Body of Divinity

CHAP. IV. Of the New Testament.

THe New Canon is that which the Christian Church hath had written in Greek, from the time of Christ and his Apostles, and it summarily contains the Word published by Christ, and his righteous acts.

The History of which is in the four Books of the Evangelists, the Examples in the Acts of the Apostles, the Exposition in the one and twenty Epistles, and lastly, the Prophecy in the Revelation.

All the Books of the New Testament were written in Greek for divers Reasons:

First, Because that Tongue in the time of Christ and his Apostles was the most excellent of all, among the Languages of the Gentiles.

Secondly, Because it was then most Common, as Latin is now. Tully shows, Orat. pro Archia Poeta, how far the Greek Tongue spread.

Thirdly, Because in this Tongue all the Philosophy and Sciences of the Gentiles were written. The Greek Tongue by the writing of Philosophers, Orators, Historians and Poets, was fraught with the best learning, which Heathenism afforbed.

It came to pass by the singular Providence of God, that this Testament was written in one Tongue only; for what Nation else would have yielded to another, that the Scriptures in their Tongue were Authentic, and so the seeds of debate might have been sown amongst them. All almost agree in this, That all the Books of the New Testament were written in the Greek Tongue; it is only doubted concerning three of them, the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Many affirm that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew in Hebrew; or rather in Syriac, the Language used by Hebrews in the time of Christ and his Apostles, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written in Hebrew, and Mark in Latin.

All the New Testament is penned from God in Greek. The Reporters that S ^t Matthew wrote in Hebrew, or S ^t Paul to the Hebrews, never marked the Greek styles of both in Attique forms of speech, that Salem hath not. And the holy Ghost never translated Books, but kept still the original of all that he would have translated. Here be four Dialects, the Attique, Judean, Thalmadique and Apostolic. By ignorance of which much darkness covereth dealers with the New Testament. Broughtons Lord's Family.

It is certain that the Primitive Church from the first times, used the Gospel of Matthew written in Greek and counted it Authentical. If any one say, That the Latin Edition of Mark, in the vulgar, is not a version, but the first Copy, he may easily be refuted from the uniform style in it with other Latin Gospels, and it will appear to any Reader, that the Gospel of Mark, which the Roman Church useth, is later then the Greek, and that the Latin was made from it. For the Epistle to the Hebrews, though many among the Ancient thought it was written in Hebrew, yet all agree that the Greek Edition was in use thence from the first times of the Church. Glassius saith, Matthew wrote his Gospel first in Greek, for his style agrees with Mark. Writers acknowledge that there is an Ancient Hebrew Copy of Matthew, but upon good ground deny that it is the original truth; for besides that by received Tradition▪ it is held otherwise, Matth. 1. 23. and other such like places do evince it; for why should he writing in Hebrew, interpret Hebrew words, to them which understand that Language. Hieron. in quatuor Evangelia, and Salmasius hold, that Matthew was written in Hebrew, Evangelium Matthaei Hebraice ab auctore scriptum esse, nemo non veterum tradidit. Hebraeum illud Syriacum esse, quod in usu tunc temporis in Judea fuit, Hieronymus docet, qui Evangelium Matthaei scriptum fuisse testator Chaldaico Syroque Sermon. Salmas. de Hel • enistica. Erasmus, Cajetan, Calvin, Junius, Whitaker, Gomarus, Causabone, Gerhard, deny that Matthew was written in Hebrew. Chamier de canone l. 12. c. 1. saith, we have the New Testament in Greek; for although some contend that the Gospel of Matthew, and the Epistle to the Hebrews was written in Hebrew; yet (saith he) it is very uncertain, and so propius f • lse. I think (saith Rivet ) that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written in Greek, a Tongue then most common, and which was used by many Hebrews, which were called Hellenists.

That Mark should be written in Latin originally is improbable; many of the reasons alleged to prove that Matthew was not written in Hebrew are of force here also; the Jews at that time of the writing of the New Testament did speak Syriac and not Hebrew, which Language is mixed, consisting of Hebrew and Chaldee; therefore (saith Whitaker ) it is more probable that Matthew and he which wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews wrote in Greek, because the Greek Tongue was not unknown to the Jews, which were Hellenists, Act. 6. 1. and other Apostles wrote in Greek, which wrote peculiarly to the Jews, as I • mes and Peter. Matthaeum Hebrai • e scripsisse convenit inter antiquos. Citat Iren • um, Origenem, Athanasium, Epiphanium, Chrysostomum, Hieronymum, Vossius de genere Christi dissertat. Scripsit Hebraea lingua quia praecipue Iudaeorum, quos viva voice hact • nus docuisset, haberet rationem Id. ibid. Vide Grotium in libros Evangel.

It was needful that the Gospel should be written by many. First, for the certainty. Secondly, for the perfection of it.

Amongst all the Evangelists there is a general Agreement, and a sp 〈…〉 rence; they all agree in the main scope and subject, Christ; they d •••• r in 〈…〉 all Argument and Order. All describe the life of Christ, some more largely, some more briefly, some more loftily, some more plainly, yet because all were inspired by the same spirit, they all have equal Authority The difference of Evangelists in some smaller matters proveth their consent in the greater to be the voice of Truth; for had they conspired all together to have deceived the world, they would in all things have more fully agreed.

The Doctrine of the Covenant of Grace is more plainly expounded; the will of God and way to Salvation more plentifully set down in the New Testament, then ever it was in the days of Moses or the Prophets; and in these books of the New Testament all things are so established as to continue to the end, so that we must not look for any new Revelation.

All these Books we receive as Canonical, because they are Divine for matter and form, divinely inspired by God, sanctified and given to the Church for their direction, written by the Apostles or Apostolical men, sweetly con • enting with other parts of holy Scripture, and with themselves; received always by the greatest part of the Church of God. They were written after the death of Christ, by the direction of the holy Ghost; the Apostles by lively voice first preached, because it was needful that the Doctrine of the Gospel should by their preaching, as also by signs and wonders be confirmed against the contradictions and cavils of the Jews and Gentiles, and be allowed by the assent of believers generally before it was committed to writing, that we might be assured of the certainty of those things which were written.

These Books are acknowledged Canonical both by us and the Papists; so that touching this matter there is no controversy between us and them.

Among the confessed writings of the Scriptures attested by all, and not contradicted by any; The four Gospels are first to be placed, and then the Story of the Acts of the Apostles. See Euseb. Eccles. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 3, 4. and lib. 5. cap. 8. and lib. 6. cap. 18.

The Epistles doubted of by some for a while, were first, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of James, the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third Epistles of John, the Epistle of Jude, and the Revelation; of which I shall treat more when I come to handle the Books of the New Testament particularly.

The Story of the woman taken in Adultery, hath met with very much opposition. See Gregory's Preface to his Notes upon some passages of Scripture. Crojus defends the truth of it, Observat. in Nov. Testam. c. 17. Vide Seldeni uxorem Ebraicam cap. 11.

The Inscriptions and Titles prefixed before the Epistles are no part of holy Scripture written by the Apostles, but added to the Epistles by some others.

The Subscriptions and Postscripts also of divers Books are false, counterfeit and erroneous; not written by the Apostles, but added afterward by the Scribes which copied out the Epistles.

The Subscriptions of the later Epistle to Timothy, and also to Titus, are supposititious; they are neither found in the Syriac nor in all Greek Copies, nor yet in the vulgar Latin translation; these additions were made some hundred years after the Apostles.

The Canonical Books of the New Testament are either Historical, Doctrinal or Prophetical.

1. Historical, containing matters of fact, the History of

• 1. Christ exhibited in the four Evangelists or Gospels, as they are styled by God himself, Mark 1. 1. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, called Gospels, because they contain a message of joy and gladness. They all treat of one subject, Christ Jesus incarnate; are most true Historians, Luk. 1. 2. John. 21. 24.
• 2. His Apostles, in the Acts written by Luke, thirty years after Christ's Ascension, so termed of the principal subject of the History, though the acts of others not Apostles, are there recorded.

2. Dogmatical or Doctrinal, such as were written by the Apostles for the instruction of the Church of God in faith and manners, commonly called Epistles, and that by warrant of the Scriptures, 1 Thes. 5. 27. 2 Pet. 3. 1, 16. because they were sent to them who had already received and professed the Gospel of Christ. The Apostles being oft times unable to instruct by their personal Presence, supplied that by writing Epistles. These are one and twenty, written.

• 1. By Paul,
  • 1. To whole Churches.
    • 1. Gentiles,
      • To the Romans,
      • To the C • ninthians,
      • To the Galatians,
      • To the Ephesians,
      • To the Philippians,
      • To the Colossians,
      • To the Thessalonians.
    • 2. Jews. To the Hebrews.
  • 2. To particular Persons,
    • 1. Timothy.
    • 2. Titus.
    • 3. Philemon.
• 2. James, one.
• 3. Peter, two.
• 4. John, three.
• 5. Jude, one.

3. Prophetical, wherein under certain resemblances, the state of the Church of Christ till the end of the world, from the time of John the Evangelist, is most truly and wonderfully described, and receiveth its name Apocalypse of the Argument.

Beza, Piscator, Calvin, Erasmus, Grotius, have done well on all the New Testament. Of the Papists Jansen hath done well on the Harmony; of the Lutherans, Chemnitz and Gerhard; of the Protestants, Calvin. Maldonado and De Dieu, Cameron, Scultetus, and Grotius have done well likewise on the Evangelists.

