 1st Chap∣ter. We read in the Acts of three Journies of St. Paul into Macedonia, in the first, Acts 16. and in the second, Acts 17. Timothy was with him, and he staid at Berea whilst St. Paul went to Athens. In the third Journey, Acts 20. he had sent Timothy before him, Acts 19.20, 22. Timothy accompanied him into Asia, Acts 20.4. It is not then of any of those Journies that St. Paul speaks in this Letter, it must be a 4th, after his first Imprisonment at Rome. It may be said, however, and I am almost of that Opinion, That St. Paul left him at Ephesus, when staying at Miletum, he sent to call the Elders of the Church at Ephesus, Acts 20.17. for we read that as St. Paul went to go into Asia by way of Mace∣donia, Timothy was one of those that accompanied him to Asia, chap. 20.4. and we find Timothy no more in his Company, neither at Jerusalem, nor during his Imprisonment at Cesarea. If it be so, Timothy was settled by St. Paul to govern the Churches of Asia in 58. and his first to Timothy should have been wrote, either during St. Paul's Journey to Jerusalem, or when he arrived

at Jerusalem before his Imprisonment; for besides, that he speaks nothing of it, he puts Timothy in hopes that he will come to see him speedily; and that nevertheless, lest he should be hindered from doing it so soon, he writes him this Letter, to the End he might know how to behave himself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, chap. 3.15. This is the Occasion and Subject of this Letter, which contains excellent Instructions for those who are intrusted with the Charge of People, both as to the Duties of their Office and their particular Behaviour.

The 2d Epistle to Timothy was wrote whilst St, Paul was Prisoner at Rome, and rather during his 2d Imprisonment than his first; for it appears plain enough by the Terms he makes use of, that he looks upon himself to be near his End, and as a Victim ready to be sacrificed, that his departure was at hand, and that he was in a little time to receive the Fruit of his Labours, chap. 4.6, 7, 8. He speaks also of his first Defence, in which he was delivered out of the Mouth of the Lion. At my first answer, says he, no Man stood with me, but all Men forsook me; notwithstanding, the Lord stood with me and strengthened me, that by me the preaching of the Gospel might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear, and I was delivered out of the Mouth of the Lion. Eusebius, St. Je∣rome, St. Chrysostom, in some Places, and Theodoret, understood this first De∣fence of his first Journey. St. Chrysostom seems to be of another Mind in other Places, and understands it of St. Paul's first appearance before Nero in his 2d Journey: But the other Opinion is better founded, and seems to be authorized by the more natural Sense of the Text. For St. Paul says, that in this first De∣fence he was delivered from the Mouth of the Lion; that's to say, he escaped the Cruelty of Nero; which he could not have said, if after this Defence he had still continued in Prison, and been in danger of being speedily condemned to die. He adds, That the Lord assisted him, that by him the preaching of the Gospel might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear; which supposes that after this Defence he had been to preach the Gospel elsewhere than at Rome. This Letter then was certainly wrote in his last Prison, a little before his Death in 64. There he gives further Instructions to Timothy, he exhorts him to preserve the Purity of the Faith, and to avoid Janglings and vain Questions, he fortifies him against Persecutions, foretells him that false Prophets will come, and describes the Mischiefs they will do the Church.

Titus, to whom St. Paul's following Letter was directed, was a Gentile con∣verted apparently by St. Paul, and his Disciple. This Apostle brought him to the Council of Jerusalem, where some false Brethren would oblige him to cir∣cumcise him. He sent him from Ephesus to Corinth in 56. He came to see Paul again in Macedonia, from whence that Apostle sent him back to Corinth. This is all that is said of him in the Acts. The Letter which St. Paul writes to him informs us, that this Apostle left him, that he might set in Order the things that were wanting, and ordain Elders in every City, chap. 1.5. We know not when that was done. We don't read in the Acts that St. Paul had been in the Isle of Crete, but when he was carried Prisoner from Jerusalem to Rome. There's no likelyhood that that was the time when he left Titus there. It is more likely, that it was in the last Journey that he made to Greece after he left Rome, and that as he return'd thither he wrote that Letter to him at the end of the 63d Year, to instruct him as he had done Timothy, in the Qualities and Duties of a Bishop. He informs him in that Letter, that he came to see him at Nicopolis, a City of Macedonia, where he was to pass the Winter; which makes it evident that he was in that City, or rather in his way to go thither. Titus came there and went with him to Rome, from whence he was sent back into Dalmatia, as is observed in the 2d Epistle to Timothy, 4.10. It's believ'd that he return'd into Crete and died there.

The Letter to Philemon is the shortest of all St. Paul's Letters, and wrote up∣on a particular Subject. Philemon, who was a considerable Inhabitant of Co∣losse

a City of Phrygia, had been robb'd by his Servant Onesimus, who fled to Rome. Onesimus met St. Paul in that City who instructed and con∣verted him, and after having kep'd him sometime with him, wrote, when he sent him back to his Master, a Letter full of Tenderness and Art to reconcile him to his Servant. He directs his Letter to Philemon, to his Wife Appia, to Archip∣pus and to all the Church which was in the House of Philemon. This Ar∣chippus was one of the Ministers of the Gospel at Colosse, as appears by Colos. 4.17. He prays Philemon to receive Onesimus, whom he had begot in his Bonds not as a wicked Servant, but as a beloved Brother. He offers to satisfie for him, and presses him in very affectionate Terms to grant him that Favour. He tells him, that he would have kep'd him with himself, that he might have served him in his Bonds; but that he would do nothing without his Consent. Onesimus by this Letter easily obtained his pardon with Philemon. He was sent back to St. Paul, and carried a Letter to the Colossians. 'Tis said in the Constitutions of the Apostles that he was afterwards made a Bishop. He is probably another Person than Onesimus Bishop of Ephesus, of whom St. Ignatius makes mention. This Letter was wrote from Rome in 61.

The Epistle to the Hebrews does not bear St. Paul's Name in the beginning as the rest of the Epistles do. This is no Proof however that 'twas not wrote by that Apostle, since he might have Reasons for concealing his Name, particularly because his Name was odious to the Jews, to whom that Letter is directed. This however is probably the Reason, why some of the Ancients, doubted if St. Paul was the Author of it, and also whether it was Canonical. It was always owned by the Churches of the East, and quoted by the most Ancient Fathers of the Greek Church. Some however, have doubted whether it was St. Paul's: Origen in a Passage of his Homilies on this Epistle related by Eu∣sebius, Hist. l. 3. c. 25. says,

That the Stile of that Letter seems to be more polite than that of St. Paul, who owned himself to be rude and plain in Speech. That this Letter appears also more elegant for the Stile of the Greek as they who know any thing of that Nature, will easily perceive. That it contains however admirable Thoughts, which are not unworthy the Writings, of that Apostle, as all those who have read them will easily judge. That for his own part he is of Opinion that the Thoughts are that Apostles, but that the Stile and Composition was that of some other Person, who was willing to collect the Apostle's Sayings, and to compose a Work of what he heard his Master say. Therefore 'tis, adds he, that if any Church think it to be the Writing of St. Paul, we have reason to approve of their Opinion, because it is not without ground, that our Ancesters have taught us by Tradition, that it was St. Paul's; though none but God knows who wrote it. This is what History informs us of it. Some say, that Clement the Bishop of Rome, wrote this Letter, and others say it was St. Luke.

St. Clement of Alexandria assures us also, in his Hypotheses, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was St. Paul's, but he said,

that that Apostle wrote it in Hebrew, and that St. Luke translated it into Greek for the Greeks, and therefore 'tis that the Stile of that Letter resembles that of the Acts of the Apostles. He added, that St. Paul had rea∣son not to put his Name to the Inscription, because writing to the He∣brews, who had a long time born a prejudice against him, and judging that he should become suspected to them, he acted prudently in not putting his Name to the beginning of his Letter.

This Passage is likewise related by Eusebius, Hist. l. 6. c. 14. St. Jerome assures us in his Letter to Evagrius,

that all the Greeks received the Epistle to the Hebrews; and in his Letter to Dardanus, that not only all the Churches of the East, but also all the Ancient Greeks Writers acknowledged it to be St. Paul's, tho' most of them believed it to be wrote by St. Barnabas or St. Clement. Non solum ab Ecclesiis Orientis sed ab omnibus retro Graeci scrimonis Scriptoribus quasi Pauli Apostoli Sùscipitur, licet pleri{que} eam vel Barnaboe, vel Clementis Arbitrentur.

If St. Jerome under∣stand

by this pleri{que} the Greek Authors of whom he was just speaking; it looks to be a sort of a Contradiction to what he advanc'd just before; for he says at first, that all the Greeks believe it to be wrote by St. Barnabas or St. Clement. But it is easie to reconcile this seeming Contradiction, by saying, that there were Greek Authors who believed them to be St. Paul's as to the Matter or even to the Original Hebrew, and St. Luke's, St. Barnabas's or St. Clement's, as to the Terms or the Greek Version. All the Greek Fathers who have wrote since, have quoted the Epistle to the Hebrews as being St. Paul's and Canonical, and it was plac'd amongst the Canonical Writings of that Apostle in the Canon of the Council of Ladoicea, and in all the other Catalogues of the Canonical Books of the Greek Church. In process of time, the Arians perceiving that that Epistle was made use of against them, they rejected it; but the Catholicks defended it as may be seen in St. Epiphanius and in Theodoret, and the first Arians themselves quoted it against the Orthodox, as appears by St. Hilary and St. Athanasius. As to the Latin Church St. Jerome observes in his Epistles to Dardanus and in his Commentary upon the 6th of Isaiah, that it was not commonly received by many, Quam Latina Consuetudo, non recipit inter Scripturas Canonicas. He says nevertheless in another Place in his Epistle to Evagrius, that all the Greeks received it and some of the Latins. 'Tis certain that St. Clement, who is the most ancient Author of all that have wrote in the West, received and acknowledged it, since he quotes Passages taken from this Epistle, and Gobarus, as quoted by Photius, owns it. St. Irenaeus who wrote also amongst the Latins made mention of it, and quoted Passages in a Book which contain'd many Disputes, as Eusebius observes, l. 5. c. 26. Tertullian quotes it, but as the Work of St. Barnabas:

I will (says he, in his Book of Chastity) bring ex superabundanti, a Testimony of a Companion of the Apostles, proper to confirm the Discipline of his Masters. We have the E∣pistle of St. Barnabas to the Hebrews.

He relates afterward some Verses taken from the 6th Chapter of the Hebrews. Eusebius writes in his History, l. 6. c. 10.

that Caius a Presbyter of Rome in his Book against the Cataphry∣gians, reckoned only 13 of St. Paul's Epistles, not putting that directed to the Hebrews amongst the rest. He adds that there are some Romans who don't believe that 'tis St. Paul's. Eusebius observes also in another Place, that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, because they say that the Church of Rome did not receive it, nor really believe it to be St. Paul's.

Go∣barus related by Photius, Cod. 132. says, that St. Hyppolite and St. Irenaeus main∣tained, that that Letter was not Paul's. As to St. Irenaeus, Eusebius, more cre∣dible than Gobarus, assures us, that he had quoted and revised it; perhaps he believed with St. Clement of Alexandria, that though the Original was St. Paul's, the Greek Translation was another Man's. For Hyppolitus we know not what his Opinion of it was St. Cyprian did not quote it expresly for the two Passages, which are mark'd as taken from that Epistle in the Engl. Edit. are in other Places of the Scripture. Nay, there is a Passage in the Treatise of Martyrdom, where that Father seems to exclude it from the Number of St. Paul's Epistles:

For speaking of the Number of 7, he says, the Apostle St. Paul who mentioned that Number as Legitimate, and certain wrote only to 7 Churches. Apostolus Paulus qui hujus legitimi numeri & certi meminit, ad septem Ecclesias scribit.

Those 7 Churches are the Romans, the Corinthians, the Galatians, the Ephesians, the Philipians, the Colossians and the Thessalonicans: If they had reckoned the Epistle to the Hebrews amongst the Number of the Apostles Letters, he should have wrote to 8 Churches. In the mean time it would seem that this Passage it self proves, that St. Cyprian owned the Epistle to the Hebrews as St. Paul's. For there he assures us, that that Apostle made mention of the certain and le∣gitimate Number of 7. Now there's no other Place in his Epistles, where mention is made of it, but in the 11th Chapter of the Hebrews, verse 30. Victorinus in his Commentary on the Apocalips, reckons also no more than 7

Churches to whom St. Paul directed his Epistles. Philaster says, some main∣tain that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not St. Paul's, and that some ascribe it to St. Barnabas and some to St. Clement Bishop of Rome, and others to St. Luke, but he accounts this Opinion a Heresie. St. Hilarius, St. Ambrose, Lucifer de Cagliari and Ruffinus quote the Epistle to the Hebrews under the Name of St. Paul. St. Jerome forsakes the Opinion of the Latins, who throw the Epistle to the Hebrews out of the Canon, and differs not much from the Opinion of the Greeks, who assure us, that 'tis St. Paul's. He adds nevertheless, that 'tis no Matter whose it is, since it is by one of the Churches Authors, and that it is read in the Churches: Nihil interest cujus sit cum Ecclesiastici viri sit, & quotidie Ecclesiarum Lectione celebratur, Epist. ad Dard. St. Augustin observes; as well as St. Jerome, that some People doubted of this Epistle's being Cano∣nical, but that the Eastern Churches receive it, and that their Authority weighs with him; and, in fine, that the greatest Number of Authors believe it to be St. Paul's (i) 1.53. Therefore it is he places it in the Canon, as one of that Apostles in the 2d Book of Christian Doctrine, Cap. 9. 'Twas also put in the same Rank in the Canons of the Council of Carthage, of Innocent I. and of the Council of Rome under Gelasius, and received unanimously by all the Churches of the West. This is all that we can find in Ancient Authors con∣cerning the Authority and Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews; from whence it results. In the first Place, that St. Paul's Name was not at the Head of that Epistle, because being hateful to the Jews to whom he wrote, he thought it prudence to suppress his Name. 2. That this Letter is as Ancient as the time of the Apostles, since St. Clement and the most Ancient Author's quote it. 3. That all the Greek Churches and most of the Latin Churches, did always own it as Canonical. 4. That though some have doubted of it in the Roman Church, and perhaps also in the Church of Africa; There were in the same Churches Authors, who have own'd it as Canonical. That no doubt was made concer∣ning it till the third Age, and that those Doubts concerning it ceased in the 5th. 5. That the Greeks made no doubt of its being St. Paul's, at least as to the Matter, or as to the Original, but some have been perswaded, that it was com∣posed by St. Luke, by St. Clement the Roman, or by St. Barnabas, and others that it was translated from the Hebrew into Greek, by some one of those three. 6. That many Latins doubted, whether it was St. Paul's, and some have ascribed it to St. Barnabas, others to St. Clement, and others to St. Luke. 7. That taking all together, the greatest Number of Churches and Authors have ascribed it to St. Paul.

If without insisting on the Testimony of the Ancients, we consult the Let∣ter it self to discover it's Author, we shall find Circumstances that can scarce agree to any other than to St. Paul; for it appears it was wrote in Italy, since he salutes the Hebrews by the Name of Brethren in Italy, Heb. 13.24. by a Person who was in Bonds, but expected his Liberty, Heb. 10.34. & 13. v. 19. who had Timothy for his Fellow-Labourer, three Circumstances which agree to none but St. Paul. There are also places where the Character of St. Paul is observed in that Epistle. He defends himself therein by taking his Conscience to witness, Heb. 13.18. he desires their Prayers, promises to come and see them,

and salutes them. They make use likewise of St. Peter's Testimony to shew, that this Epistle to the Hebrews is St. Paul's; 'tis said 2 Pet. 3.15, 16. that St. Paul had wrote to those to whom St. Peter directs that Epistle. Now that of St. Peter is directed to the Jews, then St. Paul had also wrote them a Letter, for there's only this Epistle of St. Paul's that is directed to the Jews; so that either the Letter he had wrote to them must have been lost (which is no ways probable) or it is this of which St. Peter speaks. This Argument is not altogether without a Reply, but it may pass at least for a very probable Conjecture.

'Tis certain, that this Epistle agrees neither to St. Luke, to St. Barnabas nor to St. Clement; for as to the first he had not Authority enough to write so to the Jews. Besides the Stile of this Epistle differs much from that of St. Luke. The Hebraisms therein are much more frequent, and it appears that the Author was a Man of consummate Knowledge in the Ceremonies and Mysteries of the Jews, which cannot be said of St. Luke, who was originally a Gentile. There is no reason to ascribe this Letter to St. Barnabas. Tertullian is the only Man of the Ancients that quotes it under his Name. It differs in Stile from the true Letter of St. Barnabas, which is much rougher and far less elevated than this. We don't read that St. Barnabas staid in Italy nor that he was Prisoner there. St. Clement is the Man of the three to whom it could seem to agree best, be∣cause of the Resemblance there is betwixt the Stile and Character of this Epi∣stle, and that which is wrote to the Corinthians. 'Tis true that there he hath copied and imitated the Phrases of the Epistle to the Hebrews, but yet 'tis not the same Stile. The Matters treated of in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the manner of treating them is very different. St. Clement would not have spoken with so much Authority to the Jews. He could not have pry'd so far into their Ceremonies and Mysteries. He would not have testified, so much Zeal to return and see them to whom he wrote, Heb. 13.19. 'Tis objected against this, 1. That the Stile of this Epistle differs much from St. Paul's. All his other Letters are of the same Character. This is more lofty, wrote in Terms better chosen, in a more equal Stile. There are not so many Hebraisms in it. Here we meet with Terms, that are not to be found in St. Paul's other Epistles. 'Tis answered, that an Author's Stile is not always the same, that St. Paul took more pains upon this Letter, than upon the others, that the Subject of this Epistle being more lofty, and those to whom he wrote more subtile and better instructed. He was obliged to be so much the more lofty. Besides here we may constantly discover St. Paul, here we find his ordinary Method, his Phrases and his Words, that are peculiar to him. 'Tis objected in the 2d Place, that the Author of this Epistle quotes the Old Testament according to the Version of the LXX. 'Tis answered, that if St. Paul wrote it in Greek: 'Tis not to be wonder'd at, if he made use of the common Version of the Bible, and that if he wrote in Hebrew. 'Tis the interpreter who made use of the Version of the LXX. The third Objection is founded on this, that the Author of this Letter seems to put himself amongst those who had only heard the Apostles, whereas St. Paul was instructed by Jesus Christ himself. The Passage they alledge is Heb. 2.3. — If we neglect so great Salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was con∣firmed unto us by them that heard him. But these Words to us relate to those to whom he writes, besides he does not say absolutely, that it was not taught by Jesus Christ to those of whom he speaks; but only that after having been pro∣mulgated by the Lord, it was confirmed by his Ministers. There's no reason then to exclude the Epistle to the Hebrews from being of the Number of St Paul's.

The only Conjecture to be drawn from the Objection just now alledged, is that St. Paul had wrote that Epistle in Hebrew, and that it was translated by some other into Greek, perhaps by St. Luke or rather by St. Clement the Ro∣man. This is what St. Clement of Alexandria said, and after him Eusebius, St. Jerome, and most of the Ancients. St. Clement's Reason is that St. Paul being

a Hebrew, and writing to Hebrews; it is very likely that he wrote to them in their common Language the Syriac. Had not St. Clement known otherwise that this Letter was originally wrote in Hebrew, this Argument would be none of the most convincing, since St. James and St. John, tho' Hebrews and writing to Jews wrote in Greek, and that Greek was understood in Palestine. Those who alledge that it was at first wrote in Greek, say that the Scripture is quo∣ted therein according to the Septuagint, that here we find Greek Idiotisms as the Terms of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to signifie a Testament and to testifie and the Interpretation of the Word Melchisedec in Greek, Cap. 7.2. but it may be an∣swered that all those things are chargeable upon the Interpreter, and that it is not necessary upon that Account to vary from the Opinion of the Ancients.

This Epistle is without dobut directed to the Hebrews. This Name agrees particularly to the Jews of Palestine. The other Jews scattered up and down in the Provinces of Greece to whom St. Peter directed his Letters, were called Hellenists. It may also be proved that the Epistle of St. Paul is wrote to the Jews of one and the same Province, because the Author promises to come and see them with Timothy. This could not properly be said of Jews dispersed into diverse Countries and agrees much better to the Jews of Jerusalem or Palestine.

The time of this Letter is likewise particularly enough taken Notice of, that it was wrote from Rome at the time when Timothy had been set at Liberty, and whilst St. Paul was in Bonds, or a very little after he had been set at Liberty. For he commends those to whom he writes, because they had Compassion on him in his Bonds, Heb. 10.34. according to the Greek Text, which bears expres∣ly, You had Compassion on me in my Bonds, which signifies, that he was just then set at Liberty as well as Timothy. 'Tis then at the end of the Time when he was first at Rome, and a little before he went from thence in the beginning of 63.

The Design of St. Paul in this Letter is to perswade the Hebrews, of the Ex∣cellency of the new Law above the old one. To this end he represents to them how much the Son is above the Angels and Moses, and how much his Priest∣hood and Sacrifice surpass the Priesthood and Sacrifices of the Law given by Moses. He shews that the Ceremonies, the Sacrifices and the Observations of the Law were the Figures of Jesus Christ, and that they were accomplished in his Person and by his Ministery. He proves, that 'tis only by Faith we are justi∣fied. He intermixes Holy Advices throughout his whole Letter and recom∣mended to the Hebrews to have Patience in Persecutions to have Faith, Holiness and Charity. 'Tis full of excellent Allegories, and of elevated thoughts expres∣sed in a sublime Manner. In a Word, it is the longest of St. Paul's Epistles, the most Methodical, the most equal in all its Parts, and where he Treats of the same Matter in a most profound Manner, and with the largest extent. Never∣theless all the Epistles of St. Paul are learned, instructive, perswasive, noble and affecting. If his Terms be not always the most elegant, the Turn of the Expres∣sion is Great, Lofty, Grave, Sententious, Methodical, full of Art and Figures: He knows how to temper his Rebukes and Reproofs with Mildness and Charity: He speaks with Authority and yet with Humility. The Vehemence and Force of his Discourse have a Mixture of Pleasure and Prudence. In short he pre∣serves thro' the whole, the Character which he gives to himself of becoming all things to all Men, that he might gain some: 'Tis said in 2 Pet. 3.16. That there are in St. Paul's Epistles some place's hard to be understood. Which may rise either from the Obscurity of the things whereof he Treats, which hath given Occasion as St. Peter says further, to those that are unstable to wrest his Words, as they do also other Scriptures to their own Destruction. Or else it rises from St. Paul's stile, which is not equally clear through out because of the long and fre∣quent Hyperbatons, he makes use of, the Terms which are peculiar to him, his Expressions that have either more in them than is express'd, or that are Super∣fluous, his Transitions from one Matter to another, and some other Irregulari∣ties in his Discourse.

SECT. IX. Of the Catholick Epistles in general, and of that of St. James in particu∣lar. Whose it is. How many St. James's there are. The Life of St. James the Brother of our Lord, the Author of this Epistle. The Argu∣ment of this Epistle.

THE Epistles which follow those of St. Paul were called Catholick; that is to say Universal; because, except the two last of St. John, they were not wrote to the Believers of one City, as those of St. Paul, but to Christians di∣spersed into several Countries. Some of the Latins have called them Canoni∣cal, either confounding that Word with that of Catholick, or to signifie that they also made up part of the Canon of the Books of the New Testa∣ment.

These Letters are 7 in Number; that is to say, the Epistle of St. James, the two Epistles to St. Peter, the three of St. John, and that of St. Jude. This is the ancient Order of those Letters follow'd in the Canon of the Council of Lao∣dicea by Eusebius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Athanasius in his Festival Epistle, and by the Author of the Abridgment of the Scripture, which is ascribed to him by St. Gregory Nazianzen, by St. Jerome in his Letter to Paulinus, by St. John of Damascus, by Nicephorus, and in all the Greek Manuscripts. The Author of a Prologue upon the seven Canonical Epistles, vulgarly ascrib'd to St. Jerome, mistakes then when he says, that amongst the Greeks the Order of the seven Canonical Epistles is different from that which is found in the Latin Copies. This Prologue is indeed very ancient, and is found in the most anci∣ent Latin Manuscripts; but it is not St. Jerome's, as Father Martianay hath shew'd. 1. Because that Author gives to those seven Epistles the Name of Canonical; which St. Jerome does not, but always calls them Catholick. 2. Be∣cause what he says of the difference of the Order of the Greek Copies, and of the Latin ones upon this Subject is false. 3. Because the Style of this Preface is barbarous, and much different from that of St. Jerome. In this I subscribe to the Opinion of Father Martianay, but I don't believe with him that St. Jerome follow'd another Order in the Canonical Epistles; for tho' Cassiodorus when he relates the Division of the Books of the Scripture, according to St. Jerome, puts the two Epistles of St. Peter first, the 14 Epistles of St. Paul in the 2d Place, and afterwards St. John's three, that of St. James, that of St. Jude, and in fine, the Acts of the Apostles and the Apocalyps in the last: It is visible that it is an overturning of the ancient Order of the Books of the New Testa∣ment, which Cassiodorus was the Author of, to follow the Rank of the Apostles. It is more sure to keep to the Order which St. Jerome observes himself in his Epistle to Paulinus. St. Augustin in his Book of the Christian Doctrine, enu∣merates also the Books of the New Testament in a particular manner, for after the four Evangelists he places St. Paul's 14 Epistles, St. Peter's two, St. John's three, St. Jude's, St. James's, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Apocalyps. This is still an arbitrary Order, and different from that which was received in the Church. There are however Latin Manuscripts wherein St. Peter's two are placed the first of the seven Catholick, tho' the rest be there in the same Rank. It is also the Order in which those Epistles were nam'd in the Apostolical Ca∣non, and in the Canons of the Councils of Florence and Trent. The vulgar Order is observ'd in the Oriental Versions.

The Subject of the seven Catholick Epistles relates more to Morals than Doctrine. St. Augustin rationally observes, that the principal Design of those Letters is to establish this Truth, That Faith cannot save us, if it be not ac∣companied with good Works. St. Jerome in his 103d Letter to Paulinus says of those Epistles, That they are as mystical as succinct, and may be accounted long and short both together; short in regard of the Terms, but long with rela∣tion to the Sentences; so that there are few Persons that understand them per∣fectly. It must however be confessed, that they are much clearer than those of St. Paul. Tho' some of the Ancients have doubted of the Canonicalness of some of those Epistles; that is to say, of that of St. James, the 2d of St. Peter, the 2d and 3d of St. John, and of that of St. Jude, as Eusebius and St. Jerome have observed, they were nevertheless put in the Rank of the Canonical Books, in all the ancient Canons or Catalogues of the Books of the New Testament of the Greek and Latin Church; such as are those of the Council of Laodicea, of Origen, of St. Clement of Alexandria, of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochus, St. Athanasius, St. Jerome, Rufinus, St. Augustin, the Council of Carthage, Innocent I, &c. They were commonly quoted by the Fa∣thers as Books of the Sacred Scripture.

The first of the Catholick Epistles carries the Name of St. James. But for the better discovery of the Author, it is good to clear some Difficulties which may be raised as to the Apostles who were called James, and as to their Histo∣ry. The Gospel informs us, that St. John the Son of Zebedee and of Salome, had a Brother called James, who was called by Jesus Christ to the Apostleship with his Brother. It is also certain by the History of the Acts of the Apostles, that the latter was beheaded by the Order of Herod Agrippa. This was some time before the Feast of unleavened Bread, in which St. Peter was seised in the 44th Year of our Saviour. St. Clement of Alexandria, quoted by Eusebius, re∣lates that his Accuser being touch'd in Conscience, was converted and suffered Martyrdom with him. St. James the Brother of our Lord is certainly different from him we have been now speaking of, for his Mother was called Mary, and his Brethren Joses, Judas and Simon: He is called by St. Mark 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. minor or less, to distinguish him from St. James the Brother of St. John: And St. Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians distinguishes him by the Quality of Bro∣ther of our Lord. He was surnamed Justus, and was the first Bishop of Jeru∣salem after the Death of our Saviour. There he suffered Martyrdom in the 60th Year of our Era, as we have observed in another place. It is certain then that he is another than James the Son of Zebedee. But it is not so easie to de∣termine whether he be different from James the Son of Alpheus, one of the Twelve Apostles, or if he be the same who is the Son of Alpheus and Bro∣ther to our Lord. To determine this Question we must enquire who were Father and Mother to James our Lord's Brother, and in what Sense he is so called.

Most of the Ancients believed that he was Joseph's Son, but by another Wife, whom St. Epiphanius calls Esca. This is the Opinion of Origen, Eusebius, St. Gregory Nyssen, St. Epiphanius, Amphilochius, of St. Chrysostom in some places, of the counterfeit Hippolitus, quoted by Nicephorus, and amongst the Latins of St. Hilary, of the Author of the Commentary upon the Epistles of St. Paul, which carry the Name of St. Ambrose, of Pelagius, and some others. St. Ambrose and St. Augustin leave the Matter undetermined: But St. Jerome strongly op∣poses this Opinion, and maintains that St. James is called the Brother of our Lord, because he was Son to a Woman whom St. John calls Mary the Wife of Cleo∣phas, and Sister to the blessed Virgin. Others say after Hegisippus, that Cleo∣phas was Brother to St. Joseph and Father to St. James; or, according to others, Father to Mary the Mother of St. James. Be that in what manner it will, St. James will be found near of Kin to our Lord; which is sufficient, according to some, to give him the Name of Brother. We must confess, however, that the manner

in which the Jews speak in the Gospel of St. Mark, seems to denote something more, for they say, Is not this the Carpenter the Son of Mary, the Brother of James, of Joses, of Juda and Simon, and are not his Sisters here with us? Mark 6.3. We see that his Brethren ordinarily accompanied Mary the Mother of our Lord, Matth. 11. and also our Lord, John 2. Which gives ground to think that they were of the same Family, and that Joseph and Mary were ac∣counted their Father and Mother. Whence it may be inferred, that James and his Brethren were Sons of Joseph, who was believed to be our Lord's Father, but by another Wife, and that Mary the Mother of our Lord was their Mother-in-law: But there arises against this Opinion an Objection, that appears unan∣swerable; that is, that James and his Brethren had their Mother still alive at our Saviour's Passion, since 'tis said in the Gospel of St. Matthew, chap. 27. v. 55, and 56. that there were many Women ministring unto him; amongst which was Mary Magdalen, Mary the Mother of James and Joses, and the Mother of Zebedees Children. The 2d was, perhaps, she who is called by St. John, Mary the Wife of Cleophas, Sister to the Mother of Jesus. These are St. John's Words, chap. 19.25. There stood by the Cross of Jesus, his Mother, and his Mo∣thers Sister, Mary the Wife of Cleophas and Mary Magdalen. It is also said in St. Matthew, chap. 28.1. and in St. Mark, chap. 16.1. that Mary the Mother of James came with Mary Magdalen to our Lord's Sepulchre. There's no like∣lihood that Joseph would have married the Virgin Mary, having another Wife alive; and, by Consequence, since the Mother of James was alive at the death of our Lord, it cannot be said, that he was the Son of Joseph by another Wo∣man. St. Gregory Nyssen and the other Authors who maintain this Opinion, are obliged to say, That Mary the Mother of James is the Virgin, the Mother of our Lord, commonly called the Mother of James, because she was Wife to Jo∣seph his Father, and by Consequence his Mother-in-law.

Since mention is made, says St. Gregory Nyssen in his 2d Sermon on the Resurrection, of several Mary's in the Gospel, we must distinguish three in the whole, of whom St. John spoke when he said, There stood by the Cross of Jesus, his Mother, the Sister of his Mother Mary the Wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen; for we are persuaded that Mary, called in the other Evangelists, the Mother of James and Joseph, is the Mother of God. Anastasius of Nice, copied this Passage of St. Gregory Nyssen.

St. Chrysostom is of the same Opinion in his 89th Homily on St. Matthew:

Who were, says he, those Women? It was his Mother, whom he calls the Mother of St. James.

Theophilus says also the same thing in his Commentary: And amongst the Latins, Sedulius must also be of the same Sentiment, since he says, that Mary the Mother of our Lord was one of those that came to his Sepulcher to Embalm his Body. St. Jerome on the contrary combats this Opinion by many Arguments; in my Opinion the best of them is as follows.

If, says he, this Mary had been the Mother of our Lord, the Evangelists would rather have given her this Name, as they do in other Places, than that of the Mother of James and Joseph.

And cer∣tainly there's no likelihood that the Evangelists would have called her in this Place only Mary the Mother of James, rather than the Mother of Jesus. It is then with Reason that St. Jerome rejects this Opinion, but he supposes that Mary the Mother of James is the same with Mary the Wife of Cleophas, whom St. John calls the Sister of our Lord's Mother. Theodoret is of the same Opi∣nion; and in that follows St. Chrysostom, who says in one place, that James the Brother of our Lord was the Son of Cleophas. That is not found, however, in any place of the Gospels. On the contrary, if the Brother of our Lord be one of the twelve Apostles, as he is thought to be, he is called the Son of Al∣pheus, and not of Cleophas. St. Jerome thinks the same Man was called Al∣pheus and Cleophas. This is a supposition founded on no Proof. Others think that Mary the Mother of James was called Mary of Cleophas from the Name of her own Father, and that so Cleophas was James's Grand-Father, and Alpheus

his Father. St. Jerome also gives this solution, which is the only one that Theophilact approves. But Hegesippus, an ancienter Author than any of those now spoken of, assures us that Simeon, one of the Brethren of St. James, was the Son of Cleophas and Mary his Wife, and that Cleophas was Uncle by the Fa∣ther's side to our Lord; that is to say, the Brother of Joseph, and that so James, Jude, Simeon and Joses were Cousin Germans to our Lord and his Brethren on Joseph's side, who was reputed his Father, and his Brethren in this sense. So, according to Hegisippus, Mary the Wife of Cleophas was not natural Sister to Mary the Mother of our Lord, but only the Wife of Cleophas, and by conse∣quence her Sister-in-law. And, indeed, there's little probability that two Sisters of the same Parents should be called Mary.

Supposing all this that we have said of the Family of James, the Brother of our Lord: It is hard enough to determine if James the Brother of our Lord, be the same with James the Son of Alpheus, who is one of the twelve Apostles. The only reason to make it believed is, that the Brother of our Lord was one of the Apostles, as St. Paul testifies in his Epistles to the Galatians, chap. 1. & 17. Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that were Apostles before me. And v. 19. But others of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's Brother. And chap. 2.1, & 9. Then fourteen Years after I went up again to Jerusalem, &c. and when James, Cephas and John, which seem'd to be Pillars. Some Authors understand this last Passage of St. James the Son of Zebedee; but that cannot be, since this Journey of St. Paul's to Jerusalem happened after his death, a lit∣tle before the Council of Jerusalem, where St. James the Brother of our Lord assisted as one of the Apostles. If he be an Apostle, he is of the Number of the Twelve. Now, there's none but two of the Name of James, the Son of Zebedee and the Son of Alpheus. The Brother of our Lord is not certainly the Son of Zebedee, he is then the Son of Alpheus: We might say, that the Name of Apostle was more general, and was given to all those who preach the Gospel with Authority: But the manner of St. Paul's speaking of the Apostle∣ship of James the Brother of our Lord, makes us believe that he took it in another sense, for he declares that he was one of the ancient Apostles; in the same manner as St. Peter was, and that he was one of the Pillars of the Church with Cephas and John; all which cannot properly agree to any but to one of the twelve Apostles.

Nevertheless, those who maintain the contrary Opinion might say, that St. James was an Apostle in an excellent and particular manner, tho' he was not of the Number of the Twelve, because he received as St. Paul did, his Mis∣sion from Jesus Christ himself: This St. Clement of Alexandria seems to insi∣nuate, when he says in a Passage related by Eusebius, Hist. lib. 2. cap. 1.

That the Lord after his Resurrection, had communicated to him the Gift of Know∣ledge, as to St. Peter and St. John.

And St. Paul himself, speaking 1 Cor. 15. of those to whom Jesus Christ had appeared after his Resurrection, says, That he was seen of Cephas and then of the Twelve, after that he was seen of above 500 Brethren at once, after that he was seen of James, then of all the Apostles. St. Paul seems in this Place to distinguish James from the twelve Apostles: And thus it is that St. Cyril took this Passage in the 4 and 14th Catechesis. Ma∣ny Authors seem also to have thought that St. James the Brother of our Lord and Bishop of Jerusalem, was not of the Number of the twelve Apostles. He∣gesippus, related by Eusebius, lib. 2. cap. 23. says, That James the Brother of the Lord, took care of the Church with the Apostles. Or, as others translate it, after the Apostles: He did not then think him to be one of the Apostles. Likewise he does not only say, that there were two Persons called James. He says there were several. St. Clement of Alexandria, related by the same Eusebius, lib. 2. cap. 1. says, that St. Peter, St. James (the Son of Zebedee) and St. John, that our Lord had preferr'd before others, did not strive for the Preheminence, but chose James, surnamed the Just, for Bishop of Jerusalem. Eusebius says

himself, lib. 1. cap. 12. that James was one of the 72 Disciples, and one of the Brethren of our Lord. St. Gregory Nyssen distinguishes him more expresly than any other from James the Son of Alpheus; and he pretends also that the Reason for which our Lord's Brother is called the less, is because he was not of the Number of the Apostles. St. Chrysostom in divers Places ranks him amongst those that were not converted till after the Resurrection of our Lord. The Author of the Apostolical Constitutions, the counterfeit Dorotheus, Glycas, and the Modern Greeks, distinguish the Brother of our Lord from James the Son of Alpheus. Not one of the Fathers explain'd themselves clearly on that Head, except St. Jerome, who differs with himself about it, for in his Treatise against Helvidius he maintains strongly, That St. James the Brother of the Lord is the Son of Alpheus; but he seems to doubt of it in his Commentary upon the first of the Galatians, and follows the contrary Sentiment in his Ex∣position upon the 17th Chapter of Isaiah. The ancient Martyrology, which carries St. Jerome's Name, distinguishes also the Son of Alpheus from the Bro∣ther of our Lord. In short, all the Ancients may be quoted against the Opi∣nion of those who believe that James the Brother of our Lord, is the Apostle; for the Brother of our Lord is, according to most of 'em, the Son of Joseph; and, according to these, he cannot be the Son of Alpheus: According to others, he is the Son of Cleophas, and not of Alpheus. It may perhaps be imagined that he was surnamed Alpheus, from the Name of his Brother, and not from the Name of his Father; as Jude is surnam'd from James, his Brother: But Alpheus is not found amongst the Brethren of St. James, of whom mention is made in the Gospel: According to Hegosippus, Simon the Brother of James was Cleophas's own Son, and Cleophas was the Brother of Joseph. He is not then the Son of Alpheus. If Alpheus, the Father of St. James the Apostle, was also the Father of Levi the Publican, or of St. Matthew, who had a Father of that name, as is observed in the Gospel of St. Mark, the Apostle the Son of Alpheus, the Brother of St. Matthew, cannot be St. James the Brother of our Lord, as St. James hath observed: But it is not necessary that Alpheus, the Fa∣ther of St. Matthew, should be the same Alpheus who is the Father of St. James. It may also be said, that the Names of Cleophas and Alpheus are not different, because the Syriack Word, composed of the same Letters, may be pronounced Alphai or Cleophi. If this Conjecture find place, it will solve all the Difficulties that we have hitherto proposed: For St. James will be the Son of Mary the Wife of Cleophas, or of Alpheus the Brother of Joseph, and by Consequence Cousin German to our Lord. Simon, Judas and Joses will also be his Bre∣thren; St. James the Brother of our Lord will be the Apostle called the Son of Alpheus; Simon the Canaanite, or Zelotes, who is also one of the Apostles, will be his Brother as well as St. Jude, called by St. Luke, Jude the Brother of James; and by the two other Evangelists Thaddeus: And so of our four Bre∣thren, or Cousins of our Lord, there shall be three Apostles. This is all that we can think of as most probable on this Subject.

Which Hypothesis soever we follow, it is certain that the Author of the Cano∣nical Epistle is James the Just, our Lord's Brother, Bishop of Jerusalem; and that it cannot be ascribed to James the Son of Zebedee, since it is directed to the converted Jews dispersed out of Judea, and that the Son of Zebedee was dead before the Gospel was preached out of Palestine. Eusebius, Hist. l. 2. c. 23. says, that the Epistle of St. James is ascribed to him, which is the first of the seven Epistles called Catholick, tho' some think it to be false and counterfeit, and that there is but a very small Number of ancient Authors who have men∣tioned it. St. Jerome says also in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, That St. James, the Brother of our Lord, is the Author of this Epistle, tho' it be said that another Man publish'd it in his Name; and he adds, that in time it ac∣quired Authority. But tho' Eusebius and St. Jerome have observed that some Persons questioned the Authority of this Epistle; it is nevertheless true, that in

their time it was in the Canon of the New Testament, and the first of the seven Canonical Epistles, as they themselves own. It is also found in all the anci∣ent Canons of the Greek and Latin Churches, and is quoted by the Anci∣ents (a) 1.54.

It is directed to the twelve Tribes scattered abroad out of Judea; that is to say, to the converted Jews, dispersed amongst the Gentiles in the several Parts of the World. St. James, as Apostle of the Jews and Bishop of Jerusalem, had a particular Inspection over the converted Jews: Therefore it is that in that Quality he wrote this Letter to them, which is all concerning Morals, in which he gives them excellent Instructions, concerning Patience, Charity, good Works, the bridling of the Tongue, the Peace that ought to be kept amongst Brethren, Humility, and other Christian Vertues. Here he speaks also of Anoin∣ting the Sick, and of the Confession which Christians ought to make to one another of their Faults. It is wrote with abundance of Simplicity and Sub∣stance, full of solid and natural Thoughts. Tho' we don't positively know the Time, it's probable that it was wrote a little before his Death.

SECT. X. Of the two Epistles of St. Peter: That the Second is really his.

SImon the Son of Jonas, the Brother of Andrew, was a Native of Bethsaida a Village of Galilee. His ordinary Residence was at Capernaum. He was brought to Jesus Christ by his Brother, and our Lord changed his Name into Ce∣phas; i. e. Peter. Sometime after Jesus Christ ordered him to follow him, and chose him for the first of his Apostles. It is not necessary to repeat here what the Evangelists have said of St. Peter's Actions during our Saviour's Life, nor what is wrote in the Acts concerning his Preaching and Travels: These are Things well enough known. We have also treated elsewhere of his Journey to Rome, and of the Martyrdom that he suffered in the 65th Year of the Vul∣gar Era, so that there remains nothing for us now to speak of but his two Epistles.

The first hath been always received in all Churches as Canonical, and being really St. Peter's, whose Name it bears. We have shew'd elsewhere that it was rather wrote from Babylon than from Rome, that it's probable he composed it some time after he was set at Liberty, towards the 45th Year of our Lord, and that it was certainly wrote since the time that the Disciples were called Chri∣stians; that is to say, at least nine Years after the Death of Jesus Christ. It is directed to the elect Strangers, scattered through Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia; that is to say, to the converted Jews dispersed in those Pro∣vinces. It was sent to them by Silvanus or Silas. Some have thought that it was wrote in Hebrew, but without Ground. It is all Moral, and contains abun∣dance of Exhortations and Instructions for People of all Conditions. The gene∣ral Design, as he says himself at the close of it, is to shew that the true Grace

of God is the Faith and Life of Christians. It is wrote with a Fervour and Zeal worthy of the chief of the Apostles.

The Authority of the second Epistle of St. Peter was for some time doubted of, as Origen, Eusebius, St. Jerome, and Amphilochius have observed. That which made the Ancients call it in question, is the difference of its Style from the first. St. Jerome thinks the Style and Character of those two Epistles, as well as the Construction of the Words, differ very much; but he charges that upon the different Amanuenses or Interpreters made use of. Et duae Epistolae quae feruntur Petri, stylo inter se & Charactere discrepant, structu∣raque verborum. Ex quo intelligimus pro necessitate rerum diversis eum usum interpretibus. Didymus was of Opinion, that this Epistle was counterfeited; but it is because he did not understand the Sense of the third Chapter: That same Chapter made Grotius think that it was wrote after the taking of Jeru∣salem, because he speaks there of the Ruine of the World, which was not to happen till after the Destruction of that City: Upon which he founds this Conjecture, That Simeon the Bishop of Jerusalem is the Author of this Let∣ter, and that the Inscription which carries St. Peter's Name is corrupted: But this is without any Ground. It is not necessary that Jerusalem should be de∣stroy'd to persuade Believers that the End of the World and the Day of Judg∣ment were at hand. On the contrary, there is Reason to think that they were of Opinion that both were to happen at the same time, because Jesus Christ had foretold them together. The Author of this Epistle discovers himself in it clearly, not only by the Inscription, but by chap. 1.16, 17, 18. where he says, that he was present at our Lord's Transfiguration: And chap. 3.1. that this is the second Letter he had wrote to those now directed to. Those Cha∣racters shew plainly enough that St. Peter was the Author of it. If it were not so, it must be said that the Author was an Impostor; which neither agrees with the Matter nor Manner of his Writing. It is also ascrib'd to St. Peter in the Canon of the Council of Laodicea, and in all the other Catalogues of the sacred Books of the New Testament which are in the Councils and Fathers. It is also quoted very frequently in the Greek and Latin Fathers of the 4th and 5th Age, as being really St. Peter's and Canonical. St. Peter wrote it a little before his death, of which he speaks as being at hand, chap. 1.14. It is not directed to any Church in particular, but generally, to all that had obtain'd precious Faith through the Righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, since he tells those to whom he directs his Letter, That it is the second which he wrote to them; it must, as well as the first, be directed to the converted Jews, dispersed through the Provinces of Asia: Which may be further confirm'd by this Passage, where he speaks to them as to those with whom the Prophesies had been deposited. We have, says he, c. 1.19. a more sure Word of Prophesie. He exhorts those to whom he writes, to continue stedfast in the Faith, and not to suffer themselves to be seduced by false Prophets. He enter∣tains them also with the Day of Judgment, which was believed to be near, and recommends to them to prepare themselves for it. St. Jerome finds a considera∣ble Difference betwixt the Style of this Epistle and the first, and charges it upon him who put it into Order. But this Difference is not so very sensible as he seems to imagine. On the contrary, here we find the same Energy and Brevity, and the same turn of Phrase and Periods.

SECT. XI. Of the three Epistles of St. John. Of the Passage concerning the Trinity, which is in his first Epistle.

THe first Epistle of St. John hath always been received by the Church as Canonical, and being truly the Apostles of that Name. Tho' there be neither Inscription nor Direction, it appears by the beginning of Chap. 2. that it is directed to many Christians; and there's no Proof that it is rather to Jews than Gentiles. The Author of the Questions upon the New Testament, which carries the Name of St. Austin, says, That it was directed to the Parthians; which is also found in the false Decretal ascribed to Pope Hyginus: But those Testimonies are of no weight. It is not known when he wrote it, but it is probable enough that it was towards the End of his Life, because he men∣tions the Opinion that was then spread, as if Anti-Christ were ready to come, and that the Day of Judgment were at hand, and that there he Combats the Heresies which were risen among Christians. He insists upon the Advantages of Faith in Jesus Christ; he exhorts those to whom he writes, not to suffer themselves to be seduced by false Teachers, and shews that they must to Faith add good Works, and the Love of God and our Neighbour, and re∣nounce Sin and the World, to keep themselves Pure, as became the Children of God. This Letter for Matter and Style, is altogether like the Gospel wrote by that Apostle.

