a en pedi = _ ete saikcceteas DUKE UNIVERSITY DIVINITY SCHOOL LIBRARY Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2023 with funding from Duke University Libraries https://archive.org/details/inquiryintointegO1 nola oi : AN INQUIRY INTO THE INTEGRITY ; OF THE GREEK VULGATE, OR RECEIVED TEXT OF THE ‘ » NEW TESTAMENT: IN WHICH THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS ARE NEWLY CLASSED, THE INTEGRITY OF THE AUTHORISED TEXT VINDICATED) AND THE VARIOUS READINGS TRACED TO THEIR ORIGIN« BY THE REV. FREDERICK NOLAN, A PRESBYTER OF THE UNITED CHURCH, Ete a AAR ‘ ~ > - ahs tan "Hyeis «) te cre Edalyiae veunSdpsry 2) pndty adruy rarhownery \ , \ 24 \ s e 5 oe fy, 2 > > 4 marta Te AmosoAind tnehowue x) undty Tov ey adTois, amisicn tagaccion Ths 8x sidorag cuntras Tov Aryoutwr, Tupazuper. : ORIGEN. i \ LONDON: PRINTED FOR F. C. AND J. RIVINGTON, NO. 62, sT. PAUL’S CHURCH=YARD ; By R. & R, Gilbert, St. John’s Square, Clerkenwell. “T815. ys ae ( fe Kadezy ean . P nahh & «& MIEN Wy wt WO Le PEN tear babi ui Tt TOWAG aN LS ee ray Sy On a att rea jaa Ad NPcrxatyo! drone on on ld ‘ ; hos ert: 1 aS r aS es. waa! ts . aut 8D ‘ « ya yea, 4 ‘ oe rae | : Ge sti can. Wey sto y ® {rie vt oat ho Warins sd &e, oni ‘apres . vy aes 48, ches Lag gny er seqnerery TaN Pee Ove 48, a By. 4 OGIO whos: i) sig eiinthanins ty F ees PUeAT i: see v2 Mi: ae erates oe TO THE REV. H. H. NORRIS. MY DEAR SIR, IN inscribing the Inquiry inte the state of the Hebrew Text, the learned authour offered a tribute to friendship, while he repaid a literary obligation. As I have some ambition, that the following Inquiry into the integrity of the Greek Text, should be considered supplementary to that work; I would emulate the authour, in dedicating the following pages to you. From the possession of that valuable library; for which I am indebted to your friendship, | a2 lv DEDICATION. and which is referred to in every page of the following work, the undertaking in which I engaged has been brought to a close: in that literary retirement,‘ from the more laborious duties of my profession, has it been prose- cuted, which you have enabled me to enjoy. You, who have so largely contributed to the success of my labours, have some right! to partake of the fruits which they preduce. Let me, however, “présent them; not as a return for kindnesses which no acknowledg- ment can repay, but as an account rendered of the means entrusted to me; and which" would then indeed become oppressive, should you have ‘reason to believe them’ misap- plied. I can have no need to bespeak your favour for a work, which has been undertaken at your suggestion, and completed by the faci- lities which you have placed in my power: And with whatever success it may be ulti- mately attended, it cannot fail in attaining one important object,. with which» it. was undertakén,: while it affords »me) the oppor- DEDICATION. ¥ tunity of thus publickly avowing, with what gratitude and sincerity I profess myself, My dear Sir, Your truly obliged friend, And devoted servant, FRED. NOLAN. . Cambridze Street, July 10, 1815. ind “\.. Wee Vv iudw dsive gh wh eae ay oF ak Bk ac ts aia igi ! : Ns f Rita. lash boioysly Mi | AIOE oa 4 , ‘ \ : : ro Ce bas Sy een's » He ae bie ee Sade ee tua ba - te oe 3 aa de 3 jabs Fe whe #3 te ag ii ee a kes a roy he eb hee: shat fated q $s 4 2 ¥ Se Rye ; . 2 i igh ge cana aa ot a! ye “>. SL7 pay as 7 ay ‘ ate ME Pe Be Le ab nope nek Re Pa VCORE ‘eh Mehe | ins bs rat Hee eco yea » hie La ae sty Wi ok jariee ig an On ts eth" 4 sty ah + ata ne ke compra heal E PREFACE, THE notion of a literal identity between the present copies of the inspired text, and the ori- . ginal edition, which was published by the sacred writers, is a vulgar errour, which finds as little foundation in reason, as justification in fact. It would require no labour of deduction to prove that notion unreasonable, which pre-supposes, that every person who undertakes to copy the Sacred Writ- ings, should be withheld from wilful or inadvertent errour, by preternatural power; were it not de- monstrably refuted by the publication of one hun- dred and fifty thousand various readings, which have been collected against the authorised text. But setting aside the idea of its literal purity, as repugnant to reason, the belief of its doctrinal in- tegrity is necessary to the conviction of our faith. For a proof of its general corruption in important points being once admitted, that character for fide- lity is necessarily involved, which is inseparable from the notion of a perfect rule of faith and manners. Vili PREFACE. With a view to the distinction which thus arises between verbal and doctrinal errours, it has been usual to reply t to the objections _ raised to the inte- grity of the sacred. canon, from the‘multiplicity of various readings, by insisting not only on the im- mense number of the authorities consulted, and the scrupulous accuracy with which they have been examined, but on the small importance of the read- ings noted, as rarely enti the sense ofits Wray - ing’ passages. «© ui Of} WD moigas Saszo%e | From the priticiples thus laid down, the! bndahie sion would legitimately follow in favour of: the doc- trina] integrity’ of the sacred text; if it might be — assumed that the immense number of various read- ings forms a floating medium, in which the genuine text might be in all instances discovered»: ‘Butthis isa concession which, though founded im reason; and deducible from experiment,’ the objectour'ean* not feel inclined to make, who proseribes passages, and objects to chapters, as interpolated: an ‘the Scripture canon. It is indeed a positions s$o* far from established by the theories of those criticks, who have undertaken to recover the genuine text; that it may be fundamentally subverted: from: the principles on which they proceed. |. Those systems, eonsequently, are so far from having established the integrity of any particular text, that they have un= settled the foundation on whith the entire:canon is rested. 4 PREFACE. ix * Such are’objections to which the most elaborate: of those theories seems to be inevitably exposed. If we must receive the Corrected Text of M.Gries-’ bach, to the exclusion of the Greek Vulgate, we must accept it as a demonstrative proof of the gene- ral corruption of the sacred text, and of the faith- lessness of the traditionary testimony on which it is stipported, for a period extending from the apostolical to the presentage. One of the first positions laid down inhis critical theory, and implied in the ‘conclusions © which it involves, is, that the two principal Classes of Text out of which his edition is formed, have been jiterpolated in every part of them for that period*. One of the’ last consequences which that theory tends to establish, is, that the only remaining Class of Text existing in the Greek Vulgate, and’against which the’ immense number of 150000 “various readings has been collected, has existed in ‘its pre- sent state of corruption nearly 1400 years®. If these conclusions are unavoidable; there seems to be no reservation’ by which the doctrinal integrity of the sacred Scripttres can be saved. If the apostoli¢al age has'thus erred in its testimony, and its evidence has been further corrupted in the primitive age ; ‘whatever be the text, which is gathered out’ of the 2 Vid. infr. pp. 334, 335. on. 5* et 33, > Vid infr. p. 348. n. af . x PREFACE. immense number of various readings, which make up the sum of their testimony, it may be as well any other text, as that which the inspired writers originally delivered to the Church, i The pernicious consequences to. which diibatiane tems thus necessarily lead, will at least justify on Inquiry into. the truth of the principles on which they are founded. And a very slight degree of observation is adequate to discover, that much, res mains to be proved in those theories, before we ean admit.them to be established, and that much is conceded on the part of the vulgar text, from which its integrity admits. of the amplest vindication, In asserting the corruption of the Sacred Text, as preserved in the vulgar edition, for the space of fourteen hundred years, itis t is fully conceded that the tradition, however it might have t have been changed at the commencement of that period, or was previously cor- rupted, has continued unvaried during the whole of this period. This indeed is a point, which, i granted, may be easily demonstrated. As. is consequently referred to an age, of which we retain the fullest and most circumstantial accounts*; were- quire to be informed, whether it then totally changed its character, or previously to this time had been gradually rendered corrupt. And a difficulty arises © Vid. infr. py 427. n. *. PREFACE. xi from either supposition, which requires-a- Solution, beforewe can at all acquiesce in the conclusion, that it is really corrupted ; unless, by the fallibility of transcribers, whose errours do not affect the general or doctrinal integrity of the text. If the former supposition be adopted, and the character of the sacred text was then totally changed, to what causes are we to impute its alteration at that par- ticular period? And if the latter position be as- gumed, and previously to this period it became gradually corrupt, to what causes are we to impute its permanence from that time to the present? Until these difficulties are solved, the Received Text obviously gains more’from the concessions of its opponents, than it can lose by their objections, The integrity of this text being thus acknowledged for the immense period of fourteen centuries, and the inability to show how it was previously cor- rupted fully avowed‘; it is imphed in the very nature of that traditionary evidence on which the text is supported*, that, however the tradition might have been stspended for a time, it could ‘not have been materially corrupted in the antecedent period, or we should be able to ascertain the causes, in which it originated. @ Vid. infr. p. 429, n. *. © Vid. infr. pp. 348, 3493 xi PREFACE. - On these grounds the first