Matthew and John were Apostles of the twelve; Mark and Luke Evangelists. Apostle is a name of Office or Dignity. It notes one sent from another with command; in special, certain famous Ambassadors of Christ. The Evangelists were Comites & vicarii Apostolorum, they accompanied the Apostles in preaching the Gospel, and had curam vicariam omnium Ecclesiarum, as the Apostles had curam principalem. The Title Evangelist is taken, 1. For such as wrote the Gospel, 2. For such as taught the Gospel; and these were of two sorts, either such as had ordinary places and gifts, or such whose places and gifts were extraordinary, such Evangelists were Timothy and Titus. Smectymn. Answ. to an Humble Remonstrance, Sect. 13.

Matthew ] There was never any in the Church which doubted of its Authority. Some say he wrote in Hebrew, but that is uncertain (as hath been already declared.) He interprets the Hebrew name Immanuel, Chap. 1. 23. and those words C • . 27. 46. therefore it is likely he wrote not in Hebrew; for why should one that writeth in Hebrew interpret Hebrew words to such as understand Hebrew? And how came this Authentical Copy and Prototype to be lost? for it is not now extant. How ever, the Greek edition is Authentical, because it came forth when the Apostles were living, and was approved by them, which the Ancients confirm. Of the time when Matthew wrote, Authors agree not; Eusebius saith, that he wrote in the third year of • ajus Caesar; others say he wrote after Claudeus. He wrote his Gospel in the fifteenth year after Christ's Ascension, saith Nio • phorus ; the one and twentieth, saith •• en • us; in the eighth year, saith Theophylact .

It consists of twenty eight Chapters, in which the person of Christ, and his three Offices of Prophet, Priest and King, are described.

The best Expositors of it are Hilary, Musculus, Pareus, Calvin.

Aquinas was wont to say, That he desired but to live so long, till he might see the golden-mouthed Father S ^t Chrysostom his imperfect work upon Matthew finished. D ^r Featleys Preface to his Stricturae in Lyndo mastigem.

Mark ] He was the Disciple of Peter, and wrote his Gospel from him, in the fourth year of Claudius Caesar, say some. He wrote not in Latin (as Bellarmine saith) but in Greek. Concerning the Archetypal Language in which the Gospels of Mark and Luke were written; See M ^r Selden in Eutichii orig.

It consists of sixteen Chapters, in which Christ's three-fold Office is also explained.

The best Expositors of it are Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Maldonado, Jansen.

Luke ] He was for Country, of Antioch; for profession, a Physician; there is mention made of him, Col. 4. 14. 2 Tim. 4. 11. Philem. 24. He was companion to Paul the Apostle in his travels, and in prison. He only makes a Preface before his Gospel, that he may briefly show the cause which induced him to write.

The best Expositors of it are Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Maldonado, Jansen.

John ] In Hebrew signifieth the grace of God; he soareth higher then the other Evangelists to our Savior's Divinity; and therefore (as Nazianzen among the Fathers) he is called the Divine, by an Excellency, because he hath so graphically and gravely described the Divinity of the Son, and hath written also of things most Divine and Theological.

Melancthon called Calvin a Divine by an Excellency, and then when Calvin being but a young man did most gravely treat of divine matters.

He hath the Eagle for his Ensign assigned him by the Ancients. He was called Presbyter, by reason of his age, being the longest liver of all the Apostles. He wrote the last of all when he returned from the Isle Patmos; therefore there is something more in every Chapter of John then any other of the Evangelists. He alone describeth the admirable Sermon which our Savior made at his last Supper, and his Prayer.

It is generally thought, and I think not untruly, that the blasphemous heresies of Ebion and Cerinthus (who denied that our Savior was God, or had any being before he took flesh of the holy Virgin his mother) was one especial occasion of writing this Gospel. M ^r Wotton Serm. 2. on 1 John. 1. 2.

It consists of one and twenty Chapters, in which the Person of Christ, consisting of the Divine and human Nature, is described.

In his Gospel is described: first, Christ's person; in the first Chapter. 2. His Office; in the second Chapter, to the twelfth. 3. His death, from the twelfth to the end.

The best Expositors of him are Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Rollock, Tarnovius, Musculus.

Acts ] Luke in the Proem of it makes mention of the Gospel written by him, that he might profess himself to be the Author of both. It consists of eight and twenty Chapters. Luke calleth his History, The Acts of the Apostles, though it be specially of their sufferings; because even their passions were actions, they enlarged the Kingdom of Christ by their sufferings.

The best Expositors of it are Brenz, De Dieu, Calvin, Sanctius.

The thirteen Epistles of Paul: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Philemon, the Primitive Church unanimously received into the Canon, and never doubted of their being Apostolical. They have their name Epistles à forma Epistolari qua conscriptae sunt.

A Lapide, Estius, Grotius and Vorstius, have done well on all the Epistles, Imprimis Estius ex Pontificiis, saith Voetius.

The Epistles are for the most part written in this order: they have

• 1. An Inscription: wherein is the name of the Writer, and of them to whom he writes, and his wish.
• 2. The matters of the Epistle, which are sometimes merely religious, concerning certain Articles of faith, or piety of life, or about the use of things indifferent; or else familiar things, witnessing their mutual good will.
• 3. The Conclusion: in which are Exhortations, Salutations, Wishes, or other familiar matters.

There are 21 Epistles, fourteen written by Paul, and seven more written by Peter, John, James and Jude.

Concerning the time and place in which the several Epistles were written, it is not easy to determine. I will premise something about the order of the Epistles, before I speak of them particularly.

Some of Paul's Epistles were written before his imprisonment; some in his bonds, both former and later. Before his imprisonment, the first of all that was written, were both the Epistles to the Thessalonians; they were written from Corinth the 8 ^th or 9 ^th year of Claudius.

Titus was written by Paul in those two years that he stayed at Ephesus.

Galatians ] At the end of the two years that Paul was at Ephesus, the Epistle to the Galatians seems to be written, 1 Cor. 16. 2. by which words the Apostle seems to intimate, that this Epistle to the Galatians was written before that to the Corinthians.

Corinthians ] Paul living two years at Ephesus, in the 11 ^th and 12 ^th year of Claudius, the Corinthians wrote to him, 1 Cor. 7. 1. and that by Stephanus and Fortunatus, which they sent to him ( Chap. 16, 17.) by whom Paul seemeth to have written back the first Epistle to the Corinthians, for in that he exceedingly commends them of Corinth. It was not written from Philippi, (as the Greek superscription hath it) but from Ephesus, as the Arabic interpreter hath it; as is manifest, Chap. 16. 8.

The second Epistle to the Corinthians, and the first of Timothy strive for priority, Et sub judice lis est. Both of them were written a little after Paul departed from Ephesus, and while he departed to Macedonia, but it is not manifest which was the first.

First Epistle to Timothy ] Some think that this Epistle was written by Paul in his bonds▪ but not rightly; for he makes no mention of his bonds in it. It is probable that it was written from Athens, as it is in the Arabic subscription, when he came from Macedonia to Greece; and so it was written after the first Epistle to the Corinthians.

Romans ] The Epistle to the Romans was written at Corinth, when Paul having spent three months in Greece, sailed to Jerusalem, that there he might gather the Collections of the Churches of Achaia, Asia and Macedonia. This is manifest from Rom. 15. 2, 4.

These are the Epistles which seem to be written by Paul out of imprisonment; the other were written in his bonds. Paul's bonds were twofold; former and later. One only, viz. the later to Timothy seems to be written in the later bonds of Paul, a little before his Martyrdom; the others were written in his former bonds.

Epistle to the Philippians. ] This seems to be the first of them all, which Paul wrote in his bonds. When Paul was Captive at Rome, the Philippians being careful for him, sent Epaphroditus thither, who visited Paul in his bonds, and ministered to him necessary helps for the preserving of his life, as appears by the second Chapter, and 25 verse of that Epistle, and the fourth Chapter, 10. and 18 verses. Paul sent him back again to the Philippians, and commends him to them, Chap. 11. 28. That the Epistle was written in his bonds, is manifest from the first Chap. v. 7, 13, 14. and from Rome, not Jerusalem, Chap. 4. 22.

The Epistles to the Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Philemon, were at the same time written from Rome, and sent by the same, viz Tychicus and Onesimus. First, That the Epistle to the Colossians was written by Paul in his bonds, it is manifest from Chap. 4. v. 3. and 18. but it was sent by Tychicus and Onesimus, Chap. 4 v. 7, 8, 9.

That to Philemon was written at the same time with that to the Colossians, since he salutes Philemon in their name in whose he saluted the Colossians, viz. in the name of Epaphras, Aristarchus, Mark, Luke, Demas, as is manifest by comparing the fourth Chapter of the Epistle to the Colossians, v. 10, 12, 14. with the 22. and 24 of the Epistle to Philemon. For this and other reasons Cappel supposeth they were both written at the same time.

That the Epistle to the Ephesians was written also at the same time, it may be thus confirmed: 1. Because it was written by Paul in his bonds, viz. from Rome, as is manifest Chap. 3. 1. and 4. 1. 2. It was sent by Tychicus, Chap. 6. 21, 22. by which also that to the Colossians was sent That these three Epistles were written also by Paul in his former not later bonds, it is hence manifest, because Phil. 1. 25. and 26. and 2. 24. also in the 22 verse of Philemon, Paul showeth that he had a most certain hope, that he should be freed shortly.