The two other Epistles which carry his Name, have not been always so con∣stantly received as that Apostles. On the contrary, some of the Ancients have been of Opinion, that they either were or might be wrote by another John called Senior, a Disciple of the Apostles, mentioned by Papias. St. Denis of Alexandria assures us only of the firsts being the Apostle St. John's, but owns that the two other are ascribed to him, and says nothing against that Opini∣on. His Passage is related in Eusebius Hist. lib. 7. cap. 25. Eusebius leaves the Matter also in doubt; and St. Jerome seems more favourable to the Opi∣nion of those who believ'd that those two Epistles were not that Apostles, but another John's, tho' he quotes them in other Places under the Name of the Apostle. Amphilochius says also, that some received them, and others rejected them. But St. Irenaeus in his first Book against Heresies, quotes the second un∣der the Name of John the Disciple of our Lord. Which does not agree to St. John mentioned by Papias, who was only a Disciple to the Apostles. St. Cle∣ment of Alexandria relating in the second Book of the Stromata, a Passage ta∣ken out of the first Epistle of St. John, quotes it under the Name of his largest Epistle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which supposes that he believed the two lesser ones to be that same Authors. Tertul. lib. 2. de Prescript. quotes the second Epi∣stle as being really the Apostle St. John's. A Bishop of the Council of Car∣thage under St. Cyprian, for the Re-baptizing of Hereticks, quotes also the se∣cond Epistle under the Name of that Apostle. Those two last Epistles are also join'd to the former, as being by the same Author, in all the ancient Ca∣nons of the Books of the New Testament, and quoted as the Apostles by all the Fathers of the 4th and 5th Age. In short, the Spirit, the Sentiments, the Style, and the Terms of those two Letters, are not only alike, but often times the same as in the first Epistle. There he recommends in divers manners,

Charity and the Love of our Neighbour, the peculiar Character of the Apostle St. John, as the Ancients have observed.

They both of them bear for their Inscription the Quality of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which may denote the Age or the Dignity, and signifie the Elder or the Pres∣byter, in the same Sense that St. Peter is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. They are both directed to particular Persons: The first to a Lady, who is called the elect La∣dy, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which some have without Ground understood of a chosen Church. She was a Christian Lady, whose Name was Electe, or whom St. John calls so because she was a Christian. He writes to her to congratulate her, because her Children led a Christian Life. He exhorts her at the same time to maintain Love, by observing the Commands of God, and cautions her to beware of Im∣postors, who denied that Jesus Christ was come in real Flesh.

The third Epistle is directed to Gaius or Caius. There's no likelyhood that 'tis he who is mentioned in the Epistles of St. Paul, Rom. 16.23. and 1 Cor. 1.14. nor he that is mentioned in the Acts, chap. 19.29. & chap. 20.4. for the first was of Corinth, and was converted by St. Paul; the second was of Derbe, and was also St. Paul's Disciple; whereas he to whom St. John writes was his Son in Jesus Christ, and his Disciple: Besides that, there's no likelyhood that either of these two were alive when this Epistle was wrote. St. John testifies to him the Joy which he conceived, when he heard of his Piety and Charity. He says in that Letter, according to the Greek Text, that he wrote to the Church of Caius; or, according to the Vulgar, whose Sense seems to be better in this Place, That he would have wrote to that Church, but that Diotrephes, who was ambitious of the chief place, would not receive it, and spread bad Reports of him. St. John threatens him, that if he come into that City, as he hoped to do speedily, be would make known to all Men his bad Conduct. This makes it believed that Caius was an Inhabitant of some City of Asia not far from Ephesus; from whence it is probable that St. John wrote those two Letters, after his return from the Isle of Pathmos.

There is a considerable Difficulty as to the Truth of the 7th Verse of the 5th Chapter of the 1st Epistle of St. John. It is the famous Passage about the three Persons of the Trinity. For there are three that bear Record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and those Three are one Thing. [The English Translation is, these Three are One;] which is followed by another Verse that begins with the same Words; and there are Three that bear witness in Earth, the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood; and those Three are only one thing, or for one thing. [The English Translation is, And these Three agree in One.] The first of those two Verses is not found almost in any of the Greek Copies, nor in some Latin ones. Yet it cannot be asserted that it never was in any Greek Copy, since Erasmus, who believes it to be added, owns that it was found in a Greek Copy in England, and that Robert Stevens found it in some of his Greek Manuscripts. It is not in the Oriental Versions, nor was it by con∣sequence in the Manuscripts from which they were translated, but it is in a great Number of Latin Manuscripts, and those ancient ones too: Tho' in some Co∣pies the 8th Verse, or that which is said of the Witnesses upon the Earth, goes before the 7th Verse, or that which is, said of three Witnesses that are in Hea∣ven. There are Greek Copies, where on the Margin of the 8th Verse there is a Scholium, which interprets what is said of the three Witnesses which are upon the Earth, the Spirit, the Water and the Blood of the three Persons of the Trinity; and there are some Greek and Latin Manuscripts where that Verse is added on the Margin as being omitted. Tho' the Antiquity and Number of the Greek Manuscripts be of some Weight, yet as there are none ancienter than 8 or 900 Years, we must not upon their sole Authority reject a Passage which is found in Latin Manuscripts as ancient. We must then have recourse to

the Testimony of the Ancients; but it is nothing more favourable to this Passage, for we don't find it quoted by any of the Greek Fathers of the three first Centuries, nor by those of the 4th and 5th, who would not have failed to have made use of it against the Arians, had it been in their Copies. In fine, Didymus of Alexandria, and Oecumenius, who wrote Commentaries on the first Epistle of St. John, did not in the least mention this Verse; which is a Proof that either they did not know it, or did not believe it to be Genuine.

Of all the Latin Fathers of the first Centuries, there's none but St. Cyprian that can be alledg'd as an Evidence for this Passage. We shall examine afterwards whether he effectually repeated it: But St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustin, St. Leo, and several other Fathers, who had occasion to quote it, never men∣tioned it. Bede, who wrote a Commentary on the first Epistle of St. John, hath not explained it. It appears that St. Augustin knew nothing of this Passage, for in his 2d Book against Maximinus, for an Answer to what that Arian might object against him, that 'twas said in the Epistle of St. John, That the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood, which are three different Substances, were the same thing, he maintains that those three Things were only Figures of the three Per∣sons of the Trinity; and that by the Spirit, we are to understand the Father; by the Blood, the Son; and by the Water, the Holy Ghost; and that so these three Things are really but One. If in St. Austin's time the Passage of the three Witnesses in Heaven had been in the Epistle of St. John, that Father would not have failed to have quoted that Place. Facundus cites this Passage also, and gives it the same Sense, without observing that the Text spoke of the three Divine Persons. St. Cyprian seems nevertheless to have quoted this Passage in his Book of the Unity of the Church: His Words are as follow; The Lord said my Father and I are but One; and it is also said of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, these Three are but One. But it may be that St. Cyprian understanding, as St. Augustin and Facundus have done since, by the Spirit, the Water and the Blood (of which it's said in St. John's Epistle that they are but One) the three Persons of the Trinity, substituted the Names of the Things signified in the Place of the Signs, tho' they were not in the Text. It seems, nevertheless, that if it were so, he ought to have explain'd himself more, because it is hard to think that his Readers could comprehend his Thought, and find the three Per∣sons of the Trinity in a Passage which speaks only of Spirit, Water and Blood. It may be, however, that was a common and known Explanation; and besides, that St. Cyprian quoting this Passage only to prove the Unity of the Church, it was not necessary to enlarge upon what related to the three Things that were but One. We might further add, to shew that St. Cyprian quoted the 7th Verse, that if he design'd only to have explain'd the 8th, he would at least have kept the Order of the three Words, Spirit, Water and Blood, which he would have taken for the three Persons of the Trinity, and as it should have been Water, which signified the Holy Ghost, he should have named the Holy Ghost betwixt the Father and the Son. It's true, that this is the Order he ought to have ob∣serv'd, if he had kept to the Words of the Text; but since People are ac∣customed to name the three Persons of the Trinity in their natural Order, it is not to be look'd upon as extraordinary that St. Cyprian named them so. St. Au∣gustin and Facundus also explaining that Passage followed the same Order, tho' they had nothing in their Copies of the three Persons of the Trinity. It is not then absolutely certain that St. Cyprian hath quoted the 7th Verse of St. John's Epistle. But we cannot doubt of its being in the Copies of the Epi∣stle of St. John towards the End of the 5th Age; for Eusebius Bishop of Car∣thage, St. Fulgentius, and Vigilius of Tapsa, alledge it against the Arians. That which is particular in this Matter is, that St. Fulgentius when he quotes it makes use of the Authority of St. Cyprian, to establish the Truth of it, sup∣posing that he quoted it in the Passage of the Unity of the Church, which

we have just now repeated.

The Apostle St. John, says he, in his Answer to the 10th Objection of the Arians assures us, That there are Three which bear Record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and that those Three are One. Which the blessed Cyprian testifies in his Book of the Unity of the Church, when he says, He who breaks the Peace and Concord of the Church, acts against Jesus Christ: He who reaps without the Church scat∣ters: And to shew that there's but One onely Church of the One God, he repeats also those Testimonies of the Scripture.

The Lord says my Father and I are but One: And afterwards it is wrote of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that those Three are but One. Eugenius Archbishop of Carthage, presenting in 484 a Confession of Faith to Huneric King of the Van∣dals, made no scruple to quote this Passage as decisive:

And to shew, says he, more clear than the Day, that the Holy Ghost is the same God with the Father, it is proved by the Testimony of St. John the Evangelist, who speaks in those Words, There are Three that bear Record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these Three are one Thing.

Vigilius of Tapsa quoted also this Passage: All this proves plain enough that the Church of Africa did then acknowledge this Passage to be Genuine.

The Author of the ancient Prologue of the Canonical Epistles, ascrib'd to St. John, says,

That if those Letters had been faithfully translated into Latin by the Interpreters, we should find no Ambiguity that could put a stop in the Readers way; and that there would be no Variation, chiefly in the Place where they speak of the Trinity, in the first Epistle of St. John, into which a considerable Error is crept, by the unfaithfulness of the Translators, who on∣ly put into their Edition those three Words, the Water, the Blood, and the Spirit; and have omitted the Testimony of the Father, the Word, and the Spi∣rit: Words which strongly prove the Catholick Faith, and the Unity of the Divine Substance in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Tho' this Pro∣logue be not St. Jerome's, as we have observed, it is nevertheless very ancient, and is found in Manuscripts of 8 or 900 Years standing. If we may believe this Author, in his Time all the Greek Manuscripts had this Passage of the Trini∣ty; and it was only omitted out of the Latin by the unfaithfulness of the Translators. But the Author of this Prologue does not seem to have consul∣ted the Greek Copies well, as we have shew'd; and there's great likelyhood that this Passage was not at that time in several Greek Copies, from which they had translated the Latin Copies, which had it not, as there were also Latin Co∣pies that had it.

The Question remains still, whether it was added, or cut off from the Apo∣stles Original Text. Those who pretend that it is added, ground their Opinion chiefly on this, That the ancient Fathers did not make use of it, that it is al∣most in none of the Greek Manuscripts, nor in the Oriental Versions, that there are also many Latin Copies that have it not; and that, in fine, in some Greek Manuscripts the Testimony of the Trinity, of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is on the Margin of the Verse, which speaks of the three Wit∣nesses that are upon Earth as of an Explication, rather than of a different Read∣ing: Whence they conjecture that it might afterwards pass from the Margin into the Text, and that so it is an Addition. The others on the contrary al∣ledge, that those two Verses beginning by the same Words, it was easie for the Copiers to omit one by Negligence, nothing being more usual than when the same Word is in two Periods that follow one another, for the Copier to pass from the word of the first Period to that which follows in the second. It is thus that the LXX have sometimes omitted Periods out of the Hebrew Text. As for Instance, in Jeremy 30.14, & 15. we read there according to the Hebrew Text, All thy Lovers have forgotten thee, they seek thee not, for I have wounded

thee with the Wound of an Enemy, with the Chastisement of a cruel one; for the multitude of thine Iniquity, because thy Sins were increased. Why criest thou for thine affliction? thy Sorrow is incurable, for the multitude of thine Ini∣quity; because thy Sins were increased, have I done these things unto thee. The repetition of these Words, for the multitude of thine Iniquity, was the Cause that the LXX passed those Words, Why criest thou for thine Affliction? thy Grief is incurable. In Joshua 21. v. 36. the repetition of these Words, four Cities with their Suburbs, in three Verses, was the Cause why the 36th Verse is not found in many Copies. It might easily fall out to be same that the Co∣pier of the Epistle of St. John, after having copied these Words of the 7th Verse, There are Three that bear Record, &c. might begin to copy the Words which follow the same Words repeated in the 8th Verse, and that that Fault having slipp'd into some Manuscripts, was followed in several others: That the most ancient Latin Copies were conformable to the Text at present, and that afterwards the Latin Copies were reform'd according to the Copies of the Greek Text which had not that Verse.

SECT. XII. Of St. Jude and his Epistle.

THE Apostle St. Jude, otherwise called Lebbeus and Thaddeus, was Brother to St. James, and by Consequence our Saviour's Kinsman. We shall not here repeat what we have said of their Father and Mother, and in what De∣gree of Kindred they stood to our Lord. None of the Ancients have said any thing exact of the Life and Actions of this Apostle. Eusebius upon the Faith of the Acts of the Church of Edessa, says, That Thaddeus was sent by St. Thomas to Agbarus the King of the Essenians soon after our Saviour's Pas∣sion: But Thaddeus of whom he speaks in that Place was not the Apostle, as St. Jerome thought, he was one of the 72 Disciples, according to Eusebius; and besides, this History deserves no Credit. It is nevertheless upon this Foun∣dation that the Greeks have made him the Apostle of Mesopotamia, and that some say he died in Peace at Berytum. Others have wrote, that he was shot to death by Arrows. St. Paulinus assigns him Lybia for his Province. Fortuna∣tus thinks he was interr'd in Persia. But all this is without Proof or Authori∣ty. Hegesippus says, that in the Time of Domitian there liv'd two of this Apo∣stles Grand-Sons. This is also a Story that is none of the most certain. We don't know the positive time of his death: But his Epistle being wrote after the death of the Apostles, as we shall shew anon, he must of necessity have lived very long.

It carries in the beginning the Name of Jude, who describes himself to be a Servant of Jesus Christ, and Brother to James. Grotius alledges, that his be∣ing Brother to James is added; but assigns no Reason why. It is certain that this Inscription was found in this Letter in the time of Origen, who quotes it in his 11th Tome on St. Matthew. He owns nevertheless, that there were some who in his time doubted whether this Epistle be Canonical; for quoting it in the 17th Tome of his Commentary on St. Matthew, If (says he) they allow the Epistle of Jude. Eusebius observes also, That it was one of the Books of the New Testament that was not universally receiv'd, and that few of the An∣cients quoted it, tho' it was commonly made use of in the Churches, Hist. lib. 2. cap. 23. St. Jerome says, that divers Persons rejected it, because the Apocryphal Book of Enoch is therein quoted; that nevertheless, it had acquir'd

Authority by its Antiquity, and by the Use that the Churches had made of it, and that it was reckon'd amongst the Sacred Writings. Et quia de Libro Enoch qui Apocryphus est, in ea assumit Testimonium a plerisque rejicitur, tamen autho∣ritatem vetustate jam & usu meruit, & inter Sanctas Scripturas computatur. de vir illa. in Juda. Amphilechius hath also observed, that some People doubted of the Truth of this Epistle; but that Doubt of some particular Persons did not hinder the Church from owning it to be St. Jude's, and to be Canonical. St. Cle∣ment of Alexandria reckons it amongst the Books of the Sacred Scripture, hath explain'd it in his Book of Hypotiposes, and quoted it in his Stromata and Peda∣gogue. Tertullian quotes it as the Apostles, and makes use of it to authorise the Book of Enoch. Origen quotes it with Applause, as being the Apostles, in his ninth Tome on St. Matthew, and in his 7th Homily on Joshua. It is in all the ancient Catalogues of the Books of the New Testament, and is commonly quoted by the Fathers of the 4th and 5th Age, as a Book undoubtedly Cano∣nical. This Letter is directed to all those that are sanctified by God the Father and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called; that is to say generally, to all Chri∣stians. It must have been wrote after the death of most of the Apostles, since he exhorts those to whom he writes, to remember what the Apostles had fore∣told concerning false Prophets that should come, ver. 17. He seems also to quote particularly in this Place, ver. 19. the 2d Epistle of St. Peter; which makes it plain that it is one of the last written Books of the New Testament, and perhaps after the taking of Jerusalem. It is wrote against the Hereticks who corrupted the Faith and good Morals of the Christians, by their impious Doctrine and disorderly Life: St. Jude draws them in lively Colours, as Men given up to their Passions, full of Pride and Vanity, who give to those that are Rich a mean and sordid Complaisance, followed only their own Dreams and Visi∣ons, and conducted themselves in every thing by Carnal Prudence, and not by the Spirit of God: Therefore it is that he exhorts Christians to hold inviolably by the Doctrine they had received, and to flee from the Doctrine and Morals of those false Teachers. It was not without a great deal of Reason that Ori∣gen says of that Epistle, That it contains only a few Words, but very efficaci∣ous. Judas Epistolam scripsit paucorum quidem Versuum, plenam vero efficaci∣bus verbis Gratiae Caelestis. We have already observed, that St. Jude made no scruple to quote in this Epistle the Apocryphal Book of Enoch, and also brings the History of the Arch-Angel St. Michael, who disputes with the Devil con∣cerning the Body of Moses, taken out of another Apocryphal Book, Intitu∣led, The Ascension of Moses. That does not diminish the Authority of his Epistle, nor does it give any to those Apocryphal Books. They might con∣tain Truths which St. Jude, inspired by God, knew well how to distinguish. It is true, he might have said them himself, without quoting the Apocryphal Books; but as they were celebrated and esteem'd in the World, he thought he might quote them to make the greater Impression upon the Spirits of those he wrote to, and to inspire them with more Horror against those he writes of.

SECT. XIII. Of the Revelation.

THE Book Intituled the Apocalyps or Revelation, is the last of the Books of the New Testament: The Inscription of this Book is conceiv'd in the following Terms. The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his Servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it to his Angel by his Servant John. This John is afterwards describ'd in a more particular manner in these words; Who bore Record of the Word of God, and of the Testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all the Things that he saw. This agrees to none but to the Apostle. This Book is also directed to the seven Churches of Asia, of which the Apostle St. John had the Government. In a word, it was wrote from the Isle of Pathmos; to which St. Irenaeus, Eusebius, and all the Ancients agree St. John was banish'd. It is also ascrib'd to the Apo∣stle St. John by the eldest Ecclesiastical Authors, as by St. Justin in his Dia∣logue against Tryphon, by St. Irenaeus in his 4th Book against Heresies, cap. 37. by Tertullian in many Places, by Origin, by Victorin, and by the Fathers of the following Ages. Theophilus, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Cyprian and Me∣thodius quote him also under the Name of St, John, without observing that it was not the Apostle.

Caius, a Latin Author, who lived in the time of Pope Zephirinus, says in a Passage related by Eusebius, Hist. lib. 3. cap. 28. That Cerinthus making use of the Revelations, as wrote by a great Apostle, publishes Prodigies which he feigned, as being discovered unto him by Angels; and that he assures us, that after the Resurrection there shall be a Reign of Jesus Christ upon the Earth, and that Men shall enjoy Pleasures and Carnal Sensualities in Jerusalem: And that Men shall spend a thousand Years in Nuptial Feasts. Caius seems in this Place to describe the Revelation of St. John, which he thinks to be Cerinthus's, who had pub∣lish'd his Dreams under the Name of that great Apostle. It is also in this Sense that Eusebius took the Passage of Caius, since he immediately quotes the Passage of Denys of Alexandria, who relates that some Persons had asserted that Cerinthus wrote the Apocalyps, and put St. John's Name to it to give Weight to his Delusions. There's nothing however said in the Revelation of St. John, of Mens enjoying sensual Pleasures, and passing their time in Nuptial Feasts during 1000 Years in Jerusalem. It is true, that some of the Ancients grounded their Opinion upon the Revelations for introducing this Sentiment; but there is nothing expresly said there of it: Perhaps Cerinthus had falsified the Revelation of St. John, and that gave occasion to ascribe it to him.

Denys of Alexandria enlarges much upon the Author and Authority of this Book, in a Treatise, Intituled, Of the Promises, which he wrote to refute Ne∣pos. He says, 1. That some of those who preceeded him had intirely rejected, and also refuted all the Chapters of the Apocalyps, as a Work void of Sense and Reason. 2. That they had accused the Inscription of that Book as being false, and that St. John was not the Author of it, nor any of the Apostles or Aposto∣lical Men. 3. That they alledg'd Cerinthus counterfeited the same under John's Name, to give Credit to his Dreams. 4. And to establish his Design of 1000 Years. 5. They maintain'd, that being covered with a Veil of Obscurity and thick Darkness, it could not be a true Revelation. 6. That for his own part, he dar'd not intirely to reject the Book, especially, because many of his Brethren

esteem'd it very much. 7. That he was persuaded there was an excellent Sense hidden under the Words of it. 8. That it is not to be literally understood. 9. That he believed it to be wrote by a Man called John, who was a Saint in∣spired by God, but that he could not easily believe that he was the Son of Ze∣bedee the Brother of James: And the Reasons he gives are, That the Evangelist does not put his Name to his Work, and speaks always of himself in the third Person: Whereas the Author of the Apocalyps hath put his Name to it, always speaks of himself in the first Person, and repeats his Name two or three times. He observes that there were divers Persons of that Name, as John surnamed Mark, mentioned in the Acts. He does not, however, believe it to be him, but another who lived in Asia as well as the Apostle; for it's said, there's at Ephe∣sus two Sepulchres of two St. John's. This is his first Conjecture. The 2d, That the Gospel and the Epistles begin in the same manner; that we find the same Thoughts repeated there, and almost in the same Terms; in fine, that it is the same Style and the same Genius: Whereas the Apocalyps is wholly dif∣ferent, and hath not one Syllable in common with them. The 3d Conjecture is, That he says nothing of the Apocalyps in his Epistles. The 4th, That the Epistles are wrote in good and elegant Greek; whereas the Apocalyps is not good Greek, but full of Barbarisms and Solecisms. These are the Criticks of St. Denys of Alexandria upon the Apocalyps, related by Eusebius, Hist. l. 7. c. 4. We shall now try whether they be just.

1. We have no Memorial of those Authors left us, who, he says, confuted it Chapter by Chapter. It's strange that Eusebius, St. Jerome, and other Ancients make no mention of it; they have spoke of very ancient Commentators on the Apocalyps, as of Melito Bishop of Sandis, Hippolitus, Victorinus of Petau, St. Ju∣stin and St. Irenaeus. They have indeed said that some have rejected it; but never, that any refuted it; that's hard to believe. St. Denys names no particu∣lar Person that did it. So that if any Man undertook it, it's seems no Body made any Account of his Work, since no Body mentions it, nor hath reviv'd it. 2. Caius indeed hath said, that Cerinthus had publish'd Revelations, under the Name of a great Apostle; but it is not certain that the Apocalyps of Cerinthus was that which we have under St. John's Name, or that he had not falsified the same. 3. How could St. Denys admit this as a Sacred Book, if he did not believe the Author to be St. John the Apostle? If it be not he, it is an Impostor who hath made use of his Name to publish his own Dreams. But, could the Work of an Impostor pass for a Sacred Book? 4. Why does he think that Book has a hidden Sense, which is very Excellent, if there be nothing of it to be un∣derstood, and if there be no place where the Sense is clear? 5. The Conjectures he brings to shew that the Book is not the Apostle St. John's, are very weak: This Apostle might have omitted his Name in other Works and yet put it to this, where he ought to express it in imitation of the Prophets, who put their Names at the Head and in the Body of their Prophecies. 6. Ther's not so much Difference as he imagines betwixt the Apocalyps, the Gospel and the Epistles: There we find, on the contrary, the same Expressions and the same Thoughts that St. Denys observes in the Gospel and in the Epistles. For, as St. John hath said in his Gospel, we have seen his Glory, chap. 1.14. and in another Place, This is the Disciple who bears witness of these things; and we know that his Testimony is true, last c. v. 24. And in his Epistles, We bear witness of what we have seen with our Eyes and Heard. He says the same in the beginning of the Revelation, chap. 7. v. 2. That he hath born witness of all that he saw of Jesus Christ. In the Revelation he likewise gives to Jesus Christ the Name of Word, and of the Lamb, who hath saved us, and washed us from our Sins by his Blood. Terms peculiar to St. John, which are found in his Epistles and Gospel. Nor is the Style very much different. The Apocalyps is indeed less polish'd, because 'tis wrote in a Prophetical Style. 7. We see no Occasion he had to speak of the Apocalyps in his Letters. That Silence is no Proof that the Work is not his.

St. Paul speaks nothing in his Epistle to Timothy, of his Epistle to the Romans, nor in those which he wrote afterwards: Does it follow thence that the Epi∣stle to the Romans is not St. Paul's? In fine, the John that is the Author of the Apocalyps, is he who was banish'd to the Isle of Pathmos, he is the Apostle and the Evangelist. It is he who govern'd Asia. We cannot then say, That the Apocalyps is indeed the Work of a holy Man called John, but that it is not the Apostles.

St. Jerome says in his Epistle to Dardanus, That as the Latin Church does not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews as part of the Canonical Scripture, so the Greek Churches don't receive the Apocalyps. He adds, That he receives both the one and the other, without being swayed by the Custom of his own Time, but by following the Authority of the Ancients, who often make use of the Testimony of one another, not as they use to do of Apocryphal Books, but of Canonical Books. He ascribes also the Apocalyps to the Apostle St. John in his Book of Illustrious Men, and reckons it amongst the Books of the Sacred Scripture in his Letters to Paulinus. It is true, nevertheless, that some Greeks don't place it in the Canon of the Sacred Books, as Eusebius observes: St. Epi∣phanius owns it himself in the Heresie of the Alogians, where he confesses, n. 3. that if the Alogians rejected only that Work of St. John, it might be thought they had some Reason to do it. St. Amphilochius observes also that some re∣jected it, and that it was not found, as we have observed, in the Canons of the Council of Laodicea, of St. Gregory Nazianzen, of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and of some other Greeks.

The Hereticks that St. Epiphanius calls Alogians rejected the Apocalyps. The only plausible Reason they alledg'd for it was, That there was not then any Church at Thyatira: Which St. Epiphanius grants them, but he supposes that St. John spoke of that Church by a Prophetical Spirit; and of what was to befall her in process of time. In the mean time the Churches to which St. John directs his Advice, were certainly Churches that were in being in his time: And since we have no Proof that there was not then a Church of Thya∣tira, we need not trouble our selves with this Objection.

It must then be held as a certain Truth, according to the Testimony of the Ancients, That the Apocalyps is the Work of the Apostle St. John. He com∣posed it in the Isle of Pathmos, whither he was banish'd for the Faith of Jesus Christ: Being in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, he heard a Voice and had Reve∣lations, which he wrote in this Book, and sent by God's Order to the seven Churches of Asia. All this is observed, chap. 1.9, 10, 11. He was banish'd in 95 to the Isle of Pathmos, and return'd from it in 97. This Book then was wrote in that time. It is composed in form of a Letter, directed to the seven Churches of Asia. He gives Advice immediately to the Bishops of the seven Churches, whom he calls Angels, concerning the State of their Flock; and he relates the Visions and Revelations that he had afterwards, which are the To∣kens and Prophesies of the Things to come. This is not a proper Place to un∣dertake the unfolding of those Mysteries, and to make Application of 'em. All that we can say is, That he speaks of Things that were speedily to come to pass, as he says himself, v. 1. and which are by Consequence apparently fulfilled. Besides those obscure Things, there is in that Book abundance of very clear Truths, by which humble and plain Christians may profit without troubling them∣selves about the Explanation of the Prophesies which are above their Ca∣pacity.

CHAP. III. Concerning the Greek Text of the New Testament.

SECT. I. How the Greek Text of the New Testament was preserved in the Church without any Falsification: Of the Variations which might have crept into it: Of the Editions of this Text; and of the Differences that are in the Manuscripts.

WE have already prov'd that the Books of the New Testament could not have been corrupted or falsified in any Essential Points; for this Falsification must have been made either in the Life time of the Apostles and those who penn'd them, or a little after their Death, or in the following Cen∣turies. But neither of these Hypotheses can be granted. For (1.) It cannot be said, that during their Life time, any other Gospels or Works were father'd upon them than those which they wrote; or that they were falsified or alter'd. If any should have dared to have done it, he would have been im∣mediately convicted of his Falshood by the Evidence of the Authors themselves, and by collating those falsified Copies with the Originals. The Churches would have been very cautious how they Credited or Authoriz'd such Pieces as were spurious or falsified. The Primitive Christians would have rejected them, and never have suffer'd them by an unanimous Consent to have passed as Genuine and Sacred. (2.) Upon the same Reasons 'tis apparent, that those Writings were not alter'd a little after the Death of the Apostles and Evangelists. There were several Copies of them spread over the face of the whole Earth; which were preserved and read in all the Churches of Christendom. It was impossible that all Christians should enter into a Combination to make or admit of such Falsifications. (3.) Lastly, it cannot be said that they were falsified in the suc∣ceeding Centuries; since it plainly appears by the Citations of Authors from one Century to another, that those Books were always the same. The Disci∣ples of the Apostles had certainly the Genuine Writings of the Apostles and E∣vangelists in their Purity: and the Fathers of the three first Centuries had the same Books by them. 'Tis manifest, that in the following Ages they had no other, and that they are the same which we still have. There can then no question be made of their Genuineness and Sincerity. Celsus having upbraided the Christians with giving themselves the Liberty of altering the Gospel, and of reading it different ways, in order to deny the Passages that were objected to them; Origen returns this Answer, That none but the Disciples of Marcion and Valentinus had made those Alterations. Now the Changes which the He∣reticks made, were never approv'd of by the Church; on the contrary their Falsifications were discovered by the Ancient Copies that were dis∣pers'd over the whole Earth, and by the Testimony of all the Churches, who preserv'd and read the true Copies publickly. It was to no purpose that the E∣bionites corrupted the Gospel of Saint Matthew, and the Marcionites, that of Saint Luke with the Epistles of Saint Paul, the Alterations which they made in those sacred Writings, were not admitted into the Copies of the Church. The Manichees took the Liberty to retrench out of the Books of the New Testament what contradicted their Errors, and boldly gave out, that those Books were corrupted by the Judaizing Christians, who had added thereto all that favoured

the Ancient Law. St. Augustine demonstrated to them, that there was as much certainty that those Books were Theirs, under whose Names they went, and had not been corrupted, as there was for the Books of Plato, Aristotle, and other prophane Authors; and this Truth he forces them to acknowledge with respect to those passages of the Gospel which they themselves approve of. For he asks them what Reply they would make to the Person that should accuse the Authors of their Sect of having added a passage which they cited.

What could you do (says he to them) but only assert that it was impossible to falfi∣fie those Books which were in the Hands of all Christians? Because as soon as ever any such attempt should have been made, the falsity of it would have been discover'd by the Evidence of the most ancient Copies. Now the very same Reason which proves that you have not corrupted those Books, is a ma∣nifest Demonstration that no body else could have corrupted them, because whoever had ventur'd to do it, would have been immediately refuted by the great number of ancient Copies; and especially since these very Books were already written in several different Languages. And the correcting of seve∣ral Errata's in them, by collating them, either with the most ancient Copies, or with the Original out of which they were translated, is what is practis'd every day.

'Tis thus, that this Father proves that the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament being dispers'd so much as they were in the first Ages of the Church, could not have been corrupted by any Forgerers, without being per∣ceiv'd.

This being granted, for a more particular view of the Method, how the Text of the Books of the New Testament came to be preserved, it is most cer∣tain, that the Evangelists wrote their Gospels with an intention of publishing them, and that every Christian might read them: That Saint Luke had the same design in composing the Acts of the Apostles; that the Apostles did not direct their Epistles to one or more Churches, but only that they might be read by all the Faithful, or at least to all the Faithful of those and the Neigh∣bouring Churches. 'Tis likewise farther manifest, that these Writings were received with respect, and read by the Primitive Christians both in publick and private: That they were soon dispersed in all the Churches by means of the Copies that were made of them, some from the Originals, and others from other Genuine Copies. These Copies were increas'd and renew'd as often as there was occasion for them. But tho' it could never happen that all these Co∣pies were falsifyed and alter'd by any premeditated Malice and Design in those Points that are Essential, yet it cannot be said that no Fault has crept into any of these Copies by the negligence or inadvertency of the Transcribers, or even by the boldness of those who have ventur'd to strike out, add, or change some Words which they thought necessary to be omitted, added or changed. This is the common Fate of all Books, from which God has not thought fit to exempt even those sacred Writings. From hence have proceeded those various and dif∣ferent Lections between the Greek Copies of the Books of the New Testament, which began to appear in the first Ages of the Church, and are still continu∣ed. All these varieties have alter'd nothing as to the Essential parts of the Hi∣story and Doctrine of Jesus Christ and his Apostles; and some Persons of clear∣er Heads than others have from time to time appeared in the World, who have corrected the Errata of their Copies, and re-establish'd as far as possible the Purity of the Greek Text.

Origen, in the Fifteenth Tome of his Commentary on St. Matthew, observes, That there were even in his Time a great many Various Lections in the Co∣pies of the H. Scriptures, which he attributes partly to the Carelessness of the Co∣piers, and partly to the Boldness of those who would correct the Text; and took the Liberty by this Correction, to add or strike out what they thought fit. He adds, That he had accommodated the Difference of the Greek Copies of the Septuagint, according to the Method above-mention'd; but says nothing

in this Place of any thing he had done upon the New Testament: However, 'tis certain that he had revised and corrected the Copies of that too: for Saint Jerome sometimes cites the Copies of Origen and Pierius, as being more exact than any other Copies of the New Testament. For Instance, In examining a Passage in the 24th Chapter of Saint Matthew, where at the 36th Verse some Latin Copies have, Neque Filius; he observes, That This Clause was not in the Greck Co∣pies, and especially in those of Origen and Pierius. He likewise cites the Co∣pies of Origen, in the Third Chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians, and says, That he does not explain these Words, Quis vos fascinavit credere veritati? be∣cause they are not in the Copies of Origen. This shews that these two Au∣thors had taken Copies of the New Testament, and that they were look'd upon as the most correct of any others. The same Father, in his Preface to Da∣masus, makes mention likewise of Copies of the New Testament corrected by Lucian and Hesychius, but does by no means approve of their Work; be∣cause they had made such Additions as were convicted of Falsity by the An∣cient Versions. Tatian and Ammonius in compiling the Harmonies or Concor∣dances of the Four Evangelists, did doubtless follow that Greek Text, which they thought to be the most correct. The Canons and Heads of Eusebius have been likewise of great use, to prevent any Confusion in the Evangelists: 'Tis like∣wise very probable, that Eusebius took care not only to distinguish, but also to correct the Text of the Gospels. Saint Jerome apply'd himself not so much to correct the Faults, which might have crept into the Greek Copies, as to reform the Latin Version by the Greek Text, according to the best and most ancient Copies of his Time, which he look'd upon as Faithful and Correct, and which he there∣fore styles, The Greek Truth, the Greek Fidelity; The most clear Water of the Fountain it self: whereas the Latin Versions were very Defective in a great many places. See how he explains himself in his Preface before the Four Gospels, di∣rected to Pope Damasus.

You injoyn me (says he) to make a New Work out of an Old One, and to be as it were Judge between the Copies of the Holy Scriptures dispers'd through all the Earth; and since they differ from one an∣other, to determine which of 'em agree with the Greek Verity. 'Tis a Re∣ligious Task, but withall a dangerous Undertaking to change the Language of the World, which is in its Old Age, and to recall it, when it begins to turn grey, to those very Principles and Rudiments that we teach Children. For who is there, whether Learned or Unlearned, who upon taking the Bible into his Hands, and seeing that what he reads is different from what he has been always us'd to, would not immediately cry out that I was a Forgerer and a Sa∣crilegious Person, who had the Boldness to make such Additions, Altera∣tions and Corrections in those Ancient Books? Two things are my Comfort under such a Reproach: First, That 'tis You, the Supreme Pontif, that have put me upon the Task: and Secondly, That by the Confession even of the most Envious, there must needs be some Falsity where there is so much Va∣riety. If they say, That the Latin Copies are to be credited; let them tell me Which? For there are almost as many different Copies, as there are Ma∣nuscripts; and if the Truth must be search'd for among so many, why should not we rather have recourse to the Greek Original, in Order to correct the Faults that have proceeded, either from the Bad Translation of the Interpre∣ters, or from the unreasonable Corrections that have been made by unskilful Criticks, or from the Additions and Alterations that have happen'd through the carelessness of the Copiers? At present, I say nothing of the Old Testa∣ment, but am only speaking of the New, which is doubtless all Greek, except Saint Matthew's Gospel, which at first was publish'd in Judaea in Hebrew. The New Testament, I say, being full of Varieties in the Latin Versions, which are as so many small Streams, 'tis necessary to have recourse to the Fountain-head, which is but only One. I pass over in Silence the Copies that go under the Name of Lucian and Hesychius, which some Persons condemn, because they

were not allow'd to correct the Old Testament after the Septuagint; and be∣cause they have not been successful in the Corrections which they have made of the New. The Versions which were made of it into several Languages before they corrected it, prove that what they added is Spurious. In this Preface therefore I promise to give you the Four Gospels, corrected by the ancient Greek Copies, with which they have been collated: But that the Latin of the New Testament may not differ too much from the Vulgar Trans∣lation, we have kept a Medium, which is, to correct only such things as make an Alteration in the Sense, and to leave the rest in the same state wherein it was before... It must be own'd, that there is a great deal of Confusion in our Copies of the Gospels, because our Intepreters have often added what one Evangelist had said over and above to another Gospel, where they thought it was wan∣ting, and have often corrected the Expressions of One by those of another E∣vangelist. Hence has arisen that Confusion, and is the reason why in Saint Mark we meet with a great many Passages taken out of Saint Luke and Saint Matthew, and in Saint Matthew, a great many Passages taken out of Saint Mark and Saint John, and so of the rest.

From this Preface of St. Jerome we may draw these following Conclusions: (1.) That in his time the Latin Copies of the New Testament were most of 'em defective. (2.) That in order to cor∣rect them recourse was to be had to the Greek Text as to the Fountain-Head. (3.) That there were several Greek Copies, which were likewise faulty, parti∣cularly those of Hesychius and Lucian. (4.) That there were others more anci∣ent and more correct. (5.) That Saint Jerome has corrected the Latin Version from those ancient and correct Greek Copies. (6.) That he has only corrected such places as made a considerable difference in the Text, and has left the rest just as it was.

This Reform made by Saint Jerome met with its Adversaries, as he had for∣seen. There were those ill-designing Persons who accused him of having al∣ter'd the Gospels contrary to the Authority of the Ancients and the Opinion of all Men. He returns them this Answer,

That he was not so stupid or ig∣norant, as to believe that one could correct any thing in the words of our Saviour, or that all the Gospel was not divinely inspir'd; but that all he aim'd at was, according to the Greek Original (from which it was agreed on all Hands, that the Versions were made) to correct the faults of the La∣tin Version, which are sufficiently apparent by that Variety which is to be met with in the Latin Copies. Let those Men, says he, who are not for the pure Water of the Fountain-Head, drink as much as they please of the Wa∣ter of those disturbed Streams.

Thus you see how far Saint Jerome prefers the Greek Text of his Time before the Latin Versions, and the Judgment that he passes on the fidelity of the Greek Text.

St. Augustine was of the same Mind with respect to the Authority of the Greek Text of the Books of the New Testament. He requires that when there are any differences between the Text and the Versions, The Text should be credited more than the Versions; and that the Greek Text should always be made use of to correct the Latin: Latinis (says he) quibuslibet emendandis Graeci adhibeantur. He declares in particular with respect to the Books of the New Testament, Lib. 2. Cap. 15. de Doct. Christ. Libros autem Novi Testamenti, si quid in Latinis va∣rietatibus titubat, Graecis cedere oportere non dubium est, & maximè qui apud Ecclesias doctiores & diligentiores reperiuntur: i. e. That if there be any differences between the Greek and the Latin Versions, the Latin ought doubtless to submit to the Greek, and especially to those Copies that the Church owns to be the most learn∣ed and exact. Lastly, he observes that even in his time there were such cor∣rect Copies. For he adds, Adjuvante etiam codicum veritate, quam solers emenda∣tionis diligentia procuravit.

Since the days of Saint Jerome and Saint Augustine, the Greek Churches have been very careful in preserving their Original Text of the New Testament. It is not to be suppos'd, but that the Greek Fathers, who apply'd themselves in an eminent manner to the study of the Holy Scriptures; It is not, I say, to be suppos'd but that they were very exact in consulting the most Faithful and most correct Co∣pies they could possibly light on, and that they took care that the new Copies which were drawn were as correct, and made from the best Exemplars. The Copies corrected by Origen, Pierius and Eusebius were preserv'd for a long time together in the Caesarean and Alexandrian Libraries. There were some such in the Greek Churches which were read publickly. Was it possible that so many Learned Commentators should make choice, among so many Copies, of those that were the most faulty, since they might have had those that were correct? This is what cannot be suppos'd with any colour of Reason; on the contrary, 'tis morally certain that they made use of the purest Greek Text they could get, and consequently that the New Testament, which is annex'd to the Commentaries of the Greek Fathers upon almost all the Books of the New Testament, such as those of Saint Chrysostome, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, &c. is an Authen∣tic Testimony whereby to discover the Sincerity of the Greek Text from one Age to another. In short, it cannot be said, that since Saint Jerome's time the Greek Text has suffer'd any considerable Falsification, or that the whole Greek Church has made use of a corrupted Text of the New Testament.

However it may be objected, That Saint Jerome having reform'd the Latin Version by the best Greek Manuscripts of his Time, it necessarily follows that it should be entirely conformable to the Greek Text; and that if the Greek Text is found to differ from that reformed Version, it is not conformable to the most ancient and most correct Manuscripts, which he made use of, and consequently has since been adulterated and alter'd. Now 'tis plain, that there are a great many differences between the Greek Text and our vulgar Latin: but 'tis as certain that in a great many of those places where these differences occur, the Greek Text at present is conformable to that of the Ancient Greek Fathers, which it is hard to think has been alter'd. It must therefore be said that Saint Jerome has not corrected all the places of the Latin Version that differ from the Greek Text, but only the most considerable, and such as made an Alteration in the Sense, as he owns himself in his Preface. Besides, since the Version reform'd by Saint Jerome might have suffer'd some change by the carelessness of the Transcribers, or by the mixture of other Versions, or by the boldness of some Criticks; it is no proof that the Greek Text which Saint Jerome made use of was different from the present Vulgar Greek Text, because the Latin Version which we have at present differs from the Greek Text. Bede was so far con∣vinc'd of the Truth of this, that having found some difference betwixt. S. Jerome's Version and the Greek Copy, he declares that he durst not suppose the Greek to have been corrupted, but that it could not be said whether the Various Lecti∣on ought to be ascrib'd to the fault of the Interpreter or of the Copier. Quae∣dam (says he) quae in Graeco sive aliter, sive plus aut minus posita vidimus, breviter commemorare curavimus: quae utrum negligentiâ Interpretis omissa, vel aliter dicta, an incuriâ Librariorum sive depravata, sive relicta, nondum scire potuimus: nam{que} Graecum Exemplar falsatum fuisse suspicari non audeo.

However it must be acknowledg'd, that even from the very first there were a great many differences between the Greek Copies of the New Testament, as Origen, Saint Jerome, the Author of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Ro∣mans, and several other Fathers have own'd, and as may be made appear by the different ways whereby several Greek Fathers have read one and the Self same passage: That these Varieties have been very much increas'd since, by that great number of Copies that have been made of the Greek Testament, both in the East and West, as those many Differences to be met with in the Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament which we have at present do abun∣dantly

testifie: Lastly, That since there are so many differences between the Manuscripts, it necessarily follows that there must be some faults and defects both in the Greek and Latin, so that it cannot be absolutely said that the Greek is free from Faults, unless we could be assur'd, which of the various Lections is the true One,

For this Reason they who have taken care of printing the Greek Text of the New Testament, took likewise care to have it revis'd from several MSS, to put in the Text that Lection which they thought the most Genuine, and to set down either at the End, or in the Margent the various Lections of other Manuscripts. Valla was the first who searched into and collated the Greek Copies of the New Testament. He cites several of them in his Notes printed at Basil. After his Example Erasmus likewise consulted a great many Manuscripts, which he made use of to good purpose in the Editions of his New Testament, and sets down in his Notes the Various Lections taken out of these Copies. Cardinal Ximenes had even before Erasmus, caus'd the Text of the New Testament to be revis'd from several Greek Manuscripts, and printed in his Polyglot in the Year 1515. the Text entire, according to that Reading which he thought the most exact and correct, yet without taking notice of the Differences of the Manuscripts. The same Text has been follow'd in the Polyglotts of Philip III. and of le Jay. Robert Stephens's Edition of the New Testament in Greek was done with a great deal of Accuracy; his Text agrees with that of the Bible of Cardinal Ximenes, and he has set in the Margent the Various Readings of his Manu∣script Copies. This Edition was publish'd first at Paris in the Year 1550. There have been several Impressions of it made since, and 'tis this Text which Mr. Walton has put in his Polyglotts. Theodore Beza having likewise collated a greater Number of Copies, has set down a great many more various Lections in his Notes. Walton in the sixth Edition of his Polyglott has made a Collection of the various Lections taken notice of by others, and some new Ones taken from the Manuscripts in England. All these various Lections are set down at the bottom of the Page of the Greek Testament, printed at Oxford in the Year 1675.

Besides these Editions, we have likewise several particular Collations of the Greek Copies of the New Testament, wherein the Differences of the several Manuscripts are taken notice of. Under the Popedom of Ʋrban VIII. Matthew Ca∣ryophila and several other Learned persons of Rome, collated the Greek Text of the New Testament of Cardinal Ximenes's Edition, with two and twenty Manuscripts of the Libraries of Rome; viz. Ten on the Gospels, Eight on the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles, and Four on the Apocalypse. They mark'd down in the Collation what they thought necessary to be added to, or retrench'd from the Text, by setting down the Number of the Manuscripts that were conformable thereto. In the Preface they have explain'd the Rules which they follow in this Determination. First, That if most of the Greek Manuscripts agree with the Vulgar Latin; The Text shall be reform'd according to the Reading in the Vulgar Version. Secondly, That if all the Greek Manuscripts differ from the Vulgar Latin and from the Greek Text, the Text shall be reform'd by those Manuscripts, setting down the ancient Lection at the end of the Chapters. Thirdly, That if most the Manuscripts differ from the Text, and this diffe∣rence does not affect the Vulgar Latin, then the Text shall be corrected by the plurality of the MSS. Setting down at the end of the Chapters the place that has been corrected. Fourthly, That if the Reading of the Vulgar Latin be authoriz'd only by one single Manuscript, it shall not fail to be taken notice of. Fifthly and Lastly, that such Words shall be omitted as do manifestly appear to have been taken out of one Gospel to be inserted into another.

Some time before this, Peter Faxard a Spaniard, Marquis de Los-Velez, had collated the Text of our Vulgar Latin with Sixteen Greek Manuscripts of the King of Spain's Library, and in the Margent of a New Testament in Greek had set down the various Lections of those Manuscripts, upon which the Rea∣ding of the Vulgar Latin was establish'd. But forasmuch as he has not taken no∣tice in how many MSS. each of these Differences is to be found, his Work is not of any great use, because each Difference may only be in one Manuscript, which in that case ought not to be preferred before the rest. Mariana the Je∣suit having copied out those various Lections remark'd by the Marquis de Los-Velez, communicated them to Lewis de la Cerda of the same Society, who pub∣lish'd them in his Book, Intituled, Adversaria Sacra, printed in the Year 1626. There is scarce a passage wherein the Vulgar Latin differs from the Greek Text, but the Variety is authoriz'd by some Manuscript of the Marquiss de Los-Velez. But, as was said just now, 'tis not known by how many, or what quality the Manuscript is, upon which it is founded, nor whether it has not been reform'd from the Vulgar, as Mariana has groundlesly suppos'd. Father Morin of the Oratory has likewise collected in his Exercitations upon the Bible, the differen∣ces of several Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament, and particularly of the Cambridge Manuscript of the Gospels, and of another Manuscript of the same Antiquity belonging to the Messieurs du Puy. To conclude, Father Amelotte, of the same Congregation has in his French Version of the New Testament collected the various Lections which agree with the ancient Version, reckoning likewise among those differences and the Manuscripts which authorize them, the Dif∣ferences of the Ancient Latin Version, of Saint Jerome's Version, and of the Oriental Versions; wherein he is not exact. For tho' it were well to take no∣tice of these Differences, yet they ought not to have pass'd for Differences in the Greek Copies: because they might as well have proceeded from the Tran∣slator, as from the Copy that he made use of, and the Version might likewise have underwent some Alteration since it was made.