notion “was formed by the authour of the following pages, that an’ Inquiry into the history of the sacred text would most pro- bably lead to the perfect vindication of the vulgar edition. He was encouraged in this expectation, by the effect which he perceived a few facts had in solving some of the greatest difficulties which embarrassed its history. At two periods only could he perceive the possibility of the ecclesiastical tra- dition having been’ interrupted; during the ascen* _dancy of’ the Arian party under Constantine, and on its suppression’ under the elder Theodosius. The destruction of the sacred books in the Dio- clesian persecution, and the revisal’ of the sacred text by Eusebius, furnished an adequate’ solution of the greatest difficulty which arose, from ‘the vari- eties in ‘the copies of the original’ text;"and of the translations which differ from the Greek Vulgate.” ’ _'Fo this point, of consequence, his) first attention is turned; and it forms the subject of the first sectior of the following Inquiry.. He has thence voured to show, that the coincidence eine ‘Eastern and Western texts, on which the ‘eredit of the Corrected Edition is rested, must be attributed’ to the influence of Eusebius’s revisal, which was" published under the auspices of ihe eee ea stantine, PREFACE: xiii _'Phus far, however, a negative argument is de- duced in favour of the Received Text. The cha- racter of this text still remains to be investigated : to this point the authour next directs his attention, and.he prosecutes it-through the two following sec- tions. As the integrity and purity of the Greek and Latin Churches render their testimony of the highest authority in ascertaining the genuine text; on their joint authority he has consequently ven- tured to distribute the Greek Manuscripts into— Classes; and to vindicate that particular class of text which exists in the vulgar edition. From the ground thus taken up, the whole silts ject may be commanded almost at a glance. In the following sections, the tradition of the Greek and Latin Churches is carefully traced, from the apostolical age; and on the coneurring or relative testimony of those witnesses, the general and doc-. trimal integrity of the Received Text is established. In vindication of the verbal integrity of this text, the evidence of the Syriack Church is called in ; and on the joint testimony of the primitive Version of this Church, and the primitive Italick, a decisive argument is finally deduced in favour of the sath, quity of the Greek Vulgate. In the last section, the authour has endeavoured to point out the particular manner in which the remaining Classes of T'ext, into which the Greek. XIV PREFACE. Manuscripts are distributed, have originated, from _a corruption of the vulgar edition. The whole of ihe diversities in those manuscripts are traced t6 three revisals of the sacred text, which were pub- lished in Egypt, Palestine, and Constantinople. The number of various readings is thence easily accounted for; and a solution offered of some ob- jections which are raised to the doctrinal and verbal integrity of the Received Text or Vulgar edition. From this brief sketch of the plan of the follow- ing work, the reader will easily comprehend in what manner the authour has avoided those consequences which he charges on the systems of his opponents : and how the integrity of the Received Text may be established independent of the objections which lie against the Corrected Edition. An interruption im the tradition, by which the former text is sup« ported, is admitted to have taken place; when the 7 scripture canon was revised by Eusebius, and the Church became subject to the dominion of the Ari- ans. But the tradition is carried above this period, which did not exceed forty years, and the Received Text proved to have existed previously, by its co- incidence with those Versions of the Oriental and Western Churches, which were made before the text was revised by Eusebius. So that, although the tradition has been interrupted for this inconsi- derable period, it has remained as unsophisticated PREFACE. ky in the two centuries, which preceded Constantine’s _ age, as in the last fourteen, during which it has con- fessedly remained uncorrupted. In the course of this Inquiry, it has been a prin- cipal object with the authour to rescue the history ef the text from that obscurity in which it is in- volved; and to attain some determinate notion of the state of critical and religious opinion in the pri- mitive ages; with a view to ascertain the causes which led to the corruption of the text, and pro-— duced the different classes into which it is distri- buted. An attention to these points has consequently ena- ‘bled him to give a different direction to the ques- tion respecting the authenticity of those passages in which the Received and Corrected Texts differ ; ‘and has thrown the preponderance of the internal evidence on the side of the former. In determining between spurious and genuine readings, respect must be paid to the