The Epistle to the Hebrews was written by Paul from Rome, toward the end of his former bonds. He expressly mentions his bonds, Ch. 10. 34. and showeth, that he hopes shortly to be set free, Chap. 13. 19.

The later Epistle to Timothy was the last of all Paul's Epistles, written by him in his later bonds, of which he writes, Chap. 1. 8. and 2. 9. and from Rome, Chap. 1. ver. 17. a little before his Martyrdom, which he seems to intimate, Chap. 4. ver. 6, 7, 8.

Thus having by the help of Cappel something cleared the order of Paul's Epistles for the time of their writing, I shall speak of them now according to the method wherein they are commonly disposed in our Bibles.

Romans ] That Epistle is first not in time of writing but in dignity, because of the majesty of the things it handleth, Justification and Predestination. It is rightly called Clavis Theology, or the Epitome of Christian Religion. It consists of sixteen Chapters.

The best Expositors of it are D ^r Sclater on the first three Chapters, and Pareus with Peter Martyr, and Par on the whole. Voetius saith, Willetus est instar omnium.

First to the Corinthians. ] How much Authority the Epistle to the Romans hath in establishing controversies of faith; So much the first of the Corinthians hath in establishing Ecclesiastical Discipline; therefore Antiquity hath placed it next the other. It consists likewise of sixteen Chapters.

The best Expositors of it are Pareus, Peter Martyr, Morton, D ^r Sclater.

The second to the Corinthians ] consists of thirteen Chapters.

The best Expositors of it are Musculus and D ^r Sclater.

Galatians ] S ^t Jerome taketh the Argument of the Epistle to the Galatians, to be the same with the Argument of the Epistle to the Romans; wherein the Apostle proveth, that by the works of the Law, whether Ceremonial or Moral, no flesh can be justified before God; using the same words in both, Rom. 3. 20, 28. and Gal. 2. 16. It consists of six Chapters.

The best Expositors of it are M ^r Perkins and Pareus.

Ephesians ] Ephesus was a Mother-city in the lesser Asia, famous for Idolatry, and the Temple of Diana, as the Acts of the Apostles testify, so given to all riot that it banished Hermodore, because he was an honest sober man; yet here God had his Church. It consists of six Chapters.

The best Expositor of it is Zanchius, M ^r Baines hath done well on the first Chapter, and D ^r Gouge on some part of the two last Chapters.

Philippians ] The Apostle had planted a Church at Philippi, which was the Metropolis of Macedonia, Acts 16. 12. In this Epistle he commends their godly study. It consists of four Chapters.

Zanchi and D ^r Airie have done well on this Book.

Colossians. ] Colossae was the chief City of Phrygia in lesser Asia; the Apostle directs this Epistle to the Inhabitants of that City. It consists of four Chapters.

Bishop Davenant, Byfield and Elton, have done best on this Book.

Thessalonians 2.] These were written to those which dwelt at Thessalonica; it is a chief City in Macedonia, whither, how the Apostle came, we may see Act. 17. The first Epistle consists of five Chapters, the second of three. It was written first before any other Epistle, or indeed before any Book of the New Testament. Iraen. l. 3. c. 1. Euseb. hist. l. 5. c. 8.

Zanchius and D ^r Sclater have done well on both these Epistles; Jackson and Bradshaw also on the second.

Timothy 2. ] Signifieth the honor of God, or precious to God. He honored God, and was precious to him. The first Epistle consists of six Chapters.

Barlow hath done well on three of them, and Scultetus on the whole.

The second to Timothy ] This consists of four Chapters.

Scultetus hath done well on it, and Espensaeus on both those Epistles.

Titus ] Titus to whom this Epistle was written, was a faithful Minister, and beloved friend of the Apostle, 2 Cor. 2. 13. and 7. 6. and 8. 23. Paul sent his Epistle to him out of Macedonia, which is of the same Subject with the first to Timothy. It consists of three Chapters.

Scultetus, Espensaeus, and D ^r Tailor have done best on this Book.

Philemon ] He was the Minister of the Church at Colossae, verse. 17. it is but one Chapter.

Scultetus and Dike have well interpreted it.

Hebrews ] The Epistle to the Hebrews was rejected by some Heretics, as Marcion and Arius; it is now received as Canonical, because it was inspired of God, doth in all things fully agree with all other parts of Prophetical and Apostolical writings, and was received of the greatest part of the ancient Church, though upon weak and slender grounds the Latin Church for a time did not receive the same.

Hieron. in Catalogo Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum, after he hath recited all the Epistles of Paul, at length he cometh to this Epistle; but the Epistle to the Hebrews (saith he) is not thought to be his, for the difference of the style and speech, but either written by Barnabas, as Tertullian holds, or Luke the Evangelist, or Clement. Some ascribe it to Tertullian, saith Sixtus Senensis.

The diversity of the style and inscription of this Epistle, and manner of reasoning, makes some doubt of the Writer thereof; and also something in the Epistle shows that it was written not by Paul, as the beginning of the second Chapter ver. 3. the Doctrine of Salvation is confirmed to us by them which heard it, which seemeth to agree with the profession of Luke in the beginning of his Gospel; whereas S ^t Paul denieth Gal. 1. 12. that he received it of man. An ancient Greek Copy (whereof Beza speaks) leaves out the name of Paul in the Title, and also divers printed Books. Augustine speaks often of this Epistle, as if it were of doubtful Authority, as you may see in his Enchirid lib. 1. c. 8. & lib. 10. de Civitate Dei, cap. 5. Beza, Hemingius, Aretius, leave it in medio. Calvin and Marlorat deny that it was Paul's.

The reasons (saith Cartwright in his Confutation of the Rhemists ) moving us to esteem it none of Paul's, are first, that his name is not prefixed, as in all the Epistles undoubtedly known to be his. Another reason is, that this writer confesseth that he received the Doctrine of the Gospel, not of Christ himself, but of those which heard it of Christ, Heb. 2. 3. whereas Paul received his Doctrine immediately from Christ, and heard it himself of Christ, and not of them that heard it from him.

To the first Objection by Fulk it is easily answered, the diversity of style doth not prove that Paul was not the Author of this Epistle; For as men have written divers things in divers styles in respect of matter and persons to whom they wrote; as Tully his Offices, Orations and Epistles; so the Spirit of God could and might inspire one and the same man to pen in a different manner: 2. The other Argument also against its being Paul's, because his name is not prefixed, hath but little force in it. 1. If it be not Paul's because his name is not prefixed, then it is nones, because no man's name is prefixed; so Jerome, and from him Beza and Bellarmine both thus answer. 2. The Author of this Epistle did conceal his name, that thereby he might not offend the weak Jews to whom he wrote, with whom he knew his name was hateful. 3. Beza saith, he found Paul's name added to this Epistle in all ancient Greek Copies, one excepted. Other Books have no name prefixed, as the first Epistle of John hath not his name prefixed, and yet certainly believed to be his.

For the last Objection, Beza answers, that he reckons himself among the hearers of the Apostles, to avoid the envy of Apostleship; See 1 Pet. 4. 3.

All the Grecians, and many of the more famous of the Ancient Latins, as Augustine, Ambrose, Gregory, and many modern Writers of note, as Beza, Bellarmine, Gerhard, Cappel, Martinius, Hoornbeeck, Walter, Cornelius a Lapide hold it was written by Paul, and for divers reasons: 1. The Author of this Epistle commends a certain famous Disciple Timothy, Chap. 13. 23. but none had such an one but Paul. 2. He remembers his bonds, Chap. 10. 34. which is a usual thing with Paul, Phil. 1. 7. Col. 4. 18. 2 Tim. 2. 9. Philem. v. 9. & 10. 3. He hath many of the same Axioms with Paul, compare Heb. 1. 2. & 3. with Col. 1. 14, 15, 16, 17. Heb. 5. 12. and 13. with 1 Cor. 3. 1. and 2. and divers other places. Paul saith, by that sign his Epistles may be known and distinguished from others, viz. that subscription, The grace of our Lord, 2 Thess. 3. 18. which clause is found in the end of this Epistle, Chap. 13. 4. Paul's zeal for the salvation of the Hebrews, Rom. 9. 3. makes it probable that he would write unto them. Some think it may be gathered from that place, 2 Pet. 3. 15. Beza having alleged four reasons urged by some why this Epistle should not be written by Paul, saith, Opponitur his omnibus quae scribuntur, 2 Pet. 3. 15. quae certe videntur hanc Epistolam velut intento digito mon • rare.

Beza concludes the matter very modestly: Let the judgments of men, saith he, be free; so we all agree in that, That this Epistle was truly dictated by the holy Ghost, and preserved as a most precious treasure in the Church. Vide Waltheri officinam Biblicam, & Whitakeri controvers. 1. Quaest. jam de Script. cap. 16. & Hoornbeeck's Antisocinianismi, l. 1. c. 1. controvers. Sect. 3.