SECT. II. Of the Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament, and particularly of the Vatican, Oxford and Cambridge Manuscripts.

AMong the Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament, we know of none more ancient and more famous, than those of the Vatican, of Saint Thecla, and of Cambridge.

The first of these Manuscripts is certainly above a thousand Years old. It has neither Titles nor Chapters, answerable to the Canons of Eusebius, but on∣ly Heads in red Letters in the Margent, to divide the Text in the Gospels. This Manuscript in several passages agrees with the Vulgar Latin, but in a great ma∣ny more with the Greek of Robert Stephens's Edition.

The second goes under the Name of an Egyptian Virgin nam'd Thecla. It was sent from Alexandria by Cyril of Lucar Patriarch of Constantinople to Charles I. King of England, and is deposited in the King's Library at London. 'Tis thought to be about fourteen hundred Years old, but 'tis certainly above a thousand. In this Manuscript the Title and Chapters of the Gospels, which answer to the Divi∣sion made by Eusebius, are set down. It wants the first four and twenty Chap∣ters of Saint Matthew, and the five first Verses of the twenty fifth Chapter. This Manuscript has a great many differences from the common Greek, but they are only slight Ones. It agrees very often with the Vulgar Latin, and seems to be very exact and correct. These Differences are to be seen at the bottom of the Page of the Greek New Testament in the Polyglotte publish'd in England.

The Criticks are pretty well agreed about these two Manuscripts; but are not so with respect to that of Cambridge. See however certain matters of Fact, from which it will be easie to determine what one ought to believe in the case. Theo∣dore Beza found a Greek and Latin Manuscript of the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles in the Monastery of St. Irenaeus of Lions. He had likewise by the Assistance of the Messieurs du Puy, such another Manuscript of the Epistles of St. Paul, which he calls the Copy of Clermont, and may pass for the second part of the Copy of Lions. The first of these is at present in the Cambridge Library; and the second in the Library of the French King. There is another Manuscript much like to the latter in the Abbey of Saint Germain de Prez. The Manuscript of the Gospels is divided into Chapters according to the Division of Eusebius: the Greek writ in large Characters without Points, Accents or di∣stinction between the Words. The second part is written after the same man∣ner as the former in both Copies, but with Accents, which are of the same Hand in the Manuscript of Saint Germain des Prez, tho' of a different Figure; and added by another more modern Hand in the MS. of the French King's Library. The Latin Version is writ by the same Hand as the Greek Text, but differs very much from the Vulgar, and is entirely agreeable to the Greek Text of these MSS. The Criticks are agreed that these MSS. are of about a thousand Years standing. There are a great many Additions and Alterations particularly in the Gospels, especially in that of Saint Luke. We have already observed, that the Genealogy of our Saviour is regulated in St. Luke's Gospel, according to that of Saint Matthew, and that three Kings which are left out in Saint Mat∣thew are there added. We have likewise mention'd two considerable Additions, One of a Sentence upon Humility, in Saint Matthew, Chap. 20. and the other of a Discourse which our Saviour had with a Man that work'd on the Sabbath-day, in Saint Luke, Chap. 6. Beside these particular passages and some other of the same Nature, whereby the Alterations are greater and more visible; there are a great many other places, in which the Words of the Evangelists and A∣postles are paraphras'd, abridg'd, and transpos'd, as well in the Gospels as in the Acts, and even in the Epistles of Saint Paul. In several places it agrees with the Vulgar Latin, and differs from it in others, but is very different from other Greek Manuscripts. At the end of the two Manuscripts of the second part, between the Epistle to Philemon, and that to the Hebrews, there is a Catalogue of the Books of the Bible, in which the twelve Minor Prophets are set down before the Greater, and the Gospel of Saint John before that of Saint Mark, and Saint Luke; and wherein after the Epistle of Saint Jude, is inserted the Epistle of Saint Barnabas, and after the Apocalypse of Saint John are plac'd, the Acts of the Apostles, the Book of Hermas, the Acts of Paul, and the Revelation of Saint Peter. It is likewise to be observ'd, that there are a great many Faults in the Greek Text, and that there are several Corrections made by the same Hand, and at the same time.

Beza, the first that has made mention of the Cambridge Manuscript, believed that it was brought from Greece; That tho' it had not been falsified by Here∣ticks, yet it had been by a Greek, who had inserted barbarous Notes into the Margent. He owns that it was very ancient, and his Words are as fol∣low: Exemplar venerandae vetustatis ex Graeciâ, ut apparet ex barbaris Graecis qui∣busdam Notis ad Marginem ascriptis, olim exportatum, & in Sancti Irenaei Monasterio Lugduni, ita ut cernitur mutilatum, postquam ibi in pulvere diu jacuisset, repertum O∣riente ibi Civili bello, Anno Domini 1562. As to the Manuscript of Saint Paul's Epistles, which Beza styles that of Clermont, he believes that 'tis the other part of the MS. of Lions, not only because of its Antiquity, Character, and Form, but because there are much the same Varieties in one as in the other.

Father Morin has not pass'd any judgment on the Cambridge MS. because he had never seen it; but he speaks of the MS. of the Epistles of St. Paul, and says that it is almost as ancient; that the passages cited therein out of the Old Testa∣ment are written in red Characters; that the Latin Version differs from the Vul∣gar, even in those places, where it was requisite that the Greek Text from whence they were taken, should have been the same; that however it appears that both of them came from the same Original. This makes him suppose that the Version from this ancient MS. is that which the Ancient Church common∣ly made use of before Saint Jerome's time, and that That Father revis'd and re∣form'd it upon the credit of the Greek Copies. He likewise asserts that this MS. is more ancient than Saint Jerome. He as well as Beza, is of the Opinion, that this MS. is the second part of the Cambridge MS.

Monsieur Simon believes that these three MSS. are of the same standing: He approves of Father Morin's Notion concerning the Version; but does not allow that these MSS. were written before Saint Jerome's time, tho' he owns that they contain a more ancient Version; which makes him suppose that these Copies were transcribed from others more ancient. He maintains against Beza, that these MSS. were never made for the Greeks, nor brought from Greece, be∣cause of the gross Faults that are in them. He believes that the Notes which are in the Margent, were not made by a Greek, but by a Latin.

Monsieur Arnaud's Supposition is very different from all others. He acknow∣ledges that those MSS. may be about a thousand Years old: but he believes

That 'tis a particular Edition of the New Testament of a Latin of the Sixth Century, who might have design'd to remove some Scruples, that seem'd to be insuperable, such as the difference there is in the Genealogy of Christ, be∣tween Saint Matthew and Saint Luke; and to make some other Alterations, of which no cause can be assign'd: That he thought it requisite for his purpose, to make a Greek and Latin Text that should agree together; because if he had only made a Latin Text, it would have been rejected, if upon com∣paring it according to Saint Jerome and Saint Augustine's Rule with the Greek Copies, there had not been found the Alterations that he was minded to make; whereas composing them in both Languages, it would give the greater Au∣thority to his new Edition. But he thought farther, that the Edition he made ought to carry along with it the face of Antiquity, and that this was the reason why he would not intermix with his Latin the corrected Version of Saint Jerome. After a great many Argumentations he concludes, That this Manuscript is the Work of some Forgerer in the Sixth Century: That there∣fore the Varieties of this Copy ought not to be reckon'd among the Various Lections of the Greek of the New Testament, that it can be of no Weight to authorize what is not found in the other Greek Manuscripts, and 'tis not at all probable that the Ancient Vulgar Latin was made from this Manu∣script.

Father Martinay keeps a Medium between the Hypotheses of Monsieur Si∣mon, and Monsieur Arnaud. He observes,

That Monsieur Simon is in the right, when he says that the Addition made to the twentieth Chapter of Saint Matthew, was in the Ancient Latin Version, which was made use of in the Western Churches; and that his famous Adversary (for so he very justly styles Monsieur Arnaud) was likewise in the right, in maintaining that this very Addition was not in the Copies corrected by Saint Jerome

. He justifies this by saying, that of the two Manuscripts of the Ancient Vulgar which he pro∣duces, there was one wherein this Addition was, and another wherein it was not. At the same time he shews the Conformity of these Manuscripts of the Ancient Vulgar Latin of Saint Matthew's Gospel, with the Manuscript of Cam∣bridge, and the English-Saxon Version publish'd by Marshal, and made from the Ancient Vulgar.

These are the various Sentiments of the Learned concerning the Cambridge, the French-King's, and the Abby of Saint Germain des Prez's Manuscripts. We beg leave to subjoyn our Remarks to adjust (if possible) these diffe∣rences.

1. We believe these Manuscripts to be near a thousand Years old or there∣abouts, that is, about the Sixth Century, and so later than Saint Je∣rome.

2. We suppose them to be made by a Latin in the West, and not by a Greek: of which the Latin being written by the same Hand on the side of the Greek, and the gross Faults that are in the Greek are an uncontestable Proof.

3. There is no probability that he who made the Alterations or Additions in this Manuscript was an Heretick, because it does not appear that they were made to support any particular Heresy.

4. These Additions and Alterations do not seem to be invented by the Au∣thor of that Manuscript, since the most considerable of them are to be met with in other Ancient Records.

5. There is not any instance of those considerable Changes or Additions in the Manuscripts of the New Testament, which were in the Hands of the Greek Fathers, nor in the other Manuscripts us'd in the Greek Church.

6. There were such Additions, Alterations, Transpositions, and Confusions in the Copies of the Ancient Vulgar Latin, according to the Testimony of Saint Jerome in his Epistle to Damasus: and we farther meet with several Additions made to the Gospel of Saint Matthew in the Cambridge Manuscript, in the Ma∣nuscripts of the Ancient Vulgar Latin, in Saint Hilary and several other Latin Fathers.

7. The Latin Version of the Copies we are now examining, is not that which was reform'd by Saint Jerome, but one of the Ancient Vulgar Latin Ver∣sions. For there were several of them, or rather the Copies of them were so different, that they seem'd to be so many distinct Versions.

8. All these Remarks afford us great probability of conjecturing that the Greek Text of the Copies we now speak of, was regulated by him who wrote from the Copy of the Vulgar Latin which he copied; or that he transcribed it from some other Copy that was thus reform'd. This Conjecture is a consequence of several Matters of Fact wherein all are agreed, and of the Reflections already made.

9. This being laid down, we ought not to look upon these Varieties as so many various Lections of a Greek Manuscript, but only as a Regulation, or ra∣ther a Corruption of the Greek Text from a Version that is less Conformable to the Original.

10. Though all the Copies of the Ancient Vulgar Latin had not those Addi∣tions and Alterations that are in the Latin and Greek of this Copy, yet there are some, wherein very considerable Additions and Alterations are to be found.

But enough has been said with respect to this Manuscript. We shall not in∣sist on the other Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament, that are to be met with in a great many Libraries. There are some about 800 Years old, others 600, and others more modern. They are almost all of 'em made by Greeks, and according to the Greek's custom. Therein a great many differences may be found, but scarce any that affect the true Sense. Let us now enquire into the Origine of these Varieties, and the Means whereby to discover the true Reading.

SECT. III. The Rise and occasion of the Faults that might have crept into the Greek Text of the New Testament.

THE Faults which have crept into the Greek Manuscripts of the New Testa∣ment, as well as into all other Books, are owing generally to these two causes; viz. to the Negligence of the Copiers, and to the boldness of those who have ventur'd to reform the ancient Copies. But these two general Causes pro∣duce different Effects for which particular Reasons may be assign'd.

The carelesness of the Copiers may occasion Omissions, Errors, and sometimes Additions. These Omissions may happen through Inadvertency or Distracti∣on, which might have caus'd the Transcriber to have omitted several Words or entire Sentences. This frequently happens with respect to Particles or Stops. When two periods which come one after another, begin or end with the same Words, the Transcriber might easily omit one of the Sentences. The Inadvertency of the Copiers may likewise produce the Repetition of the same Words or Phrases, but then 'tis such an Error as is easie to be discover'd.

The Alterations happen by the carelesness of the Copiers, when they take or put one Letter for another, or one Word for another, by reason of the Re∣semblance there is between the Letters or Words, in their Figure or Sound. Lastly, this carelesness is the cause of very considerable Additions, when they insert into the Text, the Scholias or Notes which were in the Margent of the Manuscripts which they copied, without heeding that these were such Explicati∣ons as ought not to have been added to the Text. These are the principal Reasons that can be alledg'd for the Alterations which might happen through the Inadvertency of the Copiers.

These Alterations which happen'd by the Liberty that some took expresly and deliberately of reforming the Text, might proceed from as many Causes, as there were Motives to incline them to this Reform. The chief Causes of these Alterations with respect to the Copies of the New Testament are such as fol∣low.

1. It might so happen, that the Hereticks have struck out or alter'd such pas∣sages as were contrary to their Errors, or have added others that have favour'd them. Thus the Ebionites falsified the Gospel of Saint Matthew, and the Mar∣cionites that of Saint Luke. But these gross Falsifications were soon discover'd, they never deceiv'd any Catholick, and were never admitted into the Copies they made use of. It might likewise happen that some other Hereticks had on∣ly retrench'd, alter'd, or added some very short passages, or that this Altera∣tion might have been made, without being easily perceiv'd. There were seve∣ral of the Fathers who thought that they had found out instances of this in several places of the New Testament; as when Saint Ambrose accuseth the Ari∣ans for having struck out in the third Chapter of Saint John's Gospel, vers. 6. these Words, Quia Deus Spiritus est. When Socrates upbraids the Nestorians for having struck out of the fourth Chapter of the first Epistle of Saint John vers. 3. these Words: Every Spirit, that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the Flesh, is not of God. And others have accus'd the Followers of Mardonius, of having added in the seventh Chapter of Saint John's Gospel, vers. 39. The Epithet Holy, and of having read it as it is at present in the Greek; As yet the Holy Ghost was not come upon them, instead of, The Spirit was not as yet given them. But these sorts of passages are not very many, and when they are duly enquir'd in∣to, it appears to be a mistake, or at least doubtful, to say that they have been corrupted maliciously, and with a design of favouring any Error.

2. It might have so happen'd that even the Orthodox themselves meeting with difficult passages which they thought to be contrary to the Analogy of Faith, or to the other Gospels, might through an indiscreet Zeal have reform'd these passages. 'Tis upon this Account, that Saint Epiphanius observes, That some of the Orthodox have struck out that passage in Saint Luke, Chap. 19. Vers. 41. where 'tis said that Jesus wept over Jerusalem, because this seem'd to them to be unbecoming our Saviour: others upon the same Motive have added to the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Kings which Saint Matthew had omitted, in order to render it conformable to the Old Testament. Lastly, 'tis very usual to find One Evangelist reform'd from another Evangelist, and that added to, or re∣trench'd from one Gospel, which is either added or left out in another. By the same motive (if Saint Jerome may be credited in the Case) were those wise Men mov'd who have left out of the 35th. Verse of the thirteenth Chapter of Saint Matthew's Gospel, the name of Prophet cited in that place; because the name of Isaiah is there inserted instead of that of Asaph, and because that Prophecy was not Isaiah's, they were afraid lest the Evangelist should have been suppos'd to have cited a falshood, perhaps 'tis upon the same account that in the beginning of Saint Mark's Gospel, Chap. 1. Vers. 2. The Name of Isaiah has been struck out, because the Prophecy there cited, begins with the Words of Malachy.

3. There have been some Copies wherein have been inserted several Additions taken out of Apocryphal Books, and particularly some there were in Saint Matthew's Gospel taken out of the Gospel of the Hebrews. Origen produ∣ces an Instance of this in Saint Matthew, Chap. 12. Vers. 12. Where these Words were inserted, Jesus therefore said, I was weak because of the Weak, I was hungry because of the Hungry, and I was thirsty for the sake of those who were Thir∣sty. We have already mention'd several other Instances of those Additions taken out of the Apocryphal Gospels.

4. The Criticks have sometimes reform'd the Text, because they have look'd upon it as faulty. They have met with a Sense that shock'd them in the Text, and which might be reform'd by taking away one single Word. They have determin'd that the Text ought to be read so, or so, and have boldly correct∣ed the Text upon a mere Conjecture. For instance, in the first Epistle of Saint Peter, Chap. 2. Vers. 23. It is in the Greek, Jesus Christ committed himself to him that judgeth righteously; Judicanti se justè, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Now because it seem'd some∣what odd to say that Jesus Christ was judg'd by a righteous Judge, therefore some have taken out the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 righteously, and clapp'd in the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 unrighteously.

5. Another sort of Additions or Alterations are those Supplements or Illu∣strations, which do not alter the Sense, but render it more clear, or determine it. The Copiers or the Regulators of the Copies having taken a great deal of Liberty upon this Respect, being perswaded that it was enough for them to keep strictly to the Sense, and that they should do some Service in explaining it more clearly. But sometimes they have been mistaken, and have determin'd the Text by such Words as give it quite another Sense, and have not explain'd it in its full Extent and Force.

6. Lastly, the Text has sometimes been reform'd, either from the Ancient Vulgar Latin, as we have observ'd of the Cambridge Manuscripts, or from Saint Jerome's Version, as some Criticks have remark'd concerning several Greek Ma∣nuscripts of a more modern date.

These are very near all the Causes of the Alterations, Additions, or Omissi∣ons which could have been made in the Greek Copies of the New Testament. The Causes of the Evil being discover'd, it will be the easier to apply a Reme∣dy thereto according to the Rules of Criticism.

SECT. IV. The Original of the Faults that might have crept into the Text of the Vulgar Latin.

WE have already sufficiently prov'd in the first Volume of this Work, that when the Council of Trent declar'd the Vulgar Latin Authentic, it did not prefer it before the Originals (that is, before the Hebrew Text of the Old, and the Greek Text of the New Testament) nor did it declare it to be free from Faults. We likewise there prov'd, that when there were any Diffe∣rences between the Original and the Versions, good reason requires that we should follow the Original rather than the Version, unless there be some parti∣cular cause of supposing that the Original is corrupted, and the Version Ge∣nuine. This being laid down, we now come to discover in particular the Sources of the Faults that may be met with in the Text of the Vulgar Latin of the New Testament.

In the first place all the same causes, Reasons and motives that have been alledged of the Changes and Alterations of the Greek Original, may take place with respect to the Copies of the Versions; so that if they could be assign'd to shew that the Original Text might be subject to Faults, they may more reason∣ably be applied, to prove the same thing upon the Version. The carelesness of the Copiers, the boldness of the Criticks, and all the particular Reasons that have induc'd the one or the other of them to make such an Alteration, may as well affect the Copies of the Vulgar Latin Version, as those of the Original Greek Text.

But beside these Reasons which are common both to the Original and the Version, there are several others that may be produc'd to prove the Version might be subject to a great many Faults. For (1.) Since the Latin Interpre∣ter was not infallible, he might be mistaken, and mis-interpret the Text. (2.) He might have had a faulty Copy. (3.) He might have misread his Copy. (4.) Whereas one Greek Word bears several Senses, he might have taken the most improper Sense, or falsly determin'd the Sense of a Phrase. (5.) He might have added some things to clear up the Sense, or to render the Text of one Evangelist agreeable to that of another. (6.) He might have inserted several Additions that were taken out of Apocryphal Books.

But to pass from probabilities to matter of Fact; it is certain that the Vul∣gar Latin Version now extant differs not from that which was reform'd by Saint Jerome, only several Faults are crept into it since that Father's time. Now the Ancient Version reform'd by Saint Jerome, had by that Father's own Concession in his Letter to Damasus, all the Defects which we have taken notice of.

These Defects are likewise acknowledged in the Fragments which we have by us of that ancient Version. It will be objected that Saint Jerome has reform'd it from the Greek Text; which is true as to the principal passages, but he has not wholy reform'd it, having only corrected the chief differences. He has left some designedly, that he might not alter the Text entirely. Several others might have escap'd even his Diligence. 'Tis certain that he has left several passages which are not conformable to the Greek that he read, and approv'd of. For it may be prov'd even from Saint Jerome himself that there were a great many pla∣ces wherein the Greek Copies which this Father made use of, differ'd from the Vulgar Latin. Lastly, since St. Jerome's time a great many Variations have crept into the Latin Text even of his Reform'd Version. It cannot therefore

be said, that the vulgar Latin is exempt from Faults, and that it ought always to be follow'd and preferr'd before the Greek Text.

SECT. V. Of what Nature those Differences are, which are in the Greek Text, and be∣tween that and the Vulgar Latin.

NOthing can be falser than the Notion which some may perhaps form to themselves, viz. that the great number of differences which are to be observ'd between the several Greek Copies, and between the Greek Text and the Vulgar Latin of the New Testament, do overthrow the Authority of the sacred Writings, and are capable of disfiguring or corrupting the sacred Text so far, that one cannot tell whether we have by us the Genuine Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles, or not.

We own that there are a great many varieties in the Greek Copies; the bare perusal of the Oxford Edition of the New Testament in Greek is a sufficient proof of it. There are likewise a great many differences between the Greek Text and the vulgar Latin, perhaps near six hundred: but all these varieties and differences are inconsiderable. For the most part they are either the visible Faults of the Copiers or some Minute mistakes; such as putting some Words for others; or omitting, adding or repeating of Words; some particle added or struck out, a singular Number put for the plural, or a Pronoun for a Noun. There are some few indeed which alter the Sense, but none that contain any Er∣ror; and take 'em all together they alter nothing of the Doctrine and History of Jesus Christ and his Apostles.

If we were as nice in collecting together the various Lections of prophane Au∣thors, and had as many different Copies of their Works; we should perhaps meet with as great a variety, and there is scarce any ancient Version of the Writings of the Greeks more conformable to their Text, than the Vulgar La∣tin of the New Testament is to the Greek Original. Does it therefore from thence follow, that we have not by us the Genuine pieces of those Ancient Wri∣ters; that we cannot be certain of their Doctrine, and the Histories which they relate; and that their Versions are not to be credited? This is what no Man of Sense would venture to assert. Why then would the Infidels make use of such an Argument to weaken the Authority of the sacred Books? Why should this be a stumbling block to the Ignorant?

But now let us enter into the particulars of the Varieties that might have crept into the Text or into the Version, according to those Sources and Causes that we have already observ'd.

1. In the first place it may be asserted, that there are not at present either in the Greek Text or in the Version any Alterations or Additions that were taken from Heretical and Apocryphal Gospels. These have been struck out of our Texts and Version, and are not to be met with in any Greek Copies, unless in the Cambridge Manuscript.

2. There are but some few passages either in the Greek Text or in the Vul∣gar Latin, that can be said to have been changed or added, in order to render the Text more conformable to the Analogy of Faith: and there are but very few, where, that is left in one Evangelist, which had been added to it from the Gospel of another.

3. Saint Jerome has reform'd in the Vulgar Version that Confusion which was in the Latin Copies.

4. If there be any other Instances of this Nature in the Greek Copies, they are very rare, and such as may be easily discover'd.

5. The Alterations made either to supply or to illustrate the Text, do not commonly alter the Sense, no more than the Corrections made of the Old Testa∣ment.

6. There are therefore only such Alterations as have been made in the Greek Text, by some bold Criticks, that are of any Consideration. It must be own'd, that there are some such as those in the Text; but there are Rules to discover them.

7. As to the Varieties that have happen'd through the fault of the Copiers (with respect to the Original Text) there are but some few Additions of the Scholia inserted into the Text, besides that Addition at the end of the Lord's-Prayer, which is in the Greek Text of Saint Matthew, Chap. 6. Vers. 13. and runs thus; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For thine is the Kingdom, and the Power and the Glory, for ever and ever, Amen.

8. Besides these, there were other more frequent Faults, but which rarely al∣ter'd the Sense, and are easily discoverable; such as the Repetitions, Alterati∣ons or Omissions of Words.

These are the Heads to which all the Varieties and Faults of the Greek Text may reduc'd.

As to the particular differences between the vulgar Version and the Original Text, they are either such as affect the Words or the Matters.

By the Varieties in Words I mean, when the Interpreter has illustrated, pa∣raphrased or explain'd the Text too largely; but these ought not to be look'd upon as real differences.

The Differences that affect the subject matter are either Additions and Omis∣sions, or Contradictions. The Additions or Omissions do not affect the Sense. 'Tis true, there must upon these occasions needs be something added or omit∣ted in the Version or in the Text: but this Addition or Omission makes no Alteration as to the Truth of the Doctrine or the History.

As to the Contradictions, they are either seeming or real: The seeming are such as may be easily adjusted: but the real are such as necessarily imply a fault in the Text or in the Version. There are but few of these last sorts of Diffe∣rences between the Text and the Version; and when there are any such, tho' we ought always to prefer the Text before the Version, yet because the Text may have been corrupted, and the Greek Copies do often vary from one ano∣ther, the Difference ought to be examin'd by the Rules of Criticism, and to prefer that which (all things consider'd) seems to have the greatest Tokens and Characters of Truth.

SECT. VI. Principles and Rules whereby to judge which of the different Lections ought to be follow'd, and When the Greek Text ought to be preferr'd before the Vulgar Latin, or the Vulgar before the Greek.

THE Principles by which one may discover which of the different Lections of the Greek Text ought to have the preference, and whether one had best follow the Greek Original, or the Vulgar Version, when there is any Con∣trariety between them, may be reduc'd to these four Heads. (1.) Reason: (2.) The Testimonies of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers both Greeks and Latins: (3.) The Greek and Latin Manuscripts. And (4.) the Versions, viz.

the Old and New Vulgar, and the Oriental Versions. Every Body will al∣low of these Principles, 'tis requisite to lay down some Rules for the Applica∣tion of them.

I. Reason or Criticism is certainly of very great Use to discover, among se∣veral Lections, which is the truest.

For (1.) There are some Faults which are very visible, such as the leaving out of a Word which takes away from the Sense; Repetitions of the same Word, some Letters put one for another, one Person for another, and one Number for another. A very little insight into the Greek is sufficient for the discovery of these Faults; nor are they to be reckoned among the various Readings. However there are a great many of that Nature in the Greek Ma∣nuscripts which we have mention'd.

2. Reason discovers to us (when there are any differences, either in the Greek Copies, or between the Greek and the vulgar Latin) which of the two Readings agrees best with that which goes before and comes after; and then no question that is to be preferred, which makes the best Sense. But here one ought to be very cautious that one is not deceiv'd, and rightly to discern whe∣ther the Sense one thinks to be the most proper and natural, be really so or no, and whether there are not other Reasons to turn the Scale on the other side. Additions are discovered, when that which is redundant interrupts; and Omissions, when that which is left out renders the Sense imperfect. When of two different Words, the one is good, and the other bad Sense, the former is to be adhered to: and when they are both good Sense, then recourse ought to be had to the following Rules, to the Fathers and Manuscripts.

3. We ought to consider which of the two faults might most easily have crept in, and in which of the two Languages it might have done so. Whether it be not a mistake that might have happen'd through the carelesness or inad∣vertency of the Interpreter: and whether the Copier might not have more easily been mistaken in the Latin, than in the Greek.

4. If it be such a Difference as was done designedly, we ought to enquire what might have been the Occasion why these rash Criticks have made such im∣proper Corrections: what Reason or Motive they might have had to induce them to make that Alteration: Whether it be an Addition or Omission made to render it more conformable to another Evangelist: And whether it be any thing which seem'd absurd or obscure, and which they were willing to alter to render the Sense more clear and softer.

II. The Testimony of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers, both Greeks and Latins, is of great weight to find out the true Reading. There is no question, but that as they lived nearer to the Times wherein those Books were penn'd, they had the purest Copies of them: The passages which they cite out of the Scriptures, do shew how in their times the Copies were read. 'Tis true it might so happen that the Copiers, or those who have printed their Works, may have alter'd some places reforming them according to the Copies of their own time, but that is not very usual. In the Latin Fathers the very expressions of the Passages which they cite are still preserved. Now whether they themselves translated them from the Greek, or whether they took them from the common receiv'd Version of their Times, yet still 'tis a manifest proof of the manner wherein they were read. There are likewise in the Greek Commentators several varieties to be met with in the Citations, which inform us that they have not alter'd them. This principle therefore is the best and surest of any with respect to the matter in Hand: The Application of it is as follows,

1. When the Ancient Writers, both Greeks and Latins, are agreed as to such or such a Reading, That ought to be follow'd; at least if there be no stronger Reasons to be assign'd for the contrary Reading: No matter whether the Reading authoriz'd by the Ancients doth agree with most of the Greek Co∣pies or not, or whether it be in the Greek Original, or in the Latin Version:

For the Authority of the Ancient Fathers, is to be preferred to all the succeed∣ing Manuscripts.

2. When the Greek Fathers are for one Reading, and the Latins declare u∣nanimously for another; that of the Greek ought to be preferred, especially if it be in the most correct Greek Copies. For the Ancient Version of the La∣tin Fathers having been full of Faults, we must lay no great stress upon it; and the Vulgar Version being posterior to the first Greek Fathers, and to the Copies which they who liv'd in Saint Jerome's time made use of, it ought not to be pre∣ferr'd to the Greek Text of that Time.

3. If some of the Greek Fathers read after this manner, and others after that, recourse must be had to other Rules, and to other helps for the discovering of the Truth; always giving the preference as far as possible to the most Ancient, above the Modern.

III. The Greek and Latin Manuscripts are of much less Authority than the Fathers, for none of 'em is so ancient as the first Fathers; the most ancient, which are only a few, being not above a thousand Years old or thereabouts. However they are worthy of some Consideration, and are of great use to cor∣rect the Text, especially when there is any disagreement between the Fathers, or when we cannot meet with any Citations in their Works, to give us any Light whereby to determine our selves. I make no scruple, but that if all the Greek Copies, or the greatest part of them, and those the best, were for such or such a Reading, it ought to be preferr'd, (unless there was some other reason to the contrary,) before that Lection which is authoriz'd by the Latin Fa∣thers and the Vulgar Version. When there is any difference between the Ma∣nuscripts, in such a case the most ancient and the most correct ought to be fol∣low'd: When there are but a few Greek Manuscripts which favour the Lection of the Vulgar Version, then that Reading ought to be preferr'd which is au∣thoriz'd by the most and best Manuscripts. There are a great many Differences in the Vulgar, authoriz'd by some Greek Manuscripts, but some there be that are not founded upon any one Greek Manuscript; and others, that have only One, or Two, or Three, or Four Manuscripts to support them. There are likewise some few which are authoriz'd by a great number of Greek Manuscripts, so that if we have no other stronger Reason to incline us to follow the Vulgar Version, we ought not to do it.

IV. The Versions are the most uncertain Principle that can be, to discover the true Reading of the New Testament. For the old Vulgar Latin Version was full of Faults; as Saint Jerome has observ'd, and that Father was oblig'd to correct it from the Greek Text. And yet this very reform'd Version is not free from Faults. Among the Oriental Versions, none but the Syriac is considerable, all the rest being made from that. It may indeed be of some use, but no great stress ought to be laid upon it. The English-Saxon is made from the ancient Vulgar Latin. In short, the ordinary Rule is not to reform the Original by the Versions, but the Versions by the Original. yet some uses may be made of the Versions, such as follow: If the old Vulgar Version and the Oriental Ver∣sions are conformable to the Greek Text, or to such or such a Lection of the Greek Text, this adds some weight to that Reading: If 'tis found that Saint Je∣rome has read, as it was in the Greek Copies, and not as it was in the Vulgar Latin; 'tis a proof that the Greek Text was not corrupted, but that the Fault was rather in the Version: If the Vulgar on the contrary be found to be conforma∣ble to the other Versions, and to the Citations of the ancient Greek Fathers, tho' it differs from most of the Greek Copies which we have at present, yet no scruple ought to be made of preferring it before the Vulgar Greek Text. These are the Rules, of which 'tis no hard matter to make the Application, whereby to discover, which of the various Lections of the Greek Copies ought to be fol∣low'd, and when one ought to prefer the Greek before the Vulgar, or the Vul∣gar before the Greek.

SECT. VII. Of the Hellenistical Language.

THough the Question concerning the Hellenistical Language is grown fa∣mous by the Name and Reputation of those great Men that have handled it; yet we may venture to say, that nothing is easier than to resolve what O∣pinion ought to be had about it, and to put an end to all the disputes that have with so much Heat been carry'd on upon this Subject. There is mention made in the beginning of the Sixth Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, of a murmuring which arose between the Grecians (Hellenists according to the Ori∣ginal) and the Hebrews, because the Widows of the former were neglected in the dayly ministration of Alms: Now both these were certainly Converted Jews, since the Gospel had not as yet been preach'd to any of the Gentiles. Men∣tion is likewise made of the Hellenistical Jews (Grecians) against whom Saint Paul disputed, Acts 9. Verse 29. and so Saint Chrysostome, Theodoret, and Oecume∣nius observe, that the Hellenists and the Hebrews, were two sorts of Jews. The former are call'd Hellenists, because they spoke Greek and the others He∣brews, because they spoke the Hebrew or Chaldeé Language. The former were dispers'd in the Cities of Greece, Syria, Asia and Egypt, and others dwelt at Je∣rusalem, or in Palestine and at Babylon, where the Chaldee was still spoken.

From hence arose the name of the Hellenistical Language. Yet properly speak∣ing it cannot be said that the Language of the Hellenistical Jews was spoken. For some there were who spoke good Greek, and yet were very little vers'd in the Hebrew or Syriac Language. But those among them who more sedulously ap∣ply'd themselves to the study of the Hebrew Bible, us'd themselves to the Turn of the Hebrew Idiom, and follow'd it; especially in the Versions or Explicati∣ons of the Sacred Books written in Hebrew; and the Hebrew Jews who were skill'd in Greek retain'd still the ways of speaking in their natural Language: Therefore both the One and the other fell into Hebraisms, whenever they spoke or writ in Greek. 'Tis to this Greek mix'd with Hebrew Idioms, that some have given the name of the Hellenistical Language. The Seventy were the first who inserted those Hebraisms into their Version, being minded to speak as Hebrews. The Evangelists and Apostles who were all of them Hebrews, except Saint Luke who was an Hellenist, have likewise made use of a great many of those Hebrew Phrases, which were either Natural or Customary to them. There are such sorts of Hebraisms in the Jewish Books written in all kinds of Languages.

So that in short, here lyes the whole mystery of the Hellenistical Language, which in truth is not a distinct Language, nor so much as the particular Dia∣lect of one, but only Greek mix'd with Hebraisms, Chaldaisms, Syriacisms. Now there is no question to be made but that there are several of them in the New Testament, therefore it may be said that it was penn'd in the Hellenistical Lan∣guage. All the occasional questions that have been rais'd on this Subject, signifie nothing towards the deciding of the principal Question, which properly speak∣ing is a trifling Question about a Term only, tho' it may be of some use for the better understanding the Text of the New Testament, to take notice of the Hebraisms that occur therein.

CHAP. IV. Of the Versions of the New Testament.

SECT. I. Of the Latin Versions of the New Testament: Of the Ancient Vulgar, the New Vulgar, and the Modern Versions.

THE reading of the New as well as of the Old Testament, being necessary for all Christians, both in general and particular, it cannot be question'd, but that, at the very beginning of the Establishment of the Western Churches, it was translated and read commonly in Latin in all the Latin Churches. But whereas the Greek was very common, several took upon them to translate it, or to add to or alter the Versions already made. This multiplicity and variety of Latin Versions of the Holy Scriptures, was, according to Saint Jerome's, and Saint Augustine's attestation, much greater in the New than in the Old Testa∣ment; as is apparent from that Variety to be seen in the ancient Latin Fathers, and in the ancient Latin Copies. It cannot therefore be doubted but that there was one Version more commonly us'd than the rest, call'd the Italian, or the Vul∣gar: But the Copies of this very Version were, and still are so different, that they may pass for almost so many distinct Versions.

Father Martinay has furnish'd us with an Instance of this, in the Gospel ac∣cording to Saint Matthew, which he has given us lately from two Manuscripts of eight hundred Years standing: for there is almost as much difference be∣tween these two Manuscripts as there is between two distinct Versions; and if one compares them with the Version of the Cambridge Manuscript, and with the Citations of the Ancient Fathers, one shall meet with a great many Varieties throughout. If likewise one should compare the Latin Version of the Epistles of Saint Paul, which is in Manuscript in the French King's Library, and in the Library of the Abbey of Saint Germain des Prez, with the Text that is in the Commentaries of Ambrosiastres and Pelagius, we shall find a great deal of diffe∣rence between them.

Saint Jerome did not undertake to made a New Version of the New Testament, but only to reform the Old one by the Greek Text: Novum Testamentum Graecae fidei reddidi, (says he in the Catalogue of his Works:) which in general com∣prehends not only the Gospels, but also the other Books of the New Testament. He likewise cites in his Epistle to Marcellus, the Epistles of Saint Paul, when he speaks of his new Edition of the New Testament. In his Letter to Pope Da∣masus, which we have already related, he explains more at large after what manner he has made his Correction. He only corrected the Places which made any difference in the Sense, that he might not absolutely change the Text of the Vulgar Latin; tho' in his Commentaries on the New Testament, he has taken notice of several Faults which were in the Ancient Vulgar.

'Tis certain that the Vulgar Latin Version, at present, is very different from the Ancient Italian, and that therein are to be found most of the Things which Saint Jerome had reform'd in the Vulgar Version of his Time. However, it must be own'd, That in Saint Jerome's Commentaries there are several Passages, which that Father would have to be read otherwise than they are in the Vulgar Latin. Which has induc'd some to believe, that the Vulgar was not the same Version which was reform'd by Saint Jerome, but the Work of another Author.

This Opinion might have had some shew of Probability, had there been any other Author since Saint Jerome, who had undertaken such a Task, but this would be somewhat hard to prove. How comes it then that the Vulgar Latin, in present Use, is not entirely conformable to the Version which Saint Jerome thought sit to correct? For this, Two plain Reasons may be assign'd.

1. First, That Saint Jerome did not correct all the Places which he thought deserv'd to be corrected; and this either through Inadvertence; or else he left them uncorrected on purpose, that he might not introduce too great an Alte∣ration into the Text.

2. Secondly, This might be occasioned through the Carelesness of the Copiers of Saint Jerome's Version, and thro' that Liberty which the Correctors took to re∣form it. 'Tis from hence that so many Varieties have proceeded in the Copies and Editions of the Vulgar Latin.

Saint Jerome's Correction of the Text of the New Testament met with several Opposers, but not with so many as his New Version of the Old Testament. Saint Augustin, who at first did not approve of this latter, yet highly commended the other Undertaking. For in his Letter written to Saint Jerome, wherein he blames his New Version of the Hebrew Text, which is the Seventieth Letter in the last Edition, he uses these Expressions:

We return God our hearty Thanks for your Translation of the Gospel, written in Greek: because there is nothing in it which offends us when we have compar'd it with the Greek: and should any in Opposition hereto stand up for the Ancient Falsity, he would easily be bet∣ter inform'd or refuted, when the Manuscripts should be shewn him. If there is any thing to hinder this so useful a Work from being commended according to its just desert, it must be a Man, who is so very stiff as not to pardon the Er∣rors that are therein.

Saint Augustin himself has to some good purpose made use of the Version as 'tis reform'd by Saint Jerome.

However, the Ancient Vulgar continu'd still for some time to be generally us'd in the Churches. But by degrees it was regulated according to Saint Jerome's Version; and at last that Father's Version is become not only the most common, but also the only One in use, as well with respect to the New, as to the Old Te∣stament. This has not prevented some particular Persons in these last Times, from undertaking either to make new Latin Versions of the New Testament, or to reform the Vulgar by the Greek Text.

Laurentius Valla was the first who conceiv'd such a Design, and had put it in execution, had not the Pope put a stop thereto. He only made some Critical Remarks on the Ancient Interpreter; wherein he noted the places, where he thought that the Interpreter had not render'd the Propriety of the Words, nor follow'd the Sense, or had made use of Barbarous Terms.

James Le Févre d'Estaples, compos'd a New Version of the Epistles of Saint Paul, which he caus'd to be Printed on the Side of the Vulgar, with his Com∣mentaries, at Paris, 1531. He was set upon for this Version by Lopez Stunica.

But Erasmus was the first, who undertook a new Latin Version of the whole New Testament, and has done it with Success. He dedicated it to Pope Leo X. and caus'd it to be printed at Basil, in the Year 1516. He revis'd it afterwards, and printed it again in the Year 1518. with a Bull of Leo X. in commendation of his Version.

How severe soever the Inquisition is, especially upon the Account of the Books of Authors who are otherwise suspected, yet It found no fault with the Version of Erasmus, as is observ'd in the Preface of the New Testament, printed at Ant∣werp, in the Year 1616. with the Licence of the Superiors, whose Title runs thus; Novum Jesu Christi Testamentum complectens praeter Vulgatam Guidonis è Sy∣riaco, & Benedicti Ariae Montani Translationes, insuper Desiderii Erasmi Auctoris damnati Versionem permissam.

The Censor Librorum, in the Preface before the Version of Erasmus, call'd in the Title above-mention'd, Auctoris damnati Versionem permissam, The Allow'd Ver∣sion

of a condemn'd Author; hath these Words:

Nothing hinders us from se∣riously recommending the Version of Erasmus of Rotterdam; Would to God we could say as much of his other Books.—As for this Version, it has been esteem'd so excellent by all the Learned, that the General Inquisition of Spain has found nothing therein that ought to be corrected, or struck out: and tho' it inter∣dicts all the Books of the Authors of the First Class, yet it allows that this Ver∣sion of Erasmus of the New Testament, should be in every Body's Hands, call∣ing it, The Allow'd Version of a condemn'd Author.

This Censor adds, That four Famous Doctors of Divinity, whom he there names, have pass'd the same Judgment upon it.

But notwithstanding the Pope's Approbation, yet Erasmus had very violent Adversaries to engage with. Stunica and Sutor wrote very sharply against him, and he was oblig'd to reply to them. Tho' it cannot be said that his Version is exempt from Faults; yet it must be own'd that 'tis a very neat Work.

Pagninus has annex'd to his Version of the Old Testament from the Hebrew, a Version of the New Testament from the Greek. It were well if his Version equall'd that of Erasmus. 'Tis to be found in the Bible of Pagninus, printed in the Year 1528.

Arias Montanus made an Interlineary and Literal Version, which can hardly be of any use, but to those who would understand the Greek.

The Version of Leo Judas is more Elegant and freer, but yet is not very exact.

As for Sebastian Castallio's Version, we shall add nothing to what we have al∣ready said of the Character of that Author's Translation, which does not at all suit with a Version of the Holy Scriptures.

The Translation of Theodore Beza, is that which the Protestants esteem most. It must be own'd that there is a great deal of Learning in Beza's Work; tho' he has affected sometimes to make use of certain unusual Terms, and to abstain from others, which Custom has, as it were, consecrated. His withdrawing from the Church of Rome, and the Heresy wherein he was engag'd, may make the Romanists to suspect him: but for all this, his Version may (says Du Pin) be made use of by them to good purpose, as Origen, Saint Jerome, and several other Ecclesiastical Writers, formerly made use of the Versions of Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus, who were Judaizing Hereticks; tho' they were suspected (as Saint Jerome observes in his Preface to Job) to have render'd the Mysteries of JESUS CHRIST obscure.

John Piscator has copy'd Beza's Version, tho' he has alter'd it in several Places.

The Modern Roman Catholicks do not trouble their Heads in making New Ver∣sions of the New Testament, but only stick to the use of the Vulgar, which is declar'd Authentic by the Council of Trent. But for all that, they have set down in their Notes and Commentaries, the Various Lections of the Greek, and the Faults which they suppos'd to have found out in the Vulgar Latin.

SECT. II. Of the Oriental Versions of the New Testament.

OF all the Oriental Versions of the New Testament, the Syriac, doubtless, is the most ancient. However, 'tis not so old as some have imagin'd. I suppose no body will aver that it is Saint Mark's, as the Syrians do assert. We have reason likewise to doubt whether it be more ancient, than the Fifth or Sixth Century. For there we meet with the Addition to the Lord's Prayer, which is in the Liturgy of the Greeks; and where there is mention made of Breaking of Bread, the Word Eucharist is put there, instead of Bread, which does not sa∣vour

much of Antiquity. This Version was certainly made from the Greek, tho' there are in some Places such Readings, as differ from the Text of the Vulgar Greek. There is not any mention made in most of the Syriac Manuscripts, of the Story concerning the Woman taken in Adultery; but the English have sup∣ply'd it from a Manuscript of Archbishop Ʋsher. That Passage about the Trinity, in the First Epistle of Saint John, is left out; and Tremellius was the first who inserted it, by translating it from the Greek into Syriac. Most of the Ma∣nuscripts have likewise only the Three General Epistles. Doctor Pocock was the first that caus'd to be printed at Leyden, in the Year 1630. the other Four in Sy∣riac, from a Manuscript in England. The Apocalypse was publish'd by Ludovicus de Dieu, in the Year 1627. The First Edition of the New Testament in Syriac is that of Albertus Widmanstadius, from a Manuscript brought by a Priest from Merdin and sent by Ignatius the Patriarch of the Jacobines. It first appear'd publick at Vienna, in the Year 1562. Tremellius put out a Second Edition of it, but in He∣brew Characters, and publish'd it with a Latin Version at Geneva, in the Year 1569. It was Inserted in the Polyglott Bible of Philip II. printed at Antwerp, in the Year 1571. in Hebrew and Syriac Characters, by the care of M. Le Févre de la Boderie, who caus'd another Edition of it to be made in Hebrew Characters at Paris, in the Year 1584. Martin Trostius, in the Year 1621, printed a New Edition of the Syriac New Testament in Syriac Characters, with a Latin Inter∣pretation at the Bottom of the Pages. Lastly, Giles Gurbin publish'd it in smaller Characters at Hamburgh, in the Year 1663.

The ARabic Versions of the New Testament, are not so Ancient and Correct. Erpenius has furnish'd us with one of the whole New Testament, from a Manuscript written by a Coptic, in the Year 1171. which was printed at Leyden, in the Year 1616. There is likewise another Arabic Version of the Gospels, printed at Rome with a Latin Version, in the Year 1591. which Gabriel Sionita has inserted into the Polyglotts of Paris. All these Versions were made from the Coptic or Syriac, and not from the Greek.

The Aethiopic Version of the New Testament, was likewise made from the Sy∣riac. The Four Gospels, the Apocalypse, the Seven Canonical Epistles, the Epi∣stle to the Hebrews, were printed at Rome, in the Year 1548. Afterwards were printed the other Thirteen Epistles of Saint Paul. The Author of these Editions is call'd Tesphasion, a Monk of Mount Lebanus, who was assisted therein by Gualterus Aretinus, and Marianus Victorius. Their Aethiopic Copy being imperfect, they supply'd several things from the Latin, especially in the Acts of the Apostles. 'Tis this Version which is in Mr. Walton's English Polyglott.

We have not any Edition of the New Testament in the Coptic; tho' there are some Manuscripts thereof in the French King's Library. There are two Versions of the New Testament, printed in the Persian: One of a Modern date, pub∣lish'd by Abraham Weloke, and printed at London; and the Other more ancient was publish'd in the English Polyglott, from a Manuscript in the 1341. This Ver∣sion was made from the Syriac, and is full of Paraphrases and Expositions.

Ʋscanius printed a New Testament in the Armenian Language at Amsterdam, An. Dom. 1644.

The Anglo-Saxon, or Ancient Gothic Version publish'd by M. Marechal, and printed at Dort, in the Year 1665. is made, as we have already observ'd, from the Ancient Vulgar Version, and therein one may see the Additions, which are in the Cambridge Manuscript.

The Muscovites have a New Testament in their Language, printed at Ostro∣via, in the 1581.

The Version of the New Testament into the Vulgar Greek, by Maximus, and printed at Geneva, in the Year 1638. is of no Authority [among the Roman Ca∣tholicks] being made by a Man gain'd over to the Calvinist Party, and at their Instigation. As to the Versions of the New Testament in the Vulgar Language, we have nothing to add to what we have already said concerning them, in the First Part of this Work.

CHAP. V. Of the Division of the New Testament into Titles and Chapters.

THE Division of the Four Gospels into Parts, or Sections, is more ancient than that of the other Books of the Bible. Eusebius in his Letter to Car∣pianus, and in his Ten Canons of the Gospels, made use of small Sections, wherein he set down by how many Evangelists, and in what Places, one and the same thing was related. This doubtless was the Origine of the Division of the Gospels into Sections, or small Chapters, which were noted in the Margent, that so the Canon might be of some Use. Saint Epiphanius and Caesareus, Brother to Saint Gregory Nazianzene, make mention of these Sections of the Gospels, according to Euse∣bius's Division, into Eleven hundred and seventy two.