peculiar opinions of the persons by whom the original text is revised or translated : but it is a curious fact, that since the time when the different editions, which comprize the varieties discoverable in the sacred text, were published, the state of religious opinion has undergone a total revolution. The scepticks ofthe present age, how- ever they reject Christ’s divinity, are fully disposed to admit hishumanity. But in the earlier ages the XVI PREFACE, _case was precisely reversed); -the generality of heres ticks having easily admitted the divinity of our Lord, while they denied his humanity. Those sects, from whose opinions the notion of heresy, was defined’, conceived, that Christ descended from heaven in the xeign of Tiberius Cesar, and having merely as- ‘sumed the appearance of a man, entered on his ministry in Judea®. A religious system was de- vised. in coincidence with this. fundamental tenet; and the Scriptures were soon accommodated to the opinions of its founders. To the first disturbance which was thus given to the sacred text, we easily trace the principal varieties which are discoverable in the different editions into which the Greek text may be divided*. Instances consequently occur, in which passages, that are challenged by the here- ticks in the primitive ages, disappear in the Eastern and Western texts, which form the basis of M, Griesbach’s system, and are now found in the vul- gar edition':. One or two instances of this kind are sufficient to enable us to decide upon similar pas- sages ; and afford an adequate criterion, by which we may determine the relative merit of those differ- ent texts which have produced the Received and Cor- f Vid. infr. p. 466. n. “a 3 sid & Vid. infr. p. 463. n. - b Vid. infr. p. 468, rig ‘conf p: yes Dn, ak 495. ni * _ 4 Vids infr. p. 498. n. ? dy ~ i Ji PREFACE. XVil rected Editions, and discover the total insufficiency of the critical systems which have been devised for the correction of the Greek Vulgate. - Another point to which the authour has directed his attention, has been the consideration of the old Italick translation. Notwithstanding the labours of M. M. Blanchini and Sabatier, much remains to be done with this version, the history of which is so little known, that the very propriety of its name has been questioned. In considering the strange errour into which Dr. Bentley has led Abp. Potter, Dr. Mosheim, and Prof. Michaelis, on this subject, the authour perceived, without any labour of in- quiry, that it derived its name from that diocese, which has been termed the Italick, as contradistin- guished from the Roman*. ‘This is a supposition, which receives a sufficient confirmation from the fact,—that the principal copies of that version have been preserved in that diocese, the metropolitan church of which was situated in Milan. The cir- cumstance is at present mentioned, as the authour thence formed a hope, that some remains of the primitive Italick version might be found in the early translations made by the Waldenses, who were the lineal descendants of the Italick Church; and ~ Vid. Cave, Governm. of Ant. Church. ch. iii. p. 127, Comp. Allix, Rem, on Ant. Ch. of Piedmont, ch. i. p. 1. b XVill PREFACE, who have asserted their independence against the usurpations of the Church of Rome, and have ever enjoyed the free use of the Scriptures. In the search to which these considerations, have led the authour, his fondest expectations have been fully realized. It has furnished him with abundant proof on that point to which his Inquiry was chiefly directed ; as it has supplied him with the unequivocal testi- mony of a truly apostolical branch of the primitive church, that the celebrated text,of the heavenly wit nesses was adopted in the version which prevailed in the Latin Church, previously to the introduction of the modern Vulgate’. 1 Of the old versions which have been published in French, two were made by the Waldenses ; vid. Le Long. Bibl. Sacr. Tom. I, p. 313. col. 2,e. Morland on the Church of the Valleys. p- 14. But one copy of this version has fallen into my hands, which. was printed at the native place of Peter Waldo; Aw Lyon, l’an de grace 1521.’’ The following is the reading of 1 Joh. v. 7, 8. fol. clxiv. b, ‘* Trois choses sont qui donnent tesmoing au ciel, le pere le filz et le sainct esperit, et ces trois sont une chose. Et trois choses qui donnent tesmoing en terre, esperit eaue et sang.” This testimony would be of little im~ portance until the character of the translation was investi ated, by a comparison with other French Versions and the old Italick and modern Latin Vulgate; were it not for the following con- siderations: (1.) It differs from the Latin Vulgate; as it ae “(le filz”? for “ Verbum.”’ (2.) It agrees in this reading with’ an antient Confession of Faith, used by the Waldenses. Leger, Hist. Gen, des Eglis, Vaudois. P. I. ch. viii. p. 50. ed. Leyd. 1669. ‘ Eschant. v. de la Doctrine des Vaudois, contenant, la fidele traduction de |’Exposition qu’ils ont donné au Syme bole des Apétres—ot ils en prouvent tous les Articles par passages exprés de la S. Ecriture.