Some think (as I have touched it before) that this Epistle was originally written in Hebrew, but the style and phrase of this Epistle doth Graecam redolere eloquentiam, non Hebraeam. 2. If it was written in Hebrew, the Hebraisms would appear in the Greek version, which yet are rarer here then in other Epistles. 3. The Scriptures of the Old Testament are cited in it, not according to the Hebrew fountains, but according to the version of the Seventy. 4. The Apostle Chap. 7. interprets the Hebrew name M • lchised • ch, King of righteousness; and Salem, peace; which he would not have done if he had written in Hebrew. Junius in his parallels holds it to be Paul's, and written in Greek.

Ribera and Ludovicus a Tena, two Papists, have written on this Epistle. Pareus and Dixon have done best on the whole Book, and M ^r Deering on six Chapters. Voetius much commends Gomarus.

Those seven Epistles written by James, Peter, John and Jude, have unfit Titles prefixed before them, in that they are called sometime Canonical, specially of the Latin Church; and sometimes Catholic , chiefly of the Greek Church: neither of which were given them by any Apostle or Apostolic Writer. Yet though this Title Catholic cannot be defended, it may be excused and tolerated as a Title of distinction, to distinguish them from the other Epistles. Also they may have this Title Canonical set before them, (as some Books of the Old Testament were termed Hagiographa by the Jews) not because they were of greater Authority then other holy writings, but to show that they ought to be esteemed of, and embraced as Divine, howsoever in former times they were unjustly suspected. Vide Bezam.

The second Inscription of Catholic is as unfit as the former; therefore the Rhemists unjustly blame us for leaving out that Title in our English Bibles; for it is well known that that Title is not given by the holy Ghost, but by the Scholiast who took it from Eusebius. General, is a mere English term, and of no doubtful signification; Catholic is both Greek, and (by their saying) of double, and therefore doubtful signification.

The Syriac Interpreter hath this Inscription of these Epistles (as Tremellius showeth) Tres Epistolae trium Apostolorum, ante quorum oculos Dominus noster se transformavit, id est, Iacobi, Petri, & Ioannis. For the Syrians do not esteem the second of Peter, nor the second and third of John, nor the Epistle of Jude, Canonical.

The Apostles James, Peter, John and Jude have published seven Epistles as mystical as succinct; both short and long; short in words, long in sense and meaning.

James ] For the difference which seems to be between I am. 2. 21, 22. and Rom. 4. 2. and 3. 28. most likely this Book was doubted of in ancient times, as Eusebius and Jerome witness. But yet then also publicly allowed in many Churches, and ever since received in all, out of which for the same cause Luther and other of his followers since him, would again reject it. Erasmus assents to Luther, and Musculus agrees with them both in his Comment upon the fourth of the Romans; both they of the Romish, and we of the Reformed Church with one consent admit this Epistle for Canonical. Vide Polani Syntagma.

I light upon an old Dutch Testament of Luther's Translation (saith Whi • ak • r against Reynolds ) with his Preface, wherein he writeth that James his Epistle is not so worthy as are the Epistles of S ^t Peter and Paul, but in respect of them a strawen Epistle; his censure I mislike, and himself (I think) afterwards, seeing these words in a later Edition are left out.

It is nowhere found in Luther's Works, that he called the Epistle of James, Inanem & stramineam. Edmund Campian was convicted of falsehood about that in England, where when he had objected that, he could find no such thing at any time in the Books he produced. Some in the Preface of the German Edition say that Luther wrote, that it cannot contend in dignity with the Epistles of Paul and Peter, but is strawy, if it be compared with them. Which judgment of Luther we approve not of, and it is hence manifest that it was disliked by him, because these words are found in no other Edition from the year 1526. Luther's disciples now hold, that it is Canonical and Apostolical; and they answer the Arguments of those that are opposite thereto, as we may see in the Exposition of that Article concerning the Scripture, by that most learned and diligent man John Gerard. Gravitatem ac zelum Apostolicum per omnia prae se f • rt, saith Walther.

We may reply against the Papists, who often object this opinion of Luther's, that Cajetan their Cardinal denieth the Epistle to the Hebrews to be Canonical; yea (which is far worse) he affirmeth that the Author thereof hath erred, not only in words, but in the sense and meaning of the Scriptures. Nay, Caj • tan (saith Whitaker ) rejected James, second of Peter, and second and third of John and Jude.

It consists of five Chapters. Pareus, Laurentius, Brochmand, and M ^r Manton have done best on it.

First of Peter. ] This Epistle is called in the Title Catholical, because it is not written to any one person, as that of Paul to Timothy, Titus and Philemon; no • to any one particular Church, as those of Paul to the Romans, Corinthians: but to the converted of the Jews dispersed here and there, as appears by the inscription. It consists of five Chapters.

Gerhard, Laurentius, Gomarus and D ^r Ames have expounded both these Epistles. Byfield hath interpreted part of the first Epistle.

Second of Peter ] Some in the Primitive Church doubted of its authority, and the Syriac hath it not; but the Church generally allowed it, and many reasons may persuade that it is Apostolical, and was written by Peter. 1. Because the Author of it expressly calleth himself Simon Peter, the Apostle of Jesus Christ. He wrote it in his old-age to confirm them in the Doctrine which before he had taught them. 2. Its inscription is to the same Jews (that the former) viz. dispersed by the Roman Empire, and converted to Christ, whose Apostle Peter was. 3. It shows an Apostolical spirit. 4. Its style and composition is agreeable to the former Epistle. 5. The Author of this Epistle witnesseth, that he was a spectator of the Transfiguration in the Mount; Chap. 1. verse. 16. now Peter, together with James and John were present with Christ. 6. He makes mention of the Former Epistle, Chap. 3. v. 1. 7. He calls Paul his dear Brother, Chap. 3. v. 15. It consists of three Chapters.

First of John consists of five Chapters.

Second and third of John. ] They were also in times past doubted of by some, as Erasmus, Cajetan: but there are good reasons to prove them Canonical. 1. Their Author calls himself an Elder; so doth Peter, 1 Pet. 5. 1. by which name an Ecclesiastical Office is often signified, but here age rather; now it is manifest that John came to a greater age then the rest of the Apostles. 2. The salutation is plainly Apostolical, Grace, mercy and peace. 3. In sentences and words they agree with the first Epistle. 4. The Fathers allege them for John's , and reckon them among the Canonical Books.

Each of these Epistles is but a Chapter.

Jude ] This Epistle also in times past was questioned by some; but that it is Apostolical, first the inscription shows; the Author expressly calls him a servant of Christ, and brother of James. 2. The matter, it agreeth both for words and sentences with the second of Peter; of which it contains as it were a brief sum and recapitulation. That the writer of the Epistle doth not call himself an Apostle is of no moment to infringe the authority thereof, for the judgment of the writer is free in that case; that Title was specially used by Paul and Peter; James and John quit the same Title, yea Paul in his Epistles to the Philippians, Thessalonians and Philemon doth not call himself an Apostle, and yet those Epistles were never doubted of. It is but one Chapter. Willet and M ^r Perkins have done well on it.

Revelation ] It is called according to the Greek Apocalypse, and according to the Latin Revelation; that is, a discovery or manifestation of things which before were hidden and secret, for the common good of the Church.

Eusebius l. 3. c. 17. saith, Domitian cast John the Evangelist into a furnace of scalding Oil, but when he saw he came forth unhurt, he banished him into the Isle Patmos, where he writ this Revelation.

This Book describeth the state of the Church from the time of John the last of the Apostles, until Christ's coming again; and especially the proceedings, pride and fall of Babylon, the great Whore, with all the Kingdoms of Antichrist. The subject of it is twofold: 1. The present state of the Church: 2. The future state of it, The things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter, Revel. 1. 19. The three first Chapters of this Book contain seven several Epistles to the seven several Churches of Asia, the other following Chapters are a Prophetical History of the Church of God from Christ's Ascension to his second coming.

The holy Ghost foreseeing what labor Satan and his instruments would take to weaken and impair the credit and authority of this above all other Books (wherein he prevailed so far, as some true Churches called the truth and authority of it into question) hath backed it with a number of confirmations more then are in any other Book of Scripture.

First, The Author of it, is set in the fore-front or face of it, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, Chap. 1. verse. 1. who professeth himself to be the first and the last, verse. 11. so in the several Epistles to the Churches in several styles he challengeth them to be his. Thus saith he, 1. That holdeth the seven stars in his right hand. 2. He which is first and last, which was dead, and is alive. 3. Which hath the sharp two edged Sword. 4. Which hath eyes like a flame of fire, and his feet like brass. 5. Which hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars. 6. He who is holy and true, who hath the key of David. 7. He who is Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creatures of God.

Secondly, The Instrument or Penman, his servant John the Evangelist, the Apostle, the Divine, who for the farther and more full authority of it, repeateth his name at least thrice, saying, I John, Chap. 1. 9. and 21. 1, 2. and 22. 8. whe •••• in the Gospel he never maketh mention of his name; there he writes the History of Christ, here he writes of himself, and the Revelations declared to him.

Thirdly, In the last Chapter are five testimonies heaped together, verse. 5, 6, 7, 8. 1. Of the Angels. 2. Of God himself, the Lord of the holy Prophets. 3. Of Jesus Christ, Behold I come shortly. 4. Of John, I John heard and saw all these things. 5. The Protestation of Jesus Christ, v. 18.