But besides this Division of the Gospels, there was another made into larger Parts, call'd Titles; because at the Head of each Book were set down the Ar∣guments of each of its Parts, whose Distinction was noted in the Margent, by the same Head, which answer'd to what was in the Table. These Titles are of longer standing among the Latins, than among the Greeks.

Saint Jerome, speaking of the Commentaries on the Gospels, which were com∣pos'd by Fortunatianus of Africa, Bishop of Aquileia, who flourish'd under Con∣stantine, says, that they had Titles: His Words are, Fortunatianus natione Afer, Aquileiensis Episcopus, Imperante Constantino in Evangelia Titulis ordinatis, brevi & rustico sermone scripsit Commentarios.

Those Titles are likewise to be seen, in the Commentaries of Saint Hilary on Saint Matthew, divided into Canons, or Chapters. Juvencus has likewise ob∣serv'd the same Division of the Gospel: But these Divisions of the Latins are not uniform.

Saint Jerome did not make use of these Titles or Chapters; and in his Re∣form'd Version, has follow'd Eusebius's Division into Sections. But tho' these Titles were not Saint Jerome's; and tho' he did not keep to them, yet since they were common in the Copies of the Ancient Vulgar, they have been retain'd in the Copies of Saint Jerome's Version.

The Greeks have likewise since allowed of these Divisions into Titles, are Suidas has observ'd. Their Titles differ'd from the Chapters, in that the former con∣tain'd more in them than the latter. Saint Matthew was divided into 68 Titles, and 355 small Chapters. Saint Mark into 49 Titles, and 236 small Chapters. Saint Luke into 83 Titles, and 342 small Chapters. Saint John into 18 Titles, and 232 small Chapters.

In the Manuscript of Alexandria, or Thecla's Manuscript, the Gospels are di∣vided into Titles or Chapters, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and subdivided into Sections 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, agreeable to the Canons of Eusebius.

The Vatican Manuscript is not divided after the same manner, but has only in the Margent Red Titles, which make several Sections, tho' not separated; and are different from those of Eusebius's Canons: for the Gospel of Saint Mat∣thew has 150 of them. That of Saint Mark 62. That of Saint Luke 152. That of Saint John 80. The Epistle of Saint James 9. the First Epistle of Saint Peter 8. The First of Saint John 11. The Fourteen Epistles of Saint Paul, which are all under the same running Title, 93 in all. This Division is only peculiar to this Manuscript, and the other is more common in the rest of the Greek Ma∣nuscripts.

At first, the Gospels only were divided into Sections, which was requisite in order to make a Concordance of the Four Evangelists. But afterwards the same thing was done with respect to the other Books of the New Testament. Let us see what an Author lately publish'd by Alexander Zacagnius, the Vatican Library-Keeper, says on this Subject. The Author is one Euthalius, a Bishop in Egypt, who liv'd in the Fifth Century, and made an Edition of the Epistles of Saint Paul, and the other Canonical Epistles. This Euthalius, in the Preface of that Work, says, That the Division of St. Paul's Epistles into Chapters, had been made under the Fourth Consulship of Arcadius, and the Third of Honorius, (that is, in the Year 396.) by a Syrian, whose Name is unknown. Euthalius made use of that Division in his Edition of Saint Paul's Epistles, and divided himself the Acts of the Apostles. He was but young when he finish'd that Work. But afterwards, about the latter end of his Life, he undertook likewise to divide the Canonical Epistles, at the Instance of Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, who suc∣ceeded Peter Mongus in the See of that Church, An. Dom. 490. These two Pieces were publish'd by Zacagnius, in the Year 1698. with several other Re∣mains of Antiquity, taken out of the Vatican Library. This Division was after∣wards receiv'd by the Greeks; and 'tis that which Oecumenicus made use of.

At last, the Text of the New, as well as that of the Old Testament, was di∣vided into Verses. Hesychius is the Author of that Division among the Greeks. The Manuscripts of the Ancient Vulgar, are likewise divided into Verses, as well as the Manuscripts of Saint Jerome's Version, and the Greek Manuscripts which are of a more Modern Date. Father Martinay has publish'd a Table, gi∣ving us an Account how many Verses each Book contains, according to the dif∣ferent Divisions; which are not so wide from one another, as those of the Books of the Old Testament.

The present Division of the New Testament into Chapters, is owing to Car∣dinal Hugh; and the Distinguishing each Chapter into Verses, was done by Ro∣bert Stephens, who has follow'd that of the Greek Manuscripts, when he found them divided into Verses.

CHAP. VI. Of the Apocryphal Books of the New Testament.

THE Apocryphal Books of the New Testament, are of two sorts: Some of them are the Works of Orthodox Writers, and have nothing of harm in them: others are Writings forg'd by Hereticks, to Authorize their Errors.

The First sort, are either such Pieces as are Father'd upon Authors, who ne∣ver wrote them: As for Instance, the Letter of Jesus Christ to King Agbarus, or Abgarus: Or Anonymous Tracts, such as the Gospels according to the Hebrews and the Egyptians,: Or lastly, such Writings which do indeed belong to those Authors, whose Names they bear, but have not been own'd as Canonical by the Church, tho' some have believ'd them to be such: As for Instance, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Pastor of Hermas, and the First Epistle of Saint Clement to the Corinthians, which some of the Ancients have cited as Books of the Holy Scri∣pture.

SECT. I. Of the Letter of Jesus Christ to King Agbarus, and of that King's Letter to Jesus Christ.

AMong all the Remains of Antiquity which ought to be inserted into the Number of the Canonical Books, if they were that Author's to whom they are inscribed, none certainly could more fairly pretend to it than the Let∣ter of Jesus Christ to King Agbarus, if we were sure that he wrote it. For as no Person can question the Certainty and Truth of what He has said or written, (the Doctrine and Writings of the Apostles being only infallible, because of the Instructions they receiv'd from their great Master) in what Veneration ought a Letter written by himself to be held among Christians, were we certain that it was really His? But we are so far from being assur'd of this, that on the con∣trary 'tis highly probable that 'tis a Spurious piece, and such as deserves no manner of Credit. The Account we shall give of it is as follows.

Euscbius in the 13th. Ch. of the 1st. B. of his Ecclesiastical History relates, That a King of Edessa (a) 1.55 nam'd Agbarus, (b) 1.56 having heard of the Miracles of Jesus Christ, wrote a Letter to him desiring him to cure him of a Distemper with which he was afflicted: That Jesus Christ at the present did not comply with his Desire, but only wrote him a Letter, wherein he promised to send him one of his Disciples to cure him; and lastly, that the Apostle Saint Thomas im∣mediately after our Saviour's Resurrection, sent to him Thaddeus one of the se∣venty two Disciples, who fulfill'd the promise which our Saviour had made of healing him, and converted both him and his Family.

This story Eusebius founds on the Letters of Jesus Christ and Agbarus, taken out of the Archives of the Church of Edessa, which he says were translated from the Syriac into Greek. However 'tis probable, that Eusebius was too ha∣sty in crediting the Memoirs which had been given him; That those Letters are spurious, and that this whole story is mere invention.

For in the first place who can imagine that the King of Edessa upon the bare recital that was made of the Miracles of Jesus Christ, should have spoken to him as a Man that was perswaded of his Divinity, and instructed in his Religi∣on?

Having heard (says he) of the Miracles which thou hast wrought, I am fully perswaded that thou art God.

Who does not perceive that these Words could never have been written by any, unless one convinc'd of, and instructed in Christianity, who makes Agbarus to speak almost in the same style as he would speak himself? What is afterwards put into that King's Mouth, when he says

(That having understood that the Jews calumniated him, and design'd to do him some mischief, he invited him into his City, which tho' small, yet was big e∣nough for both of them)

This, I say is a farther proof of the Falsity of this Letter. For who will believe that a King should at the first touch offer half of his Kingdom to a Man that was a stranger to him?

'Tis as easie to discover the spuriousness of the Letter attributed to Jesus Christ; which begins thus.

Thou art happy, Agbarus, in having believed in me whom thou hast never seen: for it is written of me, that those who shall see me, shall not believe in me, that those who believe in me, without seeing me should receive everlasting Life.

Where are these words written? Is it not

plain, that he who compil'd this Letter alludes to what our Saviour said to St. Thomas, Happy are those who have not seen me, and yet have believ'd? Words that were not spoken by Jesus Christ till after his Resurrection, and which were not penn'd till a great while after, which manifestly detects the for∣gery of this Letter.

The story which is told upon these two Letters, and taken out of the same Archives, is no less fabulous. 'Tis said that the Apostle Jude c 1.57 who also was call'd Thomas, sent the Apostle Thaddeus, one of the seventy Disciples to Agbarus: That this King having heard that there was a Man in his City who wrought a great many Miracles, and supposing that it was the Disciple whom Jesus Christ had promis'd to send him, he sent for him by one Tobias; and that he no sooner saw him, but his face appearing to be divine, he fell down at his Feet and worshipped him, and ask'd him whether he was not that Disciple whom Jesus Christ had promis'd to send to cure him. Thaddeus having answer'd that he was the Man, and that if he believ'd in Jesus Christ, he should be sav'd; to this Agbarus reply'd: My Belief in him is so strong, that I would denounce War a∣gainst the Jews who have crucify'd him, and extirpate their whole Nation, did not the Fear I have of the Roman Empire divert me from that undertaking. Certainly he who has made this perty Prince of Edessa to say such Words, had but very little Judgment, in attributing to him such an extravagant Design as this was. For what can be more ridiculous than to imagine that the Prince of one single City should engage in a War against a Nation so powerful as that of the Jews, and should hope to destroy them to revenge the Death of a Man, whom he knew on∣ly by Hear-say? What probability is there that he had nothing but the fear of the Romans to divert him from so rash an undertaking? I shall not stand to make Remarks upon the other Circumstances of this Narration, which seem to be as fabulous as those which we have already hinted at. I shall only add, that the Time wherein it is said that these things happen'd, discovers the Imposture of the whole story.

It was noted at the end of these Memoirs, that this happen'd in the 430th. Year of the Edessenes; now that was the 15th. Year of the Reign of Tiberius, in which the Ancients believ'd that Jesus Christ dyed and rose again. And ac∣cording to this Epocha, and what is related in these Records, this happen'd immediately after the Resurrection of Jesus Christ; and Agbarus and several o∣ther Gentiles of Edessa, embrac'd the Gospel before Cornelius, which is down∣right contrary to the Acts of the Apostles: and consequently we are as good as sure that this History is false, and those Letters spurious.

The Authority of Eusebius is not of any Consideration in this point; for 'tis plain that he was impos'd upon by the Memoirs taken out of the Archives of the Church of Edessa, and sent to him, which he was too easie in crediting. And who is there but knows that there are abundance of these sorts of Records which are subject to such slips in Histories of that Nature?

But forasmuch as a story (as they say) loses nothing by going, they have since feign'd, that Jesus Christ in writing to Agbarus, sent him his Picture pain∣ted on a Handkerchief. Evagrius is the first that makes mention of this Pi∣cture in the fourth Book of his History, Chap. 27. and he goes upon the Au∣thority of Procopius, who yet says nothing of this History. However since the time of Evagrius, the Defenders of Images and Image-Worship have frequently made mention of it: and the Modern Greeks have believ'd it so strongly, that they have instituted a Festival for it on the Sixteenth of August.

SECT. II. Of several Letters attributed to the Virgin-Mary.

SOme have likewise attributed several Letters to the Virgin-Mary, the which not being so Ancient as those of Jesus Christ to Agbarus, may more easily be convicted of falshood. The Letter of the Virgin to St. Ignatius is spurious, as we shall shew when we come to speak of the Letters of that Saint. That to the Florentines publish'd by Canisius, and That which the Inhabitants of Messina brag that they have, have greater signs of falsity, and are rejected by all the World, so that there is no need to prove them spurious.

SECT. III. Of the Ancient Gospels which are not Heretical, tho' they be not Canonical: Namely, the Gospels according to the Hebrews, and according to the Egyptians.

THE Ancients make mention of two Gospels which were not of the same Authority as the four Canonical Gospels, but which one cannot reject as Records invented by the Hereticks, to authorize their Errors.

The first and most ancient is the Gospel of the Nazarenes, concerning which we have nothing farther to add, to what we have already observed about it in speaking of Saint Matthew's Gospel.

The Second is the Gospel according to the Egyptians, cited by Saint Clement of Alexandria in the third Book of his Stromata, where two passages taken out of that Gospel are recited. The first containing the Speech of our Saviour to Salome: I am come to destroy the Works of the Woman; that is, according to Saint Clement's Explication; Child-bearing and Death, which are the Effects of Concu∣piscenee.

The other passage was cited by the Heretick Cassian of the Sect of Valentinus, who has quoted it in these Terms:

Salome demanding when one should know the things about which she had interrogated our Lord, he told her: When you have divested your selves of all Shame, and when two shall be made one, the Man with the Woman, and when there shall be no more either Male or Female.

. This is plainly a corrupt Paraphrase or Imitation of what our Saviour says in Saint Matthew, Chap. 22. Verse 30. That after the Resurrection there should be no more Marrying, nor giving in Marriage, but that they should be as the Angels in Heaven.

The passage of the Gospel according to the Egyptians, if taken in this Sense, may be tolerable; but Cassian made use of it to condemn Marriage. For this reason Saint Clement after he had return'd him this Answer:

That this Sen∣tence is not to be met with in the four Gospels, which Tradition has handed down to us, but only in the Gospel according to the Egyptians; gives us af∣terwards an obscure and forc'd Explication of it,

which would not be satis∣factory, were that Gospel of any Authority.

Saint Epiphanius says, that the Sabellians made use of this Gospel for the sup∣porting of their Error, because it proposes several things spoken by our Saviour, after a hidden and mysterious manner, by which he seems to declare to his Dis∣ciples, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are one and the same Per∣son. Origen and Saint Jerome make mention likewise of this Gospel; but we have lost it, as well as that of the Nazarenes.

SECT. IV. Of the Proto-Evangelium of Saint James, and the Gospel of Nicodemus.

BEsides the two celebrated Gospels among the Ancients, already mention'd, we have by us at present, a Book intituled, The Proto-Evangelium, concer∣ning the Generation of Jesus Christ, and of his Mother Mary always Virgin, written by Saint James the Less, Kinsman and Brother of our Lord Jesus Christ, first Apostle, and first Bishop of the Christians of Jerusalem. This Book was brought from the Levant, by William Postel, who translated it into Latin. His Version was prin∣ted at Basil by Bibliander, in the Year 1562. and the Greek in the Year 1569. in the Orthodoxographies. 'Tis a Treatise full of idle Stories and Fables (a) 1.58, con∣cerning the Nativity, Life, and Lying in of the Virgin.

Eustathius in his Commentary on the Six Days Work of Creation, produces a passage taken out of this Book: but withal owns, that it does not really be∣long to the Apostle of that Name, and cites it only under the Name of one James.

Saint Gregory Nyssene has likewise transcribed several Stories out of this Book in his Discourse concerning the Nativity of the Virgin-Mary.

Epiphanius the Monk in his Treatise of the Life of the Virgin, says that this James was a Jew contemporary with the Virgin. 'Tis more probable that a Greek was the compiler of this History.

The Gospel of Nicodemus, which follows that of Saint James in the Orthodoxo∣graphies, is as full of Fables (b) 1.59 concerning the Passion and Resurrection of Je∣sus Christ, as the former is concerning the Life of the Virgin-Mary. The Title imports that it was found under the Reign of Theodosius; but it is probable, that it is more modern. It is not plac'd by Galasius among the Apocryphal Books, nor does it contain any gross Errors.

SECT. V. Of the False Gospels forg'd by the Hereticks.

NOthing more evinceth the truth of this Maxim of H. Scripture, (That the Fa∣ther of Lies does often transform himself into an Angel of Light:) than the many Books that have been forg'd by Hereticks, and made to pass for the Writings of the Apostles, and Canonical. The Holy Ghost having caus'd Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and a Revelation, to be written by those whom he had inspir'd: The Devil to counterfeit the Truth, has caus'd several Gospels, Acts, Revelations and Epistles, to be made by his Ministers, and which they have father'd on the Apostles or Apostolical Men. Their Number was very great in the first Ages of Christianity. But that which shews how weak an Imposture is in Compari∣son with the Truth, is, that the falsity of these Memoirs was immediately de∣tected: The Catholicks were not deceiv'd by them, and their Authors have been found out and discover'd. They were never cited with any Credit by the Ecclesiastical Writers. Their style, quite different from the Apostolical Sim∣plicity, and the Doctrine contrary to that of the Apostles, is a sufficient Evi∣dence of their Spuriousness. They were not long in request, and at last pe∣rished with the Sects that authoriz'd them, so that we have now nothing left of 'em but their Titles. Here follows the Catalogue of them, and what we know of them.

I. The Gospel of Saint Peter, of which Eusebius and Saint Jerome make menti∣on, is one of the most ancient. Serapion an ancient Ecclesiastical Writer has compos'd a Treatise on this Gospel, in favour of some Christians of Rhossus, who had swerv'd from the Faith having been deceiv'd by this Gospel. We here pre∣sent you with a passage taken out of that Tract, as 'tis related by Eusebius, which we think fit to transcribe in this place, it being so very pertinent to our present Subject.

My Brethren, we receive Saint Peter, and the other Apostles as Jesus Christ himself; but we reject, as Learned Men ought to do, such Books as are father'd upon them, knowing that we have not receiv'd them by Tra∣dition. When I was in your Parts, forasmuch as you all embrac'd sound Do∣ctrine, without having read the Gospel that goes under the name of Saint Peter, which some presented to me, I then said, that if that was all which troubled you, you might read it. But having understood since that there was a secret Heresie lurking in their Minds, I will return to give you another Vi∣sit, and you may expect me very shortly. I have likewise learnt what Heresie Marcion espous'd, who contradicted himself. I have therefore borrowed this Gospel of those who have studied it, viz. the Successors of Marcion's Pre∣decessors, whom we call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (for most of the opinions of Marcion and his Followers come from that School) and having read it, I have found se∣veral things which suit with the true Doctrine of our Saviour: but withall I have met with others which were very different from it, and which I have collected together, in order to give you a Caution about them

. The Naza∣rens, according to Theodoret's testimony, did likewise make use of this Gos∣pel of Saint Peter. Pope Gelasius places it among the Apocryphal Books.

II. The Valentinians have compos'd a Gospel, which they styl'd, The Gospel of Truth, as Saint Irenaeus observes in his Third Book against Heresie, Chap. 11.

The Valentinians (says he) Men of a bold and impudent Spirit, boast that they have more than four Gospels, and produce their own Writings under that Ti∣tle; for they have the Boldness to intitle a Gospel, which they have lately written, and which does not agree with the Gospels of the Apostles, The Gos∣pel of Truth.

III. The Gnostics have likewise forg'd a Gospel intitl'd, The Gospel of Perfection, of which Saint Epiphanius makes mention in his 26th. Heresie N. 2. They like∣wise made use, according to the same Father's Testimony, Ibid. N. 13. Of a Gospel which they attributed to Saint Philip the Disciple of Jesus Christ, which was the same that was made use of by the Ebionites, Basilides and Appelles, and is rejected by Pope Gelasius. Saint Epiphanius relates a passage of it, which may serve to give us a Character of these Writings. I will here give you the Trans∣cript of it in order to convince the greatest Infidels of the vast difference there is between the Spurious and Genuine Gospels. The passage runs thus,

The Lord has discover'd to me what Words the Soul ought to use when it ascends to Heaven, and how it ought to answer to each of the Celestial Vertues; viz. I have recovered and recollected my Self: I have begotten no Children for the Prince of this World, but have pluck'd up the very Roots: I have gathered together its dispersed Members, I know who you are, for I am from above

. These and such like were the Fooleries and Dreams of those Gospels of Darkness. The Gnostics had likewise another Gospel more infa∣mous than the former, which they call'd the Gospel of Eve, giving out that from her they held the Name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which she had learnt from the Ser∣pent. Saint Epiphanius recites a Fragment of that Gospel, which is so ri∣diculous, that it would be time lost to give you the Transcript of it.

IV. Origen, Eusebius and Saint Jerome make mention of a Gospel according to Saint Matthias, which is plac'd among the Apocryphal Books by Pope Gelasius, as are all the Works in general attributed to Saint Matthias, by Pope Innocent I.

V. The Manichees had a Gospel under the Name of Saint Thomas, which be∣long'd to Thomas one of the Disciples of Manes, as Saint Cyril observes in his fourth Catechetical Lecture. Origen, Eusebius and Saint Jerome do likewise mention this Gospel. Pope Gelasius has plac'd it among the Apocryphal Wri∣tings. Saint Augustine in his twenty second Book against Faustus Chap. 79. says that the Manichees read the Apocryphal Scriptures written by the Inventors of Fables, under the name of the Apostles. He adds, that in these Books we read this History or rather Fable, viz. That the Apostle Saint Thomas having made an Imprecation against a Man who had given him a Box on the Ear, that Man was immediately torn to pieces by a Lyon. This was certainly related in that Gospel of Saint Thomas. Manicheus had himself compos'd a Letter under his Name, wherein he took upon him the Character of an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and speaks as a Man divinely inspir'd. Saint Augustine relates, and refutes the Words of this Letter in a Book written on purpose.

VI. There is mention made of a Gospel of Saint Bartholomew, in the Preface of Origen's Homilies on Saint Luke, and in the Preface of Saint Jerome's Com∣mentary on Saint Matthew: Pope Gelasius places it among the Apocryphal Books.

VII. The Gajnites had forg'd a Gospel under the Name of Judas Iscariot, whom they honour'd, if we may credit Saint Epiphanius and Theodoret in the Case.

VIII. Lastly, Pope Gelasius reckons among the Apocryphal Gospels, besides the foremention'd, those that follow: viz. the Gospel of Thaddeus, the Gos∣pel of Barnabas, and the Gospel of Andrew.

The Greeks in their Polygrammata aver that Timothy wrote a Gospel: but we cannot tell whether there was really one under his Name, or whether they did not say this merely by Conjecture.

To the Apocryphal Gospels we ought to joyn the Spurious Histories of the Birth or Infancy of our Saviour. The Mareosians who had forg'd several Apo∣cryphal Writings, did therein relate several stories about the Infancy of our Lord: as for instance,

That Jesus Christ being a Child and learning to Read, when his Master bad him pronounce Alpha, he said after him, Alpha; and that afterwards ordering him to say Beta, our Saviour said, pray Sir explain to me first what you mean by Alpha, and then I will tell you what Beta is.

These and such like are the Fooleries which those prophane Persons would have to pass for great Mysteries.

Pope Gelasius reckons among the Apocryphal Writings a Book concerning the Infancy of our Saviour, which is manifestly the same Tract out of which the foremention'd History was taken. He likewise reckons, as such, a Treatise concerning the Nativity of our Saviour, the Virgin-Mary, and her Midwife. The Gnostics had likewise forg'd a Tract, concerning the Virgin Mary's Lying in, and the Questions she ask'd, which they distinguish into Greater and Lesser.

The Heretick Seleucus had forg'd a Treatise of the Nativity of the Virgin-Mary, which he said was compos'd in Hebrew by Saint Matthew, and which had been kept in secret. This Apocryphal piece was translated by a Latin, who pretends that the History thereof is true, and that Seleucus has only added thereto his Er∣rors, which he has struck out in his Version. We meet with this Version in the last Translation that was made of the Works of Saint Jerome. Therein are mention'd Saint Anna, Saint Joachim, the Marriage of Joseph, and what pre∣ceded our Saviour's Birth. This whole History is extravagant (a) 1.60, and de∣serves

no manner of Credit. Saint Gregory Nyssene in his Treatise concerning the Birth of Jesus Christ, cites an Apocryphal Book, wherein were stories much of the same Nature; however it is not the same (b.) 1.61, its Narration being plain∣er and less charg'd with Incidents. The Apocryphal Book, wherein 'tis related that Saint Joachim was of the Tribe of Levi, cited by Faustus against Saint Au∣gustine, was different from those two, since in them 'tis suppos'd that Joachim was of the Linage of David, and consequently of the Tribe of Judah.

Lastly, there were in Saint Augustine's time some Writings, which some of no Sense publish'd under the Name of Jesus to Peter, to instruct the Apostles how they should work Miracles. This very design alone shews that it was an impi∣ous Work. Those are all the Apocryphal Books which have any reference to the History of the Gospel.

SECT. VI. Of the Spurious Acts of Apostles and Revelations.

THE Acts of Saint Luke contain but a very small part of the Actions of se∣veral of the Apostles, because he does not treat of all of them, nor does he describe at large all the Acts of those whom he speaks of. So that they who were minded to invent false Acts, had a large field of Matter left them wherein to exercise their deceitful Pens.

The first who thought of this Artifice was a certain Priest the Disciple of Saint Paul, who excited by a false Zeal for his Master, forg'd under Saint Luke's Name, the Acts of Paul and Thecla, and was convicted of this Imposture by Saint John, as Tertullian, and after him, Saint Jerome have assur'd us (a.) 1.62.

The simplicity of this ancient Priest, who had no ill intention in his Head, was in some sort excusable. However he was degraded for that thing alone, so great a hatred had the Church for falshood and imposture, tho' it were co∣ver'd with never so good an Intention. But one cannot but abominate the He∣reticks, who have of their own Heads composed Acts of several Apostles, wherein they have inserted their own Errors. They have not only attributed a false Gospel to Saint Peter, but likewise four other Books intituled, the Acts, the Preaching, the Apocalypse and the Judgment of Saint Peter.

Saint Jerome makes mention of these four Tracts. The Preaching is cited by Saint Clement of Alexandria, and by Origen, who have recited some Fragments of it. Origen took them from the Heretick Heracleon, the Disciple of Valenti∣nus. Saint Isidorus of Damietta quotes the Acts of Saint Peter, Book 2. Epist. 99. We cannot tell what sort of piece the Judgment of Saint Peter is. The Doctrine of Peter or of the Apostles, is confounded by some with the Constitutions, and by others with the Preaching of Saint Peter. The Travels or Itinerary of Saint Pe∣ter, is the same with the Recognitions or Clementines, a Tract very erroneous. These Works are of an ancient Date, but forged by Hereticks about the middle of the second Century.

The Acts of Saint Paul were forg'd by the Manichees. Eusebius and Phila∣strius make mention thereof. Therein the Apostles were made to say that the Souls of Men and Beasts were of the same Nature, and they are introduc'd working of Miracles in order to make Dogs and Sheep to speak.

There are several other Acts besides, forg'd by several Hereticks, viz. the Acts of Saint Andrew, which the Encratites, Apostolicks, and Origenists made use of.

The Acts of Saint John, forg'd by the Encratites, according to the Testimony of Saint Epiphanius, Heres. 47. of Philastrius, Heres. 48. and of Saint Augustine, Lib. de side contra Maroich.

The Acts of Saint Philip and Saint Thomas, which the Encratites and Apostolicks made use of, as the same Saint Epiphanius has observ'd in the Heresies 47, and 61.

The Acts of the Apostles in general, made by the Ebionites, cited by Saint Epipha∣nius in the Description of that Heresie.

The Rapture of Saint Paul (b) 1.63, a Work compos'd by the Gajanites, which the Gnosticks made use of according to the Testimony of Saint Epiphanius Heres. 8.

The Memoirs of the Apostles compos'd by the Priscillianists.

The Itinerary of the Apostles rejected in the second Council of Nice, Act. 5.

To these we may add the spurious Relations, such as that of the Lots of the Apostles, rejected by Pope Gelasius.

The Writings of the Apostles, made by Dictinius, and rejected in the Synod of Braga, Chap. 17.

The Tract concerning the High Priest-hood of Jesus Christ, cited by Suidas, whose Author pretends to prove that Jesus Christ was descended from the Levites, and that by the Jews he was reckoned among their Priests.

The Apostolical Tract, which was an Enthusiastical piece compos'd by Marcion, of which mention is made by Saint Epiphanius.

A Treatise concerning the Death and Assumption of the Virgin-Mary, attributed to Saint John, which Pope Gelasius has plac'd among the Apocryphal Books, and which perhaps is the same with that which goes under the Name of Melito in the Bibliotheca Patrum.

Lastly, there were a great many forged Apocalypses or Revelations: The Apo∣calypse of Saint Peter, cited by Saint Clement in his Hypotypose〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which Eusebius in the third Book of his Ecclesiastical History, Chap. 25. reckons among those spurious Books which are not Heretical, and which Sozomen saith they read e∣very Year about Easter in the Churches of Palestine, Book 7. of his History, Chap. 19.

The Apocalypse or secrets of Saint Paul, which the Monks had formerly in great Esteem, according to the Testimony of Sozomen: The Egyptians boast of having it by them to this very day, and it was plac'd among the Apocryphal Books by Pope Gelasius, together with the Revelations of Saint Thomas, and Saint Stephen. To these we may add the Revelation of the Great Apostle, compos'd by Cerinthus: The Apocalypse of Abraham, forg'd by the Hethian Hereticks, mention'd by Saint Epiphanius Heres. 39. N. 4. and the Revelations of Seth and Noriah, the Wife of Noah, by the Gnosticks. All these pieces are lost, nor need we be much con∣cern'd at it.

SECT. VII. Of the Epistle of Saint Barnabas.

JOseph, Sirnamed by the Apostles Barnabas, i. e. the Son of Consolation (a.) 1.64, who was a Levite, and originally of the Isle of Cyprus (b.) 1.65 laboured as much as the Apostles themselves in establishing the Christian Religion. Some of the Ancients have pretended (c.) 1.66 that he was one of the seventy two Disciples of Jesus Christ; but Saint Luke speaks of him in such a manner as would induce one rather to believe, that he was not joyn'd to the Apostles till after our Savi∣our's Death. Let this be how it will, 'tis certain that from that time, he became one of the chief Preachers of the Gospel, and deserv'd to be plac'd among the Apostles. We know nothing for certain of his Life, but what Saint Luke has related of it in the Acts.

He has written (says Saint Jerome) a Letter full of Edification for the Church, tho' it is not Canonical. This Letter is cited several times by Saint Clement of Alexandria (d.) 1.67, and by Origen (e.) 1.68, who make no question but that it is His, un∣der whose Name it goes. 'Tis true, Eusebius and Saint Jerome reckon it among the Apocryphal Writings (f.) 1.69; but for all that, they do not deny but that 'tis Saint Barnabas's; for they only say that it ought not to be of the same Autho∣rity as the Canonical Books; because, tho' it be Saint Barnabas's, yet it was not universally receiv'd by all the Churches.

This is the reason why this Letter is not reckoned among the Canonical Books; because in order thereto, 'tis not only requisite that it be the Work of an Apostle, or of a Disciple of the Apostles; but also that it be receiv'd as Ca∣nonical by all the Churches. Otherwise the Pastor of Hermas, and the Epistle of Saint Clement ought to be reckon'd as Canonical Books. So that 'tis a very weak way of arguing to say, that the Epistle of Barnabas does not belong to that Apostle, because if it were really His, it would have been inserted among the Canonical Writings: since in order that any Book should be declar'd Canonical, it is requisite (let the Author be who he will) that the whole Church should ac∣knowledge it as such. Besides, there are some Books, of which the Apostles or their Disciples are the Authors (g.) 1.70 which were not formerly, and are not yet in the Number of Canonical Books: and on the contrary, there are some, whose Authors are not altogether certainly known, which have been, and still are a∣mong the Canonical Books: As for instance, in the New Testament, the Epistle

to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse; and in the Old, most of the Books, of whose true Authors we are not certainly assur'd. But tho' it were true to say, that a Book is Canonical, if it is manifest, that it was written by an Author, who had the Authority to make it pass for Canonical, yet who has assur'd us that Saint Barnabas ought to be esteem'd as such an Author, any more than Saint Clement and Hermas? 'Tis for the Church to determine this Point, and since she has been silent, this is a sufficient Warrant to make the Letter pass for Apocryphal, tho' it does really belong to Saint Barnabas.

They add that this Letter is unworthy of Saint Barnabas; that 'tis incredible, that such a great Apostle as he was, being full of the Holy Ghost, and Saint Paul's Companion in Travel, should be the Author of most of the things which are contain'd in this Letter: such as are the forc'd Allegories, the extravagant Explications of the Scripture, and such as are foreign to good Sense, together with the stories concerning Beasts, and several other such like Fancies, which make up the first part of this Epistle.

To this I answer, that notwithstanding these defects, yet Saint Clement of A∣lexandria, Origen, Eusebius and Saint Jerome have ascribed it to him. And 'tis in my opinion a very great piece of Imprudence for any Man to imagine himself to be clearer sighted in this matter, than those great Criticks of Antiquity. They were nearer than we are to the time of the Apostles, They had by them a great many Books compos'd by their Disciples, which are lost to Us; and con∣sequently they are better Judges than we are of the style and the manner of Writing us'd by the Apostles, their Companions and Disciples. If then they have allow'd that the Allegories, mystical Explications, and stories to be met with in the Epistle of Saint Barnabas are really his, with what Face can we at present pretend to say that they are none of His? Certainly that Man must have but very little knowledge of the Genius of the Jews, and the first Christians, who had been bred up and educated in the Synagogue, if he supposes that such sorts of Thoughts cannot proceed from them: On the contrary, 'tis their very Essential Character, they had learn'd from the Jews to turn the whole Scripture into Allegory, and to make their Observations on the Properties of those Beasts which the Law had forbidden to be eaten.

It is no wonder then that Saint Barnabas a Jew by Birth writing to Jews, should explain after an Allegorical manner several passages of the Old Testament, in applying them to the New; and should invent several Moral Thoughts upon the properties of the Beasts, of which the Jews were forbidden to eat.

The Epistle of Saint Clement the Roman to the Corinthians, so much esteem'd by the Primitive Christians, and the Stromata of Saint Clement of Alexandria are full of these sorts of Allegories and Figures. The story of the Phaenix related in the Epistle of Saint Clement the Roman looks more like a Fable, than that which Saint Barnabas saith in his Epistle concerning the Properties of some Beasts: and the Allegory of the Blood of Jesus Christ typified by the Scarlet Ribban hung out by the Harlot Rahab, which is likewise in the same Epistle, is as far∣fetch'd, as most of the Allegories of Saint Barnabas are. But why should we insist upon a matter that is so plain, since all the World knows how full of Fables and Allegories the Books of the Primitive Christians were?

Lastly, They accuse the Author of this Epistle of having call'd the Apostles before their Conversion, the greatest Sinners upon the face of the Earth. But they take his Words in too strict a Sense; for his meaning is not that they were the greatest of Sinners, but only that they were great Sinners (h.) 1.71.

We cannot tell for certain to whom the Epistle of Saint Barnabas is address'd, because we have not the Superscription of it by us: Yet by the Body of it, it seems as if it were written to the converted Jews, who had been too zealously ad∣dicted to the observance of the Law of Moses; and it is divided into two Parts.

In the first, he shews the unprofitableness of the Old Law, and the necessity of the Incarnation and Death of Jesus Christ. He therein recites several passa∣ges concerning the Ceremonies and Precepts of the Old Law, which he explains Allegorically, by applying them to Jesus Christ, and to the New Law.

The second part is a Moral Instruction, which contains several Precepts con∣cerning what ought to be done, and what ought not to be done.

This Letter was publish'd first in Greek, from a Copy of Father Hugh Menard a Benedictine Monk, who prepared this Edition a little before his Death. He had the Greek of this Letter from Father Sirmondus, and the Ancient Version of it was found in a Manuscript of the Abbey of Corbey, near a thousand Years old. Death having prevented him from publishing this Tract, Father Dom Luke d'Achery put his Design into Execution, and took care to have it printed after his Death at Paris in the Year 1645. They say Arch-Bishop Ʋsher had caus'd it to be printed before at London, in the Year 1642. and that the whole Impression was burnt, except one Copy which is inserted in the Catalogue of the Bodleian Library.

After this, the famous Isaac Vossius took care to print it with the Epistles of Saint Ignatius, and revis'd from three Manuscripts, in the Year 1656.

At last M. Cotelerius has publish'd it, with a New Version e Regione; the whole Ancient Version, and Critical Remarks at the End. It is at the head of the Col∣lection which was made of the Works of the Ancient Fathers, which were prin∣ted at Paris by Petit, in the Year 1672: and which have been lately reprinted in Holland.

The Greek of the four or five first Chapters is wanting in all these Editions: but they are in Latin in the Ancient Version, which, tho' Barbarous and Faul∣ty, yet has serv'd to correct the Greek in several Places.

SECT. VIII. Of the Liturgies which are falsly attributed to the Apostles.

WE need only to reflect a little on what we read concerning the Cele∣bration of the Eucharist in Saint Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians, and on what Saint Justin, and the Primitive Fathers have said about it, in order to be convinc'd that the Apostles and those who succeeded them, did celebrate the Sa∣crifice of the Mass with great Simplicity. This is what has been taken notice of by all those who have wrote upon the Liturgies (a.) 1.72, who all agree in this, That

the Mass was celebrated without many Ceremonies in the first Ages of Chri∣stianity; and that they said therein but very few Prayers: but by little and little, several other Prayers were added, together with some external Ceremo∣nies, in order to render the Sacrifice more awful to the People. Lastly, the Churches have regulated and committed to Writing the manner of Celebrating it, and this is that which they call the Liturgies: the which having been made con∣formable to the Customs of different places, are likewise so many different Li∣turgies. And whereas Men are naturally inclin'd to change something or other in their outward way of Worship; they have from time to time added seve∣ral things to these Liturgies.

This single Reflection is enough to shew that the Liturgies, which go under the name of the Apostles and Evangelists, are not really theirs: but to prove it beyond dispute, we need only examine them one after another.

The Liturgy or Mass in Greek and Latin attributed to Saint Peter, which was publish'd by Lindanus, in the Year 1589. from a Manuscript of Cardinal Sirlet, of no very long standing, and which has been printed since at Paris, by Morel in the Year 1595. This Liturgy, I say cannot be Saint Peter's for the fol∣lowing Reasons. Therein mention is made of Saint Sixtus, Cornelius, and Saint Cyprian. The Canon of the Latin Mass, which Saint Gregory asserts to have been compos'd by a Scholastick, that is, by a Learned Man of the Fifth Century, is inserted therein at large. It contains several Prayers taken out of the Sacra∣mentary of Saint Gregory, and out of the Liturgies of Saint Basil and Saint Chrysostome. Therein they pray for the Patriarch (a Term unknown before the latter end of the fourth Century) and for the most Religious Emperors, which supposes that there were at that time Christian Emperors. Lastly, had this Liturgy been Saint Peter's, the Church of Rome would have made use of it, nor would it have lain dormant for so many Ages. These Reasons made the Learn∣ed Cardinal Bona to say, that this Liturgy was a forg'd piece, and that it was manifestly compos'd by some Greek-Latiniz'd Priest, because it was taken partly out of the Liturgy of the Greeks, and partly out of that of the Latins; and that it was attributed to Saint Peter, either to give it the greater Authority, or else because it contain'd a great part of the Liturgy of the Roman Church.

The Mass of the Ethiopians, which goes under the name of Saint Matthew, is likewise apparently spurious. For therein Popes, Kings, Patriarchs and Arch-Bishops are pray'd for. Therein the twelve Apostles are invocated, the four Evangelists commemorated, and mention made of the Synods of Nice, Constan∣tinople and Ephesus. Therein the Nicene Creed is sung with the Clause Filioque: And mention made of Saint Athanasius, Saint Gregory, and Saint Basil, of the Epact, the Golden Number, and the Trisagion: All which sufficiently prove this Liturgy to be very Modern.

The same Judgment may be pass'd on the Liturgy of Saint Mark, publish'd by Cardinal Sirlet, and printed at Paris by Morel: For therein we meet with the Word Consubstantial, and the Trisagion; therein they pray for the King, and for Saint Mark himself, and mention is made of Chalices, Subdeacons, Chanters, Monks, Nuns, &c. things which are sufficient Evidences of its Novelty.

There only remains to be consider'd by us the Liturgy attributed to Saint James, which the Learned have given themselves the trouble to defend, tho' to no purpose. For tho' it be more ancient than those which we have already ex∣amin'd, since 'tis cited in the Council held in the Emperor's Palace, after the fifth General Council, yet it cannot be said that Saint James is the Author of it, or that it was compos'd in his time; and that for these Reasons:

1. The Son and Holy Ghost are therein styl'd Consubstantial with the Father, a Phrase that was not in use in Saint James's time: But supposing it should be said that it was, is it credible that this Authority should not then have been al∣ledged in the Councils of Nice and Constantinople?

2. Therein are the Trisagion and the Doxology, that is, the Holy, Holy, Holy, and the Gloria Patri, which were not generally us'd in the Church till the fifth Century. For tho' it could be prov'd that they were us'd before, yet it must be own'd, that this was not the common usage of the Church.

3. Therein Prayers are us'd for those who are shut up in Monasteries: and who can say that this was in Saint James's time?

4. Therein mention is made of Confessors, a word not us'd in the Divine Of∣fice, till a long time after Saint James's days, as is own'd by Bellarmine him∣self.

5. This Liturgy speaks of Temples, Incense, Altars &c. now would one believe that these things were in Use in the time of Saint James?

6. Lastly, this whole Liturgy is full of Citations out of the Epistles of Saint Paul, most of which were written after the Death of Saint James. Nor can it be said with the Cardinals Bona and Bellarmine, that these things have been ad∣ded: because 'tis not likely that there should have been so many Additions in so many different places, and besides neither the Connexion nor the Ceremo∣nies of this whole Liturgy are suitable with the times of the Apostles.

I say nothing of some other Liturgies, cited by some Authors, such for in∣stance as those of the twelve Apostles, mention'd by Abraham Echellensis, and and that of Saint Barnabas, mention'd by a certain Monk, because I never saw them; nor shall I say any thing of that which is in the Constitutions of Saint Clement, nor of the Liturgy which is in the Books attributed to Saint Dionysius the Areopagite; because these Books being spurious, as I shall shew in another place, there is no question to be made but that the Liturgies which they contain are likewise as spurious.

SECT. IX. Of the Apostle's Creed.

HAving treated of the Works of each Apostle in particular, we are now to speak of those which 'tis supposed they compos'd by common Concert. The most Authentic is that of the Apostles Creed, which is commonly believ'd to have been compos'd by all the Apostles. But Authors are not agreed among themselves, neither about the Time when they wrote it, nor about the manner how it was compos'd, no more than they are about the Design which the Apostles had in doing of it.

As to the Time; some have been of Ruffinus's Opinion, in his Exposition of the Creed follow'd by Saint Isidorus, viz. that the Apostles compos'd it the ve∣ry Year wherein Jesus Christ dy'd, a little after the Descent of the Holy-Ghost: whereas Baronius and some others guess that they did not compose it till the se∣cond Year of the Reign of Claudius, a little before their Dispersion.

As to the manner how they compos'd it; some Authors fancy that each A∣postle pronounc'd his Article (a) 1.73, and that this is the Reason why it was call'd the Symbol; as having been made of several Sentences. Others believe that they made it by a General conference with one another. There are some like∣wise who pretend that all the Disciples had a Hand in it.

Lastly, as to the design which they had in composing it, some believe that it was in order that they might be all conformable to one and the same Doctrine (b.) 1.74, and others suppose it was for the People, that so they might propose to them an Abridgment of the Faith of Jesus Christ, which was easie to be compre∣hended and retain'd.

The Etymology of the Word Symbol is still more uncertain (c.) 1.75. Some say that it is so call'd, because 'tis the Mark and Character which distinguishes Christians from other Men (d.) 1.76: Others, because it was compos'd of the Opinions of se∣veral Persons: and Lastly others, because it was drawn up in a General Con∣ference.

Now tho' this be an establish'd Opinion, that the Creed came from the A∣postles, and it cannot be deny'd but that they all preach'd after the same man∣ner the Articles which it contains, as the principal points of the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, of which it was necessary that all Christians should be inform'd: Tho' they taught those whom they baptiz'd, what they oblig'd themselves to make profession of, the which they handed down by Tradition to all the Churches of the World, who kept them inviolably and taught the Catechumens the same: and that therefore upon that account one ought to look upon the Apostles Creed as a Formulary of Faith belonging to them as to the substantial parts of it: Yet we may without any imputation of Rashness, question whether they drew it Word for Word, as 'tis now recited in the Churches; and there are likewise very strong Reasons to prove that this Opinion, tho' very common, yet has but little probability in it.

I. For in the first place, neither Saint Luke in the Acts, nor any other Eccle∣siastical Writer before the Fifth Century has made the least mention of this Assembly of the Apostles; and not the least word is said by them, that the Apostles had compos'd the Creed as now us'd by the Church of Rome, either by conferring together, or by pronouncing each of them one of these Articles. Had the Creed been drawn up by the Apostles in the manner wherein it is sup∣pos'd to have been drawn up, it would have been too considerable a Matter of Fact to have been omitted by Saint Luke: And tho' Saint Luke had never re∣lated it, yet it would have been handed down by Tradition, and some of the Ancient Fathers would have mention'd it, as they have done other Matters of the Apostolical Tradition. For they had not only an occasion of speaking of it, but were likewise oblig'd to it in order to convince the Hereticks; since they could not have produc'd any stronger Arguments against them, than this was.

II. Secondly, the Fathers of the three first Centuries in disputing against the Hereticks, endeavoured from several Arguments to prove that the Doctrine contain'd in the Creed, was the same which the Apostles taught: But they ne∣ver said that the Apostles compos'd the Creed. And yet nothing could have been a more convincing and stronger Argument against the Hereticks, than to have told them;

You oppose the Doctrine of the Creed; 'Tis plain that the Apòstles were the Authors of it, therefore you oppose the Doctrine of the Apostles.

However they never made use of this Argument, on the con∣trary they prov'd by Tradition, and the universal consent of the Apostolical Churches, that the Doctrine contain'd in the Creeds was the same which the Apostles taught. This Reason, may some one say, would not have been conclu∣sive, since the Hereticks might have demanded Proofs to convince them that the Apostles had compos'd the Creed, as well as they did demand Arguments to convince them that the Doctrine of the Creed came from the Apostles. But this Reply supposes that the Primitive Fathers had not common sense in them, and that they could not tell how to distinguish the most evident and concise Proofs from the most obscure and intricate Ones. For to know whether the Apostles had compos'd the Creed or not, was but a single matter of Fact, such as might have been easily prov'd, being fresh in every Bodies Memory; and which being prov'd, would have put the whole matter out of Dispute. There would not then have been left any occasion of Debate, and they would at once have prov'd their whole Doctrine: whereas they have run themselves into a very large Field of Controversie, and into such an one as requir'd a great deal of dis∣cussing, by examining upon each Article of the Creed the Tradition of each Church.

Saint Irenaeus produces several matters of Fact of less Consequence, and of less Authority than this would have been. As for instance, he makes use of the Testimony of Saint Polycarp, who had been instructed by Saint John in the Doct∣rine of the Apostles. The Hereticks might sooner have deny'd this matter of Fact, than that of the Composition of the Creed; and this latter being more publick had easier been prov'd; Why then did they not alledge it.

To render the Case more plain, let us produce an instance. Suppose that an Abbot made two hundred Years ago, a Rule for his Monks, which con∣tains in a few words the principal Things to be observ'd in his Convent; and that 'tis a constant Tradition among the Monks, that this Rule which they have preserv'd, was His, who compos'd it. If it should so happen, that those Monks were in dispute about all the Articles of this Rule, some saying that each Ar∣ticle was made by their first Abbot, and others as stiffly denying it; would it not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 very strange for the former, if instead of producing the Rule of the first Abbot, which they might prove in case it was contested, they should undertake to ••••ove by the Testimony of several Monks, and of other Monasteries founded by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Monks of that Convent, That each Article of this Rule was appointed and ••ractis'd by their first Abbot? The Application of this Comparison is very easie.