—* Lequel Dieu est un Tri- nite, comme il est ecrit en la Loy, ‘ O Israel écoute,’? &c.— Et S. Jean, ‘ Il y en a trois qu rendent témoignage au ciel, * _ PREFACE. xix The result of the Inquiry, which has been prose- éuted through these subjects, the authour hoped to have taken 4n earlier opportunity of laying before le Pere, le Fils, et le S. Esprit, et ces trois sont un”? The original of this passage, as far as I can gather from M. Leger, may be found in le Sieur du Perrin, Hist. des Vaudois et Albigeois, chap. v. p. 201. sqq- The proof appears to me to be so far complete, that this passage was adopted in the authorised text used by the Waldenses. The following siderations seem adequate to evince, that it existed in the Latin Version revised by St. Eusebius of Verceli, who ublished the old translation which prevailed in the Italick Miocese. (I.) In reading “ Filius,” it agrees with Tertul- lian and Cyprian, against the common testimony of the Me- dern Vulgate, and the Latin Fathers; vid. infr. p. 291. n. **. sqq. (2.) St: Eusebius might have hence adopted this read- ing, as he has adopted other readings from those fathers, in his revisal; vid. infr. p. 146. n. 8%. (3.) The French Version agrees with the old Italick in possessing other readings derived from the same source: in the Lord’s Prayer, we find, instead of “ ne inducas nos in temptationem.” Lat. Vulg. “ ne nous mene mye en temptacion, cest a dire ne souffre mye que nous soyonz temptez:*? conformably to Tertullian and Cyprian: vid. infr. p. 330. n. **. (4.) The disputed passage, as read in the Waldensian Confession, and French Version, is accommodated to the state of religious opinion which prevailed in the age of St. Eusebius. By changing Verbum to Filius, in vers. 7. the Sabellian evasion of the passage was obviated: vid. infr. p. 539. n. , By cutting off “ et hi tres (in) unum sunt,” in vers. 8. the Arian evasion of the passage was equally obviated. For this phrase furnished some countenance to the notion of those hereticks who asserted, that ‘‘ unum sunt”’ signified an unity, not of substance, but of will and testimony. As these are coincidences which the Waldenses cannot be supposed to have created, I thence conclude, that 1 Joh v. 7. not only existed in the revisal of the old Italick Version made by Eusebius Vercellensis ; but that the peculiar reading of this text, which is found in the French Version, and which has excited M. Por- son’s notice, has been thus remotely adopted from St. Cy- prian: vid. Porson. Lett. to Trav. p. 377. It thus easily made its way into Wicklef’s translation, through the Lollards, who were disciples of the Waldenses; vid, Pors. ibid. Mborl. ub. supr. p. 184, b2 XX ' PREFACE. the Publick. But his unexpected exclusion from the library of Sion College, during the time it has been under repair; and the attention which he has been obliged to devote to the Boyle’s Lecture, which he has been appointed to preach, since he first announced his intention of delivering himself at large on the present subject, have created obsta- cles to the accomplishment of his design, which he could not anticipate. ‘The delay which he has thus experienced in bringing his inquiries to a close, he has endeavoured to turn to the best account; by enlarging and fillmg up the outline within which his subject was circumscribed, in the three papers in which it originally appeared, in the “ British Critick.” % CONTENTS. SECT. I. ON THE ALEXANDRINE TEXT, AND AUTHORITIES BY WHICH IT IS SUPPORTED, p. l. Number of various readings, p. 2. Methods proposed for de- ciding the genuine and spurious, p.2. Dr. Bentley’s scheme, for determining the true text by the Latin Vulgate, p. 3. M. Griesbach’s, by the Alexandrine text, p. 4. Liable to objections, p. 6.—not tenable on Origen’s authority, p. 7.— nor on the conformity of Versions agreeing with the Alex- andrine text, p- 14.—not on the Italick, as created by Jerome, p- 14.—and by Cassiodorus, p. 16. Origin of Greco-Latin MSS. p. 17.—not tenable on the conformity of the Syriack, p- 20.—as partly created by Charlemagne, p. 21. This con- formity chiefly proceeds from the influence of Eusebius’s edition, p. 25. Its effect on the Eastern text, p. 29.—en the Coptick, Syriack, Ethiopick, &c. p. 30.—on the Western text, p. 31.—on the great body of Greek MSS. p. 33. In- stanced in the omission of Mar. xvi. 9—20. p. 35.—of Joh. viii. 1—11. p. 87.—of 1 Joh. v. 7. 1 Tim. iii. 16. Act. xx. 28. p. 38. Instability of the ground on which the foregoing @) system is founded, p. 41. XXik CONTENTS. SECT. II. NEW CLASSIFICATION OF THE GREEK MSS. p. 44, Difficulties of classing MSS. p. 44. Origen affords no crite- rion, p. 44.—nor antient Fathers, p. 44,—nor the generality of Versions, p. 47.—not the Coptick nor Syriack, p. 48.— nor the Sahidick, p. 49. This Version of no great antiquity, ibid. The Italick affords the only criterion, p. 56.