Fourthly, The matter of the Book doth convince the Authority thereof, seeing everywhere the Divinity of a Prophetical Spirit doth appear; the words and sentences of other Prophets are there set down; part of the Prophecies there delivered are in the sight of the world accomplished, by which the truth and authority of the whole is undoubtedly proved; there are extant many excellent Testimonies of Christ and his Divinity, and our redemption by Christ.

Fifthly, The most ancient Fathers, Greek and Latin ascribe this Book to John the Apostle. Theophylact, Origen, Chrysostom, Tertullian, Hilary, Austin, Ambrose, Iren • us.

To deny then the truth of this Book is contrasolem obloqui, to gainsay the shining of the Sun itself.

The Chiliasts abuse many testimonies out of this Book, but those places have been cleared long ago by the learned, as bearing another sense. See D ^r Reynolds Conf. with Hart, c. 8. p. 406.

Calvin being demanded his opinion, what he thought of the Revelation, answered ingeniously (saith one ) He knew not at all what so obscure a writer meant. Se penitus ignorare quid velit tam obscurus scriptor.

Cajetan at the end of his Exposition of Jude, confesseth that he understand • not the literal sense of the Revelation, and therefore Exponat (saith he) cui Deus concesserit.

It consists of two and twenty Chapters; the best Expositors of it are Ribera, Brightman, Pareus, Cartwright, Fulk, Dent, Forbes, Mede, Simonds, Foord.

1. The Scriptures written by Moses and the Prophets sufficiently prove that Christ is the Messiah that was to come; The Old Testament may convince the Jews (which deny the New Testament) of this truth, John 5. 39. They, that is, those parts of Scripture written by Moses and the Prophets; there were no other Scriptures then written. The 53 of Isaiah is a large History of his sufferings. We have also another Book (or Testament) more clearly witnessing of Christ; The Gospel is the unsearchable riches of Christ, Ephes. 3. 8.

So much may suffice to have spoken concerning the Divine Canon; the Ecclesiastical and false Canon follow.

CHAP. V. Of the Books called Apocrypha.

SOme Heretics utterly abolished the Divine Canon, as the Swingfeldians and Libertines who contemned all Scriptures; the Manichees and Marcionites refused all the Books of the Old Testament (as the Jews do those of the New) as if they had proceeded from the Devil.

Some diminish this Canon, as the Sadducees who (as Whitaker and others hold) rejected all the other Prophets but Moses; some enlarge it as the Papists, who hold that divers other Books called by us Apocrypha ( i hidden) do belong to the Old Testament, and are of the same authority with the other before named; and they add also their traditions and unwritten Word, equalling it with the Scripture; both these are accursed, Rev. 22. 18.

But against the first we thus argue: Whatsoever Scripture, 1. Is divinely inspired: 2. Christ commandeth to search: 3. To which Christ and his Apostles appeal and confirm their Doctrine by it, that is Canonical and of equal Authority with the New Testament. But the holy Scripture of the Old Testament is divinely inspired, 2 Tim. 3. 16. where he speaks even of the Books of the Old Testament, as is gathered both from the universal, all writing, viz. holy, in the 15 verse; and from the circumstance of time, because in the time of Timothies infancy little or nothing of the New Testament was published. 2. Christ speaks not to the Scribes and Pharisees, but to the people in general, to search it John 5. 39. this famous elogium being added, That it gives testimony of him, and that we may find eternal life in it. 3. Christ and his Apostles appeal to it, and confirm their Doctrine by it, Luke 24. 27. Rom. 3. 21. Acts 10. 43. and 17. 11. and 20. 43. and 26. 20. the New Testament gives testimony of the Old, and Peter, 2 Pet. 1. 19. of Paul's Epistles.

The Ecclesiastical Canon (which is also called the second Canon) followeth, to which these Books belong, Tobit, Judith, first and second of the Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Additions to Daniel and Esther; for these neither contain truth perfectly in themselves; nor are sanctified by God in the Church, that they may be a Canon of faith; and although abusively from custom they were called Canonical, yet properly in the Church they are distinguished from the Canonical by the name of Apocryphal.

The false Canon is that which after the authority of the Apocrypha increased was constituted by human opinion; for the Papists as well as we reject for Apocryphal the third and fourth Book of Ezra, the prayer of Manasseh, the third and fourth of Maccabees, as Thomas Aquinas, Sixtus Senenfis, Bellarmine, and so the Council of Trent confess, when they omit these and reckon up the whole Canon.

The state therefore of the controversy betwixt us and the Papists is, Whether those seven whole Books with the Appendices, be Sacred, Divine, Canonical. We do not deny but many of these, especially Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus are very good and profitable, and to be preferred before all human Tractates, but that they are properly, and by an excellency Canonical, and of infallible truth, out of which firm arguments may be drawn; that we deny.

Those Books which the Jews of old, and the Reformed Churches now reckon for truly Canonical in the Old Testament, are received all even by our Adversaries for Canonical without any exception; 2. For the Canonical Books of the New Testament, there is no controversy between us, and so far we agree; but in the Old Testament whole Books are reckoned by them for Canonical which we hold Apocryphal.

The reason why these Books at first were added to holy Writ, was this, the Jews in their later times, before and at the coming of Christ were of two sorts; some properly and for distinction sake named Hebrews, inhabiting Jerusalem and the holy Land; others were Hellenists, that is, the Jews of the dispersion mingled with the Grecians. These had written sundry Books in Greek which they made use of, together with other parts of the Old Testament, which they had in Greek of the Translation of the LXX, when they now understood not the Hebrew; but the Hebrews receive only the two and twenty Books before-mentioned. Hence it came that the Jews delivered a double Canon of Scripture to the Christian Church; the one Pure, unquestioned and Divine, which is the Hebrew Canon; the other in Greek adulterate, corrupted by the addition of certain Books written in those times when God raised up no more Prophets among his people. Drus. praeterit. l. 5. Annotat. ad Act. Apost. c. 6. Jun. Animad in Bell. cont. 1. lib. 1. c. 4. l. 2. c. 15. Sect. 21. Tertul▪ in Apol. c. 19.

They are called Apocryphal ( i. secret and hidden) not because the names of the writers are unknown (by that reason Judges and Ruth should be Apocryphal) but because they were not wont to be read openly in the Church of God as the Canonical Books, but secretly and in private by private persons, or because their Authority was obscure and doubtful with the Ancient.

These Books our Church rejecteth, as not written by Divine Inspiration for these reasons.

All the Canonical Books of the Old Testament were written by the Prophets; but none of these Books were written by any of the Prophets; for

1. The last of the Prophets of the Jews was Malachi, Mal. 4. 4, 5. between whom and John Baptist came no Prophet. Mark begins with the same words almost with which Malachi ended; a good argument to prove that the New Testament is next to the Old. But these Books were written by such who lived most of them after Malachi.

2. All the Prophets wrote in Hebrew, the language which the Jews understood; but the Fathers affirm, and Papists acknowledge that most of these Books were written in Greek; Ergo, being not written by the Prophets, they are not Canonical. 2. All the Books of the Old Testament were committed to the Jews and safely kept by them, Rom. 3. 2. our Savior Christ which reproved the Jews for corrupting the sense of the Scripture, did yet never reprove them for rejecting those Books which were divinely inspired, which sacrilege he would not have concealed; yea our Savior sendeth us unto the Scriptures, as they received them, John. 5. 39. Ezra after the Captivity is reported to have gathered all the Books of holy Scripture, and safely to lay them up. If the Jews should have rejected or not received any Books being Canonical, they had grievously erred, which the Papists themselves will not affirm. Yea there should have been some Canonical Books, which no Church received; for besides the Church of the Jews at that time there was none in the world. The Canonical Books of the Old Testament were divided into Moses, the Prophets, and Psalms; with which agreeth the old distribution of the Hebrews, into the Law, Prophets and Hagiographa.

3. There are two ways to know a Book to be Canonical; one by the testimony of some Prophet or Apostle: the other by the certain Testimony of them which did live when the Book was published, who did witness that the Book was written by some Prophet or Apostle. But these Books are known to be Canonical neither of these ways; they were rejected by the Jews, who lived in the times when they were written; our Savior Christ nor his Apostles never commend these Books unto us as endited by the Spirit. They are cited by Christ and his Apostles for the confirmation of their Doctrine. All the Canonical Books in general, John 5. 39. and 10. 35. Rom. 16. 26, Luke 16. 29, 31. and Chap. 24. 25, 27, 44. The most of all in special, Genesis, Matth. 19 4, 5, 6. Exodus, Mat. 5. 21, 27, 33, 38. Leviticus, Gal. 3. 12. Numbers, John 3. 14. Deuteronomy, Acts 3. 22. Joshua, Heb. 11. 30, 31. Judges, Heb. 11. 32. Ruth, Mat. 1. 3. First of Samuel, Matth. 12. 3. Second of Samuel, Heb. 1. 5. First of Kings, Mat. 12. 42. Second of Kings, Luk. 4. 27. First of Chronicles, Mat. 1. 3, 7, 10, 13. Second of Chronicles, Acts 7. 48. Ezra, Matth. 1. 12, 13. Job, 1 Cor. 3. 19. Psalms, Act. 4. 25. Proverbs, Heb. 12. 5, 6, 7. Isaiah, Matth. 1. 23. Jeremiah, Heb. 10. 16, 17. Ezekiel, Mat. 25. 35. Daniel, Matth. 24. 25. All the lesser Prophets, Acts 7. 42. and 15. 15, 16. Hosea, Mat. 12. 7. Joel, Act. 2. 12. Amos, Act. 15. 16. Jonah, Mat. 12. 40, 41. Micah, Mat. 10. 35. Nahum, Rom. 10. 15. Habakkuk, Rom. 1. 17. Haggai, Heb. 12. 26. Zacharias, Matth. 21. 5. Malachi, Luke 1. 16, 17. These Books were not cited by Christ and his Apostles for confirmation of their Doctrine.