III. Thirdly, if the Apostles had made the Creed, it would have been the same in all the Churches and in all the Ages of it; all Christians would have learn'd it Word for Word; all Churches would have recited it after the same manner: Lastly, all Authors would have cited it in the same Terms. Now this is what is found to be quite otherwise; because 'tis certain, that not only in the se∣cond and third Century of the Church, but also in the fourth, there were several Creeds, and that all the Creeds, tho' the same in Doctrine, yet differ'd in the Terms. In the second and third Ages of the Church, there were as many Creeds as Au∣thors (e) 1.77, and one and the same Author sets down the Creed after a different man∣ner in several places of his Works; which is a sufficient Evidence that there was not at that time any Creed, which was reputed to be the Apostles, nor indeed any regulated and establish'd Form of Faith. In the Fourth Century Ruffinus compares together the three ancient Creeds of the Churches of Aquileia, Rome, and the East; and in these three Creeds (neither of which agrees with the Vul∣gar One) we meet with several Differences very considerable in the Terms, as may be observ'd in the Table subjoyn'd to this Section. Saint Cyril of Jerusa∣lem in his Catechetical Lectures follow'd a particular Creed, which was us'd by the Church of Jerusalem, when this Father wrote. The Authors who have writ∣ten Commentaries on the Creed, as Saint Augustine in his 119th. Sermon, Saint Maximus, Saint Peter Chrysologus, Saint Fortunatus have left out several Expres∣sions which are in our Apostle's Creed, among others, This at the end of the Creed, the Life Everlasting; and Saint Jerome in his Epistle to Pammachius ob∣serves, that the Creed ended with these Words, The Resurrection of the Flesh.

So that it is plain the Difference between these Creeds, does not only con∣sist in the Words and Expressions, but in Articles which were omitted, such as those, of the descent into Hell, of the Communion of Saints, and of the Life E∣verlasting, which are to be found in some, and not in others.

Had the Apostles dictated the Terms, all the Churches would have said the Creed after the same manner. For 'tis not the same case with the Creed as with any other Work which may be alter'd by the fault of the Transcribers, or by the conjectural Faults of the Criticks, or by the Maliciousness of Adultera∣tors, or by the negligence of some Men. The Creed is a very short piece, which all Christians might have said Word for Word; and could have reci∣ted, had it been the Apostles, without changing the least Syllable of it. As soon as any such Alteration should have been made, they would soon have perceived it, cry'd out against it, oppos'd and prevented it.

Perhaps it may be objected that the Fathers of the three first Centuries para∣phrased upon the Creed, and so it is not to be wondred at, if they did not re∣cite it after the same Manner. But how is it possible that if there had been an establish'd Creed, drawn up in the same Terms in all the Churches, and made by the Apostles; how is it possible, I say, that not one of the Fathers of the three first Centuries should relate it in its Purity?

If it should be pretended that the Creeds were conformable in all the Churches: This Uniformity is found to be entirely destroy'd by the Table of the four prin∣cipal Creeds, which is annex'd to the end of this Section. Therein may be ob∣serv'd, that there is scarce an Article but what has some difference: That, the Communion of Saints, and the Life Everlasting, are only in one Creed, and that the Descent into Hell is not in two of them. Will any one say that this Variety proceeded from the difference of the Versions, as is said of other Writings; sup∣posing that the Creed had been compos'd in Syriac by the Apostles? This is an intollerable Supposition; for if they had been the Authors of it, having drawn

it up for the Instruction of the Gentiles and dispersed Jews, it is very probable that they would rather have compos'd it in Greek than in Syriac. But, say they, those different Creeds contain the same Points of Doctrine. Yet those Articles are to be excepted which we have already mention'd; and no wonder if they do contain all the principal Articles of our Faith, since they were the same which the Apostles had taught the Church, and which the Church taught the Cate∣chumens.

Is it possible (will they add) that the Churches should have been for three hundred Years together without an Abridgment of Faith for the instruction of the Ignorant? To this we Answer; That the Articles in which the People were to be instructed were sufficiently known; each Pastor propounded them to the Peo∣ple in plain and familiar Terms. At last, Forms of them were drawn up in each Church.

From these Reflections it appears; that tho' the Creed be the Apostles as to the Doctrine contain'd therein, yet it is not theirs as to all the Terms. Having learn'd the same Faith from Jesus Christ, they likewise taught it to all those who were converted to the Christian Religion, and instructed them all in the same Mysteries. They who were instructed in the Faith, had it so fix'd in their Minds, as Saint Justin and Saint Irenaeus observe, that they were always ready to give an account thereof, and as often as they were oblig'd to do it, without heeding a∣ny particular Form; and from hence arose that variety of Creeds which were reported by the Fathers. Lastly, as a help to the Memory, certain Forms of these Articles of Faith were drawn up, which were found to be different in dif∣ferent Churches. For I make no manner of question, but that beside the Creeds already cited, there were several others, of which we have no knowledge at present; from whence it must be inferr'd, that Jesus Christ is the Author of the Doctrine contain'd in the Creed, that the Apostles are they, who preach'd and publish'd it throughout the whole World; but that it cannot be determin'd, who were the Authors of these Forms, wherein this Doctrine is compris'd.

But here it may be objected, that Saint Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lucifer Calari∣tanus, and Saint Jerome assert, that the Creed is the Rule of Faith, which the Church receiv'd from the Apostles: That Saint Augustine, Ruffinus, Saint Leo, Maximus Taurinensis, Fortunatus, Saint Peter Chrysologus, and a great many other Authors (f) 1.78 have asserted it, as a thing Self-Evident, that the Creed was drawn up in an Assembly of the Apostles: That this Opinion is authoriz'd by the Church, and that it seems to be a piece of presumption to doubt of it: Lastly, that all the Catholicks are agreed in the Point, and that none but He∣reticks, or persons suspected of Heresie, have dar'd to call it in Question.

To these Objections we answer, that the Testimonies of Saint Irenaeus, Ter∣tullian, and Lucifer Calaritanus do rather overthrow than establish the Vulgar Opinion. For these Fathers do not say, that we have receiv'd from the A∣postles the Form of Faith, but only the Faith and Doctrine, which they had receiv'd from Jesus Christ. Therefore if there were any force in this Objecti∣on, it should rather be inferr'd that Jesus Christ was the Author of the Creed. 'Tis likewise farther to be noted, that by the Phrase, Rule of Faith, made use of by Tertullian, we ought not to understand the Form of Faith, but the Faith it self, which he says was establish'd by Jesus Christ. Lucifer Calaritanus does not speak of the Creed, but only of the Faith of the Church concerning the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Lastly, Saint Jerome, when he says that the Faith of the Creed was not writ on Paper or with Ink, but engraven on the Fleshly Tables of the Heart; he gives us to understand that he meant nothing else but that the Faith

and Doctrine contain'd in the Creed, proceeds from the Apostles, who taught it to all the Faithful. In like manner, when Saint Ambrose says, that the Creed was preserv'd in its purity by the Church of Rome, he does not speak of the Form of the Creed, but of the Doctrine which it contains. As to the other Authorities produc'd against us, they are of little moment. Ruffinus is the first and only Author of the Fifth Century who has written, That the Apostles compos'd the Creed, and this he proposes only as a Popular Tradition. Saint Augustine never approved of this Opinion, for he says not a Word of it in the 119th. Sermon, and the 115th, which might be cited to this purpose, is cer∣tainly none of his. Lastly, the other Authors who liv'd since Ruffinus, have ta∣ken this History from him, and are too modern to give any certain Testimony of a matter of Fact so ancient as this is. All I shall add is, That this History has been related by none but the Latins, that the Greeks have been silent in it, and that those who have related it, are not agreed at all about the Circumstan∣ces of it, as has been already shown.

'Tis further urg'd, that the Fathers have not only spoken of the Faith and Doctrine of the Apostles, but have likewise taken notice of a certain Form which was known and receiv'd in the Church, because otherwise they would only have set down that Faith which was controverted between them and the Hereticks; whereas they always recited a great part of the Articles of the Creed and never proposed any others but such as were comprised therein.

To this we Answer, That they understood by the Rule of Faith, the most necessary Articles of the Doctrine of the Apostles, and the fundamental Points of our Religion. That they compris'd them in Creeds, which differ'd as to the Terms, but were conformable as to the Doctrine.

Tertullian, say they, understood something else by the Rule of Faith, besides the Doctrine of the Apostles; for after he had recited the Creed, Word for Word, he says: Superest igitur ut demonstremus an haec nostra Doctrina, cujus regu∣lam supra edidimus, de Apostolorum Traditione censeatur. Now (say they) the Re∣gula in this place is the Abridgment of the Faith.

To this we answer; That this passage proves the quite contrary. For had Tertullian believ'd that the Creed was a Rule of Faith communicated by the A∣postles, he would have said: See here the Rule of Faith drawn up by the Apostles, which is conformable to the Doctrine of their other Writings: and would never have said,

This is the Rule of our Faith, we will shew that it is conformable to the Tradition of the Apostles.

They who dissent from my Opinion do farther object, That the same Author [Tertullian] writing against Praxeas, saith, that the Ignorant being very well acquainted with the Rule of Faith, which declares that there is but One God, do imagine that this Rule of Faith is contradicted, when 'tis taught that there are Three Persons in the Godhead, because they cannot conceive how this can be. From these Words of Tertullian the Objectors infer: That Tertullian di∣stinguishes between the Rule of Faith and the Doctrine of Faith, otherwise it would have been ridiculous in him to have asserted that the Faithful were surpriz'd when the Trinity in Ʋnity was propos'd to them, since the Article of the Trini∣ty was part of the Doctrine of Faith.

In answer to this, I say: And, Is not the Doctrine of the Trinity likewise part of the Creed? Would not therefore the Difficulty be still the same, whether by the Rule of Faith we understand the Doctrine of Faith, or understand the Creed? But there is no difficulty in the case, for Tertullian's meaning is this: When the Distinction of the Three Persons was explain'd, the ignorant thought it contra∣ry to the first Principles of Faith, which they had been taught, because they had been inform'd that there was only One God: This Truth they could not tell how to reconcile with the Mystery of the Trinity, whose Oeconomy they could not comprehend: That is, they found it difficult to conceive One God and Three Persons, and to reconcile those two Truths which seem'd to shock their Reason.

Moreover, to evince beyond all dispute, that Tertullian by the Rule of Faith did not mean that Formulary or Creed drawn up by the Apostles, we need on∣ly take notice, That in his Book of Prescriptions, having set down the Arti∣cles contain'd in the Creed, he says that he will prove this Rule of Faith to be drawn up by Jesus Christ himself: Haec Regula à Christo, ut probabitur, insti∣tuta. He does not therefore by the Rule of Faith understand the Form; for if he did, it must be said that the Creed was not made by the Apostles, but by Jesus Christ. Wherefore of necessity this Reply must be made, That the Rule of Faith is indeed Jesus Christ's; because he was the Author of that Doctrine, and because it was he who taught it. The same may be said of those Passages, wherein the Apostles are said to be the Authors of the Rule of Faith.

The Objectors cite a large passage out of Lucifer Calaritanus, but I cannot perceive to what purpose, or what it proves. That Author says, That the A∣postles believ'd in God the Father Almighty, who is a true Father, and has a real Son; and in his only Son, who is the true Son of God; and in the Holy Ghost the Comforter, who is the true Spirit of God. Now what does all this prove? Why, it proves, That it was an establish'd Opinion in the time of Lucifer, that the Faith of the Creed was the same which the Apostles believ'd; that it was not a point contro∣verted between the Arians and the Catholicks: but it does not prove that the A∣postles made the Creed which comprehends this Doctrine. And in Truth, Lu∣cifer does not set down the Apostles Creed in that place, but only a Summary of the Faith contain'd in that Creed.

The passage of Saint Jerome which they likewise alledge, proves no more than what I have already granted. This Father says, That the Creed of our Faith and our Hope, given by the Apostles, was not written on Paper with Ink, but engraven on the fleshly Tables of the Heart. What will they pretend to prove from this pas∣sage? Why, that the Apostles have handed down to us the Creed by Tradition, Quod ab Apostolis traditum. We agree with them that it was so with respect to the substance of the Doctrine, but not with respect to the Terms; and this is not what Saint Jerome speaks of; for the Creed he means, is engra∣ven upon the Heart. Now what is it that is thus engraven on the Heart? Are we to understand by these Terms the Creed it self? No, 'tis only the Faith here meant. Saint Jerome (reply they) says this, because the Creed was not as yet written on Paper. But how do they know that? What Proof have they for it? It would be ridiculous to say that the Faith of the Trinity or of the Incarnation was not then written on Paper; and it would be no less ridiculous to say so in that Sense of the Creed, which was committed to Writing in so many places. But now that Expression would not be absurd, did we take it in this Sense, viz. That the Faith of the Creed is most certain and unalterable, be∣cause it is not only written on Paper with Ink, but likewise engraven upon the very Hearts of the Faithful.

I said that the Passage of Saint Ambrose [Credatur Symbolo Apostolorum, quod Ecclesia Romana intemeratum custodit & servat] ought to be understood of the Doctrine, and not of the Form of Faith. To this they object, that he there treats of the Virginity of Mary after her Parturition, which is not so much as mention'd in the Writings of the Apostles. And is there any mention made of it in the Creed any more than in the New Testament? This therefore ought only to be understood of the Doctrine which the Church of Rome has receiv'd by Tra∣dition from the Apostles. But tho' we should allow that this passage refers to the Creed, and not to the Doctrine; yet it does not from thence necessarily fol∣low, that the Creed was made by the Apostles, because 'tis styl'd the Apostle's Creed: 'Tis enough that it goes under that Title, and that we grant it to con∣tain the Doctrine of the Apostles.

They produce another passage of Saint Ambrose, taken out of the Sermon upon Elias and concerning Fasting. But they might have been inform'd by one of the Fathers of the Congregation of Saint Maur, that this Homily was not Saint Am∣brose's, but belongs to Caesareus of Arles.

They likewise quote Celestin I. who in his Epistle to Nestorius, says, That he is very much concern'd that Nestorius had struck any thing out of the Creed which was given by the Apostles. But there is not any Citation of so little Force as this. For (1.) in this place the question is not about the Creed. Nestorius had taken no∣thing out of that, nor had he erased the least Syllable of it: He had corrupted the Faith, and oppos'd the Articles of it. (2.) The Word Apostles is not in the Greek, but only that of the Creed. (3.) There is a great deal of Difference be∣tween calling the Creed the Apostles Creed, and saying that it was compos'd by them. Besides, tho' Celestin had been of the Opinion, that the Apostles were the Authors of the Creed, yet this would not determine the Case. Ruffinus had set down this Opinion before him, he was the first that ever mention'd it; but he intimates to us as if this Opinion was not very Conclusive.

In short, 'Tis no rashness to dissent herein from the common receiv'd Opini∣on, since 'tis a mere question in Criticism, which offers no Violence to the Chri∣stian Faith, because we grant that Jesus Christ is the Author of the Doctrine contain'd in the Creed, and that the Apostles taught the same to all Christians. Besides, those who maintain the common Opinion, are forc'd when they are press'd home, to be of our Mind, and to own (when 'tis objected to them, that the Ancient Creed of Rome differs from the Vulgar) that our Creed is not the Apostles with respect to the Expressions, but only with respect to the Sense; which is just the same thing that we argue for. Besides it is no new thing in Criticism, to deviate from the common Opinion, and to follow the Sentiments of several Learned Men, even tho' suspected of Heresie. Upon this Account, every Body at present grants, that the Apostolical Constitutions and Canons do not belong to the Apostles, as we shall shew in the next Section; and yet not a man before Erasmus doubted of it.

A TABLE, wherein the four Ancient Creeds are Compar'd.

The VULGAR.	That of Aquileia.	The ORIENTAL.	The ROMAN.
I. I Believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth.	I. I Believe in one God the Father Almighty. In the Ancient Editi∣ons of Morellus and Cau∣chius, we read, In Deo Patre Omnipotente. Which is a fault of the Printer or Copier.	I. I Believe in God the Father Almighty, invisible and impassible.	I. I Believe in God the Father Almighty.
II. And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord.	II. And in Christ Jesus his only Son our Lord.	II. The same as in the Vulgar.	II. The same as in the Vulgar.
III. Who was conceiv'd of the H. Ghost, Born of the Virgin-Mary.	III. Who was Born of the Holy Ghost of the Virgin-Mary.	III. The same as in the Aquileian Creed.	III. The same as in the Aqueleian Creed.
IV. Suffered under Pon∣tius Pilate, was Cru∣cified, Dead and Bu∣ryed, he descended in∣to Hell.	IV. Was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was Buryed; he de∣scended into Hell.	IV. Was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was Buried.	IV. The same with the Oriental.
V. The third day he rose again from the dead.	V. The same.	V. The same.	V. The same.
VI. He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth on the Right Hand of God the Father Almighty.	VI. He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth on the Right hand of God the Father.	VI. The same as in that of Aquileia, only some add Almighty, as in the Vulgar.	VI. The same with that of Aquileia.
VII. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.	VII. The same.	VII. The same.	VII. The same.
VIII. I Believe in the Holy Ghost.	VIII. And in the Holy Ghost.	VIII. The same with that of Aquileia.	VIII. The same with that of Aquileia.
IX. The Holy Catholick Church, the Communi∣on of Saints.	IX. I believe in the Holy Church. Pamelius adds Catholick, but falsly, for Ruffinus does not expound it, no more than he does the Cummunion of Saints.	IX. The same with that of Aquileia.	IX. The same with that of Aquileia.
X. The forgiveness of Sins.	X. The same.	X. The same.	X. The same.
XI. The Resurrection of the Body.	XI. The Resurrection of this Body.	XI. The same with the Vulgar.	XI. The same with the Vulgar.
XII. And the Life Ever∣lasting.	XII. Wanting.	XII. Wanting.	XII. Wanting.

SECT. X. Of the Canons and Constitutions attributed to the Apostles.

VArious are the Opinions of the Learned about the Canons, which are com∣monly call'd the Canons of the Apostles. Turrianus and some others have thought that they really belong'd to the Apostles. Baronius and Bellarmine have excepted the last thirty five, which they rejected as Apocryphal; but made no scruple of admitting the first fifty. Gabriel Albaspinaeus Bishop of Orle∣ans and some others have believ'd, that altho' these Canons were not written by the Apostles, yet they were very ancient, as being properly a Collection of the Canons of several Councils held before that of Nice. This Opinion is main∣tain'd by the Learned Dr. Beverege, in a Book which he has lately Publish'd, and intitul'd, Vindiciae Canonum, &c. By which Canons he means the Collection of the Eighty five Canons attributed to the Apostles. Lastly, M. Daillé pretends not only that these Canons are not the Apostles, but likewise that they are of a more modern date, being not collected till about the latter end of the fifth Century. We shall make an Enquiry into these Opinions, and endeavour to establish that of Albaspinaeus, which we look upon to be the most probable.

'Tis no very hard matter to prove that these Canons were not made by the Apostles themselves. We need only to peruse them, and we shall be convinc'd that they contain a great many things which could never have been establish'd by the Apostles (a.) 1.79, some of which relate to such Questions as were not de∣bated till several Years after their Death (b.) 1.80. But it is to be noted, that they are commonly styled by the Ancient Writers, the Ancient Canons, the Canons of

the Fathers, and the Ecclesiastical Canons: Titles which are likewise prefix'd to them in several Manuscripts, as Cotelerius has observ'd. And suppose they were sometimes call'd or intitul'd Apostolical Canons, yet it does not from thence follow that they were compil'd by the Apostles; but 'tis sufficient that some of them were made by Bishops, who liv'd a little after the Apostles; because those who liv'd about that time were commonly call'd Apostolical Men.

The Author of the Apostolical Constitutions is the first that has attributed these Canons to the Apostles, and he has said some things on that Head, which might incline us to believe that the Apostles were the Authors of them (c.) 1.81. There∣fore these Canons are not the work of an Impostor, who has forg'd them under the Name of the Apostles; but only a Work that was falsly attributed to them, thereby to render it the more Authentic. Now I know not of any Person more capable of carrying on such an Artifice, than the Author of the Apostolical Con∣stitutions (d.) 1.82, who has attributed to the Apostles several other Works, and who has set down these Canons entire in his third Book.

As to the Antiquity of these Canons, they appear to us to be very Ancient, and that at least a great part (if not all) of them belong to the Councils which were held before the Nicene Council.

1. For in the first place, they contain nothing in my Opinion, But what agrees with the Discipline observ'd in some Churches about the latter end of the Se∣cond, throughout the third, and in the beginning of the fourth Century.

2. In the second place, they contain such Rules, as we are well assur'd were made within that time: for Instance, there is a Canon which prohibits the ce∣lebrating of Easter after the Jewish Custom, which we know was determin'd in several Synods conven'd in the time of Victor. There are three Canons where∣in the Baptism of Hereticks is rejected as null and void, which Firmilian and Dionysius Alexandrinus affirm to have been determin'd in the Synods of Synnada and Iconium, which were held some time before them. Who will imagine that these Canons were made or counterfeited in a time, when every Body admitted Persons baptiz'd by Hereticks without rebaptizing them? And it cannot be sup∣pos'd that these Canons were forg'd by Saint Cyprian or Firmilian, to authorize their Discipline: 'tis more reasonable to believe that those are the very Canons of the Synods of Iconium and Synnada, which were falsly ascrib'd to the Apostles, not by those Holy Fathers, but by more modern Writers.

3. In the third place, 'tis undeniably apparent that most of those Canons are more ancient than the Council of Nice, because that Council and those which were held a little after, as well as the Authors of the Fourth Century, have ci∣ted

them frequently (e) 1.83 under the name of Ancient Laws, Canons of the Fathers, Ecclesiastical Canons, and even Apostolical, and is different from what they call Customs, Manners or Discipline, concerning which there is no written Law. It is therefore manifest, that these Canons are ancient, that 'tis by a mistake that they are ascribed to the Apostles, and that 'tis a Collection of Ordinances or Canons of several Ancient Synods held before the Nicene Council. We cannot tell for certain when it was compil'd, nor who is the Author of it, nor whe∣ther it at first consisted of the Eighty five Canons which we have by us, or of a lesser Number. However 'tis very probable that this Collection was made at different times, and that from time to time several Canons were added to the former, because there is no Connection or Order observ'd, but the Canons up∣on one and the same Subject are frequently found to be very distant from one another, and some Contradictions are to be met with in them.

The Objections which M. Daillé raises against the Apostolical Canons, are a good proof against Turrianus, That they were not compos'd by the Apostles, but they have no force at all against our Opinion. For instance, he objects that in those Canons there are certain Terms which were not in use in the time of the Apostles, such as Clerk, Lecturer, Laick, Metropolitan, &c. But he cannot deny but that these Terms were us'd in the third Century of the Church. That which is order'd therein concerning Lent, and against the Fast on Sunday and the Sabbath, may very well belong to the third Century, since we meet with the same things in Tertullian. The Canons against those who castrated or made themselves Eunuchs might have been made by Demetrius against Origen. The Canons concerning Easter, are plainly those of the Councils held under Victor; and the Canons relating to the Baptism of Hereticks, are very probably the same with those of the Councils of Synnada and Iconium. Should we run through

all the Objections of M. Daillé, we should find that tho' they are very weighty against the Opinion of Turrianus, yet they are of no force against ours (f) 1.84.

It must then rest as a thing certain, that not only the first fifty Canons, but likewise the thirty five last of this Collection, are very ancient, though they do not belong to the Apostles. Upon which account the Greeks have always own'd them, as being of great Authority. John of Antioch, who liv'd in Justinian's time, has inserted them in his Collection of the Conans, and they are com∣mended by Justinian himself in his sixth Novel. They are approv'd in the Synod held in the Emperor's Palace, after the fifth general Council; cited in the se∣venth general Council, and receiv'd by Joannes Damascenus and Photius, only with this Difference, that the former being no great Critick, has attributed them to the Apostles, and the Latter having a clearer insight into these Matters, has question'd whether they belong to them or not. Among the Latins they have not always met with the same Lot. Cardinal Humbert has rejected them. Pope Gelasius has plac'd them among the Apocryphal Writings, as well because they were falsly attributed to the Apostles, as because therein are some Canons, which favour Saint Cyprian's Opinion, concerning the Baptism of Hereticks. Hincmarus has explain'd the Canon of Gelasius very favourably, by saying, that that Pope has not plac'd them among such Apocryphal Books as were full of Er∣rors, but only among those, about which the Rule of Saint Paul ought to be regarded, viz. Prove all things, hold fast that which is good. Dionysius Exiguus has translated the first fifty, and plac'd them in the Front of his Collection, but withall takes notice that some would not approve of them. 'Tis perhaps upon that account that Martin of Braga would not insert them in his Collection of the Canons. But Isidorus makes no scruple to insert them into His, and ever since they have been made part òf the Canon-Law. It is likewise to be observ'd, that as soon as they appear'd in France, they were in Esteem; and where first of all produc'd in the Cause of Praetextatus in the time of King Chilperic; and their Authority was submitted to, as Gregory of Tours testifies in the fifth Book

of his History, Chap. 19. where he observes, that there was a new Chapter among the Collection of the Canons, which contain'd several Canons, as being Apostolical, quasi Apostolicos, and he cites one of 'em which is the twenty fifth of the Apostolical Canons, but in a different manner from what it is in the Col∣lection of Dionysius Exiguus. Lastly, Hincmarus Arch-Bishop of Rheims takes notice, that those Canons were prefix'd before a Collection of Canons drawn up for the Use of the Gallican Church distinct from all other Churches; as for their Authority and Antiquity, he is absolutely of our Opinion, and explains himself in the 24th. Chapter of his Tract concerning the fifty Canons in these Terms: The Canons (says he) which are call'd the Apostles, collected by several Christians, were made at a time when the Bishops could not meet together, nor hold Coun∣cils freely. They contain a great many things which may be very well allow'd of; but they likewise enjoyn others, which ought not to be observ'd.

I cannot say so much of the Apostolical Constitutions, as I have said of the Canons, viz. that they were not spurious, but that in process of time it so happened that a false Title was given them: for the Author of the Constitutions was an Im∣postor, who all along was willing to pass for Clement the Disciple of the Apostles, and who attributed to all of 'em in general, and to each in particular several Constitutions, which do by no means suit with the Apostles; such are those, which relate to Churches built in the form of Temples, to Catechumens, Ener∣gumens, Fasts, the Liturgy, Extreme Unction, the Prayers for the Catechumens and Energumens; such likewise as concern the Ordinations of Deacons and Dea∣conesses; The Virgins, Confessors and Sub-Deacons; the Benedictions of Oyl and Water; The first Fruits, the Celebration of Easter, and several other things which were not in use in the time of the Apostles: not to say any thing of the many Absurdities, Anachronisms, and other things therein contain'd (g) 1.85: Which are sufficient Demonstrations that these Constitutions were not made by the Apostles, nor so much as by Saint Clement.

I shall say nothing of the Nine other Canons which are likewise attributed to the Apostles, and which they say were made in a certain Council of Antioch wholly known to the Ancients: since it is not to be question'd but that these Canons are supposititious, and no body at present offers to defend them (h.) 1.86

SECT. XI. Of the Books attributed to Prochorus, Saint Linus, Abdias; and of the Acts of the Passion of Saint Andrew.

THere was in the time of the Apostles a Man nam'd Prochorus, one of the seven first Deacons, and there is at present under his Name the Life of Saint John, printed in the Orthodoxographa and in the Bibliotheca Patrum. But Baronius, Bellarmine, Lorinus, the Master of the Sacred Palace, and in a word all that have treated concerning the Ecclesiastical Writers, as well Catholicks as Here∣ticks, do agree that it is a spurious piece and unworthy of the Author whose name it bears. And in truth, 'tis a Narration full of idle Fables and Stories. Therein 'tis said that Saint John threw himself at the Apostle's Feet, to desire them to excuse his going into Asia: That after he was taken out of the Caldron of scalding Oyl, they built a Church in honour to him; that he compos'd his Gospel in the Isle of Patmos, &c. The style of these Acts is that of a Latin or Greek, and not of an Hebrew. Lastly, therein we meet with the Terms Trinity and Hypostasis.

The two Books which go under the name of Saint Linus, concerning the Pas∣sion of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, are likewise unanimously rejected, as spurious Books and full of Fables. The Author relates that Agrippa was Governour of Rome in the time of Saint Peter; that Saint Peter was Martyr'd without Nero's ha∣ving any Knowledge of it, and that this Emperour found fault with his being put to Death: That part of the Roman Magistrates were Christians; That the Wife of Albanius quitted her Husband against his Consent, according to the Ad∣vice she had received from Saint Peter. In short, these two Books are full of Errors, Falsities, Fictions and Untruths. In the latter, mention is made of the Letters of Saint Paul to Seneca, and of the Epistles of Seneca to Saint Paul.

The same Judgment may be pass'd on the Book of Abdias, which contains a very fabulous relation of the Lives of the Apostles, printed separately in the Year 1587, 1560 and 1571. at Basil in the Year 1532, and at Paris in the Year 1583. and afterwards inserted into the Bibliotheca Patrum. At first, this Trea∣tise was look'd upon as compos'd in Hebrew by a Disciple of Jesus Christ, nam'd Abdias, who was of Babylon, and rendred into Greek by Eutropius, and into La∣tin by Julius Africanus. But at present every Body is undeceiv'd, and 'tis agreed on all hands that 'tis the Tract of an Impostor, who gave out falsly that he was the Disciple of Jesus Christ, and yet cited Hegesigpus and Julius Africanus, whom he could never have seen, had he liv'd in the time when Jesus Christ was upon Earth; and lastly, that he is One, who relates several fabulous Histories con∣cerning the Life of Jesus Christ, and the Lives of his Apostles, which it would be to no purpose here to repeat.

The Learned are divided in their Sentiments concerning the Acts of the Pas∣sion of Saint Andrew, written by the Priests of Achaia, which are in Surius's Hi∣story of the Saints. Baronius, Bellarmin, and several other Criticks of the Ro∣mish Communion approve them, whilst a great many others reject them. The Ancients knew no other Acts of Saint Andrew, than those which had been cor∣rupted by the Manichees, of which Saint Augustine, Philastrius and Pope Inno∣cent make mention (a) 1.87, and which Pope Gelasius has plac'd among the Apocry∣pha

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

Writings. But 'tis very evident that these last are different from those we are speaking of, and 'tis likewise certain that those last Acts of the Passion of Saint Andrew, were not cited by any Authors till after the Seventh Century, as by Remy of Auxerre, Peter Damien, Lanfranc, Saint Bernard, and Ivo of Char∣tres, which shews that we have no sufficient Evidence of their Antiquity. Third∣ly, the Mystery of the Trinity is not only explain'd in these Acts after such a Manner, as might give us an occasion to suspect, that he who wrote them liv'd since the Nicene Council; but he likewise teaches the Error of the Greeks concer∣ning the Procession of the Holy Ghost, asserting that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, and abides in the Son. I am sensible that 'tis said there are some Manuscripts in which these Terms are not to be met with; but who knows but that they might be as well struck out of some, as added to others? For which Reason this Passion ought at least to be look'd upon as a doubtful piece, which cannot be made use of to prove any Doctrine of Faith, or to establish any cer∣tain matter of Fact.

The Life and Death of Saint Matthias was forg'd by an Author, who preten∣ded to have received it from a Jew, that had translated it from the Hebrew. We ought likewise to place among the Apocryphal Books the Life of Saint Mark, the History of Saint Clement, and of Apollinarius, set down in the Collection of Ancient Histories made by Laurentius de la Barre. We need only read over these Pieces to be convinc'd of the Falsity of them.

CHAP. VII. Of the Ancient Prophane Records produc'd in Favour of the Christian Religion.

SECT. I. Of the Sibyls and the Oracles commonly attributed to them.

WE here joyn in one and the same Chapter all the Prophane Records, which were formerly made use of in favour of the Christian Religion, in or∣der to examine them: and tho' we should reject almost all of them as spurious Pieces, yet we suppose we should do Religion no harm, which is establish'd up∣on more solid and convincing Proofs, than to stand in need of such as are false and dubious.

We begin with the Verses attributed to the Sibyls, which the Ancients have often cited, to convince the Gentiles of the Truth of the Christian Religion. But before we enter upon the Examination of them, it will be proper to pre∣mise something concerning the Sibyls and their Books.

It is something difficult to give you the true and exact Etymology of the Word Sibyl. Lactantius, and after him, Saint Jerome say, that the Sibyls were so call'd, because they were the Interpreters of the Counsels of the Gods, and that their Name was deriv'd from two Greek Words (a.) 1.88, which signifie the

Counsel of God, and which, being written according to the Aeolic Dialect, make up the word Sibyl. Some have deriv'd it from a Hebrew Word, and others from an obsolete Latin Adjective (b) 1.89, which signifies Sharp and Crafty: but this last Conjecture is erroneous, since the Greeks made use of the Word Sibyl before the Latins. The most probable Opinion is that the Name of Sibyl, which was the proper Name of a famous Prophetess of Delphi, became afterwards the common Name of other Prophetesses, just as the Name Caesar, which was the proper Name of Julius, was afterwards apply'd to all the Emperors.

Nothing is more uncertain than the Number and the Names of the Sibyls (c.) 1.90 several of the Ancients make mention only of one Sibyl. Some speak of the Si∣byl of Cumae, and others of the Sibyl of Delphi. Strabo and some others distin∣guish between two of Erythraea. Solinus names three of them, the Delphian, the Erythraean, and the Cumaean. Pausanias reckons four of them, viz. the Libyan, the Delphian or Erythraean, and the Cumaean, and the Babylonian. AElian, Varro Lactantius, Clement of Alexandria and most Authors reckon about ten of them, and some have added to that Number: but they are not agreed about their Names, nor about the place of their Abode, and do often confound the One with the Other.

Let this be how it will, yet it is certain, that the Name of Sibyl was given to certain Women, who being transported by Enthusiasm (d) 1.91, and a fury that came next to Madness, which was rais'd either by an over-heated Brain, or by the possession of Daemons, utter'd such dark and obscure Sentences, as pass'd a∣mong

the Pagans for Oracles and Prophecies. 'Tis said that the Sibyl of Cumae wrote them upon Leaves (e) 1.92, and that a Collection was made of them, which a Woman presented to Tarquin (f) 1.93, who bought part of them, and very care∣fully inclos'd them in an Urn, which he plac'd in the Capitol, having created the Duumviri on purpose to look to them, and to consult them upon all urgent occasions. The number of those who had this Charge of them increas'd by little and little; afterwards they rose to ten, and at last to fifteen. Very se∣vere punishments were to be inflicted on those Officers, if ever they suffer'd these Books to be seen by any body else. Dionysius Halicaranassaeus and Valerius Maxi∣mus relate that one of the Duumviri was punish'd as a Parracide, that is, he was sown up alive in a Sack and thrown into the Sea, for having suffered some of the Sibylline Verses to be copied out. These Books were thus preserv'd till the Year 671. Ʋrb. Condit. that is 83 Years before Christ, at which time the Capitol being burnt down, they perished with the other Ornaments of that Temple, as Dionysius Halicaranassaeus, Pliny, and other Authors inform us. Af∣ter the Capitol was rebuilt, the Consuls propos'd to the Senate the sending Am∣bassadors into Greece, to Erythraea and into Asia, to gather up what they could get of the Sibylline Oracles, and bring them to Rome. Upon this Octacilius Cras∣sus, and L. Valerius Flaccus were deputed to go to Attalus King of Pergamos, who brought back out of Asia about a thousand Verses attributed to the Sibyls, which they had collected in all places where they came from the Copies of several pri∣vate Men. But forasmuch as there were many things in them which seemed to be false or superfluous, fifteen Persons were deputed to revise and correct them, and after that, they were deposited in the Capitol in the room of the others. In the time of Augustus, these Books were again revis'd; near two thousand Ver∣ses attributed to the Sibyls were burnt by that Emperor's Order; and those that were look'd upon as Genuine were put into two Golden Cabinets, and deposited in the Temple of Apollo. Some pretend that these Books were burnt in the Fire of Rome which happened under Nero; but produce no Arguments to convince us thereof. Let that Case be how it will, yet this is certain that so long as Rome had Pagan Emperors (g) 1.94, the Oracles attributed to the Sibyls were always care∣fully kept, and consulted upon all urgent occasions; and Julian the Apostate being minded to reintroduce all the ancient Pagan Superstitions, caus'd those Sibylline Books to be search'd and consulted.

There are at present a great many Greek Verses which are attributed to the Sibyls, and are divided into eight Books: But almost every body is agreed that this Work is supposititious, of which the Time wherein it was written (h) 1.95,

the style of it (i.) 1.96, and the things (k.) 1.97 it contains are irrefragable proofs.

Since it is evident, that the Eight Books which we have under the name of the Sibyls are spurious, 'tis no less true to assert, that those which the Fathers had by them, and which they cited, were likewise spurious; as also that they did not differ very much from those which we have still extant.

In the first place I say, that the Books of the Sibyls which the Fathers cited, were not really the same with those that were so carefully kept by the Romans. For to say nothing of these latter's being kept so secret, as not a Copy of 'em could be had, so far were they from being so common as those which the Fa∣thers have cited, and which were in every Bodie's Hands: I say, not to menti∣on any thing of this, 'tis certain that they contain'd such things as differ very much from those we meet with in the Writings of the Fathers. In the former there were only prophane Matters which related to the Superstitions of the Pagans, whereas these last were full of Predictions and Instructions relating to Christianity.

The Romans never consulted the Books of the Sibyls, but they learnt from them such Superstitions as were wholly Pagan (l.) 1.98. Therein they were inform'd, either that they ought to Sacrifice to the Gods, or that a Nail ought to be driven into the Capitol, or that Sports ought to be kept in Honour of Jupiter. For∣merly they were admonish'd by them, to send for the statue of Aesculapius to Rome, to build a Temple to Venus, to offer Sacrifices to the Infernal Gods, and to appease the Heathen Gods by extravagant Ceremonies: Lastly, the Romans never learnt any thing else out of these Books, but such Superstitions as were al∣together Prophane.

On the Contrary, the Fathers never cited any thing out of the Books of the Sibyls, but what related to the Religion of Jesus Christ, and to the Worship of the true God. Now is there any Likelyhood that these Prophetesses should have utter'd such different things, and that they should teach in one and the same Book, the Worship of the true God, and the greatest Superstitions of Heathen∣ism? Who can imagine, that the Books which the Romans preserv'd to authorize all their Superstitions, which they look'd upon as the Ultimate End of their Re∣ligion, should contain such Prophesies concerning Jesus Christ, as are clearer than all that the Jewish Prophets have said about him? For not only in the Si∣bylline Books now extant, mention is made of Jesus Christ in such Terms, as shew they are not so much a Prophesie, as an History, but also the same thing must be said of the Books cited by the Fathers, which contain the same Pre∣dictions, and in plainer Terms. In short, can there be any clearer Prediction concerning Jesus Christ, than the Verses cited by Eusebius out of the Prayer attri∣buted to Constantine?

There is but One God, who likewise is the Saviour: Who suffered for Ʋs: Who is denoted in these Verses.

The Acrostick set down in the same place is altogether as plain. Can any thing be said in clearer Terms concerning the Creation of the World, the last Judgment, and Eternal Life, than what is to be met with in Theophilus Antioche∣nus, as taken out of the Sibyls? All the other Sibylline Verses cited by the Fathers, are very near the same upon each Subject, which made the Author of the Ex∣hortation to the Greeks, attributed to Saint Justin, to say, that Sibyl had fore∣told the coming of Jesus Christ in clear and evident Terms, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Now what an absurd thing is it to suppose, that the Heathens from whom God had concealed the coming of his Son, and whom he had permitted to walk in Darkness) should have among them such Prophesies as were clearer than all the Prophesies of the Jews, to whom he had committed the sacred Books, and gi∣ven the Notice of a Messiah?

We might carry this Argument still farther, and demand from whence the Sibyls could have the Knowledge of the Messiah. Some say, that they were inspir'd by God: others that they have taken out of the Scripture all that they have said concerning Religion; but neither of these Opinions has any probabi∣lity in it. For what likelyhood is there that God should have inspir'd the Prophe∣tesses and Priestesses of the false Gods, who deceiv'd Men and made them worship those Daemons, with which they themselves were possess'd? Who can imagine that God would make use of such Ministers to declare so plainly his Mysteries to Mankind? And on the other Hand, how could they draw out of the Old Te∣stament such Truths, as are therein very obscurely reveal'd, and which the Jews themselves had much ado to understand.

For a farther Proof of the Falsity of the Sibylline Oracles which the Fathers made use of, I need only shew, that they differed but very little from those, that go under that Name at present. To demonstrate this, 'tis enough to ob∣serve, that except three or four passages, all the rest cited by the Ancients, which are a great many, are to be met with in equivalent Terms in the Sibylline Books which are at present extant. Now the strongest Argument to prove that any Work is Ancient, is, that therein are to be met with those very passages, which the Ancients have cited. Do not we prove the Antiquity of a great many Books by this single Argument alone, viz. That there is some passage or other related or cited by some Ancient Author, which is likewise to be found in those Books? Why then should not it follow from the same Reason, that the Sibylline Books, tho' forg'd, are the same with those which were extant in the times of the Ancients? Nay, this Argument holds still stronger with respect to

them since it is urg'd not of one single Passage, but of a great many, cited by several Authors; and also the Sibylline Books are still in the same Language wherein they were cited.

Besides, it ought not to be wonder'd at, if there are some passages which are not therein, and if there are others which are not express'd Word for Word, because there are some parts of these Books which are lost, and the Ancients were not always exact in their Citations, and follow'd rather the Sense than the Letter.

It may likewise be added to this Proof, that whatever the Ancient Fathers have said concerning the Books of the Sibyls, is likewise applicable to These. Thus for instance, the Author of the Exhortation to the Gentiles says, that the Books of the Sibyls were not very polite, These last are much the same. At that time those Writings were charg'd with Anachronisms, and the Defect is still in the present Books. They treated of Jesus Christ, the last Judgment, Hell, &c. the same things we meet with in these that we have by us. Lastly, These are very ancient, and of the same standing with the most ancient Fathers; for there∣in are such Opinions, as were not maintain'd but in the first Ages of the Church, such as the Error of the Millenarians; that Nero is Antichrist, that the end of the World was at Hand, that it should happen in the time of Antoninus; that Rome should soon be destroy'd, 948 Years after its Foundation, and several o∣ther things which could never have been said by later Christians, who would have been far from approving of those Notions, as being convinc'd of the fal∣sity of these Predictions.

Upon the whole it ought to be look'd upon as a thing certain, that the Wri∣tings of the Sibyls were forg'd in the second Century. But to determine the precise time, and who is the Author of them, that we cannot with any assu∣rance do. All that can be asserted as most probable, is, that they began to ap∣pear in the World about the latter End of the Reign of Antoninus Pius.

The Proof of this is taken out of the Books themselves, in which the Impostor plainly discovers the time wherein he liv'd. For tho' in the first Book he would make us believe that he liv'd in the time of Noah; and in the Third, that he wrote fifteen hundred years after the Foundation of the Graecian Empire, yet he could not forbear declaring in the following Books the Emperors Names un∣der whom he flourish'd. In the fifth Book, he says, that after the Emperor of whom he speaks, meaning Trajan, should another Man reign with a Silver Head, who should derive his Name from the Sea, (that is, Adrian, who was Grey-headed, and who took his Name from the Adriatick Sea;) that after him should succeed a Learn∣ed Man who should know all things, (that is, Antoninus Pius;) that the whole Empire should be subject to him, and to his Collegues (meaning, Marcus Aurelius, and Luci∣us Verus;) That these three should have the Command over the whole World, and that at last one of 'em should be Sovereign over all. In the eighth Book he makes a clearer discovery of himself, for addressing himself to the City of Rome, he thus bespeaks it; That after it had had fifteen puissant Kings, who should subdue the East and West, it should have a King, whose Head should be cover'd with a white Helmet, and who should have the Name of a Neighbouring Sea (the Adriatick Ocean); that after him should reign three Kings at Once. This passage expresly denotes Adrian and his three Successors, Antoninus, Marcus Aurelius, and Lucius Serus. It is threfore plain from these passages, that this Author liv'd at least in the time of those Princes. He could not have been of a more modern date, because speaking in the Eighth Book of the Duration of the City of Rome, he says, that it should not last above 948 Years, and that after that Period it should be utterly destroy'd. Now this Epocha was compleated in the Year of Christ 195. from whence it evi∣dently follows, that the Author of these Books did not Write after that time; since he would not have foretold an Event, the falsity of which Experience would have prov'd; and consequently it must be said that these Books were forg'd be∣tween the Year of our Lord 138, and the Year 195, about the Year 150. Some

supposing that in the fifth Book he makes mention of the second burning of Vesta's Temple, have thought that he wrote after the Year 190, but it is more probable, that he there speaks of the Burning of the Temple of Jerusalem, which is call'd the desirable House, and the Temple of God.

These Proofs which I have alledg'd for the time wherein the Author of the Books attributed to the Sibyls did write them, are very express and positive. There are only some Conjectures to make us believe them to be more Ancient: let us now examine whether they are of any weight.

I. 'Tis said in the first place, that the Fathers would have been either very ignorant, or very imprudent in citing the Books of the Sibyls, if they had been newly forg'd.

To this we answer, That such sort of Conjectures are of no force, when the Matter of Fact is otherwise Self-Evident. 'Tis certain that the Fathers did cite them; and 'tis as certain that they were then but newly forg'd: These two Matters of Fact are evident and cannot be destroy'd by mere conjecture, nor by such Argumentations as suppose, that those who did cite them, had well exa∣min'd them, or did know of their Falsity. However, neither of these is prov'd. If it were allowable to argue thus, what would not be said to maintain the ma∣nifest oversights of the Ancients? Might it not be said for the same reason, that Saint Justin was very imprudent, or very ignorant for saying in a publick Apo∣logy, that they had erected in Rome a Statue in honour of Simon Magus, if this was not true? However, 'tis agreed that this Matter of Fact is false, that Saint Justin was egregiously mistaken, in taking a Statue erected in honour of the God Semon Sancus, for a Statue erected to Simon the Samaritan. The Exa∣mination of the Writings of the Sibyls did certainly require more time and ac∣curacy, than the Examination of the Inscription of that Statue did: It was easi∣er to discover the Error of that Fact, since it was more evident than the Forgery of the Sibylline Oracles; which were publish'd under the name of the Sibyls, and contain'd several things that were favourable to the Christians. This was e∣nough to give the first Apogolists of the Christian Religion, who were no great Criticks, an occasion of citing them without enquiring into the Truth of them.

II. In the second place 'tis represented that the Sibylline Oracles are cited by Hermas, who liv'd before the time wherein we suppose that they were forg'd.

To this I answer, that it cannot be prov'd that Hermas cited any one of the Sibylline Books, or so much as made any mention of them. 'Tis true indeed, that in the beginning of the first Book of his Pastor, he says, that when the An∣gel ask'd him, who was that Old Woman from whom he had receiv'd a Book? He answer'd: 'Tis perhaps a Sibyl; and that the Angel inform'd him that it was the Church of God. But what Inference can be drawn from hence in favour of the Sibylline Books? Hermas (say they) would never have said that this Wo∣man was perhaps a Sibyl, if there had not been at that time some Christians, who were perswaded that Sibyl spoke of our Religion. Now this is a very ridiculous Inference; for Hermas does not mention any Responses of that pretended Sibyl; he only intimates that the Form and Behaviour of that Woman, had made him suppose that it was one of the Sibyls. Now in order to this, it was sufficient that the Sibyls were represented to him, as Venerable Damsels, which inspir'd into him both Veneration and Respect.

III. The third Objection is taken from the Testimony of the Author of the Questions, which go under the name of Saint Justin, who says in Reply to the 74th. Question, that Saint Clement has said in his Epistle to the Corinthians, that not only in the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles, but also in the Wri∣tings

of the Sibyls, mention is made of the end of the World and the last Judg∣ment: from whence he infers, that Saint Clement having cited the Writings of the Sibyls, they must needs be more ancient than I have assign'd them to be.

To this I answer, that the Author of those Questions, being only one of the fifth Century, is no sufficient Evidence for Matters of Fact that are so ancient as these are. Nothing like it is to be met with in the first Epistle of Saint Clement to the Corinthians, nor in the second which we have by us almost compleat. 'Tis true, that the end of that is lost, but there is not the least proof that therein he cited the Sibyls: on the contrary, it appears from Saint Clement of A∣lexandria and Saint Jerome, that he therein only treated of Virginity: For the former of these Authors cites a passage which is the Continuation of that Epistle, where he speaks against Lust; and the latter assures us that he employ'd part of that Epistle in Commendation of Virginity. For which rea∣son, since the latter end of the Fragment of the Epistle which is now extant, and the Continuation of it, which is related by Saint Clement of Alexandria, are the beginning of a Discourse concerning Virginity; it is very probable that this was the subject matter of the remaining part of that Epistle, and that there was not the least mention made of the Conflagration at the last Judgment, upon which account 'tis said that he cited Saint Clemens Romanus.