—consists of three Classes, p. 58. These Classes applied to determine the diversities of the Greek, p.61. Specimen of coincidences of the different Classes of the Italick and Greek, p. 62.— exemplified by connected portions of text, p. 67. Inference — * front those coincidences, p. 70. Those Classes of text as old as the fourth century, p. '70.—and known to St. Jerome, pe 72. Investigation of the first Class, or Egyptian text, p. 73. _ —of tlie second Class, or Palestine’text, p:’79.—of the third Class, or Byzantine text, p. 88. Certainty of this system of classification, p. 95. Objections considered, Pe 99. This . distribution. of the Greek MSS. plenary, p. 103.—and ade- quate, p. 105. Comparative view of this system of Classifi- . cation with Dr. Bentley’s, p. 106.—with M. M. Mattheei and Griesbach’s, p. 107. Conclusion, p. om Ay amg SECT. IIL. ‘ee ge ON THE CHOICE OF A PARTICULAR CLASS OF TESTS | p. 110. Ecclesiastical tradition the proper test of the integrity of the + text, p. T10. Byzantine text entitled to some, preference from the place in which it is found, p. 111.—as the region ‘in which the inspired writings were deposited, p. 112.—as the text which is retained by the Greek Church, p. 113.—as it has existed fourteen hundred years, p. 114. Testimony of CONTENTS, Xxila _ the Eastern Church in fayour of this text, p. 118.—supported by the number and prevalence of copies, p. 119.—from the antiquity of manuscripts, p. 121. Want of this testimony in favour of Egyptian and Palestine texts, p. 127. Copies of these texts not numerous, p. 127.—nor supported by the consideration of the place in which they are found, p. 128. The tradition broken in two places, p. 130.—by a text re- vised by St. Athanasius, p. 134.—and by Hesychius and Eu- sebius, p. 136. Testimony of the Western Church in favour of the Byzantine text, p. 138. Antiquity of the primitive Italick Version, p. 139. Its testimony not in favour of the Palestine nor Egyptian texts, p. 141.—but of the Byzantine, p- 142. Historical sketch of the variations of the Italick Version, p. 146. Revisal of St. Eusebius, p. 148. Varieties to which it gave rise, p. 150. Revisal of St. Jerome, p. 151. _ Analysis of the Italick Version, p. 154. State of Latin text _ as described by St. Jerome, p. 155.—verified in the Latin MSS. of the present day, p. 159. Method adopted by St. Jerome in forming his translation, p. 159. Objections to his mode of correcting, p. 166. The Vulgate not adequately supported by his authority, p. 170. Method adopted by Si. Eusebius in forming his text, p. 173. Its testimony supports the Byzantine text, p.. 176.—destroys the authority of the Egyptian, p. 178. Investigation of the primitive version of the Italick, p. 181. Internal eyidence in its favour, p. 182. Application of its testimony in favour of the Byzantine text, p- 186. Comparative view of the foregoing plan for inves- ~ tigating the genuine text with Dr. Bentley’s, p. 187.—with M. Matthei’s and M. Griesbach’s, p, 188. te Pp. 189, “ SECT. IV. ON THE GENERAL AND DOCTRINAL INTEGRITY OF THE RECEIVED TEXT, p. 191. Intercourse subsisting between the different branches of the primitive church, p. 192.—in the apestolical age, p. 193.— xxiv CONTENTS. ’ in the next succession after the Apostles, p. 196.—led to the ; universal dispersion of the Scriptures, p. 198. ‘Intercourse between the Greek, Syriack, and Latin Churches, p. 200. Impossibility of the copies of Scripture, thus widely dispersed, being generally corrupted, p. 201. Attention bestowed on the state of the text, p. 205.—at the time of the Paschal con- - troversy, p. 207. Principal writers of this period, p. 208. Scrutiny into the integrity of the text, p. 209. Testimony of those writers in its favour, p. 214. Tradition connected _ between the times of the Apostles and Origen, p. 216. In- vestigation of the ecclesiastical tradition, p. 217. Tradition connected between the times of Origen, and St. Athanasius and St. Jerome, p. 220. Their testimony to the state of the - text, p. 223.—in the Alexandrine MS. p, 294.—and the 1 La- . tin Vulgate, p. 225. Recapitulation of the foregoing “e evi- dence, p. 227. Integrity of the text defended, p. 229. What books questioned, p. 250. Objections to the Apoca- _ lypse and Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 231. Defence of those _ books, p. 233.—from external evidence, p. 234. General Integrity of the text considered, p. 288. Objections to Mar. . xvi, 9—20. Joh. viii. 1—11. p. 239. Defence of those pas- : sages, p. 240.—from the internal evidence, p. 243. Tradi- tionary testimony in their favour, traced in the Greek, p. 247. _ —and in the Latin, p. 248.—in the external evidence of the Fathers, p. 250. Doctrinal Integrity of the text considered, p- 251. Texts objected to, p. 253. Objections to the read- - ing of those texts in the Palestine edition, p. 255. Internal evidence in favour of the vulgar reading, p. 258. Proofs . arising from the state of the controversy in which the Apos- tles were engaged, p. 261. Peculiar tenéts of the heresies which they opposed; of the Nicolaitans, p. 264.