CHAP. VI. Of the Authentical Edition of the Scripture.

NOw we must inquire which is the Authentical Edition of holy Scriptures, it being necessary that this heavenly truth committed to writing, should be delivered in some form of words, and in some language which may be understood. Lawyers, from whom the use of the word Authentic seemeth borrowed, do call those instruments and writings Authentic which have a certain and just authority in themselves.

A Book or writing is Authentic either by Divine or human institution; those are by Divine Appointment and Institution authentical, which have from God sufficient and absolute Authority to command and approve themselves worthy credit and faith, in as much as God himself doth approve them; by human Institution such writings are held authentical, which by the opinion and sentence of learned men in their several professions may be esteemed worthy credit and belief for themselves, and for the truth in them.

There is a great diversity of Editions of holy Scripture; all cannot be simply and perpetually Authentical, in, of, and for themselves, without reference unto another, no more then many draughts of the same Lease or Deed, or copy of one pardon can be. Some amongst many are authentic, whence the others are transcribed; yea it cannot be that there should be many; but although there may be many counterpanes of the deed, yet there is but one or two principal Deeds: so, amongst this great variety of Editions one or more ought to be as principal and authentical.

There is a Question betwixt the Church of Rome, and the Reformed Churches about the Authentic Edition of Scripture; they say, That the Edition of the Bible in Hebrew and Greek is not authentical, but rather the Vulgar Latin. We hold, that the Vulgar Latin is very corrupt and false; that the Hebrew for the Old Testament, and the Greek for the New i • the sincere and authentical writing of God; therefore that all things are to be determined by them; and that the other versions are so far to be approved of, as they agree with these 〈◊〉 .

The • ride • tin • Council thus decreeth, That in all Sermons, Readings, Disputations, Controversies, the Vulgar Latin Translation should be taken for authen •••• before the Hebrew or Greek, and that no man should presume upon any oc ••• on to reject •• , or to appeal from it. When the Council of Trent saith the Vul ••• Latin i • authentical, it compares it with other Latin Translations, not with • he Hebrew. Mu • s de Heb. Edit. Author. ac ver. Vide illum ibid,

Andradius (the chiefest of the Divines at the Council of Trent ) thinketh that • he Council of Trent did not mean either to condemn the Hebrew truth (as he cal •• th it) or to acquit the Latin Translation from all error, when they called it Authen •• cal; but only that the Latin hath no such error by which any pestilent opinion in • aith and manners may be gathered. This saith Rainolds against Hart, c. 6. p. 202. and Chamier. Tom. 1. l. 12. c. 2.

The Rhemists in their Preface to the New Testament, translated by them, prolixly extol this Latin Edition, and contend that it is not only far better than all the Latin versions, but then the Greek itself, which is the Pro • otype.

Before we come to defend our own or disprove that opinion of the Papists, it is necessary first rightly and fully to state the Question, and to premise some things concerning the several Versions and Translations of the Scripture.

We deny not that part of Daniel and Ezra which was written in the Chaldee Dialect to be Authentical, because we know the Lord was pleased that in that language as well as the Hebrew some of his Divine Truth should be originally written.

1. For the more credit of the Stories, the Lord bringeth forth foreign Nations and their Chronicles for witnesses, least any of them should doubt of the truth thereof. 2. The Lord would have some part of those Stories come to the knowledge of the Heathen, and it was requisite that the Chaldeans should know the sins and impieties of that Nations, and the judgments that should befall them, to testify unto all the truth of God; therefore in general the alteration of the terrene States and Kingdoms is shadowed forth and published in the Chaldee Tongue, that the Gentiles might take knowledge thereof; but the particular Histories of the coming of the Messi • s, of his Office and Kingdom, and of the calamities and afflictions which should befall the people of God, are set forth in the Hebrew Tongue, as more especially concerning them. Likewise it pleased God for the better credit of the Story, that the History of those things which were said and done in Chaldea should be written in the same Language wherein they were first spoken; and therefore the Epistles and Rescripts of the Kings are delivered in the Chaldee speech, as taken on • of their public Acts and Records; and that the History in Daniel set forth in the Cha • dee speech gaining him respect with the Chaldeans, might stir up the Jews to receive Daniel as a Prophet of God whom the Heathens admired. If there be any footsteps of the Chaldee and Arabic in Job, as some learned say; we do not exclude them from authentic Authority; for we say the whole Old Testament for the most part in Hebrew, and few parcels in Chaldee, are the authentic Edition of the Old Testament.

The Greek Copies of the New Testament are also from God immediately, the very dialect wherein those Prototypes were, which the Pens of the Evangelists and Apostles did write. For the Gospel of Matthew, and the Epistle to the Hebrews being written in Hebrew, and Mark in Latin, we have refuted that opinion already; the Greek Edition of those three Books, as well as of all the other of the New Testament is authentical.

The Versions of the Scripture are either the Chaldee and Greek of the Old Testament, the Syriac and Arabic of the new, the Latin, Italian, French and English of both Testaments.

All the Versions of the sacred Scripture have so far Divine Authority as they agree with the original Tongue; and to say that any Translation is pure and uncorrupt, and that the very fountains are muddy, is both a foolish and impious blasphemy. The tongue and dialect is but an accident, and as it were an argument of the Divine truth, which remains one and the same in all Idioms; therefore the faith of the unlearned depends on God, not on men; although the Translations, by benefit of which they are brought to believe, be perfected by the labor of men. God's providence and care of the Church is such that he would never let it be long destitute of a fit Translation , which being published by learned men, and approved of by the Church, however it failed in some things, yet following the truth constantly in the more principal and necessary things, might be sufficient to all for wholesome instruction.

The Versions differ often much among themselves; Arias Montanus differs much from Pagnin a learned Translator, and Vatablus from both; from all these Luther, and from him again the Vulgar. Ofiander, the LXX vary.

The Chaldee Edition of the Old Testament is not a Translation done word for word, but a Paraphrase, and so called; the Chaldee Paraphrase, by the Jews Targum, though some conceive that there is some kind of distinction (to speak accurately) between the Chaldee Paraphrase and Targum. Targum being a general word, signifying an Interpretation or Paraphrase, though it usually now by an excellency denoteth the Chaldee Paraphrase. There were three Authors of it (as it is reported,) according to the three-fold difference of the Hebrew Books.

R • bbi Achilam or Aquila, who is vulgarly called O •• glos upon the five Books of Moses; Rabbi Jonathan the son of Uziel upon the former and later Prophets; Rabbi Joseph coecus (or as some will, a certain Anonymous ) upon some of the Hagiographa. Those Paraphrases of Onkelos and Jonathan are the ancienter and certioris fidei; that upon the Hagiographa is far later and less certain, it being doubtful both who was the author, and in what age it was made. The common opinion concerning Onkelos and Jonathan is, that Jonathan wrote a little before Christ, the other a little after him. Cappel lib. 1. de punctorum Hebraicorum antiquitatecap. 1. Helvicus de Chaldaicis Paraphrasibus cap. 2. Vide Paulii Fagii Praefat. in Paraphrast. Chaldee. Vide Buxtorf. de punctorum Antiquitate & origin, parte 1. c. 10. Rabbi Joseph coecus (saith Galatinus de Arcan Cathol verit. lib. 8. cap. 17.) flourished almost 340 years after Christ suffered. Jonathan (saith Broughto • ) was no less ancient then the holy Apostles.

These Paraphrases among the Jews (saith Helvicus) sunt autoritatis plane aequalis ipsi Scripturae Hebraicae, neque fas habent illis contradicere. Quorum Paraphrasin nemo doctus non suspicit, saith Cappel of Onkelos and Jonathan.

The Jews write that Jonathan received his Doctrine of the Targum from Zacharias, Haggai and Malachi the Prophets: Onkelos his from Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua, which also themselves received them from the Prophets: They write that Jonathan interpreting the Scripture, all Palestine was shaken with an Earthquake, and a voice heard from heaven; Quis est iste, qui filiis hominum Arcana mea revelat? Also that if by chance a fly or any other flying thing should have fallen upon him or his paper, whilst he was writing this work, they would presently have been burnt from Heaven without hurting him or the paper.

The use of these Paraphrases are very great, 1. To illustrate the Hebrew Text by circumstances or a more full explication of it. 2. To confirm the integrity of the Hebrew Text, Gen. 3. 15. 3. In controversies against the Jews, In controversies Iudaicis praecipuum robur obtinent , saith Helvicus. The Chaldee Paraphrasts Gen. 49. 10. both of them most excellently expound the place, which themselves understood not: being like therein to Virgil's Bees, which make Honey for others, and not themselves. First, Onkelos interpreteth it in this manner: A Magistrate exercising authority of the house of Judah, shall not depart, nor a Scribe of his Posterity forever, till Christ come, to whom the Kingdom pertaineth, and him shall the people obey. The other called the Interpreter of Jerusalem, thus: Kings of the house of Judah shall not fail, neither skillful Law-teachers of his posterity, unto the time wherein the King Christ shall come: unto whom the Kingdom pertaineth, and all the Kingdoms of the Earth shall be subdued unto him. If Christ came when authority was gone, and authority went away at Jerusalem's fall, needs must one coming of Christ be referred to the overthrow of that City. The Talmudici and later Rabbins, Rabbi Sal. Rashi, Rabbi Dav. Kimchi, expound it of the Messiah, as Buxtorf shows.