To this 'tis said, that 'tis probable Saint Clement did cite the Sibylline Books since Saint Irenaeus tells us, that he does make mention of Hell-Fire in that Epistle. But it does not at all appear that Saint Irenaeus quotes the Epistle of Saint Clement for the proving of Hell-sire: He only says in the general, that it establish'd the Doctrine of the Apostles which was receiv'd by Tradition. And besides, Saint Irenaeus does not speak of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, but of the First, which we have entire, and wherein there is not the least mention made of the Sibyls.

IV. The fourth Objection is founded on a passage of Saint Clement of Alexan∣dria, who seems to say in the sixth Book of his Stromata, that the Apostle Saint Paul has cited the Works of Sibyl.

I shall not stand to enquire, whether Saint Clement saith that Saint Paul has ci∣ted the Sibyls, or whether Saint Clement himself doth not rather cite their Works upon that Subject, as Cotelerius affirms; because 'tis plain that Saint Paul never cited the Sibylline Books, and therefore if Saint Clement asserts any such thing, he is egregiously mistaken.

V. In the fifth place they object against us the Testimony of Josephus, who in the fifth Chapter of the first Book of his Antiquities says, that Sibyl has made mention of the Tower of Babel.

In answer to this, it may be suppos'd that this was added to the Text of Jo∣sephus; but grant that this passage was really His, yet it only proves that in his time several Oracles were publish'd under the name of the Sibyls, wherein mention was made of the Deluge, the Tower of Babel, and the Confusion of Languages. And it cannot from thence be inferred that they were the same with those that at present go under the name of the Sibyls. For if we compare what Josephus saith of them, with the Verses related by Theophilus, Book 2. ad Antyloch, which are likewise in the Sibylline Writings, we shall see a great deal of difference between them.

VI. Lastly, 'tis objected that Celsus the Philosopher charg'd the Christians with having forg'd and falsifyed the Sibylline Books. But this Objection has no manner of force in it, because Celsus liv'd in the time of the Emperor Commodus, and consequently after the time I have set down of the Forgery of these Wri∣tings.

'Tis true indeed Origen defends them; but withall owns that there were se∣veral among the Christians who did not approve of them, tho' they made use of them. He challenges Celsus to produce the Ancient Copies of the Works of the Sibyls, wherein that which the Christians cited was not to be found. Celsus never took care to produce any, for that was more than he could do: but it would have been an easie matter for him to discover the Novelty of those which went under their Name.

They add, that the Heathens were so far convinc'd that these Oracles belong'd to the Sibyls, that they prohibited the Christians from reading them. Now whereas this Assertion is only founded on the Words of the Emperor Aureli∣an, set down by Vopiscus (who writes, that the Emperor told the Senate, that he wondered they were so backward in consulting the Books of the Sibyls; as if (says he) you were in an Assembly of Christians, and not in the principal place of the Roman Religion:) I have elsewhere observ'd that these Words do not signifie, that the Heathens had prohibited the Christians from reading the Writings of the Sibyls; but only that the Christians look'd upon them as prophane Records. This is in Truth the first notion which these Words present us with, and the most natural Sense that can be given them. For an Emperor, upbraiding a Se∣nate for having neglected to consult the Writings of the Sibyls, which were u∣sually consulted in cases of Necessity, as Books that contain'd the Ceremonies of the Pagan Religion, nothing could be more proper for him to inform the Se∣nators of their Duty, than to tell them that they seem'd to set as slight an E∣steem upon those Books, as the Christians did.

Vossius in his last Book forms an Hypothesis about the Writings of the Sibyls, which differs a little from that which we have been maintaining. He owns that the Ancient Sibylline Verses, preserv'd till the Capitol was burnt, were wholly Prophane, and different from those that were cited by the Fathers. But he maintains that among those which were brought from Greece by Octacilius Crassus, several Prophecies were inserted, which some of the Jews had given him, and pretended they were the Sibyls, wherein the Coming of the Messiah is foretold; and that these are the Books which the Fathers have cited under the name of the Sibylline Oracles, which Name did properly belong to them.

Tho' this Hypothesis is very well invented, yet it is lyable to a great many Objections. For first, the Collection of the Verses attributed to the Sibyls, made after the burning of the Capitol, hath as many Pagan Superstitious in them, as the Ancient Verses had, which were attributed to the Sibyl of Cumae. Se∣condly, the Prophesies concerning Jesus Christ, which are in the passages of the Sibylline Oracles cited by the Fathers, being more clear than those which are in the Jewish Prophets, there is no likelihood that they came from a Jew. Lastly, the Doctrine of the Sibylline Books is rather that of a Christian than of a Jew. Therein Jesus Christ is clearly foretold, the Resurrection, the last Judgment, and the Fire of Hell are set down in express Terms. Therein mention is made of the Kingdom of a Thousand Years, of the coming of Antichrist, and a great many other things of the same Nature, which could never have been said by any but a Christian. It is therefore more likely, that the Books attributed to the Sibyls were forg'd by a Christian, than by a Jew.

Nor ought any body to think it strange, that we reject as spurious such Books, as were cited by the Ancients as Genuine; nor ought it to be suppos'd that we do thereby in the least depretiate the Authority of the Fathers, or offer any prejudice to the Truth. On the contrary, they offer it an injury, who would support it upon false proofs, especially when they are convinc'd of their Falsity. The Fathers are excusable in having cited the Sibylline Verses as Genuine, be∣cause they had not examin'd them; and finding them to be publish'd under the name of the Sibyls, they believ'd them to be really theirs: but they who are convinc'd of the contrary are inexcusable, if they would still make use of them, and not ingenuously confess what the Truth obliges them to own. And it ought

not to be thought strange, that the Fathers did not examine these Books criti∣cally: 'tis very well known that they wholly applyed themselves to matters of greater Consequence for that time, and that they often happen'd to be mistaken in Prophane Histories, and to cite spurious Writings, such as the Books of Hy∣staspes, and Mercurius Trismegistus, which for the most part they joyn'd with the Sibylline Oracles; as also the Acts of Pilate, the Apocryphal Gospels, several Acts of the Apostles, and a great many other Records which were apparently Su∣posititious.

But tho' most of the Ancients have cited the Oracles of the Sibyls, yet there were even then many Christians who rejected them as spurious, and who could never approve of those who made use of them, calling them by way of Deri∣sion, Sibyllists. Of this Origen in his fifth Book against Celsus is an Evidence; Celsus, says he, objects against us, that there are Sibyllists among us, perhaps, because he has heard, that there are some among us who blame those that say that Sibyl was a Prophetess, and who call them Sibyllists. Saint Augustine has likewise own'd the Forgery of these pretended Oracles; and every time he makes mention of them, he declares that he is not satisfied of their Genuineness. See after what manner he speaks of them in Lib. 18. de Civit. Dei, Cap. 45.

Were it not (says he) that they assert, that the Prophecies which go under the Name of the Sibyls and others, concerning Jesus Christ, were forg'd by Christians.

And again, cap. 47.

It may be suppos'd that all the Prophecies concerning Jesus Christ, which are not in the Scriptures, were feign'd by the Christians: Where∣fore there is no Argument more solid to refute the Pagans, than to alledge such Prophecies as we take out of the Books of our Enemies.

But the Heathens ('tis said) never question'd the Truth of the Sibylline Ora∣cles quoted by the Fathers, they only interpreted them in a different Sense. They likewise have acknowledg'd that the Verses of the Sibyls foretold the Birth of a New King, and a considerable Revolution. Cicero in several places of his Works speaks of this. When Pompey took the City of Jerusalem, there was a current Report, that Sibyl foretold, that Nature design'd a King for the Ro∣mans: upon which the Senate was so much concern'd, that they would send neither General nor Army into Egypt, and all upon the Account of this Pre∣diction. Lentulus, according to the Testimony of Cicero and Salust, flatter'd himself with the Notion that he was the Man who the Sibyls foretold should be King. Others have interpreted that Prophesie of Julius Caesar, or Augustus; as Cicero and Suetonius have observ'd. Virgil in his fourth Eclogue makes mention of the Verses of the Cumaean Sibyl, which promise the Birth of a New King that should descend from Heaven. Lastly, 'tis certain that the Heathens acknow∣ledg'd these Books of the Sibyls to be favourable to the Christians, for which Reason they prohibited them from reading them, as appears by the Words of Aurelian to the Senate, which are related by Vopiscus:

I admire Gentlemen, says he, that you should be so tedious in consulting the Sibylline Oracles, as if you were debating the Case in an Assembly of Christians, and not in the principal place of the Roman Religion.

These Arguments at first View appear to be very plausible, but if we go to the bottom of them, we shall find nothing of Solidity in them.

As for the Heathen, they are not always agreed about the Authority of the Sibylline Books cited by the Fathers: on the contrary, 'tis plain that Colsus believ'd them to be forg'd by the Christians, and Saint Augustine says positively that this was the Opinion of all the Heathens.

The Sibylline Verses mention'd by Cicero were Acrosticks; that is, the first Verse of each Sentence contain'd in Order all the Letters which began the fol∣lowing Verses. Now among the Sibylline Verses, there are none but those, cited by Constantine, which are written in Acrosticks.

As to that Report which was current in the time of Pompey, Julius Caesar, and Augustus, that the Sibylline Verses foretold there should be a New King Born, 'tis easie to reply with Cicero, that the Verses attributed by the Heathens to the Si∣byls were so compos'd, that they might be taken in any Sense whatever; that perhaps they do make mention of a certain future King, as is ordinary in these sorts of Prophesies. Wherefore when the Grandeur of Pompey began to be for∣midable to the Roman Empire, they might make use of this pretence, to hinder his marching into Egypt at the Head of an Army. And Lentulus, who was in∣trusted with that Charge, being Governor of Syria, flatter'd himself very vain∣ly with this Prediction, which might perhaps be further confirm'd by the Prophesies of the Jews, who expected the Coming of the Messiah, and believ'd that he was to be their King.

Afterwards, when Julius Caesar and Augustus, after Pompey, came to be Empe∣rors, and made themselves Masters of the Roman State, the Predictions of the Sibyls were explain'd in their Favour: nor was it necessary upon that Account, that they should denote the Coming of Jesus Christ so clearly, as is set down in the Sibylline Books cited by the Fathers, but it was enough that they spake of a Future King, which is usual with all those that have pretended to foretell things to come. This gave Virgil an occasion, who was minded in his fourth Eclogue to write in praise of his Patron Pollio, and at the same time to extol Augu∣stus, and describe the felicity of his Reign; this I say, gave him an occasion, in order to do it with a greater Majesty, of making Use of the Name of Sibyl, and of singing forth the following Lines:

Ʋltima Cumaei venit jam carminis aetas; Magnus ab integro saeclorum nascitur ordo: Jam nova progenies Coelo demittitur alto, Jam redit & Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna.

Now by these Verses nothing else is meant but that at the Birth of Saloninus the Son of Pollio, under the Consulate of his Father, and under the Empire of the Greatest Prince in the World, the Golden Age should return, as it was foretold by Sibyl; that Plenty and Peace should flourish throughout the whole World; that the Virgin Astraea, the Goddess of Justice, who had forsaken the Earth at the beginning of the Iron Age, should now descend again. What is there in all this that comes near to the Prophesies which relate to Jesus Christ? Or rather is not the whole writ in a Prophane Style, and feign'd by a Heathen Poet, who only makes use of the Name Sibyl, that he might have wherewithal to flatter Augustus, and to add the greater weight to what he said in his Praise?

Lastly, the Words of Aurelian (as has been already hinted) do not mean that the Heathens had hindred the Christians from reading the Sibylline Books, but only that the Christians look'd upon them as prophane Books, which did not in any manner concern their Religion, and to which they gave no Cre∣dit.

SECT. II. Of the Books attributed to Hystaspes and Mercurius Trismegistus.

THE Books attributed to Hystaspes and Mercurius Trismegistus, cited likewise by the Ancient Fathers, are as spurious as the Verses of the Sibyls. We have no Remains of Hystaspes, and that Author was wholly unknown to the Anci∣ent Heathens. But this cannot be said of Mercurius, Sirnam'd Trismegistus (a.) 1.99, of whom the most Ancient Heathen Writers have made mention (b.) 1.100, as One that was an incomparable person, and the Inventer of all Arts and Sciences. He was of Egypt, and the most ancient of all the Prophane Writers, that we have extant: they did not think him to be less ancient than Moses. He wrote, or at least 'tis said that he wrote five and twenty or thirty thousand Volumes. We have at present remaining only two Dialogues under his Name, the One has for its Title Pimander, and the Other Asclepius, who are the two principal Per∣sonages in them. The first treats of the Will, and the second of the Power of God. These are the Treatises which the Ancient Fathers have cited to prove the Truths of our Holy Religion by the Authority of an Author so famous as the Person under whose Name they go. But 'tis certain that they could not be His (c.) 1.101, for the Author of these Tracts is a modern Platonizing Christian, who argues from the Principles of the Platonick Philosophy, and hath taken out of the Scripture, what he has said concerning the Divine Logos, or Word of God, and concerning the Creation of the World.

SECT. III. Of the Letters of Lentulus and Pilate concerning Jesus Christ.

THere is no need of shewing the falsity of a Letter attributed to Lentulus, written to the Senate and People of Rome concerning the Actions of Jesus Christ; since the Forgery of it is Self-Evident. They make Lentulus to write it in the Quality of Governor of Jerusalem, tho' he never had that Em∣ploy. 'Tis directed to the Senate and People of Rome; whereas after the Com∣mon-wealth was chang'd into a Monarchy, the Governors usually wrote to the Emperors. That which is contain'd in that Letter is ridiculous: Therein is a mean and contemptible Description of the Person of Jesus Christ; therein it is said that our Saviour had light coloured Hair, long and loose after the Mode of the Nazarenes. The style wherein it is written does not suit with the purity and politeness of Augustus's time: In a word, not one of the Ancients hath made mention of that Letter.

The Letter of Pilate to Tiberius upon the subject of the Miracles of Jesus Christ, seems to be more authentick. For Tertullian in his Apologetick relates, that Tiberius having understood what Miracles Jesus Christ had wrought in Pale∣stine, which were as so many Evidences of his Divinity, made the report there∣of to the Senate, and propos'd the ranking him among the Gods: but that the Senate rejected this Proposal, and yet Tiberius continu'd in the same mind, and prohibited the persecuting of the Christians. A little after the same Author adds, that Pilate, a Christian in his Heart, sent Tiberius word of the Resur∣rection of Jesus Christ. Eusebius in the second Book of his Ecclesiastical Hi∣story, Chap. 2. cites this passage of Tertullian, and explaining more at large how Tiberius came to hear of Jesus Christ, says that Pilate (according to the Custom of the Governors of Provinces, who were oblig'd to send the Emperors an Ac∣count of what happen'd most remarkable in their Province) sent Tiberius an Ac∣count of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, assuring him that he had heard of a great many Miracles which he had wrought, and that there were a great ma∣ny People who look'd upon him as a God, since his being rais'd from the Dead.

We have in the Orthodoxographa next to the Epistle of Lentulus, a Letter attributed to Pilate as written to Tiberius, which contains the same things: but 'tis difficult to determine whether this Letter was extant in Eusebius's time, or whether it was not forg'd since from his Narration. Let this be how it will, there are several Learned Men who question the Genuine∣ness of this History; which has but very little probability at the bottom of it. For how is it likely that Pilate should write such things to Tiberius of a Man; whom he himself had condemn'd to Death? And tho' he might have done this, yet is it probable that Tiberius should have propos'd to the Senate the placing such a Man in the number of the Gods upon the bare relation of a Governor? And if he had propos'd any such thing, who can imagine but that the Senate would have submitted to it? Wherefore, tho' we cannot absolutely charge this Narration with Falshood, yet it may at least pass for a doubtful piece.

SECT. IV. Of the Epistles of Seneca to Saint Paul, and of those of Saint Paul to Seneca.

WE ought to reject the thirteen Epistles of Seneca to Saint Paul, and of Saint Paul to Seneca, as being apparently spurious, although Saint Jerome and Saint Augustine seem to have acknowledg'd them as genuine. For (1.) These Epistles are not written in Saint Paul's or Seneca's style (a.) 1.102. (2.) Therein 'tis said, that in the fire of the City of Rome under Nero, there was only an hundred thir∣ty two Houses burnt down, which is a manifest mistake, since 'tis certain that a great part of the City was consum'd, according to the Testimony of Tacitus (b.) 1.103. 3. The date of these Letters is false (c.) 1.104. 4. They contain nothing in them that is worthy either of Seneca or of Saint Paul (d.) 1.105. (5.) Lastly, 'tis easie to perceive that they are only the Exercises and Fancies of a sprightly Genius, which was wil∣ling to shew its parts in feigning these Letters.

An Author of our times having on one side acknowledg'd the spuriousness of the Letters which we have extant under the Name of Seneca to Saint Paul, and of Saint Paul to Seneca; and yet on the other side, not daring to say that Saint Je∣rome and Saint Augustine, who thought these Epistles to be genuine, were mi∣staken; hath suppos'd that the Genuine Letters of Saint Paul to Seneca, and of that Philosopher to Saint Paul have been lost since their Time, and that those which are now extant have been forg'd instead of them. But beside, that the E∣steem we have for those two Fathers ought not to hinder us from believing, but that they might be mistaken in a matter of so little Consequence (e.) 1.106, it is to be observ'd that they do not declare positively that these Epistles were Genuine, but only that they were commonly so reputed (f) 1.107, and that they were read under their Name. Moreover, it is an easie matter to demonstrate that the Letters which are now extant. and those which were in Saint Jerome's time are the same. For that Father says, that Seneca wish'd in one of his Letters to be among his fol∣lowers, what Saint Paul was among the Christians; which has a great deal of

Resemblance with what is to be met with in the Eleventh Letter of Seneca to Saint Paul (g.) 1.108.

'Tis not known when those Letters were forg'd, nor who it was that did them; and 'tis hard to determine whether 'tis upon the Account of those Let∣ters, that it is said in the spurious Acts of the Passion of Saint Linus, that Sene∣ca and Saint Paul wrote several Letters to one another; or whether the Narra∣tive of that Author has given an occasion of the inventing of these Letters, as Cardinal Baronius conjectures.

SECT. V. Of the Passages of Josephus concerning Jesus Christ, Saint John Baptist, and Saint James.

LAstly, of all the Prophane Records that might be produc'd in favour of Je∣sus Christ, none seems to be more genuine, than the passage of Josephus, taken out of the fourth Chapter of his Eighteenth Book of the Jewish Antiqui∣ties, wherein he says, That at time there was a Wise Man nam'd Jesus, (if it be lawful to call him only a Man, for he wrought a great many Miracles, and taught those who receiv'd the Truth with Joy) who had many Disciples, as well Jews as Gentiles; That he was the CHRIST (a.) 1.109, and that being accus'd by the Chief of his own Nation, he was crucified by the Command of Pilate. That notwithstanding this, he was not a∣bandon'd by those who lov'd him, because he appear'd to them alive the third day, as the Prophets had foretold; and that he was the Author of the Sect call'd Christians, which remain'd to this day.

This Testimony of Josephus is cited by Eusebius, Saint Jerome, Isidorus of Da∣mietta, Zosomen, Cedrenus, Nicephorus Calistus, and Suidas, as a Record very fa∣vourable to the Christian Religion: But in our times, wherein things have been enquir'd into with more exactness than formerly, there have been, and still are several Learned Men, who maintain that this Passage doth not really belong to Josephus (b.) 1.110: And it must be confess'd that their Conjectures are not wholly to be despis'd, for they say:

1. That the style of this Passage is intricate, not fluent, and not like to the style of Josephus, who wrote clearly, politely and elegantly.

2. That 'tis plain this Passage was afterwards inserted into the Text of Jose∣phus, because it breaks the Connection of what went before and follows after: for immediately after this Passage, we read, That about that time the Jews were again oppress'd with another Calamity; Words that have no manner of Relation to what was said of Jesus Christ; but which plainly refer to the Massacre of the Jews, whom Pilate had put to Death in Jerusalem, which Fact precedes this Passage concerning Jesus Christ: and this (say they) is a clear proof that it does not belong to Josephus, but was added afterwards.

3. They say, that if this Passage were consider'd apart and by it self, it would be easie to perceive that it was a Christian, and not Josephus, who spake these Words. Therein Jesus Christ is call'd God, therein his Miracles and his Resurrection are acknowledg'd, and therein 'tis said that those things were fore∣told by the Prophets.

4. What likelihood is there that Josephus who so heartily espous'd the Inte∣rests of his own Nation, should speak so favourably of Jesus Christ? For could any Christian have said more? In this Passage 'tis said, first, that it was not lawful to call him only a Man, because he had wrought many Miracles. Se∣condly, that he was the CHRIST, that is the MESSIAH. Thirdly, that he rose again the Third Day. Is it possible that a Jew so bigotted to the Notions of his Country-men as Josephus was, who did not believe (as Origen observes) that Jesus was the Christ, that is the Messiah, much less that he was God, and that he was risen from the Dead, should advance such things of Jesus, without ta∣king notice that they were false, or that he question'd the truth of them? He is made to confirm the Resurrection of Jesus Christ by the Predictions of the Prophets; and to say, that Jesus taught the Truth, and wrought a great many Miracles which prov'd his Divinity. Now where was there any Jew that ever said or thought thus? Is it not evident that it was a Christian, one who believ'd Jesus Christ to be God, who wrote this?

5. Josephus in the same Work, B. 20. Ch. 8. describing the Martyrdom of Saint James, says, that he was the Brother of Jesus Christ. Now if he had said any thing before of Jesus, he would not have fail'd to have taken notice of it, or at least to have said something in this place to his Advantage.

6. This Testimony (say they) is not only unknown by the Ancients who pre∣ceded Eusebius, but also Origen expresly denies that Josephus ever said any thing of Jesus Christ. 'Tis very strange (says he, in the second Tome on Saint Mat∣thew) that Josephus, who never acknowledg'd Jesus to be the Christ, should give us such an authentick Evidence of the Innocence of Saint James. Again, the first Book against Celsus: Josephus (says he) did not believe in Jesus Christ. Would that Father have said thus, if in his time there had been in the Works of Josephus such a fa∣vourable Testimony concerning Jesus Christ, as this which is at present in his Works? He cites the Passage of Josephus concerning Saint John Baptist and Saint James; would he, think ye, have omitted that which relates to Jesus Christ? Theodoret has likewise observ'd that Josephus never knew or acknowledg'd Jesus Christ. But nothing is of greater weight in the Case than the silence of Photius, who drawing up an Accurate Abridgment of the Books of Josephus, in the 238th. Code of his Bibliotheca, says nothing of this Passage concerning Jesus Christ, which he would never have omitted, had it in his time been in all the Copies of the Works of Josephus, and had he thought it to be really His. In a word, that, which deserves a particular Reflection, is, that Photius in another place observes that there was in his time a Treatise concerning the Word attributed to Jose∣phus, which he look'd upon as Spurious, since therein he speak in too favourable Terms of Jesus Christ; and he afterwards adds, that he has been inform'd since,

that this Book belong'd to one Caius a Priest of Rome. 'Tis probable that this passage which is at present in the Book of Antiquities, was taken out of the Trea∣tise of Caius, who was also call'd Josephus, and afterwards inserted into Josephus's Antiquities.

To these Testimonies of Origen, Theodoret and Photius, the Bishop of Orange replies, that these Authors met with such Manuscripts of Josephus, wherein this passage had been struck out by the Jews. But this Reply seems still to weaken and enervate the Authority of this Passage. For if there were any ancient Manu∣scripts wherein it was not, we have still more occasion to call it into Question; and the Arguments already alledg'd, do prove, that it is more probable that it was added to some Manuscripts by Christians, than struck out of others by the Jews. However, I shall determine nothing as to this point, but leave the Rea∣der to judge for himself, whether the Authority of Eusebius, Saint Jerome, and of all the Manuscripts of Josephus now extant ought to outweigh the Opinions of the Learned already produc'd, the general Testimonies of Origen, Theodoret and Photius, and perhaps several Ancient Manuscripts of Josephus that are at pre∣sent lost.

There is in the seventh Chapter of the same Book of Josephus, another Pas∣sage concerning Saint John the Baptist, which may likewise be subject to some difficulty. Therein 'tis said,

That the Jews imputed the defeat of Herod An∣tipas, by Aretas the King of the Arabians, to his having put to Death John nam'd the Baptist, who was a good Man, and who enjoyn'd the Jews to pra∣ctice Vertue, to do Justice to one another, to Worship and Reverence God, to be Baptiz'd, to forsake their Sins, and to preserve themselves pure both in Body and Mind: That this John having great multitudes of People which follow'd him, and seem'd most of 'em resolv'd to do whatsoever he en∣joyn'd them; Herod thought it adviseable to put him to Death, before he rais'd any Insurrection; for fear if any Trouble should afterwards arise, he should repent of having delay'd it so long: That therefore he sent him bound to Machaerus, where he order'd him to be Beheaded; which made the Jews believe that God offended with Herod for that cruel Action, had permitted his Army to perish.

Now some have found it difficult to reconcile this passage with the Evangelists or so much as with Josephus himself: For that Historian says that the Wife of He∣rod, having discover'd the disloyalty of her Husband, and the Amours he carryed on with Herodias, retir'd to Machaerus, a place scituated upon the Frontiers of the Territories of Herod and Aretas, and which was at that time subject to Aretas, the Father of that Princess, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: That there she was receiv'd by the Governor who held that place for Aretas, and by the Arabians who af∣terwards conducted her to her Father.

On the contrary, in the forecited passage 'tis suppos'd that Machaerus was de∣pendent on Herod, since 'tis said that he sent thither John Baptist bound, and gave Orders that he should there be put to Death. It cannot be asserted that he had taken Machaerus from Aretas, because Josephus observes that Herod had not the least Advantage over Aretas during that War.

Nor is this Narration any more reconcileable with the Account which the E∣vangelists have given us of this matter: For therein it is suppos'd that Herod put Saint John to Death, because he was afraid least he should have rais'd some Se∣dition, and that he had sent him to Machaerus there to be executed. Now by the Evangelists it appears, that Herod put John into Prison without any design at first to kill him: That it was at the Instance of Herodias that he order'd him to be Beheaded, and that Saint John Baptist was in the very place where Herod kept his Court, when he was put to Death.

It is farther remarkable that this passage interrupts the Series of Josephus's History. For he was relating just before, that Herod having made his Com∣plaints to Tiberius of the Insults of Aretas, the Emperor sent Orders to Vitellius to enter into a War against that Prince, and to send him to him alive or dead: And just after this passage, 'tis related after what manner Vitellius prepar'd him∣self to put this Order into Execution: and the passage betwixt has no manner of reference to what went before or follows after; but in order to have it in∣serted, it was suppos'd that the Jews attributed the Overthrow of Herod's Ar∣my to the Death of Saint John Baptist, which is a supposition that has no pro∣bability in it.

Lastly, 'tis urg'd against this passage, that it is not likely that Josephus, who was a Jew of the Sect of the Pharisees, a Sect which had always very much op∣pos'd the Baptism of Saint John, should have spoken so favourably of him, as he has done in this place. These Reasons may render that passage somewhat suspicious; However it is cited by Origen, in his first Book against Celsus, where he says, that Josephus in the Eighteenth Book of his Antiquities has made menti∣on of the Baptism of Saint John.

Moreover, Eusebius was not always exact in his Citations of Josephus; of which we shall here present you with two uncontestable Instances.

In his Chronicle he asserts, that Josephus says, that in the time of the Passion of Jesus Christ, on the day of Pentecost, the Priests of the Jews heard a Noise in the Temple, and after that a Voice, which cry'd out, Let us depart hence, and that the same Year Pilate in the Night time caus'd the Images of Caesar to be hung up in the Temple. Eusebius repeats the same thing, Lib. 8. de Demonstra∣tione Evangelicâ, and places this Event at the time of our Saviour's Passion, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (says he) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Notwithstanding this, it is evident that Josephus in the sixth Book of the War of the Jews, fixes that occurrence a little before Jerusalem was besieg'd, that is, above thirty Years af∣ter our Saviour's Passion: And Eusebius himself fixes it to the same time in the Eighth Chapter of the third Book of his Ecclesiastical History.

Saint Jerome has committed the same mistake in his Answers to the Queries of Hebidias, and in his Commentary on the twenty seventh Chapter of Saint Matthew, and so have his Disciples Paul and Eustochius in their Epistle to Marcellus. And yet the same Saint Jerome in the Eighteenth Book of his Commentary on Isaiah, observes that this Voice was heard when Jerusalem was besieg'd.

Eusebius is likewise mistaken, when he says, in the ninth Chapter of the first Book of his History, that Josephus relates, that Archelaus having been declared King by the last Will and Testament of his Father, and by the Approbation of Augustus Caesar, and being ten years after turn'd out of his Kingdom, his Bro∣thers Philip, Herod the Younger, and Lysanias were made Tetrarchs in his Room. Here are several Blunders which Josephus was not guilty of. 'Tis a mistake to say that the Brothers of Archelaus enjoy'd their Tetrarchs till after the Death of that King; and 'tis likewise a mistake to assert that Lysanias was the Brother of Archelaus. Josephus says the quite contrary, and yet Eusebius cites Jo∣sephus as his Evidence, which shews that no credit ought to be given to that Histo∣rian in this Case.

We have an Instance, tho' more modern of an Interpolation inserted into the Text of Josephus by a Christian: 'Tis an Anonymous Writer cited by Suidas on the Word JESUS. That Writer relates at first a Story invented by a Jew, nam'd Theodosius, who maintain'd, that in the Synagogue of Tiberias was preserv'd a Book, wherein it was said that Jesus Christ had been elected Chief Priest by the Jews, and that he offer'd Sacrifice together with the Priests in the Temple: and he further adds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He who had related the Story of Theodosius the Jew

was nam'd Philip, Contemporary with Justinian; the Anonymous Writer cited by Suidas, says that he was inform'd of this by those who had heard Philip relate it. This Fable is founded on the Authority of Josephus: But there is not the least shadow of it in the Works of that Historian: some Body should have inser∣ted some such thing into some of his Copies, or have forg'd a passage of that Au∣thor wherein this was related, to have made it seem at least probable.

SECT. VI. Of several Authors whose Works relate to the Sacred History, such as Phi∣lo, T. Flavius Josephus, Justus, Aristaeas, Aristobulus, Josephus Bengorion, Berosus, the false Dorothaeus, Zoroaster, &c.

THEre are several Authors, whose Works whether Genuine or Spurious, relate to the sacred History, of whom we could not forbear saying some∣thing in this our Dissertation.

PHILO, a Jew of Alexandria, of the Sacerdotal Race, Brother of Alexander A∣labarcus, or Prince in Alexandria, was born under the Reign of Tiberius, and flou∣rish'd chiefly under that of Caius Caligula. He was the Head of an Embassy which the Jews of Alexandria sent to Caligula, in order to defend them against the Greeks, the Inhabitants of that City; who likewise sent on their part three Em∣bassadors to Rome, the Chief of which was Appion. Caligula having admitted Ap∣pion to Audience, would not hearken to Philo, but speak tartly to him, and forc'd him out of his presence. It was at that time that Philo address'd himself so hand∣somly to the Jews that attended him in the following Words;

Now we ought to have more assurance than ever: For since Caius the Emperor is incensed against us, Our God to be sure will defend us against him.

Some time af∣ter this he compos'd a Treatise against the Emperor which he ironically entitul'd De Virtutibus. Eusebius tells us that this Work was publickly read in the Senate under the Empire of Claudius: But this is scarce probable, no more than what Saint Jerome says, that Philo being come a second time to Rome under the Reign of Claudius, had several Conferences with Peter the Apostle.

We know nothing more of the Life of Philo, but the many and excellent pie∣ces which he has left behind him have render'd his Memory immortal. Euse∣bius has given us an exact Catalogue of them in the second Book of his Ecclesia∣stical History, Chap. 18. Saint Jerome has likewise set down the Heads of his Books in his Treatise de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis. Photius speaks in particular of several of them in the 103, 104, and 105 Volumes of his Bibliotheca; and Sui∣das hath exhibited the Catalogue of all his Works.

There is extant a great part of Philo's Works, printed in Greek and Latin at Paris in the Year 1640. The first in that Edition is his Treatise concerning the Creation of the World, of which there is not any particular mention made in Eusebius, Saint Jerome, nor in Suidas. After this come two Allegorical Trea∣tises concerning the Law, or Allegorical Commentaries on the Book of Genesis, of which Eusebius makes mention: To this we may joyn a third Treatise on the same Subject, which is pag. 1087. The Tract concerning the Cherubims, the Flaming Sword which guarded the Terrestrial Paradise, and concerning Cain, is one of those pieces which Eusebius says that Philo compos'd upon the particular Questions of Genesis, as well as the Tract concerning the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel, and the next which is likewise upon Cain and Abel, and which has for its Title, That the Wicked are wont to lay Snares for those who are better than themselves. Eusebius particularly makes mention of two Books of Agriculture, of which the second is Entituled, Concerning the Vine planted by Noah; of two Treatises upon

Drunkenness, the second of which in our Edition has for its Title, A Treatise on these Words, Noah recovered of his Drunkenness, and of a Tract concerning the Confusion of Languages.

To these Treatises are joyn'd, One concerning the Giants, another Entitul'd, that God is immutable, which Eusebius places in another Class. That Author likewise makes mention of a Tract, which has for its Title, De Rebus a Mente Sagaci desiderandis & detestandis, of which Saint Jerom and Suidas also speak, but which is lost to us. He speaks also of a Treatise concerning Fancy and Inven∣tion, or according to Saint Jerome, concerning Nature and Invention, which is likewise lost. We have two Tracts concerning Abraham, the one Entitl'd, the Life of a Wise Man made perfect by Learning, or, concerning the Ʋnwritten Laws; and the other concerning the Departure of Abraham out of his own Country; of which Eusebius and Saint Jerome make mention; tho' after the Treatise En∣titl'd, concerning useful Conversation in order to render one's self Learned, upon the Subject of the Conversation between Sarah and Hagar, which Eusebius and Saint Jerome place before the two former; but they say nothing of the Treatise de Exulibus, writ upon the account of Hagar's flying from her Mistress. They mention a Tract Entitul'd, Quis Rerum divinarum Haeres est? or according to Eu∣sebius, De partitione Rerum in partes aequales & inaequales; and another Tract Enti∣tl'd, The Civil Life, or Joseph. Eusebius and Saint Jerome speak of five Trea∣tises concerning Dreams; but they must needs be mistaken, since there are on∣ly three Tracts on that Subject compos'd by Philo. The first is lost; the se∣cond, where mention is made of the first, is Entitl'd, That Dreams procced from God; and is pag. 565. of the Paris Edition; the third at the pag. 108. The three Books concerning the Life of Moses are yet very considerable, and yet Eu∣sebius and Saint Jerome do not make any express mention of them. The Trea∣tise concerning the three Virtues describ'd by Moses, is compris'd in the Tracts concerning Charity, Justice and Fortitude, which in the Paris Edition reaches from pag. 697, to pag. 744; between which there is another piece concer∣ning the manner of establishing a Prince, which seems to be an Addition to the se∣cond Tract. The Treatise concerning the Reasons of the Alterations of seve∣ral Hebrew Names in Holy Scripture, of which mention is likewise made in Eusebius and Saint Jerome, ought to be joyn'd to the precedent Books of the Pentateuch, tho' in the Paris Edition they are not inserted, but in pag. 1044. Eusebius says that in this Book he treats concerning the two Covenants, which gave Saint Jerome an occasion of composing a particular Treatise concerning the Covenants, divided into two Books. Eusebius and Saint Jerome make mention of five Books of Questions and Answers upon Exodus, which are lost to us; tho' We have the Treatise upon the Decalogue, and one of the Books concer∣ning the peculiar Laws, of which likewise they make mention. The Tract con∣cerning Circumcision, the two Books concerning Monarchy, and that concer∣ning the Rewards of the Priests are not in their Catalogues, but they have the Title of the following Treatise, Concerning the Animals that were proper to be of∣fered up in Sacrifice, and concerning the different sorts of Sacrifices. The Tracts concerning the Tabernacle, Providence, and the Jews are lost. We have two Fragments of the second in Eusebius: The first in his eighth Book de Evange∣licâ Praeparatione, Chap. Ʋlt. and the other B. 7. Chap. 21. And the last is cited as an Apology for the Jews, in B. 8. Ch. 10. of his Evangelical Preparation. The Treatise concerning Rewards and Punishments, and that concerning Im∣precations, mention'd by Eusebius and Saint Jerome, are pag. 910, and 930 of the Paris Edition. There is likewise a particular Tract concerning the Pro∣hibition of receiving the Oblation of an Harlot, of which neither Eusebius nor Saint Jerome make mention. The Treatise, That every Sinner is a Slave, is lost: but that, That every Vertuous Man is free, and the Tract concerning the Con∣templative Life, that is, the History of the Essenes and the Therapeutae, are in the Paris Edition. We have not his Alexander, or the Tract concerning the

Reason of Beasts; nor the Exposition of the Law and the Prophets mention'd in Eusebius: But there are extant the following pieces, viz. a Treatise against Flaccus; a Narration of his Ambassy to the Emperor Caligula; A Tract con∣cerning Nobility; and another concerning the Incorruptibility of the World, which are not mention'd by these Authors. The Tracts concerning the World and Feasts are not Philo's.

This is all that can be remark'd concerning this Author, who (as Eusebius says) is rich in his Thoughts, Eloquent and Copious in his Style, and ingeni∣ous in his Allegories. He was a Platonist, and imitated the Style of his Master so well, that he was call'd by some the Jewish, Plato. His Works are full of Mo∣ral Thoughts, and continued Allegories upon all the Histories of the Bible; and in his Morality he comes very near the Sentiments of the Christians. It was publish'd in Greek by Turnebus, and printed at Paris in the Year 1552, and at Francfort in the Year 1587. It was translated into Latin by Gelenius, and printed at Basil in the Years 1554, and 1561, at Lions in the Year 1555, in Greek at Geneva, in the Year 1603, and in Greek and Latin at Paris in the Year 1640.

JOSEPHUS was of the Sacerdotal Race of the Assmonaeans, as he tells us in his Life which he wrote himself, wherein he exactly describes all his Employments and Actions. He was born Ann. Christi 37. and dyed in the Year 93. in the 56th. of his Age. He was Sirnam'd Titus Flavius, upon the Account of Vespasi∣an. He compos'd the History of the Jews, which he took out of the Books of the Bible, and has continued down to the War of the Jews, under the Title of the Jewish Antiquities. He also compos'd the History of the War against the Ro∣mans, and of the taking of the City of Jerusalem. He likewise wrote besides his own Life, two excellent Treatises against Appion, as A Reply to what that Heathen had advanc'd against the Antiquity of the Jewish Nation, against the pu∣rity of their Law, and against the Conduct of Moses: and a Treatise concer∣ning the Martyrdom of the Maccabees, which Erasmus justly styles a Master-Piece of Eloquence.

This Author wrote very politely, and that Turn which he gave to things is very agreeable. His History is enrich'd with admirable Descriptions, most eloquent Speeches, and most sublime Thoughts. His Narration is clear and just, and he not only diverts his Readers, but also inclines them on which side he pleases, raising and laying such Motions in them as he thinks sit. In short, it may be said of him, that he was a finish'd and compleat Historian, and might very well be styl'd the Titus Livius of the Greeks. The Treatise of the Maccabees shews the fineness of his Genius, and the extent of his Eloquence: and his Books a∣gainst Appion, shew the Depth of his Learning, and the strength of his Judg∣ment. The Works of this Author have been printed several times in Latin, as translated partly by Ruffinus, partly by Gelenius, and partly by Erasmus: and at Geneva in Greek and Latin, in the Year 1611. It were to be wish'd, that a more correct Edition of it were publish'd in a fairer Character, and upon better Paper.

JUSTUS of Tiberias made likewise an History of the Jews, and some Commen∣taries on the Bible; but Josephus charges him with Untruths. We should not have rank'd him among the Ecclesiastical Writers, had not Saint Jerome done it before us.

The Books of ARISTAEAS and ARISTOBULUS concerning the Version of the Sep∣tuagint were forg'd by some Hellenistical Jew, as we have shew'd in our for∣mer Volume in treating of that Version. We have extant the History of Ari∣staeas still entire: but that of Aristobulas is lost.

The History of the Wars of the Jews under the Name of JOSEPHUS BENGO∣RION, belongs to an Author who liv'd since Saint Jerome's time. He speaks of the Goths as being then in Spain, and of the Franks in Gaul. Now these People were not in Spain or France, till about the fifth Century of the Church; and

consequently the Author is an Impostor, who took several things out of the true Josephus, which he has mix'd with Falsities and Fables.

The Testament of the twelve Patriarchs which is in the first Volume of the Bi∣bliotheca Patrum, is a Treatise full of Fooleries and Impertinences, which deserves nothing but Contempt. Nor ought we to have any greater Esteem for the A∣bridgment of the Lives of the Prophets, Apostles, and other Disciples, attri∣buted to Dorothaeus of Tyre, who suffer'd Martyrdom under Dioclesian: 'Tis a Treatise never mention'd by the Ancients, and full of gross mistakes in Histo∣ry, and of Fables feign'd at pleasure.

There are some Tracts under the Name of Berosus the Chaldaean, Manetho the Egyptian, and Metasthenes; but they are not worthy of these great Men under whose Names they are inscrib'd, and the Forgery is Self-Evident. All the pas∣sages of the Genuine Berosus, cited by Josephus in his Book against Appion, are not to be met with in this piece which is attributed to him, but rather such things as are quite the contrary. In the last, mention is made of the City of Lions, which had not that Name till after Caesar's time. Lastly, the History of Berosus goes no farther than the time of Nabuchadonosor and Nabopalassar, where∣as this reaches much lower.

The Treatise of ZOROASTER (a) 1.111, of the sacred History of the Persians, a Frag∣ment of which Eusebius cites in the first Book of the Evangelical Preparation, is a spurious piece, as are likewise the other Writings attributed to that fabu∣lous Author.

Lastly, the History of the Phaenicians, which 'tis suppos'd was written by one nam'd Sanchoniathon (b) 1.112, and translated into Greek by Philo Biblius (c) 1.113, who liv'd in the time of Adrian, is a perfect Romance; wherein are inserted seve∣ral passages taken out of the History of the Bible, and several Circumstances of the Fables of the Grecians.

FINIS.