—of the Ce- rinthians, p. 266. Application of these remarks to the disco- very of the genuine reading, p. 273.—in the case of Act. xx. 28. 1 Tim, iii. 16. p. 274.—of 1 Joh. v. 7. p. 276. Further considerations strengthening the same conclusion, p. 278, Some account of the various readings of the foregoing texts, p- 280. Testimony of MSS. in favour of the vulgar reading, p:, 283.—of Fathers, p. 286. Summary of the evidence ad- CONTENTSa, REF, duced, Pp. 293, .. Circumstances strengthening: the testimony “of the Latin Church in favour of 1 Joh.v. 7. p. 294, - General -eonelusion on thei eae of the Greek Dhanyie Pe. 305. , sO ee eee RECT. Ve ON THE VERBAL INTEGRITY OF THE RECEIVED ee. 5 p- 309. Integrity of the Sacred Text not affected by literal errours, p: 309. Instanced in the Septuagint, p.310. Verbal integrity of the Received Text defensible, p. 313 -— exposed to objec- tions arising ftom M: Griesbach’s system, p. 314. Principles of his scheme, p. 315. °: His ules for correcting the text, p. 316. General objections to this system, p. 318. Particular objections—to | the testimony of Origen, p. 320.—to the MSS. ‘cited, p-.32Z1.—to the Versions, quoted, p- 322.—to the Fa- thers. addueed, p- 325. , Pernicious consequences to which this system Jeads, p- 333. New system, proposed, p. 337. ‘ Idest 5 witnesses of the Verbal Integrity, the primitive Italick and Syriack versions, p. 338.—not corrupted by each other, . 840. The Italick not influenced by the Greek Vulgate, P- $42,—nor the Syriack, p. $43. Their testimony separate, P- SAT. —supported by. tradition, p. 348.—by Manuscripts, p- 350.—by Versions, p. 352.—by Fathers, p. 354. Rules for ascertaining the genuine text on; the testimony of those witnesses, p. 356.—illustrated and applied, p..357. Antient Fathers afford no higher criterion, p. 362. . Origen’s testi- mony examined and set aside, p. 363. . Application of the above principles | to the defence of doctrinal texts, p. 371.— exemplified, p. 372... Summary conclusion, .p. $77. Appli- cation of the same principles to the defence of remarkable. passages ‘in the Gospels, p. 380. . ‘Summary conclusion, p- 385. Extension of the same principles to the defence of remarkable passages in the Acts and Epistles, p. 387. exemplified, p- 390. Vindication -of the primitive Italick from the charge of corruption, p. $91.—of the primitive Sy- ¢ guvi contents. riack from the same chargé, p. 401. General deductions from the testimony of those witnesses in favour of the Greek Vulgate, p. 409. Objections urged against the revisers of the Received Text, p. 410.—answered, p.412, Manuscripts used in forming that text; p. 413. Versions used for the same purpose, p. 416. This text not immaculate, p. 419. Yet not to be hastily altered, p, 420,—as its errours are of little importance, p.425. Conclusion, p. 426, m % tind 982 30 Witt SEC ve baa matand ON THE CORRUPTION ‘OF. THE EGYPTIAN ‘ay ) PALASTING TEXTS, p. 427. ; Charge of corruption not established against the ud yt rest, p. 427.—but easily: substantiated against the “Egyptian and Palestitie, p.429. Thé Sacred Text not generally corrupted before Origen’s times, p. 430. —subsequently corrupted, z 431. Object of Hesychius and Lucianus in forming revisdls, p. 432, Lucianus’s mode of revising, p. 434, Ke count of Hesychius, p. 439. His plan and object | in revising, p. 441. Works used by him in that undertaking, p. 442, Some passages altered by him, p. 446. Eusebius’s plan and object in revising, p. 459. _ Works used by him in that under- taking, ibid. Remarkable passages altered’ by him, p. 461. Account of the Marcionites, p. 463.—of the Valentinians, p 465. Influence of their tenets on Origen’s works, p. 466.— and thence on the texts prevalent in the Egyptian, Palestine, and Italick dioceses, p.468. Particular texts thus Corrupted, p- #70. Palestine text influenced by the Maréionite contro. versy, p. 500.—in what manner thence corrupted, p. 506.— positively corrected, from.Origen’s works, by Eusebius and others, p. 508.- Multitude of various readings accounted for, p» 510. Objections to the vulgar reading of Act. xx. 28. 1 Tim. iii. 16. 1 Joh. v. 7. stated, p. 511.—from the testi- mony of Manuscripts, p. 512,—of Versions and Fathers, px CONTENTS. XXVi 514.—answered in the case of MSS. and Versions, p. 515.— of Fathers, p. 516. Negative argument against 1 Joh. v. 7. considered, p. 525. No Trinitarian Controversy, ibid.—in the contests with Gnosticks and Ebionites, p. 526.—with Sa- bellians, p. 527.—with Theodotists, Encratites, and Monta- nists, p. 531.—with Arians, p. 532,—with Macedonians, Nestorians, and Eutychians, p. 533. Negative testimony against Act. xx. 28. 1 Tim. iii. 16. answered, p. 535. Dis- tinctions introduced in Sabellian and other heresies, threw those texts on the side of the heterodox, p. 536.—who ap- parently claimed 1 Joh. y. 7. p. 541.) This verse became, of course, neglected, p. 544. Particular objections to this _ ‘verse, from the omissions and allegorical interpretations of the fathers considered, p. 547. The following verse stronger in favour of the orthodox, p.549. Reply to objections raised from St. Augustine’s testimony, p. 551.