There are many profitable explications in that Paraphrase on the Pentateuch , but it is too late to be of authentic Authority; and the other Chaldee Paraphrases (that excepted) are besprinkled with Jewish Fables and Thalmudique toys. The third Paraphrase hath not expounded all the Hagiographal Books: For there was never seen any Targum upon Chronicles, nor Daniel, nor Ezra; peradventure because much of the Chronicles was expounded in the Books of the Kings, and a great part of Daniel and Ezra were written in Chaldee, that there was no need of a new Paraphrase.

Onkelos his Paraphrase seldom merits that name, being indeed commonly nothing but a rigid version

Cudworths Discourse concerning the notion of the Lord's Supper. Chap. 3.

The third Targum of the Pentateuch is named Hieerosolymitanum, either from the

〈…〉 Seventy 〈…〉 〈…〉 ommandment) were the Authors 〈…〉 years after the death of the Author of Nehemiah, 〈…〉 before Christ. They are said to be 72 Elders chosen 〈…〉 are commonly called Seventy, although they were Se 〈…〉 showeth where he speaks of their Edition, as the 〈…〉 hundred and five. Ptolomeus Philadelphus the most learned of 〈…〉 , had made a Library at Alexandria which he stored with many 〈…〉 Books, and understanding that the Divine Books of the Prophets full •• all good Doctrine, were kept amongst the Jews, written in their Tongue, by •• e motion of Demetrius Phalerius the best Grammarian of that age, whom Ptolemy had appointed the Library-keeper, he requested of Eleazar the High Priest of the Jews those Books and Interpreters, then Seventy two Elders of all the Tribes of Israel were sent unto them. All the Latin Translations of the Bible (except that of Jerome ) were made from it. The Evangelists followed the version of the Seventy in many things, which was in the hands of many, and of great Authority amongst the Hellenists, when they might do it without much swerving from the sense of the Prophets, both to show their Liberty; and that in things indifferent and of little consequence, they would not give occasion of cavil to the wicked, no • of scandal to the weak Reynold. in lib. Apoc.

The LXX Interpreters do manifestly swerve from the Hebrew truth in reckoning of years, for Gen. 5. they say that M • thusel • h was more then 16 • years old, whe • he begat Lam • ch; so that of necessity, they make him live fourteen years after the flood, which is false, for then were nine souls saved contrary to • en. 〈◊〉 . Vid • Cape • Critic. Sac. l. 4. c 14▪

The Syriac Translation of the New Testament • comes next to be consider • 〈◊〉 is Ancient, yet it is not certain who w • s the Author thereof, no • in what time i • was made; though Cham • er thinks a little after Christ's time, the great elegan •• and purity of speech, doth show 〈◊〉 it is • n • ient. It is probab • e th •• i • •• s mad • about the beginning of the Christian Church, because the second of Peter, with the second and third of John, Jude, the Revelation, are left out, which though they were written by Inspiration, yet they were questioned by Ecclesiastical Writers, because they were omitted by the Syriac Translator.

It is very profitable for the understanding of the Greek Testament. It well interprets those Greek words, Matth. 6. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 per panem indigentiae nostrae, and that word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 1 Cor. 16. 22. The Syriac hath two words Maran Atha, which signify our Lord cometh. The Papists endeavor to establish their Administration of the Lord's Supper under one kind from the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 1 Cor. 11. 20. but that word is generally used for the whole action of the Sacrament, viz. the distribution of the Bread and Wine. The Syriac so renders it Comedentes vos & bibentes. Andreas Masius in his Syriac Grammar saith, That the Syrians do not write Sinistrorsum toward the left-hand, as the Hebrews, nor Dextrorsum toward the right-hand, as the Greeks and Latins, but Deorsum downward; which manner of writing (it is probable) was then observed by Christ, John. 8. 6. because at that time the Jews used the Syriac tongue.

The New Testament in Syriac is in Latin of Trostius his Edition, the Revelation was De Dieu 's Edition, the later Epistle of Peter, and two Epistles of John, and that of Jude, are M. Pococks Edition.

It is manifest that Christ and his Apostles spake in the Syriac Tongue, since Tabitha Kumi, Eloi, Eloi, Lammasabachthani, Bethesda, Gabbatha, Golgotha, Aceldama, are mere Syriac; yet the Evangelists often call it Hebrew, because it was the language of the Hebrews, John 5. 2. and 19. 13, 16. Acts 21. 40. and 22. 2. and 26. 14.

The Arabic Translation.

It is uncertain by whom it was made, or when; sure it is, they had the Scriptures in their own Tongue; and it were to be wished that that Tongue were more common, and better understood; that Religion might be spread amongst the Saracens, which for the most part speak that Language.

In the year 1592. the New Testament in Arabic, was first divulged at Rome.

The Arabic Tongue (saith Walter ) is thought to be a Branch of the Chaldee and Syriac proceeding from both, but that it exceeds them in six letters, there being eight and twenty in the Arabic Tongue. It was in use anciently with the Ishmaelites and Hagarens, who drew their original from Abraham, and afterward would rather be called Saracens from Sarah. It is now used thorough all Asia and Africa; Mahumed who descended from the Ishmaëlitish Nation, wrote his wicked and blasphemous Alcoran in this Tongue.

Erpenius (who was excellently skilled in this Tongue) saith, It is more necessary and excellent then either the Syriac, Ethiopic, Persian, or Turkish Language; he extols it for its Antiquity, Largeness, Elegancy and Profit.

The Arabians (saith he) have many more accurate for Geography then Ptolemy; Avicenna and other famous Physicians have written in this Tongue. He saith thirty two thousand of Arabic Books were to be had in one Library in Mauritania.

Joseph Scaliger, Raphelengius, Isaac Casaubone, Emmanuel Tremellius, and Franciscus Junius, all learned men of special note, much esteemed this tongue, and promoted the study of it, as their writings show. Mercer, who was most versed in the Hebrew and Chaldee tongues, in his old age, a little before he died, thought to have travelled into the east, only out of a desire to learn the Arabic tongue.

The Latin translations were so many, that Augustine saith, they could not be numbered.

That new version of Tremellius and Junius both, is best for the Old Testament, and that of Erasmus and Beza for the New Testament. See in Chamiers first Tome, l. 12. c. 1. his censure of all three.

There is a great use also of the Interlineary version put forth by Arias Montanus, for the finding out the sense, and genuine signification of all the Hebrew and Greek words.

Amongst many and divers Latin Translations, there was one more common then the rest of the old and New Testament, usually called the vulgar, because it was of vulgar use, and received by many. Who was the Author of this Edition, it is not manifest: Some say it was more Antient, then that of Jerome▪ Jerome wrote pure Latin, being skillful in the Latin tongue, but the vulgar Translation is barbarous in many places; therefore Pagnine, Maldonado, Estius, Sixtus Senensis, Burgensis, Valla, Lindan, deny it to be Jerome's; that was translated from the Hebrew by the Greek, and not by • erome, but by some uncertain and unknown Author saith Whitaker.

Bootius in the Index of his Sacred Animadversions, ascribes it to Jerome.

The Geneva translation for the French, and our last translation for the English, and Deodate for the Italian are the best, which is now set out in English, Diodatus noster in eximia Bibliorum I • alicorum version, saith Spanhemius

The question betwixt us and the Papists, now cometh to be considered, which of these Editions is Authentical, that is, which of itself hath credit and authority, being sufficient of itself to prove and commend itself, without the help of any other Edition, because it is the first exemplar or Copy of divine truth delivered from God by the Prophets and Apostles. This, in respect of the Old Testament, is the Hebrew, and in some Chapters of Daniel and Ezra the Chaldee, and in respect of the New Testament is the Greek; all other Editions are but of human authority.

This proposition true in itself, is yet divers ways opposed by the Papists, whose opinions may be set down in three propositions:

1. That the Hebrew and Greek Text are corrupt, and therefore not Authentical, for the fountain is to be preferred before the streams, if it come unto our hands uncorruptly. The Book of Moses which by God's Commandment was preserved in the Ark, and that very Gospel written by Matthew: Those autographs (saith Morinus ) are certainly the rule of all versions.

The second proposition is, That the 70 Translators, were not so much Translators as Prophets, who wrote by Divine inspiration; so that their translation had been authentic, if it had come to our hands and had not perished.

The third is, That the vulgar Translation is of authentic authority, and ought so to be received; neither may any man presume to reject it upon any pretence; They say it hanged between the Hebrew and Greek, as Christ did between the two Thieves.

To these three propositions, we oppose three which are most true, and shall prevail.

• 1. The Hebrew of the Old Testament, and the Greek of the New, is the authentic Edition, and the pure fountain of divine truth.
• 2. The 70 were not Prophets, but Translators.
• 3. The vulgar translations neither is authentic nor perfect, neither ought it in any case so to be esteemed.