Notes

• (a) 1.1

  Euseb. Hist. Lib. 3. cap. 25. It is proper here, says he, to make the Catalogues of the Books of the New Testament, of which we have spoken. We must in the first place put there the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of St. Paul, the first Epistle of St. John, and the first of St. Peter. In fine, we must add, if it be thought fit, the Revelation of St. John, reserving to our selves a Liberty to say in its Place, what the Ancients have thought of it. Those Books are receiv'd by common Consent: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And those are they that were called in doubt by some Persons, and own'd by many, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Letter ascrib'd to St. James, that of St. Jude, the 2d of St. Peter, the 2d and 3d of St. John. In fine, we must reckon amongst the Books that are altogether counterfeit or spuri∣ous, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Acts of St. Paul, the Book of Pastor, the Revelation of St. Peter, the Letter of St Barnabas, and the Institutions of the Apo∣stles. Add thereto, if you please, the Revela∣tion of St. John, which some reject, out of the Number of the Books of Scripture, and which others place amongst those that are not to be question'd, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This Passage makes it plain, that there are two opposite Sen∣timents concerning the Revelations, that some own'd it for Canonical, and the rest put it a∣mongst the Number of Apocryphal Books.
• (b) 1.2

  They are all quoted as Sacred Books, by the Authors that were nearest the Times of the Apo∣stles.] The Gospel of St. Matthew is quoted in the Epistle of St. Clement the Roman to the Co∣rinthians, in the Epistle of St. Barnabas, by St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, Papias, St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, &c. Papias makes mention of that of St. Mark; St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, St. Clement of Alexandria quote it. St. Clement the Roman, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, quotes Places taken from St. Luke: There are also in the E∣pistle of St. Barnabas, some Passages taken out of that Gospel. St. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Ephesians makes mention of it, and applies to him that Passage of the 2d Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians; We have also sent with him Luke, whose Praise is in the Gospel throughout all the Churches. The Gospel of St. Luke is also quoted by St. Justin and St. Irenaeus; St. John wrote his Gospel the last; and 'tis also quoted by those two last mentioned. In fine, in the Times of St. Irenaeus, Tertullian and St. Clement of Alexandria, those four Gospels were receiv'd by all the Churches as the only true ones. Nay, the ancient Heathens themselves own'd them; Cerinthus, who was Cotemporary with the Apostles, receiv'd that of St. Matthew; Cer∣don and Marcion receiv'd that of St. Luke, ex∣cept the two first Chapters; Amelius the Pla∣tonick Philosopher, quoted by Eusebius, quotes the Words of the beginning of St. John's Go∣spel, under the Name of a Barbarous Author. The Acts of the Apostles, compar'd with St. Luke, shew that they are the Work of one and the same Author. They are quoted by St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, and St. Clement of Alexandria. Men∣tion is made of the Epistles of St. Paul in the 2d Epistle of St. Peter. St. Clement the Roman makes use of several Passages of it in his Epi∣stle to the Corinthians; St. Polycarp quotes the Epistle to the Galatians, and to the Philippi∣pians; St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, Athenagoras, St. Cle∣ment of Alexandria often quote divers Passages of the Epistles of St. Paul. Papias hath taken Passages out of the first Epistle of St. John; it is quoted by St. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, &c. The first Epistle of St. Peter is quoted by all the Ancients, according to the Testimony of Eusebius, as a Canonical Work; and, amongst others, by St. Polycarp, Papias and Irenaeus. In fine, the Testimony of Euse∣bius alone, who assures us, that all those Books were receiv'd by one common Consent, as Ca∣nonical; whereas he observes sincerely of o∣thers, that there were some who doubted of them, is sufficient to establish that Truth.
• (c) 1.3

  In the English Edition of St. Cyprian's Works, there are three Places observ'd, where∣in 'tis pretended that St. Cyprian quoted the Epistle to the Hebrews; but that is not alto∣gether certain.
• (a) 1.4

  Good Tidings.] It is a Greek Word de∣riv'd from the Particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies well, and from the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies to tell, whence the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is form'd. This word in Homer and other ancient Greek Authors, is taken for the Reward given to one that brings good News. It is also taken in that sense by the LXX, 2 Kings 4.10. and Ci∣cero makes use of it in the 3d Letter of his 2d Book to Atticus, where he writes, O Suaves tuas Epistolas quibus Evangelia deberi sateor. O those sweet Letters of yours, which I confess deserve a Reward. Xenophon uses it in a cer∣tain place to signifie the Sacrifice offered up for good News. The Greek Translators of the Sacred Books of the Old Testament used it to explain the Hebrew word Besora, which ordi∣narily signifies good News, Isa. 52. v. 7. speak∣ing Prophetically of the Reign of Jesus Christ, he makes use of this Term; How beautiful upon the Mountains are the Feet of him that bringeth good Tidings of Good, that publisheth Salvation, that saith unto Zion thy God reigneth! Words quoted by St. Paul, Rom. 10.15. as a Prophesie of our Saviours Preaching. Nothing is more common in the New Testament, than the word Evangel or Gospel, to signifie the Preaching of the Do∣ctrine of Jesus Christ, whether by the Mouth of St. John, of our Saviour, of the Apostles or of the Disciples. St. Clement in his Epistles to the Corinthians takes the word Evangel in that same Sense, for the Preaching of the Doctrine of Jesus Christ. In the Acts St. Philip the Dea∣con is called an Evangelist, Acts 18.18. and St. Paul in the Epistle to Timothy, chap. 4. v. 5. prays him to do the Work of an Evangelist. Opus fac Evangelistae; that is to say, to preach the Word of God. But Custom hath since ap∣propriated that Name to the four Evangelists, who have wrote the History of Jesus Christ.
• (a) 1.5

  Gospels forg'd.] Origen in his first Homi∣ly on St. Luke says, That as there were divers false Prophets in the Old Testament, there were also false Evangelists in the New; that the Church hath none but these four Gospels; and that the Hereticks have several others, as the Gospel according to the Egyptians, that of the twelve Apostles, that compos'd by Basilides, that of St. Thomas, that of St. Matthias, and se∣veral others; in which we approve of nothing but what is in the four Gospels which the Church receives. He observes afterwards, That St. Luke made use of that Term [many have ta∣ken in hand,] to shew that others had only at∣tempted the Work which he had brought to perfection. St. Jerome follows Origen in his Preface to his Commentary on St. Matthew. St. Luke says he, is Witness, in the beginning of his Gospel, that there were several Gospels; some of his Writings which are still remain∣ing prove it. Those Gospels having been com∣posed by divers Authors, gave rise to se∣veral Heresies; such are the Gospels accord∣ing to the Egyptians, St. Thomas, St. Matthias, St. Bartholomew, those of the twelve Apostles Basilides and Appelles. It's sufficient to say at present, That there were some who without having the Spirit and Grace of God, did ra∣ther attempt to make a Narrative, than to write the Truth of History; to whom these Words of the Prophet may be well applied; Wo to those who Prophesie out of their own Hearts. But the Church own'd only the four Gospels. St. Epiphanius, Heres. 5. says, That St. Luke in the beginning of his Gospel points at some Persons, who had attempted to write the Go∣spel; to wit, Cerinthus and Merinthus. St. Am∣brose hath copied almost Verbatim Origen's Pre∣face. Titus of Bostra observes, That the Evan∣gelist St. Luke speaks of those who had wrote the History of the Gospel, without having the Spirit of God; and says, 'twas for that reason he made use of the Word taken in Hand, or at∣tempted: Which cannot be said of the Go∣spels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John, which were wrote by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost. He adds, That the Gospel ac∣cording to the Egyptians, and that of the twelve Apostles is of that Number, that there are like∣wise diverse others, but that the Church re∣ceived only Four. St. Augustin in his fourth Book of the Agreement of the Evangelists, c. 8. says, that St. Luke by making use of that Term, They have taken in Hand, shews that he means some Persons who had not been able to compleat the Work they had begun, and that it is to be understood of those who have no Authority in the Church. Moldonat, on the contrary, thinks that St. Luke speaks of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, which were already composed. Against this Opinion it is object∣ed, that St. Luke speaks of imperfect Works, since he makes use of the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies to attempt, essay, or begin, but this Objection is not of any great Force, because this is a General Term, and may be faid of a perfect as well as of an imperfect one, which any Man undertakes, and according to the Greek Phrase, To begin or undertake to do any thing, is to do it: So in the first Chapter of the Acts, 'tis said, The Things which Jesus Christ began to do and to teach, that is to say, which he did and taught. 'Tis further objected, That St. Luke seems to speak with disdain of those who had wrote those Histo∣ries of Jesus Christ, but that is not very clear; on the contrary, he seems to put himself in the same Rank, when he adds, It seemed good to me. 'Tis said, in the third place, That he could not speak of the Gospel of St. Matthew, which was then only in Hebrew, nor of that of St. Mark, which is only an Abridgment of the History: That's still weak. What can be said of most Weight is, that St. Luke speaks indeterminately of divers Persons, who had un∣dertaken to write, that which they had lear∣ned of the Life and Sermons of Jesus Christ, from those who had seen him. But he would not have spoke in that Manner of St. Matthew, who had seen the Lord himself, and if he had spoke only of the Gospel of St. Mark, he would have named him, and not have made use of the Term Many, which does not so much as agree even to two Evangelists. 'Tis certain then, that he had a Design to speak of Many. We cannot say neither, That St. Luke speaks only of the Gospels of the Heretics that were full of Falshood and Errors: For, 1. He would have tax'd them in harder Terms, and given Notice, that their Narratives were False and full of Errors, and deserved no Credit. He blames them not, but supposes them to be wrote by honest Men. 2. Almost all the Go∣spels of the Hereticks are of a later date than that of St. Luke. 3. The Gospel according to the Egyptians and the Hebrews, and some other Ancient ones were not Heretical; the Ancient Fa∣thers made use of them; for though they were not of an infallible Authority, they might con∣tain Truths. In fine, 'tis very probable, that besides those Gospels mentioned by the Anci∣ents, many among the primitive Christians had wrote Memoirs of what they had learned of the Life and Sermons of Jesus Christ, which were lost in progress of time, but in being in St. Luke's Days.
• (b) 1.6

  Symbols agree to them.] St. Irenaeus, Lib. 3. ch. 11. assigns the Man to St. Matthew, because he describes the Generation of Jesus Christ, according to the Flesh, and speaks of him throughout as a Man. He assigns the Eagle to St. Mark, because he begins his Gospel with a Prophetical Spirit, which comes from on high. He assigns the Ox to St. Luke, because he de∣scribes the Priestly Race of Jesus Christ, and the Lion to St. John, because he considers Je∣sus Christ as God and King, and in the be∣ginning of his Gospel observes the Grandeur of Jesus Christ. St. Jerome, in his Preface to his Commentary on Matthew, assigns the Man to St. Matthew, because he began his Gospel by the Genealogy of Jesus Christ as Man, the Lion to St. Mark, because he begins with the Prophesie of St. John, who roared as a Lion in the Wilderness; the Ox to St. Luke, be∣cause he begins his Gospel with the History of Zacharias, and the Eagle to St. John, because he advances the Godhead of Jesus Christ. St. Austin, Lib. 1. de Cons. Ev. C. 6. says, That those who assign the Lion to St. Matthew, the Man to St. Mark, the Ox to St. Luke and the Eagle to St. John, have hit it better, than those who assign the Man to St. Matthew, and the Lion to St. John, because we must not Judge by the beginning of their Gospels, but by what they contain, and that St. Matthew insists more upon what relates to the Royalty of Jesus Christ, St. Luke to his Pristhood, St. Mark to his Humanity, and St. John soars high like an Eagle to his Divinity. Bede is of the same Opinion with St. Austin.
• (c) 1.7

  St. Irenaeus, Lib. 3. Haeret. Fab. c. 3. Euseb. Lib. 3. Hist. c. 24. Hieron. Praef. Comment. in Mat. & Lib. de vir. illust. Epiph. Hares. 51. Aug. de Cons. Evang. Lib. 1. Cap. 2.
• (a) 1.8

  Near the City,] 'Tis certain, according to the three Evangelists, that Jesus Christ was at Capernaum, where he cured the Paralitic. St. Mark says it expresly, naming the Place, ch. 2. v. 1. and St. Matthew describes it by the Name of the City of Jesus Christ, that is to say, the City where he ordinarily made his aboad. The Call of St. Matthew follows immediately in the three Evangelists, the curing of the Man sick of the Palsie; but St. Luke says, that after this Cure Jesus Christ went out of the City, and that he saw a Publican call'd Levi, sitting at the Re∣ceipt of Custom. St. Mark says, that after the Cure of the Paralitic, he went out again towards the Sea, and that all the People followed him; that he taught them, and as he passed by, he saw Levi, the Son of Alpheus, sitting at the Receipt of Cu∣stom. St. Matthew, after having related the Cure of the Paralitic, says, That Jesus Christ passing by saw a Man sitting at the Receipt of Cu∣stom, call'd Matthew. It appears by those Pas∣sages, That Jesus Christ was gone out, or a going out of the City of Capernaum, when he call'd St. Matthew, who was sat at the Receipt of Custom, and that he went towards the Sea of Galilee. 'Tis probable, that the Receipt of Custom, and the Receivers Houses were without the City on the Bank of the Sea, where Jesus Christ was, when Jairus came to seek him a little after to cure his Daughter, Mark 5.
• (b) 1.9

  Was not the Apostle St. Matthew.] Grotius is of that Opinion; to give it some likelihood of Truth, he says, 1. That St. Matthew never gives himself the Name of Levi; that the two other Evangelists who relate this Story, don't give the Name of Matthew to this Levi; and that in the Catalogues of the Apostles, he is only call'd Matthew, though the Names of the other Apostles who had two, be there marked. 2. That Heracleon, an ancient Author quoted by St. Clement of Alexandria, distinguishes St. Mat∣thew from Levi; and that Origen, in his Books against Celsus, assures us, That Levi was not of the Number of the Apostles: 'Tis upon this Reason and upon those Authorities, that he founds the Conjecture, That perhaps Levi was the Man that farmed the Customs, and that St. Matthew was under him. But the Reason he alledges is very weak: For 'tis very natu∣ral that Matthew calling himself Levi, when he was converted, that the two Evangelists should give him no other Name when they speak of his Conversion, and perhaps out of some de∣ference to him, they forbore observing that he was a Publican, and he out of Humility, was willing to reveal it. Be that how it will, ha∣ving had those two Names, the keeping one of them concealed, is not enough to make us conclude, That those two Names are the Names of two Men. The Authority of Heracleon, follow'd by St. Clement of A∣lexandria; and that of Origen would be more considerable, did it appear that they had examined the thing, or that they had any Proof that Levi, was another Person than Matthew. But it appears, That 'twas only the Difference of the Names, that occasioned their doubting, if he was the same Man. Origen himself in his Preface to the Epistle to the Ro∣mans, observes, that the Publican call'd Levi by St. Mark and St. Luke, is St. Matthew him∣self, all the other Fathers have also assured us, That Matthew and Levi were two Names of one and the same Man.
• (c) 1.10

  There's great Appearance that he's the same Man.] The three Evangelists relate this History as happening immediately after the Cure of the Paralitic, as our Saviour was going out of Capernaum. They say, That he who was call'd by our Lord, was a Publican, that he was sat at the Receipt of Custom, that Jesus Christ said to him, Follow me; that he left all and followed him, that he received Jesus Christ and his Di∣sciples into his House, that he entertained them at his Table with Publicans and Sinners, &c. There's nothing differs but the Name. 'Tis true, that St. Matthew says not positively, that 'twas in his House, as the others say plainly, that 'twas in the House of Levi, but that is under∣stood, and 'tis certain by his Narrative, that it was in the House of that Publican, that he call'd, and into which he followed him: But 'tis a meer Conjecture to say, that he cal∣led two, and that two followed him.
• (d) 1.11

  St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew.] Their Passages in Latin are thus. Papias apud Eusebium, Hist. l. 3. c. 39. Matthaeus quidem He∣braico Sermone divina scripist oracula; Interpretatus est autem unusquisque ilia prout potuit. Irenaeus, Lib. 3. adv. Haeres. cap. 1. Ita Matthaeus in Hebraeis ipsorum Lingua Scripturam edidit E∣vangelii, cum Petrus & Paulus, Romae Evangeli∣zarent & fundarent Ecclesiam. Idem, ibid. cap. 11. Ebionaei etenim eo Evangelio quod est secun∣dum Matthaeum, solo utentes. Origines apud Euse∣bium, Lib. 6. cap. 25. Primum scilacet Evangeli∣um scriptum esse a Matthaeo prius quidem publicano, postea vero Apostolo J. C. qui illud Hebraico Ser∣mone conscriptum Judaeis ad fidem Conversis publi∣cavit. Euseb. Lib. 3. Hist. cap. 24. Nam Mat∣thaeus cum Haebreis primus fidem praedicasset, inde ad alias quoque Gentes profecturus Evangelium suum patrio Sermone conscribens id quoque praesentiae suae adhuc superesse videbatur, Scripto illis quos relin∣quebat supplevit. Cyrillus Hierosolym, Catechis. 14. Matthaeus scribens Evangelium, Lingua He∣braica illud scripsit. Hieronymus Praef. in qua∣tuor Evangel. excepto Apostolo Matthaeo qui primus in Judaea Evangelium Christi Hebraicis Literis edi∣dit. Idem Praef. Commentariorum in Matth. pri∣mus omnium Matthaeus est publicanus cognomento Levi, qui Evangelium in Judaea Hebraeo Sermone edidit, ob eorum vel maxime Causam qui in Jesum crediderant ex Judaeis, & ne quidquam legis um∣bram succedente Evangelii veritate servabant. Idem in Libro de viris illustribus Matthaeus qui & Levi ex publicano Apostolus primus in Judaea propter eos qui ex Circumcisione crediderant, Evangelium Christi He∣braicis Literis verbisque composuit quod quis postea in Graecum transtulerit, non satis certum est. Epipha∣nius, Haeres. 29. de Nazaraeis. Est vero penes il∣los Evangelium secundum Matthaeum Hebraicae Scri∣ptum, & quidem absolutissimum. Idem Haeres. 51. Matthaeus igitur primus Evangelii scribendi proae∣mium nactus est ...... Hic igitur Matthaeus Lingua Hebraica Scripsit ac praedicavit Evangelium. S. Chrysostomus, Homil. 1. in Matt. Matthaeus ac∣cedentibus his qui ex Judaeis Christo crediderant & rogantibus, Haebreo dicitur Evangelium scripsisse Ser∣mone. Augustinus de Consensu Evangelistarum, Lib. 1. cap. 2. Primum Matthaeus horum sane qua∣suor solus Hebraeo scripsisse perhibetur eloquio. Auctor Comment. in Matthaeum apud Chrysostomum in Pro∣logo. Sicut referunt Matthaeum conscribere Evange∣lium causa compulit talis; cum facta fuisset in Pa∣lestina persecutio Gravis, ut periclitarentur dispergi omnes ut carentes forte Doctoribus fidei non Carerent Doctrina, petierunt Matthaeum ut omnium verborum & operum Christi conscriberet cis Historiam. Idem, Homil. 1. Initio Matthaeus autem Evangelium Ju∣daeis Hebraico Sermone conscripsit, ut Judaei legentes aedificarentur in fide. Auctor Synopseos apud Atha∣nasium. Evangelium secundum Matthaeum, ab ip∣so Matthaeo Hebraico dialecto conscripsit est, & edi∣tum Hierosolymis, & Interpretante Jacobo Fratre Domim secundum carnem expositum.
• (a) 1.12

  Whom he calls his Son in his first Letter, 1 Pet. 5.3.] The Church of Babylon salutes you and my Son Mark.
• (b) 1.13

  John, surnamed Mark, the Son of Mary, who is often spoke of in the Acts,] chap. 12. v. 12. It is said, That Peter being come out of Pri∣son, went to the House of Mary the Mother of John, surnamed Mark, v. 25. That Barna∣bas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, having taken with them John, surnamed Mark, chap. 15. v. 37. That St. Paul and Barnahas having agreed at Antioch to return and Visit their Bre∣thren in the City, where they had preached the Word of our Lord, Barnahas would take with him John, surnamed Mark; but that Paul pray'd him to consider, that it was not fit to take him with them who had left them in Pamphilia, and not accompanied them in their Ministry: That a Controversie happened there∣upon betwixt them, which occasioned their separating, and that Barnabas took Mark with him, and took Ship to go for Cyprus. The strict Union of this Mark with Barnabas, makes it believ'd that he is the same who is called his Kinsman in the Epistle to the Colossians, c. 4. v. 10. where St. Paul says, and Marcus Sisters Son to Barnabas, touching whom ye received Commandments, if he come unto you, receive him. And in his 2d to Timothy, chap. 4. v. 12. Take Mark and bring him with thee, for he is profitable to me for the Ministry. He makes mention of him again in his Epistle to Phile∣mon, as being one of those who assisted him. If he of whom St. Paul speaks in those three Places, be the same who is mentioned in the Acts, he must needs have been agreed again with St. Paul, after his having gone off from him with St. Barnabas. Some have confounded this John, surnamed Mark, the Son of Mary, with St. John the Evangelist. St. Chrysostom in his 26th Homily on the Acts, does not give him the Surname of Mark, but calls him simply John. He demands who that John is, and says that perhaps 'tis he who was always with the other Apostles; and that 'tis on that Account he added his Surname. So that tho' this Surname be not at present in the Greek Text of St. Chrysostom, it appears, however, by those last Words, that tis an omission. Oecumenius adds a Negative, and says, 'twas not he that was always with St. Peter and the other Apostles; that is to say, that 'was not the Evangelist: And the Reason St. Chrysostom gives for it, makes it plain, that we must so read his Text. The Evange∣list cannot be the Mark mentioned in the Epi∣stles of St. Paul, because he was then in Egypt; and even the 2d to Timothy is supposed to have beeu wrote after his Death. Some have be∣lieved, nevertheless, that he who is mentioned in the Epistles of St Paul was the Evangelist; and, amongst others, the Author of the Dia∣logue of Adamantius against the Marcionites.
• (c) 1.14

  Some have been of Opinion, that the Evange∣list was one of our Lords 72 Disciples.] St. Epi∣phanius says so, Heres. 51. where he relates, That having left our Lord, after the Discourse that he had on the Eucharist, St. Peter made him return. The Author of the Dialogue of Ada∣mantius against the Marcionites, reckons him a∣mongst the 72 Disciples. Procopius and some other Modern Writers are of the same Opini∣on. But Papias says plainly, That St. Mark the Evangelist neither saw nor followed our Lord; and that he wrote what he learned from St. Peter, Euseb. Hist. l. 3. cap. ult. St. Ire∣naeus says not that he had seen Jesus Christ Ter∣tullian puts him in the Rank of Apostolical Men. St. Jerome contents himself to allow him the Quality of a Disciple and St. Peter's In∣terpreter. St. Chrysostom, Hom. 19. on the Acts, St. Augustin de Consensu Evangelico, l. 1. c. 17. against Faustus. Theodoret in his Preface upon the History of Solitaries, and Bede upon St. Mark say, That he was not an Eye Wit∣ness of the Things that he wrote, but that he learned them from those that had lived and conversed with our Lord.
• (d) 1.15

  The other Circumstances of his Life and Death related in his Acts, and by new Authors, are uncertain or fabulous.] Rollandus hath given us the Acts of St. Mark in Greek and Latin. It is the Work of some Egyptian Christian of the 7th or 8th Age, which was followed by the Author of the Oriental Chronicle, by Bede and by the Martyrologists. Those Acts are visibly full of Fables, and all those Modern Authors are but of small Authority. Palladi∣us in his History, Lausiac and Eutychius make him a Martyr; but neither Euschius nor St. Ja∣rome say any thing of it.
• (e) 1.16

  After the Death of St. Peter and St. Paul.] The Greek of St. Irenaeus in Eusebius is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Latin of the ancient Inter∣preter, post vero horum discessum; that is to say, after their leaving the World. Those that say we must read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, change the Text without Reason.
• (f) 1.17

  Ʋpon Reasons of so little Weight, that they deserve not to be insisted upon.] He says, 'Tis not to be believ'd that Mark, writing to the Romans, would compose his Gospel in any o∣ther Language than that which was in use at Rome. It is true, that Latin was the natural Language of the Romans; but the Greek was al∣so common amongst them; so that tho' we should suppose St. Mark to have wrote pre∣cisely for the Romans, he might have wrote in Greek, as St. Paul did the Letter that he di∣rected to them. But it is not certain that St. Mark wrote to Rome, and for the Romans; and tho' it should be true, it is not so, that his Gospel was for the Romans alone. There were at Rome converted Jews, to whom St. Peter had preach'd, and for whom St. Mark also wrote: Those Jews, as Grotius observed, understood little Latin, but they understood and spoke Greek. All the Authorities quoted by Baronius, to shew that Greek was not common at Rome, prove nothing: It is certain that the Romans studied Greek, that People of Fashion under∣stood and spoke it; nay, their Women spoke and understood Greek. The Authors he brings to maintain his Opinion, are the Author of the Pontifical of Damasus, Eutychius, and some Syri∣ans. These are Witnesses of small Credit in a Matter so ancient; and besides, they don't speak clearly. St. Gregory Nazianzen, whom he cites again, does not say, that the Gospel of St. Mark was wrote in Latin; he only says, that 'twas wrote for the People of Italy. He pretends that there are Latinisms in St. Mark's Greek: That may be without his having wrote in Latin: It's sufficient that he had dwelt a∣mong the Latins and spoke Latin, to mix La∣tin Words Graecis'd with his Greek. There are Interpreters who say, That St. Mark wrote his Gospel in Latin and Greek; but this is spoken without Proof. It is certain, that the Latin Gospel we have is not St. Mark's, and that it hath been translated from the Greek. It is said, That the Emperor Charles IV. found at Aquileum a Gospel wrote with St. Mark's own Hand in 7 Bundles or Quires. The Venetians pretend to have at Venice that Original brought from Aquileum, which they keep in the Church of St. Mark, with another Gospel that they be∣lieve to have been wrote by St. Chrysostom: But they take a great deal of Care to keep those two Books shut, and suffer no Body to open them, lest the Truth should be discover'd. Cornelius a Lapide says, he understood at Venice, that the Letters of the Gospel of St. Mark were much effac'd, and that it was wrote in Greek, and not in Latin.
• (a) 1.18

  St. Luke was a Native of Antioch, the Me∣tropolis of Syriac.] Eusebius says so, Hist. Lib. 3. cap. 4. Lucas vero domo Antiochenus; and St. Je∣rome in his Treatise of Illustrious Men, says, Lucas Medicus Antiochensis.
• (b) 1.19

  A Physician by Profession. St. Paul says so Col. 4.14. Luke the Physician salutes you. None of the Ancients doubted but this was the Evan∣gelist. Nicephorus and the modern Greeks make him a Painter; and there are in many Places Images of the Virgin, which are given out to be the Workmanship of St. Luke: But these are Fictions that have nothing of Truth nor Likelihood.
• (c) 1.20

  He was not our Lord's Disciple, nor one of the 72, as some of the Ancients believ'd.] This appears plainly from the beginning of his Go∣spel, where he does not say, that he wrote that which he had seen, but that which he had learn'd from others. St. Irenaeus contents him∣self to bring his Testimony, as that of a Man who had learn'd from the Apostles what he wrote, without producing him as an Eye-Wit∣ness to the Truth of those Things. Tertullian assures us of it as a certain thing, That he was not Christ's Disciple, but that he learn'd from the Apostles, and particularly from St. Paul, what he had wrote. Porro Lucas non Apostolus, sed Apostolicus: Non Magister, sed Discipulus; utique Magistro minor, certe tanto posterior, quanto posterioris Apostoli sectator, Lib. 4. contra Mar∣cion. cap. 2. Euseb. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 4. says, he wrote his Gospel upon the Relation of others, and the Acts upon what he had seen himself. St. Jerome assures us of the same thing in his Treatise of Illustrious Men, and in his Preface on St. Matthew. St. Ambrose in the beginning of his Commentary on St. Luke, St. Augustin in his Book de Cons. Evang. l. 1. c. 1. Theodoret in his Preface to the Lives of the Fathers. These Testimonies ought to be preferr'd to those of the Author of the Dialogue against Marcion a∣scrib'd to Origen; to that of St. Epiphanius, who had taken it from that Author; and to those of some Modern Authors, who wrote that St. Luke was one of the 72 Disciples of our Lord.
• (d) 1.21

  There's no appearance that he was a Jew.] St. Paul in his Epistle to the Colossians, after having named Aristarchus, Mark, and Jesus cal∣led Justus, says that they were of the Circum∣cision: Qui ex Circumcisione sunt; that they were the only Persons who were then with him: Then immediately after he speaks of Epaphras of Demas, and of Luke. He seems by that to distinguish them from those that were circum∣cised. St. Chrysostom followed this Opinion. St. Jerome in his Questions on Genesis, calls St. Luke a Proselyte: He was not then a Jew by Birth.
• (e) 1.22

  He was the Disciple of St. Paul, and attend∣ed him continually in his Travels.] St. Irenaeus in his 3d Book against Heresies, c. 14. says, That he was St. Paul's inseparable Compani∣on, and Fellow-Labourer in the Gospel. St. Paul puts him also amongst his Fellow-Labourers in his Epistle to Philemon, v. 24. Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas and Lucas, my Fel∣low-Labourers; and he calls him the Beloved, in his Epistle to the Colossians, chap. 4.14. Luke, the beloved Physician, salutes you, 2 Tim. 4.11. He says, he was the only Person staid with him: Lucas est mecum solus. The History of the Acts informs us, that he follow'd St. Paul when that Apostle went from Troas to Mace∣donia. For this is the first time that he spoke as being with St. Paul. We endeavoured, says he, immediately to go into Macedonia, Acts 16.11. So St. Irenaeus enumerating the Journies that St. Luke made with St. Paul, makes this the first, according to the Cambridge Manuscript. St. Luke was with St. Paul at Antioch in the Year 43, but 'tis not certain enough to be re∣lied on. Having passed from Troas in Macedonia, he staid there some days with St. Paul. There's no more spoken of St. Luke in the Acts till the 20th Chapter, where 'tis said, That St. Luke was with St Paul when they went into Asia through Macedonia, he parted with him at Phi∣lippi and went to Troas. He accompanied St. Paul to Jerusalem, he followed him after∣wards from Cesarea to Rome, when he was car∣ried thither; he staid there with him, as ap∣pears by the Epistles to Philemon and the Colos∣sians. He was still with St. Paul when he wrote his 2d Letter to Timothy.
• (f) 1.23

  It's thought that 'tis of him the Apostle speaks without naming him, when he signifies to the Corinthians, &c.] Authors are divided about this anonimous Person to whom St. Paul gave this Elogium; The Brother whose Praise is in the Gospel throughout the Churches.] Origen, Eusebius, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, ascribe this to St. Luke. St. Chrysostom says, That some think it to be St. Luke, and others take it for Barnabas. He leaves the Matter at an uncertainty, and is sometime for the one, sometime for the other. Some understand this of St. Silas, because of those following Words, Who was also chosen of the Churches to travel with us. Which agrees to Silas. It seems the Reason of his ascribing it to St. Luke, is the word Gospel, in that Place, which they take for a written Gospel. But 'tis a weak Conjecture, for the Gospel of St. Luke was not then composed, and those words are rather to be understood of the Go∣spel preached; that is to say, That Brother who has acquired a Reputation in all the Churches by the preaching of the Gospel.
• (g) 1.24

  There's no Reason to confound him with Lu∣cius.] Origen thought him to be the same, and hath wrote so in his Notes upon the Epi∣stle to the Romans. He could have no other Reason but the likeness of the Name: But that proves the contrary, for had the Name of Lu∣cas been either Graeciz'd or Latiniz'd they would rather have augmented than abridg'd it, as of Demas they have made Demetrius; of Ap∣pellas, Apollodorus; of Epaphras, Epaphroditus; of Cleopas, Cleopatra; of Artemas, Artemidorus; of Antipas, Antipater; of Harpocras, Harpocrates; of Rufus, Rusinus. This Lucius is plac'd by St. Paul amongst the Number of his Kinsmen. Timothy my fellow-labourer salutes you, and Lucius, and Ja∣son, and Sosipater, my Kinsmen. It seems that by the word Kinsmen he understands in general, those of the Jewish Nation, as he says Romans 9.3. For I could wish that my self were accursed from Christ, for my Brethren my Kinsmen according to the Flesh. So this Lucius is join'd with the Jews. St. Luke was not a Jew.
• (h) 1.25

  The Passage is very doubtful.] That which concerns Celibacy and the Age of St. Luke, is nei∣ther found in the Greek nor in the best Latin Manuscripts. The Greeks and Latins agree that St. Luke died very ancient: But Isidore, Bede, and some others, don't assign him above 74 Years. What concerns his Relicks, is taken from Philostorgus, and does not at all look like St. Jerome.
• (i) 1.26

  He preach'd the Gospel in Dalmatia, in Gaul, in Italy, and in Macedonia.] What St. Epi∣phanius says of his Preaching in Gaul is spoke without Ground. It may be understood of Galatia or Gallia-Cisalpina. Metaphrastes and Fortunatus seem to think that he preach'd in Egypt. Nicephorus says, he return'd from Rome into Greece, and that he preach'd the Gospel there: That is more probable.
• (k) 1.27

  There's nothing certain in this Matter, nei∣ther as to the Manner nor Place of his Death.] Philostorgus and the Addition to the Books of Illustrious Men wrote by St. Jerome say, That the Relicks of St. Luke were brought from A∣chaia, where he had been interr'd, St. Gau∣dentius says he died at Petras, a City of Achaia. Nicephorus says at Thebes in Greece; Isidore, Bede, Ʋsuard, Ado, and the Roman Martyrology say Bithynia. St. Gregory Nazianzen reckons St. Luke amongst the Martyrs in his 3d Oration: But E∣lias of Crete commenting on that Place, maintains that Gregory gives the Name of Victims in general to all those who suffer'd and labour'd for Jesus Christ, and that St. Luke died in Peace as well as the Apostle St. John. It's said, That St. Pau∣linus gives him the Title of Martyr, Ep. 3. & Nat. 9. But that Term may be taken in a more general Sense: Nor is it clear that it is to St. Luke that he assigns this first Passage.
• (l) 1.28

  Theophilus to whom he directs it.] Origen, St. Ambrose, Salvian, St. Epiphanius, believe that it is a general Name; but St. Chrysostom, St. Au∣gustin, and most of the new Commentators be∣lieve, with more Reason, that 'tis a proper Name; as the Epithete of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is joined thereunto, shews. The Author of the Recognitions speaks of one Theophilus, who was a rich and potent Man at Antioch. The Greeks give him the Title of Governor; and St. Je∣rome says, that St. Luke composed his Gospel for the Greeks particularly, or for the conver∣ted Gentiles.
• (m) 1.29

  It is what all the Ancients have observ'd.] (That he had wrote what he learn'd from St. Paul.) St. Irenaeus says, that he wrote the Gospel which St. Paul preach'd, lib. 3. cap. 1. Tertullian observes, that some made St. Paul the Author of this Gospel, because it is reasonable to ascribe to the Master the Works publish'd by the Disciple, lib. 4. cont. Marcion. cap. 5. St. Gregory Nazianzen says, that he wrote it upon the Confidence he had in his Master St. Paul. The Author of the Synopsis believes that St. Paul directed the same to him.
• (n) 1.30

  Some have pretended that it is of the Gospel of St. Luke the Apostle speaks, when he says, ac∣cording to my Gospel.] Those words of St. Paul are Rom. 2.16, Eusebius explains this of the Gospel of St. Luke, and St. Jerome follows him, but we need no more than to read what comes before and follows after, to understand that the Apostle speaks not in this Place of a writ∣ten Gospel, but of the Gospel or the Doctrine that he preached.
• (a) 1.31

  And of Salome.] The Name of the Mother of Zebedees Children, is known by com∣paring Matthew 27.55. with Mark 15.40. for 'tis said in the first Place, That the Mother of Zebedees Children was near the Cross; and in the second Place, 'tis said, That Salome was one of those that stood by. This Salome must be the Mother of Zebedees Children, of whom St. Mark makes no mention.
• (b) 1.32

  He was called by our Lord.] There are some who pretend, that John came to seek our Saviour before, and that he is the Disciple of St. John Baptist, who came with St. Andrew, John 1.40. St. Chrysostome, Hom. 17. on John, St. Epiphanius, Heres. 51. Cap. 14. are of that Opi∣nion; but this is not proved.
• (c) 1.33

  Was then very young.] The Time of his Death is a convincing Proof of it.
• (d) 1.34

  He describes himself by that Name.] We cannot doubt of it, because in the last Chapter, v. 20. 'tis said, That Peter turning about, saw the Disciple whom Jesus loved, who leaned upon his Breast at Supper, and said, Lord, who is he that shall betray thee? And by the Consequence, it appears, that it was of John, the Author of the Gospel, that this is said, Ver. 24. This is the Di∣sciple which testifyeth of these Things, and wrote these things.
• (e) 1.35

  He followed Jesus Christ to his Cross.] 'Tis said in the Gospel, That all the Apostles fled when Jesus was apprehended. Yet St. Chry∣sostome pretends, Hom. 85. that St. John did not flee. He was of Opinion, as well as St. Je∣rome, that 'twas he who followed Jesus Christ to Cajapha's House, and got St. Peter let in; but that is not certain. St. Ambrose says on Ps. 36. that St. John was that young Man who fled a∣way naked for fear of being taken with Je∣sus. St. Gregory follows this Opinion in his Morals, Lib. 14. so Bede, and many others. Ne∣vertheless this hath no manner of Probability. It was probably some Person in the Neighbour∣ing House, who being awak'd by the Noise, fled out of his Bed naked.
• (f) 1.36

  St. John took her Home to his own House.] The Greek has it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Latin in sua, some Copies have it in suam, but it is a Fault, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the Greek of Esther 5.10. and 6.12. is put instead of the Hebrew Word, which signifies into his House, In Acts 21.6. to signifie that the Believers who accompanied St. Paul to the shore, returned to their own Houses; the Greek has it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. St. Epi∣phanius understands this Place so, and makes use of it to prove that the Virgin was not mar∣ried, For if she had, says he, she would have gone Home to her own House, and not with a Stranger. St. Ambrose says in his Book of the Education of Virgins, Cap. 7. That there was no Body with whom she could better live, than with him whom she knew to be her Son's Heir, and a Faithful observer of Chastity. In the Coun∣cil of Ephesus it is said, in speaking of the City of Ephesus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, where St. John the Divine and the Virgin, the Mother of God, the Holy Mary. Some supply the Verb, dwelt, others reposed; but however it be understood it follows that the Virgin went with St. John to Ephesus, and dwelt with him. Nonnius says also in his Paraphrase, that St. John received the Virgin into his House. The ablest of the Modern Interpreters, are of the same Opinion. 'Tis not however necessary to suppose that St. John had a House to himself.
• (g) 1.37

  He went into Asia Minor: 'Tis not well known when; perhaps 'twas towards the Year 70.] 'Tis certain, that Asia fell to his share; he took particular Care of it, as St. Polycarp, Po∣lycrates, St. Irenaeus, Origen and Tertullian assure us. The latter in his Books against Marcion, calls those Churches, Joannis alumnas Ecclesias, Eusebius and St. Jerome followed those Ancients, but none of them have observed the precise Time of his going to Asia. 'Tis certain, that 'twas before the Persecution of Domitian; and 'tis probable 'twas after the Death of St. Peter and St. Paul, as the Acts of St. Timothy bear. He was not there when St. Paul left Timothy to govern, which makes some believe, that that did not fall out till 64, which we place in 57 or 58. Timothy did not die till after St. Paul. His Acts says that 'twas in 97. If that were certain, it must be that St. John came thither whilst Timothy was alive, and that Timothy should have been Bishop of Ephesus until the Return of St. John. 'Tis certain, that in his Absence there was a Bishop at Ephesus, if the Revelation was wrote from the Isle of Pat∣mos: But it is not certain, that it was Ti∣mothy, and that he was still alive. I am apt to believe that Timothy was dead, when St. John came to Ephesus. — Be that how it will, St. John governed that Church, and other Churches of Asia, until the Time of Trajan, as all the Ancients are agreed.
• (h) 1.38

  Thrown into a Vessel of boiling Oil, with∣out receiving any Hurt by it.] This is attested by Tertullian in his Prescriptions, Chap. 36. by St. Jerome, Lib. 1. in Jovin and in his Commen∣tary upon the 20th of St. Matthew. Eusebius indeed says, Hist. Lib. 3. cap. 18. that he was banished into the Isle of Patmos; but he speaks nothing of his Journey to Rome, nor of his Pu∣nishment. All the Greek Authors are also Ig∣norant of that Fact, St. Jerome only relates it upon Tertullian's Credit.
• (i) 1.39

  To dig in the Mines there.] Victorin Bi∣shop of Petavia, and Primasius in their Commenta∣ries on the Revelations say, that he was Con∣demned to the Mines.
• (k) 1.40

  In the Reign of Trajan, under which he died.] Polycrates, St. Irenaeus, Tertullian Eusebius, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, St. Chrysostome, the Council of Ephesus, and all the Ancients assure us; that he died and was buried at Ephesus. This death is plac'd by Eusebius in the third Year of the Empire of Trajan, the 101 of Jesus Christ 68 Years, or thereabouts after his Resurrection; he could not be less then 94 or 95 Years of Age, supposing that our Saviour call'd him at the Age of 24 or 25 Years. This is the Age, St. Epiphanius assigns him. Others as Bede, say he was 98 or 99. The Chronicle of Alexandria says, he died in the 104th or 107th Year of his Age, others assign him 106, and some raise them to 110, some thought that he was put in∣to the Sepulchre, but not dead, as St. Au∣gustin Observes in his Treatise 124 upon St. John, but he rejects that opinion, as taken from Apo∣cryphal Books. Others advanc'd that he was dead and rais'd again, this is the Sentiment of the counterfiet Hyppolitus of the most part of the Modern Greeks, and also of some Latins, his Opinion hath no other Foundation but the passage at the end of his Gospel, which he answers himself, saying that our Lord did not say this Disciple shall not die, but if I will that he tarry till I come what is that to thee, for we must read according to the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 si and not sic, as it is in some Latin Copies.
• (l) 1.41

  He continued unmarried during his Life.] This is not in the Scripture St. Irenaeus and Eusebius say nothing of it, but they quote Ter∣tullian as a witness of this, and St. Jerome maintains it in his Treatie against Jovinian. St. Epiphanius, St. Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, St. Paulinus and Cassian assure us of it. St. Augus∣tin looks upon it as a Problem.
• (m) 1.42

  After his return from the Isle of Pathmos.] St. Irenaeus Lib. 3. chap. 1. says indeed that he publish'd his Gospel at Ephesus, but does not say whether 'twas before or after his Exile. But St. Epiphanius says it plainly Heresie 51. The Author of the Synopsis ascrib'd to St. Athanasi∣us, and the Author of the imperfect Work up∣on St. Matthew ascrib'd to St. Chrysostom believe that he compos'd it in his Exile and publish'd it after his return.
• (n) 1.43

  At the desire of the Christians and Bishops of Asia.] St. Jerome in his preface to his Com∣mentarys on St. Matthew, says, that St. John was oblig'd to write his Gospel by the Pray∣ers of all the Bishops of Asia, and by deputa∣tions from many Churches. Eusebius! Hist. Lib. 3. chap. 24. says only that he was prai'd to do it by his Friends. St. Jerome adds that he would not undertake it, but on condition that they should appoint a publick fast, to implore the assistance of God, and that the Fast being ended, St. John being fill'd with the Holy-Ghost, broke out into those Words. In the beginning was the Word, &c.
• (o) 1.44

  There are Pagan Philosophers who have ad∣mir'd his Gospel.] The Platonist Amelius related by Eusebius Prep. Evang, Lib. 11. chap. 19. ha∣ving read the beginning of it, found it con∣formable to the Doctrine of Plato, and cried out, O Jupiter this Barbarian believes with Plato that the Word is the beginning, St. Augustin Lib. 10. de Civitate Dei relates that a Platonist said that what is in this Gospel concerning the Word of God, deserv'd to be wrote in letters of Gold. The Emperor Julian accuses St. John of having brought in Novelties into the Christian Religi∣on in making Jesus Christ pass for a God which neither St. Paul nor any of the other Evange∣lists dar'd to do. Cyril. Lib. 10. against Julian.
• (a) 1.45

  Of the Tribe of Benjamin in the City of Tarsus.] He says himself, that he was of the Tribe of Benjamin, an Israelite and an Hebrew of the Hebrews, Rom. 11.1. Philip. 3.5. Acts 21. & 29. He says to the chief Captain that took him, that he was a Jew of Tarsus, a Citizen of that City of Cilicia. He repeats the same thing to the People, chap. 22.3. where he says posi∣tively that he was born at Tarsus. Therefore he declares to the Tribune, that he was a Ro∣man Citizen by Birth, Ibid. v. 25, 27, & 29. Some did formerly advance, That St. Paul and his Family were of Giscala, a little Town of Galilee, as St. Jerome observes upon the Epistle to Philemon, and follows that Sentiment him∣self in his Books of Ecclesiastical Writers, and that he was transported to Tarsus when that Country was ravaged by the Romans. But St. Paul says positively that he was born at Tarsus, and in that Quality a Roman Citizen by Birth: This City being honoured with that Privilege by Augustus, in acknowledgment of its Loyalty to Julius Cesar and his Party against Cassius. Giscala could not be taken and ravag'd but under Pompey and Titus. The first con∣quered that Country a long time before the Birth of St. Paul, and the second after his Death. The Year of St. Paul's Birth is not known: It is said in the Acts, That he was a young Man when St. Steven suffered Martyr∣dom, in the 34th Year of our Era. He might be then about 03; so that he was born much about the same time with our Saviour. We may judge from thence, what Age he might be of when he died in 65. The Author of an Oration upon St. Peter and St. Paul, which is in the 6th Volume of St. Chrysostom, assigns him 68 Years.
• (b) 1.46

  The 34th Year of the Vulgar Era.] I put St. Steven's Death after the Passion of our Lord, and the Conversion of St. Paul in the begin∣ning of the following Year, because it seems to me that all that is related in the Acts, can∣not in any probability have been transacted all in one Year.
• (c) 1.47

  They came to Jerusalem in the Year 44.] It is certain that St. Paul and St. Barnabas came to Jerusalem after the Prediction that Agabus made of an approaching Eamine, which was to happen under Claudius, and that they car∣ried the Alms of the Christians of Antioch for the Relief of the Disciples at Jerusalem. There were two Famines in the Reign of Claudius, one in the 2d Year of his Empire, and another in the 5th, the 45th of the Vulgar Era, at the time of Agrippa's Death. The Famine afflicted Judea in particular, as Josephus relates it, lib. 20. cap. 3. 'Tis rather this than the first of which Agabus prophesied. Agrippa reigned three Years, and died about Easter in the 4th Year of Claudius; that is in 44, when he began to persecute. St. Paul and Barnabas came to Jeru∣salem in the time of the Persecution, and at Agrippa's Death, and by Consequence in 44.
• (d) 1.48

  In the Isle of Cyprus they converted the Pro-Consul Sergius Paulus, and it's believ'd that 'twas from him Saul took the Name of Paul.] Until this time St. Luke calls him always Saul; and it's only in this place that he gives him two Names, Acts 33.9. Then Saul, who is also called Paul. After that he only calls him Paul, and the Apostle makes use of no other Name in the beginning of all his Letters. It was the Custom of the Romans to give their Names thus to Strangers. Josephus for Example receiv'd the Name of Flavius as an Honour from the Emperor Vespasian. St. Jerome upon the Epi∣stle to Philemon is also of Opinion, that St. Paul took this Name from the Pro-Consul, as a Mark of the Victory he had gained over him; as Scipio was surnamed Africanus, after the ta∣king of Carthage. But this is only a Conjecture, and it may be that he did not take the Name of Paul instead of that of Saul, but because the Name of Paul was better known and more used among the Greeks and Latins than that of Saul; and since there was but one Letter to change, Saul having become the Apostle of the Gentiles, made that change in his Name that he might be the more acceptable to them. St. Chrysostom thinks it was God who changed his Name when he was ordered to Antioch, as he changed that of St. Peter when he called him: But we must have Scripture Authority to believe it. Nothing is more absur'd, than what is said on this Subject by the Author of the 31st Sermon ascrib'd to St. Ambrose, viz. that St. Paul changed his Name at his Bap∣tism; for at that time no new Names were given to those that were baptized: And he is called Saul by St. Luke after his Baptism. This is also against those who say he changed his Name, because he had changed his Profession of Religion, as St. Asterus believes. St. Augu∣stin says, that he took the Name of Paul, which signifies little, out of Humility: But this is a playing with Words. Origen, or ra∣ther Rufinus, in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, believes that St. Paul had both those Names from the beginning: There's no appearanee of this, because they are so like that we may easily see the one is taken from the other. I should believe then that there was no other Mystery in this Change, than a Design to render his Name common amongst the Gentiles by a small Inflexion, as from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Hebrew Name given him by St. Luke, when he relates the Voice of God, who calls that A∣postle, Acts 9.4. that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was form'd, which hath a Greek Termination: After that, of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was form'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Name Customary amongst the Latins, when he began to converse with them at the time he con∣verted the Pro-Consul Sergius Paulus.
• (e) 1.49

  Fourteen Years after the first time he came thither since his Conversion.] This is what ap∣pears more conformable to the Text of the E∣pistle to the Galatians: For, after having said in the 1st Chap. of this Epistle, v. 17.18. that after his Conversion he went into Arabia, and afterwards return'd to Damascus, and that three Years after he return'd to Jerusalem to visit Peter, he describes what had passed in that Journey; and so begins the following Chap∣ter: Fourteen Years after I went again to Jerusa∣lem. This after relates more naturally to his first Journey, of which he had been just speak∣ing, than to his Conversion.
• (f) 1.50

  Arrived at Rome in the beginning of the Year 61.] Felix, Governor of Judea, was re∣called, and succeeded by Portius Festus in 60. Festus immediately after his arrival, heard Paul, who appealed to Cesar and went to Rome that same Year. He arrived at the Isle of Crete when Navigation began to grow dangerous, the time of the Fast being over. That Fast was the great Fast of the Jews on the Days of Ex∣piation, the 7th of their Month, which an∣swers to the Months of September and October. He was Shipwrack'd 14 days after, and cast upon the Island of Maltha, whence he did not go till three Months after, the Winter being over in the Month of February. He arrived then at Rome in the Month of March, An. 61.
• (g) 1.51

  The City of Colosse was in Phrygia, near to Laodicea.] St. Chrysostom and St. Jerome are of that Opinion. It appears by that Let∣ter, that the City where those inhabited to whom he writes, was near to Hieraples and Laodicea. Herodotus, Pliny, Xenophon and Strabo place one City of Colosse in Phrygia. Theophi∣lactus says, that in his Time 'twas called Cones. Those who say that this Letter is wrote to the Rhodians, called Colossians, because of the Colossus of the Sun which was in their Island, advance a ridiculous Proposition.
• (h) 1.52

  St. Paul had not preached in that City.] This is what may be inferr'd from those Words of the first Verse, chap. 2. I would that ye knew what great Conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my Face in the Flesh. St. Chrysostom and al∣most all the Greek Commentators infer from thence, that those of Colosse and Laodicea had not seen St. Paul. But Theodoret understands this Place otherwise, in this Sense. I have a great Care not only of you, but also of those who have not seen me. That is not however the natural Sense of the Text. It is true, that St. Paul preached in Phrygia; but, perhaps, he had not entred into the Cities of Laodicea and Colosse.
• (i) 1.53

  St. Augustin observes as well as St. Je∣rome, &c.] lib. 16. de Civit Dei, Cap. 22. de quo in Epistola quae inscribitur ad Hebraeos quam plures Apostli Pauli esse dicunt. Idem. lib. 1. de peccat Merit & Remiss. c. 27. No 50. Ad Hebrae∣os quo{que} Epistola quam nonullis incerta sit, magis me movet Auctoritas Orientalium Ecclesiarium quae hanc etiam in Canonicis habent. Idem in Epistolam ad Rom. Cap. 2. Quod propterea maxime credo quo∣niam excepta Epistola quam ad Hebraeos scripsit, ubi principium salutatorium de industria dicitur omisisse, ne Judaei qui adversus eum pugnaciter oblatrabant, nomine ejus offensi, vel inimico Animo legerent vel omnino legere non curarent, quod ad eorum salutem scripserat, unde nonnulli eam in Canonem Scriptu∣rarum recipere timuerunt. Sed quoquo modo se habeat ista Questio, excepta hac Epistola, ceterae omnes quae nulla dubitante Ecclesia, Pauli Apostoli esse firmantur, talem continent salutationem. Idem. l. 2. de Doctr. Christ. Cap. 8. recenset Epistolam ad He∣braeos inter eas quae sunt Pauli Apostoli.
• (a) 1.54

  It is also found in all the antient Canons of the Greek and Latin Churches, and is quoted by the Ancients.] It is in the Canons of the Coun∣cil of Laodicea, of the Council of Carthage, of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, of St. Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius, St. Athanasius, Rufinus, St. Augu∣stin, Innocent I, &c. It was received by St. Cle∣ment of Alexandria, and quoted under the Name of the Apostle St. James, the Brother of our Lord, by Origen in his 3d Homily on Exodus, and in his Commentary on the Epi∣stle to the Romans. By St. Athanasius, St. Hila∣ry, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Basil, St. Ambrose, St. Epiphany, St. Jerome, St. Augustin, &c. We are not to wonder since it is but short, and contains almost nothing hut Moral Instructi∣ons, that it was not quoted by the most anci∣ent of the Fathers.
• (a) 1.55

  Edessa.] A famous City, scituated beyond Euphrates, between Syria and Mesopotamia.
• (b) 1.56

  Nam'd Agbarus.] Others read it Abga∣rus, and so that Name is in some ancient Me∣dals. In the most correct Manuscripts 'tis Ag∣barus, and this suits best with the Arabic.
• c 1.57

  [Apostle Jude.] Thomas the Apostle was not Sir-named Jude, but Didymus; and Jude was never call'd Thomas: which is another proof of the Falsity of this History.
• (a) 1.58