Reasons proving that the Hebrew of the Old Testament, and the Greek of the New, are authentical and pure.

To prove our first proposition, these Arguments may be brought.

1. The Hebrew of the Old, and Greek of the New Testament, are the very Scriptures which came immediately from God; the very particular, and individual writings, both for Character and style of speech, yea, the dialect as well as the matter of them is immediately by inspiration from above, and written by holy men, as they were moved by the holy spirit; what Edition therefore is worthy to be compared to this?

When we speak of the original and authentic Text of the holy Scripture, that is not to be so understood as if we meant it of the Autographs written by the hand of Moses, or the other Prophets or Apostles, but only of the original or the primogenial Text in that tongue, out of which divers versions were derived according to the variety of tongues.

2. For a long time before the Birth of Christ, the Hebrew was not only the alone Authentic Copy, but the only Edition which was extant in the world. In the days of Moses, the Kings of Israel and the Prophets before the Captivity, what Edition of Scripture had the Church but the Hebrew? what did the Jews read in their Synagogues, and in their Solemn Meetings, but only this Hebrew Edition?

After the time of Christ, for the space of 600 years, the Hebrew Edition of the Old Testament, and the Greek of the New, were held Authentic, and no other.

3. If anything be erroneous, doubtful, less emphatical or improper; or if in the Articles of Religion any doubt or difficulty arise, which cannot be decided out of Translations, we must necessarily then have recourse to the Hebrew of the old, and the Greek of the New Testament, as Augustine witnesseth, and Jerome in lib. Contra Helvidium.

Bellarmine grants, that sometimes we must have recourse to the Hebrew and Greek fountains, 1. When in the Latin Edition there be any errors of the Scribe. 2. When there are divers readings. 3. When there is anything doubtful in the words or sentence. 4. To understand the force and Energy of the word, because all things are more emphatical in the Original.

4. If the authority of the authentical Copies in Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek, fall, then there is no pure Scripture in the Church of God, there is no High Court of Appeal where controversies (rising upon the diversity of translations, or otherwise) may be ended. The exhortation of having recourse unto the Law, and to the Prophets, and of our Savior Christ asking how it is written, and how readest thou, is now either of none effect, or not sufficient.

The Papists differ among themselves in this controversy about the corruption of the originals: Some of them say, That the Hebrew of the Old, and the Greek of the New Testament, is not generally corrupted, and yet is not so very pure a fountain, that whatsoever differs from it, is necessarily to be corrected by it.

Others say, That the Jews in hatred of the Christian faith, depraved and much corrupted the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament. Which opinion as absurd is rejected by Bellarmine, and is easily refuted.

I shall first lay down some reasons against the grosser opinion, and also that of of Bellarmine's, before I come to Answer the particular Objections of the Papists.

1. Jerome and Origen thus argue, if the Jews corrupted the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, then they did this before the coming of Christ, or after it: Not before his coming, for there was no cause why the Jews should do it, and our Savior Christ would never have suffered so gross a crime to have passed without due reproof, when he was not silent for lesser faults. On the contrary, our Savior sendeth us to the Scripture to learn the Doctrine of salvation, Luke 16. 29. and proveth his Doctrine out of Moses and the Prophets. Not after Christ's coming, then the Testimonies cited by Christ and his Apostles, would have been expunged by them, and the special prophesies concerning Christ, but they are all extant. The Jews have, and yet still do keep the holy Text of Scripture most religiously and carefully, which may appear, since (as Johannes Isaac contra Lindan▪ l. 2. a learned Jew writeth) that there are above 200 arguments against the Jews opinion, more evident and express in the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, then there be in the Latin translation. From the days of our Savior Christ until this time, the Jews keep the Scripture with so great reverence (saith the same Isaac ) ut jejunium indicunt si illa in terram ceciderit, they publish a fast if it fall upon the ground. This Testimony of Isaac Levita is the more to be esteemed, because he was Lindans own Master, and professor of the Hebrew Tongue in the University of Coolen, and hath written three Books in the defense of the Hebrew truth, against the cavils of his Scholar. Arias Montanus for his rare skill of Tongues and Arts, was put in trust by King Philip to set forth the Bible in Hebrew, Greek and Latin, wherein he hath reproved that Treatise of Lindan, and disclosed his folly. Muis (who hath written a Commentary on the Psalms ) a great Hebrician and learned Papist, hath written against Morinus about this subject. The most learned Papists, Senensis, Banns, Lorinus, Pagnine, Marinus Brixianus, Valla, Andradius, Bellarmine and Genebrard, hold, That the Jews did not maliciously corrupt the Hebrew Text.

Josephus l. 1. contra Appian (who lived after our Savior) saith, That the Jews did keep the holy Scripture with so great fidelity, that they would rather die then change or alter anything in it. Euseb. Eccles. Hist l. 3. cap. 10. teacheth the same thing. The Stupendious diligence of the Masorites, in numbering of the words and letters, with the variations of pointing and writing▪ least any place or suspicion should be given of falsifying it, seems to be a good plea also against the Jews willful depraving of Scripture: Paulo post Hieronymmm confecta est Masora, quam utilissimum thesaurum Arias appellate. Chamierus. Masora opus immensum, & Herculeo labor elaboratum, quo omnia Scripturae vocabula, syllabae, litterae, apices numerantur, illud Rabbini usitata appellatione, Legis vocant sepimentum Dilher. Elect. l. 1. c. 22. Vide Muis de Heb. edit. Author. ac verit.

If Origen or Jerome (the two chiefest Hebricians among the Fathers) had had the least suspicion of this, they would never have bestowed so much time in the learning of this tongue, nor have taken such indefatigable pains, in translating the Bibles out of Hebrew. Yet Morinus would seem to give answer to this, viz. That we might convince the Jews out of their own Books. Jerome doth in a thousand places call it the Hebrew truth, & fontem limpidissimum, and prefers it before the Translation of the Septuagint, and all other versions whatsoever. He calls the Hebrew in the Old and Greek in the New Testament, Fontes veritatis. Farther, if the Jews would have corrupted the Scripture, they could not, for the Books were dispersed throughout the whole world; how could the Jews then, being so far dispersed themselves, confer together, and corrupt them all with one consent? The Books were not only in the hands of the Jews, but of Christians also, and in their custody; and they would never have suffered the Books of the Old Testament (which are the foundation of faith and life) to be corrupted. Add, if the Jews would have corrupted the Scripture, they would have corrupted those places which make most against them, concerning Christ's person, and office; as that prophesy of Dan. 9. of the Messiahs coming before the destruction of Jerusalem; that Hag. 2. 9. which setteth out the glory of the second Temple, to be greater then the glory of the first, in regard of the presence of the Lord in it; that Gen. 49. 10. Who is such a stranger in the Jewish controversies, as to be ignorant how stoutly and pertinaciously many of the Jews deny, that by Shiloh there, is understood the Messias? but the threefold paraphrase there, hath expressly added the word Messias, and stops the mouths of the Jews, who must not deny their authority; so that they fear nothing more, then to contest with those Christians, who read and understand the Chaldee Paraphrases, and interpretations of the Rabbin's. See Mr. Mede on that Text.

Psalm 2. 12. where the vulgar Latin hath apprehendite disciplinam (quae lectio nihil magnificum de Christo praedicat) the Hebrews read osculamina filium, which is more forcible to prove the mystery of Christ's Kingdom, and celebrate his ample dominion over all.

That place Isa, 53. contains both the prophecy, and whole passion of Christ in itself. Yet what is wanting there in the Hebrew Text? is there a letter taken away or altered, to violate the sense of the mysteries? Isaac Levita saith, That this Chapter converted him, that he read it over more then a thousand times, and compared it with many translations, and that more of the mystery of Christ is contained in it, then in any translation whatsoever.

He addeth further, that disputing with five Rabbin's at Frankford, he urged this Chapter against them, and thereby brought them into those straights, and so stopped their mouths, that they could not reply to his arguments. We have the second Psalm, the 21. the 110. and all others entire and complete, in which there are most manifest prophesies concerning Christ.

There are many besides the Papists, who have stood for the uncorrupt truth of the fountains, and have defended the Jews faithfulness in preserving the Hebrew Copies, as Whitaker, Lubbertas, Junius, Ames, Rivet and others. But none hath performed more for the vindicating of particular places, which are either suspected, or openly charged of corruption by certain Papists, then Solomon Glassius a most learned man, who in his Philologia sacra hath vindicated seventy two places of the Old Testament, and twenty of the New.

All know, that that place in the 7 ^th of Isa. A virgin shall conceive, was constantly objected to the Jews from the beginning, and yet they have left it untouched. Chamier de Canone l. 12. c. 4.

Objections of the papists against the purity of the hebrew text in the Old Testament.

Bellarmine only produceth five places of the Scripture, in which he endeavors to prove, not that the Hebrew Text is corrupted by the labor or malice of the Jews (that opinion he evidently and solidly refutes) yet that it is not altogether pure and perfect, but hath its errors brought in from the negligence of the Scribes, and ignorance of the Rabbin's.

Coton saith, The originals are miserably corrupted; and that there is a multitude almost incredible of depravations and falsifications, made by the Rabbin's and Masorites.

But Bellarmine, who was more learned then he, and from whom he hath stolen a great part of his Book against the Geneva Translation, doth sufficiently confute him.