  Full of Idle Stories and Fables.] Some In∣stances of this Nature be pleas'd to take a Spe∣cimen of. Joachim was chosen out of the twelve Tribes; Reuben told him that it was not lawful for him to make any offering because he had no Children. Upon this he sorrowfully retires to the Wilderness, where he fasted forty days. Anna wept, and her Servant Judith told her, that she should take some of the Laurel-Tree. Accordingly she went down into the Garden, and complain'd that she was not like a Bird that might have its Nest in the Laurel-Tree. The Angel appear'd to her, and told her that she should have a Child. The same Angel went and told Joachim the same thing. Joachim con∣sulted the Breast-plate, or Ephod of the High-Priest, and did not find therein that he had Sin'd. The Virgin Mary walk'd alone at six Months end. She was bred up by Angels in the Temple, and was marryed to Joseph be∣cause there came a Dove upon the Rod which he had given to the High-Priest. Saint Joseph when he found her big with Child, made her drink of the Waters of Jealousie, according to the Law, &c.
• (b) 1.59

  Is as full of Fables.] Another Specimes of these Fables in the Gospel of Nicodemus, be pleas'd to take as follows. Pilate sent a Messen∣ger to him; this Messenger and all the Soul∣diers that were with him fell down and worship∣ped him, and the Colours bow'd down before him twice. The Narration of the Evangelists is here intermix'd with several Fables. Herein Jesus Christ is made to answer to Pilate's Que∣stion, What is Truth? Herein Nicodemus, and those whom Jesus Christ cur'd, are brought in speaking with him. Herein the Woman cur'd of the Issue of Blood, is call'd Veronica. The Author of this Gospel describes the Resurrection of Jesus Christ by adding a great many things to it of his own Head. He makes the Dead who were raised at our Saviour's Death to en∣ter into ridiculous Discourses with one another; and says that they made the Sign of the Cross. He introduces the Devil, making several ridi∣culous Argumentations upon Jesus Christ's De∣scent into Hell. He feigns that after the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Pilate having or∣der'd the Jewish Books to be brought him, they prov'd that Jesus Christ was the Messiah. And several other stories he has of the like Nature.
• (a) 1.60

  This whole History is extravagant.] There∣in 'tis said that the Virgin-Mary was born at Nazareth, that her Father's Name was Joachim, and her Mother's Anna. That they divided their Estate into three parts, the first for the Use of the Temple and the Levites; the second for the Use of the Poor and Strangers; and the third for their own Necessaries. That they made a Vow to dedicate their Child, if a Son, to God. That at the Feast of Tabernacles Issachar the High-Priest rejected the Offering of Joachim because he had no Children. That Joachim in confu∣sion retir'd among the Shepherds; that the An∣gel of the Lord appear'd to him, and told him from God that Anna should have a Daughter, who should be the Mother of the Saviour of the World. That the same Angel appeared likewise to Anna, and foretold her that she should have a Daughter, who should reside in the Temple, after she had been bred up three Years in her Father's House. That Joa∣chim and Anna being return'd to Jerusalem, ac∣cording to the Angel's Order, met together, and that Anna conceiv'd and brought forth a Daughter, whom she presented in the Tem∣ple at the end of three Years. That this young Girl had every Day Visions and Con∣versations with the Angels. That when she was fourteen Years old, the time when Vir∣gins were remov'd from the Temple, she was still for staying there, declaring that she had made a Vow of perpetual Virginity. That the High-Priest being at a Non-plus about it, call'd a Council to advise what was best to be done: That therein it was resolved to consult God, and that they received an Oracle from the Holiest of Holies, viz. this Prophesie of Isa∣iah; There shall come forth a Rod out of the stem of Jessé, and a Branch shall grow out of his Roots: and that upon this it was order'd, that all those of the Linage of David should bring their Rods to the Altar, and that he whose Rod budded, and on whom the Spirit of God should descend in the form of a Dove, should be the Person that should marry the Virgin. That all others having brought their Rods, Joseph who was in Years did not bring his. That none of those which had been brought budded. That the High-Priest consulted the Lord thereupon, and receiv'd for answer, that he to whom he ought to give the Virgin, was the only Person who had not brought his Rod. Joseph hereupon was found out, and having brought his Rod, a Dove immediately descended from Heaven and sat on the top of it. He was espous'd to Mary, who return'd with her Parents into Ga∣lilee. There the Angel appear'd to her, who was not disturb'd at his Sight, because she was us'd to see Angels; but only at his Discourse. The Angel is made to explain clearly and more largely than in the Gospel, after what manner she should have a Son. Afterwards 'tis said that Joseph seeing her with the familiarity of a Spouse, found that she was big with Child. This is the Abstract of the History of Seleu∣cus.
• (b.) 1.61

  It is not the same.] What Saint Grego∣ry Nyssene reports of it is as follows. The Vir∣gin's Father was a rich Man, who for a long time together had no Children: Anna being Barren went to the Holiest of Holies, and de∣manded a Child. Having obtain'd her Re∣quest, she presented the Virgin to the Temple, where she was brought up by the Priests. They having consulted among themselves what they should do with her when she should be grown up, thought it proper to marry her to some old Man, who might still let her enjoy her Virginity. That Saint Joseph was the Person made choice of, who was of the same Linage, and that she was only betroth'd to him. This Hi∣story is more simple than the former.
• (a.) 1.62

  As Tertullian, and after him, Saint Je∣rome have assured us.] Tertullian's passage taken out of his Book of Baptism runs thus. If they read (says he) some Writings attributed falsly to Saint Paul, and make use of the Example of The∣cla to give Women the Authority of Reading and Teaching, let 'em know that it was a Priest of Asia, who compos'd that Book under the name of Saint Luke, and that he having been convicted of ha∣ving done it in Saint Paul's Favour, was degra∣ded. Saint Jerome quoting Tertullian, saith: The Travels of Paul and Thecla, and the whole Fable of the Baptized Lion, ought to be reckoned among the Apocryphal Writings. For how could he who always attended Saint Paul be ignorant of these matters? Tertullian who lived near that time relates, that a certain Priest of Asia zealous∣ly affected towards Saint Paul, having been con∣victed by Saint John of being the Author of that Treatise, and having confess'd that he did it for the sake of Saint Paul, was degraded for it. Now it must be noted, That Tertullian does not men∣tion Saint John, but Saint Jerome supposes he was the Person, because that Apostle presided over the Asiatic Churches. Gelasius places these Acts among the Apocryphal Writings. The Acts of the passion of Thecla, which are extant, do not contain the History of the Baptiz'd Li∣on, nor of the Women who were baptiz'd, but they are very modern, and taken perhaps from the Ancients. The Fathers of the Church have related that Saint Paul having converted at Iconium a Virgin of Quality nam'd Thecla, per∣swaded her to renounce a Man to whom she was betroth'd, tho' Rich and Powerful, and to profess a Vow of perpetual Virginity. That this Damsel had been charg'd upon this Account by her Husband, that should have been; That she was sentenc'd to be expos'd to Wild Beasts, and afterwards she was deliver'd by a Miracle. Some say that she dyed of another Punishment, and others, that she was always deliver'd, first from Fire, and afterwards from Wild Bulls, to which she had been tyed. You may read the whole account of this in Saint Epiphanius's He∣resie, 78. in Saint Ambrose's second Book con∣cerning Virgins; Faustus the Manichee in Saint Augustine, Lib. 30. Cap. 4. in Saint Gregory Nazianzen's Exhortation to Virginity, and in the Poem of the Precepts given to Virgins, the Sermons of Maximus of Turin, and of Zeno Veronen∣sis. Eusebius makes mention of this Thecla in the third Book of Martyrs, and distinguishes her from one of the same Name, who was expos'd to Wild Beasts with Agapius in the persecution rais'd by Dioclesian. Saint Jerome in his 224th. Epistle; Saint Gregory Nyssene in the Life of Saint Macrina, Severus Sulpitius in the Life of Saint Martin, Saint Chrysostome in his 25th. Ho∣mily on the Acts, and his 22d. to the People of Antioch, Isidorus of Damietta, B. 1. Ep. 87, and 160. do likewise make mention of this il∣lustrious Proto-Martyress, as Isidorus terms her.
• (b) 1.63

  The Rapture of Saint Paul.] In Greek it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This may signifie several things, but Saint Epiphanius determines the Sense to be, the Lifting up of Saint Paul. It contains several Mysterious Things, and it seems to be the same piece with the Secrets or the Apocalypse of Saint Paul. Saint Augustine cites this Trea∣tise in Joannem Tract. 98.
• (a.) 1.64

  That is the Son of Consolation.] In Greek it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Son of Consolation or Exhortation. Oecumenius upon the Acts, Chap. 36. and Notkerus in the Martyrology follow'd the first Sense. Saint Jerome seems to be for the latter.
• (b.) 1.65

  Originally of the Isle of Cyprus.] This I∣sland was full of Jews, and a vast number of them were Massacred therein under the Empire of Trajan, according to the Testimony of Dion, Eusebius and Orosius.
• (c.) 1.66

  Some of the Ancients, &c.] These Ancients are, Saint Clement, B. 2. of his Stromata; Euse∣bius, B. 1. of his History, Chap. 12. and B. 2. Chap. 1. Saint Epiphanius, Tom. I. against the Heresies, and Dorothaeus. Venerable Bede re∣jects their Opinion, because Saint Luke in the fourth Chapter of the Acts writes, that Barnabas was one of those who sold their Lands, and brought the price of them, and laid it at the Apostles Feet. For tho' this is no absolute Con∣clusion, that he had not been the Disciple of Jesus Christ, yet it seems as if Saint Luke was minded hereby to date his first entrance into the Christian Religion.
• (d.) 1.67

  Saint Clement of Alexandria.] B. 2. of his Stromata, pag. 373, 375, 389, 396, 410. B. 5 p. 571, 572, 577, and 578.
• (e.) 1.68

  Origen.] Origen. B. 1. against Celsus, and B. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and Eusebius, B. 3. Eccl. Hist. Chap. 25. B. 6. Chap. 13, and 14. Tertullian says in his Book of Chastity, that the Epistle of Barnabas is more commonly receiv'd in the Churches, than the Pastor of Hermas. But he takes the Epistle of Saint Paul to the He∣brews, for the Epistle of Saint Barnabas.
• (f.) 1.69

  Among the Apocryphal Writings.] Euse∣bius distinguishes three sorts of Apocryphal Writings; the first contains those which come the nearest to the Canonical, that is, those which have been rejected by some, and received by others as Canonical. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The second contains the Books which were not receiv'd by any Man as Canonical, and yet were not forg'd by Hereticks, as those of the third Class were. The Epistle of Saint Bar∣nabas may be plac'd among the first, or at least among the second sort of Books; which, tho' Apo∣cryphal, yet may be theirs whose names they bear, such as the Pastor of Hermas, and others. And tho' Saint Jerome in his Epistle to Laeta says, that the Apocryphal Books are such, as do not be∣long to the Authors whose Names they bear; yet he often makes use of that Term in another Sense. Eusebius and Saint Jerome were both of the Opinion, that the Epistle of Saint Barnabas was really His; this appears from their attribu∣ting it to him. Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical Hi∣story, B. 6. Chap. 13. hath these Words, Item ex Barnabae, Clementis, & Judae Epistolis. Now 'tis plain, that he always thought the Epistles of Saint Clement and Saint Jude to be theirs, under whose Names they were inscribed [and by parity of Reason, 'tis plain that he thought the Epistle of Saint Barnabas to be really His, since he makes mention of it just after the same manner, as he does of the Epistles of Saint Cle∣ment and Saint Jude.] Agen, In another place the same Author says, Judae Epistolam intelligo, item Barnabae Epistolam, & Revelationem quae di∣citur Petri. Here 'tis to be observ'd, that in speaking of the last Treatise, he takes notice that it was attributed to Peter [Revelationem quae dicitur Petri]; but he says no such thing of the Epistle of Barnabas; on the contrary, he plainly says, that it was His, as much as the Epistle of Jude was Jude's. As for Saint Je∣rome, he expresly says, Barnabas unam aedifica∣tionem Ecclesiae continentem Epistolam composuit, quae inter Apocryphas numeratur. This passage is a sufficient Evidence, that Saint Jerome did not look upon it as Apocryphal, because it was falsly attributed to Saint Barnabas, since he him∣self attributes it to him, even when he says that it was Apocryphal.
• (g.) 1.70

  Of which the Apostles or their Disciples are the Authors.] This Argument ought to be un∣derstood thus. It does not appear, that all the Writings of the Apostles were made by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost. There might have been some Writings of the Apostles which the Church never receiv'd as Canonical. There are indeed none at present of the A∣postles themselves but what are in the Canon, except this Letter of Saint Barnabas, who may pass for an Apostle: but there are several Wri∣tings of the Disciples of the Apostles, such as of Saint Clement and Hermas, which are not Ca∣nonical. It seems as if there is no great dif∣ference between Saint Clement and Saint Bar∣nabas as to the point of Authority, and if the Epistle of Saint Clement to the Corinthians, tho' certainly His, yet is not own'd as Canonical; why should Men argue that the Epistle of Saint Barnabas cannot be His, because it was not ad∣mitted into the Canon?
• (h.) 1.71

  That they were great Sinners.] 'Tis thus that we are to understand these Words, Super omne peccatum peccatores. The most sanctified Persons do usually say of themselves every day: I am the greatest Sinner upon the face of the Earth, and other such like Expressions, which are not to be taken in a literal Sense.
• (a.) 1.72

  By all those who have written upon the Li∣turgies.] Saint Gregory the Pope, in his 7th. B. Ep. 63. ad Joan. Syracus. has these Words: Mos Apostolorum fuit, ut ad ipsam solummodo Ora∣tionem Dominicam oblation is Hostiam consecrarent. Valafridius Strabo de Rit. Eccl. cap. 22. says, Quod nunc agimus multiplici orationum, cantilena∣rum, & consecrationum officio, totum hoc Apostoli, & post ipsos, ut creditur, proximi orationibus, com∣memoratione Passionis Dominicae, sicut ipse praecepit, agebant simpliciter: Proficiente dehinc Religione amplius acta sunt à Christi cultoribus officia Missarum. Remy d'Auxerre, de celeb. Miss. Lib. 1. says, Nam Missam B. Petrus Apostolus primus omnium Antiochiae dicitur celebrasse, in quâ tres tantum∣modo orationes in initio sidei proferebantur, inci∣pientes ab eo loco ubi dicitur, Hanc igitur Obla∣tionem. See farther, Stephen d'Autun, de Sacra∣mento Altaris cap. 20. Benno d'Auge, de Offic. Miss. C. 1. Rupert. Tuit. lib. 2. de Divin. Offic. cap. 1. Hugh of Saint Victor de Divin. lib. 2. cap. 11. Honorius d'Autun in Gemm. An. lib. 1. Durandus de Mende, Rat. Off. l. 4. c. 1. Ra∣dulphus de Tongres, de Canon. Observat. Saint Anthony in Summ. maj. tit. 13. cap. 5. Cassan∣der's Liturgia, Cap. 18. Polydore Virgil, and the others who have treated concerning the Rites and Ceremonies of the Mass.
• (a) 1.73

  Each Apostle pronounc'd his Article.] This is the Opinion of the Author of the 115th. Ser∣mon, de tempore apud Aug. of Saint Leo, Ep. 13, now the 27th. of Venantius Fortunat. in exegesi Symb. Apost.
• (b.) 1.74

  That they might be conformable to one and the same Doctrine, &c.] Russinus is of the former, and the Moderns of the Latter Opinion.
• (c.) 1.75

  The Etymology of the Word Symbol is still more uncertain.] The Greek Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifies properly, nota, signum, indicium. For this Reason the Notes and Remarks of Pythagoras are call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Herodian makes use of this Word to denote the military Signal. Other Authors, such as Dion Cassius and Sueto∣nius, take it for the Tickets or Billets which were given to be admitted to see Sights, or to receive Bounty-Money. Some say that the Word Symbolum in Latin, signifies a Supper where every one pays his Clubb, or even the Club it self. However it is not Symbolum in the Neuter Gender which has this Significa∣tion, but Symbola in the Feminine Gender, and in Greek, call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as may be seen in the Interpreter of Aristophanes, in Athenaeus, and in Plutarch: For which Reason in Terence's Andria, we ought to read Symbolam dedit, and not Symbolum. Aulus Gellius B. 6. Chap. 1. makes use of the Word Symbola, to denote the Clubb, and says this Term was likewise apply'd to the Questions which the Philosopher Taurus explain'd before several Persons. Saint Cyprian is the first who made use of the word Symbol, to signifie the Abridgment of the Christian Faith, Ep. 45. Optatus calls the Hereticks, Veri Symboli Desertores, alluding to the military Use of that Word; for which Reason Saint Chryso∣logus, Sermon 62. says, that the Symbol is the Compact which we make with God in Baptism.
• (d.) 1.76

  Character, which distinguishes Christians, &c.] This is the Etymology which Maximus of Turin, and Venantius Fortunatus give of this word. The same was observ'd by Ruffinus, by Isidore of Se∣vil, B. 2. de Off. c. 22. by Durandus of Men∣da, B. 4. Rationalis, c. 25. But the second and third Etymology are the most common. The last is the Opinion of Ruffinus, of Saint August∣ine, Serm. 181. de Tempore; of S. Isidore, L. 2. div. off. c. 22. of Rabanus Maurus, L. 2. init∣clerical. cap. 56. Of Durandus in his Rationale; of Eucherius, Homil. de Symb. and of Innocent III. Lib. 2. de Sacris Missae mysteriis, Chap. 49. However the first Etymology is the most pro∣bable.
• (e) 1.77

  As many Creeds as Authors.] Saint Irenae∣us makes mention of one Creed, B. 1. Chap. 2. and another B. 2. Chap. 1. Tertullian made use of three different Creeds in three different places, In Praescript. Lib. contra Praxeam, & de Virginibus velandis. Origen B. 1. periarch. & in Dialog. contra Marc. Optat. Lib. 1. All these Creeds differ from the Vulgar.
• (f) 1.78

  And a great many other Authors.] Saint Irenaeus, lib. 1. cap. 2. Tertullian, De Praescript. Ch. 37. and 13. and de Vel. Virg. C. 1. Lucifer, lib. 2. contra Const. Hier. Ep. ad Pammach. Saint Ambrose, Ep. 7. Lib. 1. Ruffinus, in Expos. Sym∣boli, Aug. Serm. 115. Maximus, S. Leo, Fortu∣natus, &c.
• (a.) 1.79

  A great many things, which could never have been establish'd by the Apostles.] The first Canon orders that a Bishop should not be or∣dain'd but by two or three Bishops: whereas 'tis certain that in the Apostle's Days, one single Bishop was sufficient to Ordain another. In the third it is decreed, that the first Fruits should be so offer'd to the Bishop and Priest, as to be brought directly to them and not offer'd up at the Altar. In the fourth 'tis order'd, that only Oyl and Incense should be offer'd up at the Altar. Now 'tis not probable that any such Offerings were made in the times of the Apo∣stles. In the fifth Canon 'tis order'd, that Ea∣ster should not be celebrated after the Jewish Custom. Now, had this been determin'd by the Apostles, the Dispute between Victor and the Asiaticks would have soon been decided by that Canon; but it was not, and Victor only al∣ledg'd the Tradition of his Ancestors. In like manner the 21st. Canon against those who made themselves Eunuchs, would have been cited by Demetrius against Origen, and Origen's Action in that case would not have been justi∣fied by Alexander and Theoctistus, if there had been at that time a Canon of the Apostles, so ex∣presly forbidding it. In the 34th. and 35th. Canons mention is made of the Jurisdiction of Metropolitans and the Distinction of Bishop∣pricks; which were not establish'd in the Apo∣stles days. In the 50th. Canon 'tis order'd, that he who did not baptize or dip a Child thrice in the Water should be depos'd. Now tho' this Practice was very ancient, yet it does not seem to be in use in the Apostle's time. The fifty second is against the Error of the Montanists and Novatians. The Sixtieth against Books forg'd by Hereticks since the Apostles. The Sixty sixth is against the Sabbatical Fast. The Sixty ninth regulates the Fast of Lent. In the following Canons mention is made of Oil, Vessels of Gold and Silver, Veils consecrated in Churches, things that were never us'd in the Apostles time. The last Canon contains a Ca∣talogue of the sacred Writings which could ne∣ver have been written by the Apostles. The 55th. 46th. and 47th. Canons reject the Baptismof Hereticks as null and void. This was a Que∣stion never decided by the Apostles. The style of these Canons is not like that of the Apostles, and the matter of them is very different from that which was usually treated of by them. The names of Clerk, Bishop, Altars, Sacrifice, &c. were not so common in the Apostolical times.
• (b.) 1.80

  Questions that were not debated till several Years after their Death.] Viz. The Questions concerning Easter and the Baptism of Hereticks, concerning those who had made themselves Eu∣nuchs, those that would not admit Sinners to Pennance; and those that fasted on Sundays, &c. Vide Supra.
• (c.) 1.81

  Which might incline us to believe that the Apostles were the Authors of them.] As for in∣stance, in the 29th. Canon, where it is order'd, that the Bishops who should obtain the Episcopal Dignity by Bribery, should be depos'd, as Simon had been by Saint Peter; He hath added, by me Peter. For these Words are not to be met with in the Epistle of Tarasius to Pope Adrian, nor in the Edition of Dionysius Exiguus. So likewise in the 5th. Canon we at present read, The Lord hath declar'd to us, and yet in the Greek Manuscripts, and in the Edition of Saint Zonaras and Balsamon, 'tis only said, The Lord hath declar'd. Lastly, in the 82d. Canon there is, as our Brother Onesimus, and in the last, Our Acts, whereas it ought to be read simply ac∣cording as 'tis in the Arabick Paraphrase, as Onesimus, and the Acts of the Apostles.
• (d.) 1.82

  Now I know not of any Person more ca∣pable of carrying on such an Artifice, &c.] It is the very Temper and Genius of this Author, who would all along pass for a Disciple of the Apostles. He relates several Constitutions un∣der the name of the Apostles: he ascribes to each Apostle several Constitutions and Litur∣gies, after which he inserts those Canons with the Additions we have taken notice of, and adds in the name of the Apostles: This is what we Order you, O ye Bishops! continue to observe those things.
• (e) 1.83

  Have cited them frequently, &c.] In the first Canon of the Nicene Council is cited the second of the Apostles, concerning those who make themselves Eunuchs. In the fifth Canon is cited the twelfth and thirty second, concern∣ning Excommunication. In the 23d. Canon the Seventy sixth, that one ought not to elect his Successor. In the twenty first is cited the Fourteenth, which prohibits Bishops from lea∣ving their Diocesses. In the Synod of Constan∣tinople held in the Year 394. the fourteenth Apostolical Canon is cited upon the same Sub∣ject with relation to Bishops. In the Council of Ephesus Act. 7. pag. 788. the Thirty fifth Apostolical Canon is cited concerning Ordina∣tions; and in Act. 1. is cited the seventy fourth, concerning the three Admonitions which ought to precede Ecclesiastical Censure. Besides, A∣lexander in Theodoret, B. 1. Chap. 4. cites the twelfth Apostolical Canon, and so does Saint Athanasius in his Epistle ad omnes Orthodoxos, where he likewise alludes to the 29th, 30th and 70th. Canons. Arsenius quotes the 34th, and Pope Julius in his Epistle cites the 30th, 35th and 81st. S. Basil in the 43d. Canon, does mani∣festly quote the 24th. Apostolical Canon, sty∣ling it an Ancient Canon; in the 12th. Canon, the 77th. concerning Bigamy; and in the first, the forty seventh concerning the Baptism of Hereticks. Theodosius in Cod. Lib. 3. de summâ Trinitate, cites the 17th. under the Title of an Apostolical Canon.

  To this M. Daillé replies, that all these Citations have no reference to the Apostolical Canons, but only to the Discipline, Custom and Traditions deriv'd from the Apostles. This Reply has not the least colour of Reason in it, for the Word Canon, signifies written Laws, and the Council of Nice makes a distinction between the Canons and Customs, which last It styles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. M. Daillé adds, that oftentimes such Canons and Ancient Laws are cited which are not in the Apostolical Canons, of which he produces two Instances: the first taken out of the Thirteenth Canon of the Council of Nice, and the second out of the twenty first of the Council of Ancyra. But in the first place, in these two Canons the Apostolical and Ecclesia∣stical Canons are not expresly cited, but only in the first, a Law, or an Ancient, and Canoni∣cal Custom, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and in the second, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an ancient Defini∣tion. But secondly, this does not hinder, but that these Terms may be understood of some Ancient Decisions of Synods. For in∣stance, the Law which orders the recei∣ving of the Laps'd into the Communion of the Church at the hour of Death, cited by the first Canon, was made in the Church of the East and Africk, before the Council of Nice, according to the Testimony of Dionysius Alex∣andrinus, in his Epistle ad Stephanum, related by Eusebius B. 7. Ch. 4. and 55.
• (f) 1.84

  They are of no force against Ours.] How∣ever some of M. Daille's most considerable rea∣sons may be objected to us. For instance, He says, that Saint Athanasius in the Affair of Le∣ontius the Eunuch, cites the Canon of the Coun∣cil of Nice, but not the Apostolical Canon, which shews, says he, that it was not then known. That in like manner Saint Epiphanius does not cite it against the Valesian Hereticks. That Saint Basil reckons among the unwritten Traditions, the Immersion in Baptism three times, and consequently that the Canon of the Apostles which injoyns it, was not made in that Father's time. That this very Canon is made against the Hereticks, who baptiz'd with one single Immersion, and that the Eunomians were the first who introduc'd that Practice. These are all the Reasons of M. Daillé which may be objected to us; but it is very easie to give an answer to them. Saint Athanasius rather cites the Apostolical Canon than that of the Council of Nice. Saint Epiphanius opposes no Canon against the Valesians, but only the Holy Scriptures. Saint Basil and the other Fathers, by unwritten Tradition, understand all those U∣sages which are not in the Scriptures. Lastly the Canon relating to the Triple Immersion was not made against the Hereticks, but against the negligence of the Priests. One may with greater Probability object the 84th. Canon, where among the Canonical Books we meet with the Books of the Maccabees, the Epistles of Saint Clement, and his Constitutions. But to this Objection it must be answer'd, that this Canon is adulterated, that the Books of the Maccabees are not in the Greek Code of Joannes Antiochenus, and that 'tis easie to per∣ceive, that the Epistles of Saint Clement and his Constitutions have been added by the Author of the Constitutions, who would pass for Saint Clement, and thereby advance the Credit of his Book. We can prove that this Canon is Ancient, since it leaves out the Books of the Old Testament, which were not in the He∣brew Canon, and the Apocalypse of the New Testament. Lastly, 'tis objected against us, that those Canons were unknown to the Au∣thors of the fifth Century, that they are not cited by Eusebius, and are not inserted in the Code of the Canons of the Catholick Church. But all these Objections are very frivolous. The Authors of the fourth Century have cited those Canons several times: Eusebius has not men∣tion'd them indeed, no more has he the Canons of the Council of Nice: and lastly, it is not to be wondred at, that they are not in the Code of the Catholick Church, which did not contain all the Ancient Canons, no more than the Code of the African Church did con∣tain the Canons which were made by Saint Cy∣prian or by Agrippinus.
• (g) 1.85

  The many Absurdities, Anachronisms and other Errors therein contain'd.] Such as B. 1. That the Women ought to be shaved and not the Men. B. 2. Chap. 1. That Bishops ought to be fifty years old, and Chap. 57. it is or∣der'd, that the Gospel of Saint John should be read, which was not written till the Year of our Lord 97. after the Death of the rest of the Apostles. Chap. 11. 'tis said, that the Bishop presides over Kings and Magistrates. B. 3. Chap. 2. 'Tis said that the third Marriage is Incontinence, and the fourth, downright De∣bauchery. B. 6. Chap. 6. Mention is made of the Ebionites, whose Error sprung up since the Death of the Apostles; and Chap. 14. He makes James the Son of Zebedee to be at Jeru∣salem, after the time of his Death. B. 8. C. 4. He says that the Constitutions were made in the presence of S. Paul and the Seven Deacons. Now 'tis plain, that S. Stephen, one of the se∣ven Deacons was dead before S. Paul's Con∣version. Lastly, B. 8. C. 32. He permits the Women slaves to suffer themselves to be de∣bauch'd by their Masters. He is likewise charg'd with Arianism.
• (h.) 1.86

  No body at present offers to defend them.] This Synod was unknown to S. Luke and to all the Ancients, for when 'tis said, that it is cited by Innocent I. Epist. 18. 'tis a mistake; 'tis the Council of Jerusalem, which he means, and in stead of, Antiochenam Ecclesiam quae meruit apud se celeberrimum Apostolorum conventum, we ought to read, propter se, for 'tis plain, that Innocent speaks of the Synod of Jerusalem, which was Celeberrimus Apostolorum Conventus, mention'd by S. Luke in his Acts, Ch. 15. Not one of the An∣cients have made mention of these Canons, and they are full of Absurdities. In the first 'tis said, that the Christians were call'd Gali∣leans, a Name that was not given them till after the Death of the Apostles. [However 'tis to be observ'd that the Angel in the Acts, seems to give the Apostles that Title, when after the Ascent of Christ into Heaven, he says, Chap. 1. Vers. 11. Ye Men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing, &c.] In the third Canon 'tis order'd, that the Christians should live Anagogically, a Term that has no Sense in it. In the Ninth Canon, The Synagogue is call'd Beastly. In the Eighth 'tis ordered that there should be I∣mages in the Churches, a custom not in use in the Apostle's time. This Canon is cited by Grego∣ry of Pessinunta in the second Council of Nice; but 'tis well known that there were a great ma∣ny Apocryphal Records cited in that Council.
• (a) 1.87

  Of which Saint Augustine, Philastrius, and Pope Innocent make mention.] Saint Au∣gustine in his Tract de fide Contra Manichaeos; Philastrius in his Treatise de Haeres. n. 4. Pope Innocent I. Epist. ad Exuper. Gelasius in Concilio Romano.
• (a.) 1.88

  Was deriv'd from two Greek Words.] These Words are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which in the Aeolic is pronounc'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Lactantius B. 1. Chap. 6. Saint Jerome, B. 1. in Jovin. Contrary to this Etymology 'tis said, that the Adjective 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whose last three Syllables make a Dactyl, doth evince that the Word Sibyl is not deriv'd from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• (b) 1.89

  From an Obsolete Latin Adjective.] This Adjective is Sibus, which in Festus signifies, acu∣tus, callidus.
• (c.) 1.90

  Nothing is more uncertain than the Num∣ber and the Names of the Sibyls.] Plato in his Phaedrus speaks only of one Sibyl, but does not tell us of what place she was. The Author of the Treatise, de mirabilibus auscultationibus, in Aristotle, speaks of the Cumaean Sibyl. Diodo∣rus Siculus, B. 4. speaks of the Cumaean Sibyl, and says that her Name was Daphne, the Daugh∣ter of Tiresias. Virgil, Pausanias, and Suidas call her Manto, and Saint Clement, Artemis. Dio∣nysius Halicarnassaeus, Pliny, Juvenal, &c. make mention only of one Sibyl, but it cannot from thence be inferr'd that they knew of no more. Strabo B. 13. and 17. says that there were two of Erythraea, and that the second call'd Athe∣nais liv'd in the time of Alexander the Great. Stephanus de Ʋrbibus, and Capella, B. 2. de Nup∣tiis Physiologiae, reckon likewise two, one nam'd Erophile a Trojan by Birth, and another call'd Symmachia of Erythraea. Solinus Polyhist. c. 8. reckons three, the Delphian more ancient than Homer, Eryphile and the Cumaean Sibyl. Aeli∣an de Var. Hist. B. 2. C. 35. reckons ten of them: The Erythraean, the Samian, the Egyp∣tian, the Sardian, the Cumaean, the Jewish and four others. Saint Clement in his Stromata, B. 1. Manto (says he) and a great many Sibyls, the Samian, the Colophonian, the Thessalian, &c. Lactantius, B. 6. reckons ten of them accor∣ding to Varro's Account. The first of Persia, of whom Nicanor, who wrote the History of Alexander, makes mention. The second of Lybia, of whom Euripides speaks. The third of Delphi, mention'd by Chrysippus in his Trea∣tise of Divination. The Fourth of Cumae in I∣taly, of which Naevius and Piso make mention; the former in the Punick War, and the latter in his Annals. The fifth of Erythraea, whom Apollodorus the Erythraean asserted to be a Ci∣tizen of that City. The sixth a Samian, of whom Bratosthenes has written. The seventh a Cumaean, call'd Amalthaea, and by others De∣mophila or Herophila. The eighth of Helles∣pont, born in the Trojan Country, in the Town of Marpessae. The ninth a Phrygian, who pro∣phesied at Ancyra. The Tenth a Tiburtine, nam'd Albunea, who prophesied at Tivoli, near the River Teverrone, in the bottom of which they say, her Statue was found, holding a Book in her Hand. Isidorus has follow'd this Cata∣logue given by Lactantius. Suidas has reckon'd twelve of them. Some Authors, have with Pausanias, confounded the Erythraean with the Delphian, the Phrygian, the Samian, and the Colophonian. Others, such as Capella, and the Author, de mirabilibus auscultationibus, joyn the Cumaean, and Erythraean together. Saint Justin confounded the Babylonian and the Cumaean. According to some, the Persian is the most an∣cient; according to others, the Cumaean, and according to Saint Clement the Delphian.
• (d) 1.91

  Transported by Enthusiasm.] One need only read what all the Ancients say concerning the manner wherein the Sibyls utter'd their Oracles. See Virgil's Aeneid, Lucan, Claudian in Panegyric. Honorii, Plutarch, de Orac. Pythiae. It was so common a Notion among the Hea∣thens that they were possess'd, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 among them signified as much. Now that Frenzy which deprives a Man of his Senses, cannot be the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, but the Effect of a heated Brain, or of Possessi∣on. For 'tis in my Mind a groundless Suppo∣sition which Saint Jerome has form'd, to say, that they receiv'd from God the Gift of Pro∣phesie as a Reward of their Chastity.
• (e) 1.92

  Wrote them upon Leaves.] Thus Virgil in his 6th. Aeneid, Foliis tantum ne carmina manda. & Juvenal, Credite me folium recitare Si∣byllae.
• (f) 1.93

  Which a Woman presented to Tarquin.] This History is related by several ancient Au∣thors, according to some, Tarquin Superbus, ac∣cording to others, Tarquinius Priscus is the Man. They say that the Woman who brought them had nine Books in all, and that offering them at a very dear Price, which Tarquin would not give her, she went away and burnt three of them: That afterwards proffering to sell the six that remain'd, at as dear a price as she would have sold the Nine, and Tarquin again refusing to give her what she ask'd, she went and burnt three more of them: and that at last Tarquin startled at the Woman's proceed∣ings, bought the three that remain'd at the same price which she had ask'd for the whole Nine. Vid. Dion. Halicarnass. Antiquit. l. 4. Aulus Gellius and Lactantius. Pliny counts but three of these Books instead of Nine, and says that two of 'em were burnt.
• (g) 1.94

  So long as Rome had Pagan Emperors.] Dion, in Tiberius, and Nero: Aelius Spartianus, in the life of Adrian: Julius Capitolinus, in the life of Gordianus: Trebellius Pollion, in the life of Galienus: Flavins Vopisus in the life of Aurelian: Aurelius Victor, Ammianus Marcelinus, B. 24. Zosimus B. 2. and Procepius B. 1. do all agree in this.
• (h) 1.95

  The time wherein it was written.] It is certain that the Sibyls were later than Moses; he who has forg'd this Book, says, that Sibyl was in Noah's-Ark, and yet B. 3. 'tis said, that these Oracles were written 1500 Years after the Esta∣blishment of the Graecian Empire. Now in what way soever we understand this, it follows, that all the Predictions concerning the Jews and Mo∣ses are Supposititious, since the 1500 Years men∣tion'd, reach down to the Destruction of Je∣rusalem. In the 5th. Book, the Author says that he had seen the Ruine of the Second House which plainly means the second Temple of Jerusalem. In the 8th. Book 'tis said, that after Trajan, denoted by the Letter T, another should reign, who should take his Name from the Adriatick Sea, viz. Adrian: and that after him should three reign, that is, Antoninus, Mar∣cus and Lucius, and that the Latter should have the sole power of all things in his Hands. This shews that this was written the beginning of the Empire of Marcus Aurelius, or at the latter end of Antonine's; for whereas Lucius was the yongest, it was but natural to foretell that he should outlive the other two.
• (i.) 1.96

  The style of it.] It is plain that he who counterfeited those Books was not really En∣thusiastical, but only pretended to be so. The Verses of the Sibyls were obscure and incohae∣rent; but these are not so. The Histories of the Emperors are therein related after an Hi∣storical, and not a prophetical Manner. The style has nothing of the Fury and Transport peculiar to the Sibyls, nor is it like to Homer's style, who, according to Diodorus, had taken several Verses out of the Sibyls. He who com∣pos'd the Books of the Sibyls was no Scholar, for he derives Adam's Name from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. B. 2. he says, that the four Letters of that Word sig∣nifie the four parts of the World, and yet there are no more than three Letters in the Hebrew and Chaldee Word. He supposes that the name of God makes the number of 1697, which is a mistake, unless it be written in Greek after a barbarous manner. He takes out of the Name Jesus (which he makes to consist of four Vowels and two Consonants) 888 Years, and out of the Name of Rome 948. He makes the Fables of the Titans to pass for true Hi∣story. He says that Mount Ararat is in Phry∣gia, that the River Eurotas is in Epirus, and that Gog and Magog are the Ethiopians, which shews that this Impostor understood neither Hebrew, Geography nor History, which cannot be said of the true Sibyl.
• (k.) 1.97

  The Things.] In these Books there are such Opinions as could not be taught by any others besides the ancient Christians. The Author is of the same Opinion with the Millenarians: he be∣lieves Nero to be the Antichrist, that the Souls shall be in Hell till the Resurrection, that the Fire of the last Judgment shall serve for Pur∣gatory: That the Terrestrial Paradise shall be preserv'd, and that the Wicked shall at last be delivered out of Hell-fire, with several other Notions which were held by some of the ancient Christians. In short, there can no question be made, but that what is said in those Books concerning the Birth, Life and Actions of Je∣sus Christ, was taken out of the Evangelists. The Prophets never said any thing, that comes near the Evidence of what is contain'd in these Books. I omit a great many other Reasons that might be assign'd.
• (l.) 1.98

  Such Superstitions as were wholly Pa∣gan.] See, Titus Livius in several places: Var∣ro de Ling. Lat. B. 5. Cicero Verrin. Ʋlt. Ta∣citus, B. 15. Suetonius in Jul. nam. 79. Pliny, B. 5. Ch. 17. Solinus Polyhist. Chap. 10. Val. Maximus, B. 1. N. 1, and 10. Plutarch, in the Lives of Publicola, Fabius, and Marius. Pausa∣nias in Phocaicis. Capitolinus, in Gordiano. Tre∣bellius Pollio in Galienis. Vopiscus in Aureliano & Valeriano. Sext. Aur. Victor in Claudio. Amm. Marcellinus B. 22, 23. Macrob. Saturn. B. 1. C. 17.
• (a.) 1.99

  Sirnam'd Trismegistus.] In Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Egyptians call him Thaaut. Some say the Greeks styl'd him Trismegistus, because he was a great King, a great Priest, and a great Philosopher. Others, as Lactantius, pre∣tend that he was so call'd, because of his ex∣traordinary Learning.
• (b.) 1.100

  Of whom the most ancient Heathen Wri∣ters have made mention.] Plato in his Phaedrus says, that it was he who found out the Cha∣racters of Letters, and the Arts and Sciences. Cicero, in his third Book, de Naturâ Deorum, says that he govern'd the Egyptians, that he gave them Laws, and invented the Characters of their Writing. Diodorus Siculus says, that he taught the Greeks the Art of discovering the Secrets of the Spirit. Jamblicus, upon the credit of Manetho and Seleücus, says, that he wrote above thirty five Thousand Volumes. Saint Clement of Alexandria in the sixth Book of his Stromata, makes mention of forty two Books of that Author, and sets down the Ti∣tles of several of them. These Books are cited as favourable to the Christian Religion, by the Author of the Exhortation attributed to Saint Justin, by Lactantius in the fourth Book of his Institutions, by Saint Clement of Alexandria in the first Book of his Stromata, by Saint Augu∣stine in his Tract, de 5. Haeres. and l. 8. de Ci∣vit. Dei, C. 23. by Saint Cyril of Alexandria in his first Book against Julian, and by several o∣thers.
• (c.) 1.101

  But 'tis certain that they could not be His.] The Eternity and Divinity of the Word is clearly explain'd in Pimander. The Author of that piece gives to the Son the Quality of con∣substantial with the Father. He says that he is the Son of God, nay, our God who proceeds from the Intellect of the Father, and makes use of the very words of the Septuagint in describing the Creation of the World. He likewise speaks of the fall of the first Man. Lastly, he copies out several places out of the Old and New Testament, and follows the Principles of the Modern Platonick Philosophy. The Tract, entituled, Asclepius, has not altogether so much of the Christian in it. The Author speaks in favour of Idolatry, explains the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, copies out several things out of the Scrip∣tures and the Graecian Writers; and foretells the destruction of the Egyptian Religion.
• (a.) 1.102

  Are not written in Saint Paul's or Seneca's Style.] The style of those which are attributed to Seneca is barbarous, and full of Idioms, that do not belong to the Latin Tongue. The E∣pistles attributed to Saint Paul, have not the least tincture of the Gravity of that Apostle, but are rather Compliments than Instructions.
• (b.) 1.103

  According to the Testimony of Tacitus.] He says that of fourteen parts of the City of Rome, there remain'd only four that were not touch'd: that the Houses of three parts in four∣teen were entirely consum'd, that in the other seven parts, there was but little remain'd, and that the Houses which were left standing were half burnt down.
• (c.) 1.104

  The date of these Letters is false.] The one is dated under the Consulate of Aprianus and Capito, that is, Vipsanius and Capito, five Years before the Burning of Rome: The other, under the Consulate of Phrygius and Bassus: that is, Lecanius Bassus, and Licinius Crassus, under whose Consulate the Fire happen'd: But this Letter is dated in March, and the Fire, according to Ta∣citus, did not break out till May following.
• (d.) 1.105

  They contain nothing that is Worthy either of Seneca or Saint Paul.] There is scarce one thought of Morality in the Letters of Seneca; nor any thing of Christianity in those of Saint Paul.
• (e.) 1.106

  Of so little Consequence.] It is certain that the Fathers often cited spurious Books, as we have already prov'd. Father Alexander the Author of the Hypothesis which we oppose, owns as much himself, and rejects the Epistle of Jesus Christ to Agbarus, and that of Agbarus to Jesus Christ, which are more authoriz'd by the Ancients than the Epistles of Seneca.
• (f) 1.107

  But only that they were commonly so repu∣ted.] Saint Jerome in Catalog. I reckon Seneca among the Ecclesiastical Writers, because of the Letters which several read under the Name of Se∣neca to Saint Paul, and of Saint Paul to Seneca. Saint Augustine, Epist. 14. at present the 153d. Seneca, whose Letters written to Saint Paul are commonly read. But in Lib. de Civit. Dei, cap. 11. he says; that Seneca has neither prais'd nor disprais'd the Christians, having not so much as spoken of them; and therefore he thinks that these Letters are none of His.
• (g.) 1.108

  Which has a great deal of Resemblance with what is to be met with in the Eleventh Letter of Seneca to Saint Paul.] In Saint Jerome we find these Words: Optare se dicit servus ejus esse loci apud suos, cujus sit Paulus apud Christianos: in the Eleventh Letter are the following Words; Cum sis vertex, & altissimorum montium cacumen haud te indignum in primâ facie Epistolarum nomi∣nandum censeas—nam qui meus tuus apud te locus, qui tuus velim ut meus. Now if the Words, apud tuos, were put instead of, apud te, they would express Saint Jerome's Sense, and it seems as if they could admit of no other. Howver, 'tis plain that Saint Jerome alludes to this very place.
• (a.) 1.109

  That he was the Christ.] 'Tis thus in the Text of Josephus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. He was the Christ; and thus this Passage is cited by Eusebius in two places, and translated by Ruffinus, and by the ancient Translator of Josephus. Saint Jerome renders it, Hic credebatur esse Christ••••; but this is a Latitude which he has assum'd to himself.
• (b.) 1.110

  There have been, and still are several Learned Men, who maintain that this Passage doth not really belong to Josephus.] Blondel was the first who deny'd it in his Treatise concer∣ning the Sibyls. Le Févre de Saumur wrote af∣terwards a Tract on purpose to prove the spu∣riousness of this Passage. He was refuted by Francis de Roye, by Is. Vossius, and Dr. Spencer. Huetius has likewise confuted this Opinion in his Treatise, de Demonstratione Evangelicâ.
• (a) 1.111

  Zoroaster.] They talk of several Persons of that Name. They maintain that the first and most famous liv'd in the time of Nimrod, that he was the King of Bactria, and was de∣feated by Ninus. They tell us strange things of his Prudence, Learning, and the Miracles that he wrought. They make him to be Au∣thor of the Persian Philosophy, by them call'd Magick. Plato speaks of Zoroaster, as the Au∣thor of that Science among the Persians, and observes that he was the Son of Oromazes. Eubu∣lus cited by Porphyry, attributes to him the In∣stitutions of the Mysterious Rites of the God∣dess Mythra. Eudoxus and Hermippus cited by Pliny, say that Zoroaster liv'd six thousand Years before Plato. But Cesitas, who had ci∣ted the History of Zoroaster, testifies that he liv'd in the time of Cyrus. This made Arno∣bius think there were two of that Name. Eu∣sebius likewise makes Zoroaster to be as ancient as Ninus, and Saint Epiphanius says that he liv'd in the time of Nimrod. He was call'd by the Persians Zarades, and by the Greeks Zoroaster. Several Explications are given of that Name, some say that it signifies a living Star; Others, the Son of a Star; and lastly, others say that it signifles the Contemplator of the Stars. All that is said of the Ancient Zoroaster is fabulous. Di∣odorus Siculus informs us that the King of Ba∣ctria who fought against Ninus, was call'd Oxi∣artes, and not Zoroaster. However there is great probability that there was formerly among the Persians a Man of this Name, who taught them Magick. Hermippus says, that he com∣pos'd a vast number of Verses. The Fragment cited by Eusebius in the 7th. Chapter of the first Book of his Evangelical Preparation, taken out of the History of the Persians attributed to Zoroaster, is so clear an Exposition of all the Attributes of God, that 'tis plain this Work was compos'd by an Author who had an insight into the Christian Religion. Synesius cites the Oracles of Zoroaster, upon the Dreams, which are taken out of the Works of the Modern Pla∣tonists. These Oracles were publish'd by Opso∣paeus, and printed at Paris in the Year 1599. with the Notes of Psellus and Plethe. 'Tis easie to see that these Writings were forg'd by the Platonists, who liv'd since our Saviour's time.
• (b) 1.112

  Sanchoniathon.] This Author was un∣known to all the Ancients. Porphyry is the first who cited this History, which is full of Fables and trifling Fictions. The Author has taken out of the Book of Genesis, what he has said concerning the Origine of the World, and the first Men. 'Tis from thence that he hath ta∣ken this Word Bohu, and the World Colpia, which he fancies to be a Wind. What is said concerning the Aeons, and the First-Born has a great Affinity to the Wild Fancies of the Va∣lentinians. Lastly, several things are taken out of the Fables of the Greeks, which evidently shews that the Author of this Book could not be one that liv'd in the time of Semiramis.
• (c) 1.113

  Philo Biblius.] This Man was a Gramma∣rian, of whom mention is made in Suidas, who liv'd after Nero's Reign: For he observes that he was seventy eight years of Age, under the Consulate of Severus and Herennius, which was Anno Dom. 171. an hundred Years after Nero's Death. He wrote according to the Testimony of the same Suidas, twelve Books, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and thirty Books, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Et de Claris Viris, and a Treatise concerning the Empire of Adrian, under which he liv'd. Suidas says never a Word of the Translation of this History of Phaenicia. Euse∣bius and Theodoret cite it after Porphyry. This Philo is certainly the Person of whom Saint Cle∣ment of. Alexandria speaks in his first Book of his Stromata, and whom he calls Philo the Py∣thagorean.