—from P. Leo and Facundus’s, p. 552.—ftom Pseudo-Cyprian’s, p. 556.—from Eucherius’s,, p- 558.—Reply to the objection raised from the variation of the Latin Vulgate, p. 560. Two editions of the Vulgate published by St.Jerome,p. 562. Summary conclusion on the negative argument, p. 564, Further objections con- sidered,—Vindication of 1 Joh. v. 8. p. 564.—of the Palestine reading of Act. xx.28. p. 565. Objections to 1 Tim. iii. 16. from Liberatus’s testimony, p. 567.—to 1 Joh. v. 7. from the Alogi, ibid.—to the style of the Apocalypse and Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 569.—answered, p.570. General conclusion on the integrity of the Greek Vulgate, p. 572. Livex oT veTtwo> a BIS iy eaorte¥ Dre £2 Yo s205 ot} af bowiweteeul ay 1 i sentnge Jeera gae ovens = .Mbaq pero ite ab eV il -bidi yetOv omno’) crerinth iT oVf RRR .q ~botebizacs ie" Miw—.2Ge.@ sodicoid TD bas edot sioon' diiw ajeageroo odd rol bas clirestl 3 eretoboad? Miw—.788 aq Pasilied conicebssa riiw--—206 .q ernrié Aiw—. 183 q vita yrotnitand evitngeA ..2c6 .q wink bee aanizonal eh BES gq bowwaite OF iii ait | AQ wx to teaiege erait} .asievred' too here saillede’ ai beouboriat ancisnand exh ofw-—-O8S .q .xoborateii of} to oble elt mo atxad aeodls sured oxsetyiaisl CORRIGENDA! 1 beeniale ghaary ,, 4 »jdo anfieot Ay ¥ ae ae aS jo ‘p. taal ae and, :7. or, fee Rage Thirds Pyaetc 1.24, after p. 7.156. P. 163. 1. ‘ts Ds ih 98 iv. ti 170. 1. q ’ 162. P. 174.147. eee nr. ana | peng. r..from. Pp. 214. 1. ty or Tavle, *. mala, P. B39, Le sree fe ‘9—11. 7. 920. “P3135. ie for dispute r mo re wg c? sion, 1. VeTSIONSs) © oP yt ie renders, 'r. Fe diabolo, r. Tert, _ or Ae: Vee ee aré not found, 7. dightsneh thee aide 37 or 1,41. for on the, ron them, ; P. HERO 3 Bi for os rT 1, 27. del. vid, P 521.1. 9. for nk + Te Dele” Pe 526.1) omane isi {OD VIRUS 2o8 “< smo Je ya boliicagear t » adottusicdo sadirw't ‘J saa gee svitegom ‘arts , no srigestal ory to~ dS .g 4. y fot. { to.40 reall iis, Bil .ui wail L et anole s£0d..q,.0S-me SoA %0 goibart ott cuodk Vee lol [ ol. TOS . yoann os 4 *wtavedit awit git aivlseigd- five 3 ed wes Ke fyte ad oj — Sadi ,ig01A ac eiagioaes i904 .OT8.¢ hasowane ees q awonsrl evo .¢ otonleV Basi ody To yang om? . et SECTION I. ALTHOUGH theart of printing was applied, at au early period, to the purposes of sacred learning ; the slow progress which.Greek literature made in Eu- rope, from the difficulties of acquiring the Greek lan- guage, prevented an edition of the New Testament from heing attempted, until a comparatively late period. At nearly a century subsequent to the in- vention ofprinting, the he Complutensian Polyglot was indertaken, under the patronage of Cardinal Xi- the Greek Tesament. From the edition which was then prepared for publication, the subsequent edi- tours varied little: Erasmus, who anticipated the publication of this work by histhird edition, formed his fourth on similar ptinciples ; Stephens and Beza adopted his text with scarcely any variation ; and Elzevir, in whose edition the Received Texé is properly contained, very closely followed the steps of his learned predecessours *, ?Griesb. Proleg. in Nov. Test. sect. iv. p: xxxiii. ‘* Edi- _ tiones recentiores sequuntur Elzevirianam, hac compilata est ex editionibus Bezz et Stephani tertia. Beza itidem expressit Ste- phanicam tertiam, nonnullis tamen pro lubitu fere ac absque B * ns. fe 308- S22 Kee eb hm iD. STV. kidd. May. /- 306-9. (2) From the text, which has thus grown into ge- neral use, all those deviations are calculated, which constitute the various readings of the Greek ma- nuscripts. Stephens, in his splendid edition, which forms the basis of the Received Text, had noted a variety of those in his margin ; haying collated fif- teen manuseripts, besides the Complatensian edi- tion, for the purpose of rendering his text more pure and perfect. In the editions of Curcelleus and Dishop Fell, the number was considerably augmented, from a collation of additional manu- scripts. But in the elaborate edition of Dr. Mills they received an infinitely greater accession; being computed to amount to thirty thousand. "The la- bows of subsequent collators are asserted to have auginented the number with more thaw av hundred thousand; though on what grounds I am aot at pre- sent acquainted. , So great a number of various readings as has been collected by the labours of these editours, has necessarily tended to weaken the authority of the Received Text; as it is at least possible thata great proportion of them may constitute a part of the ori- ginal text of Scripture. And various expedients have been, in consequence, devised, in order to de- termine the authentick readings from the spurious, and to fix the character of those manuseripts which are chiefly deserving of credit, im ascertaining the idonea autoritate mutatis ; Stephani tertia presse sequitur Eras- micam guintam, paucissimis tamen.locis et Apocalypsi excep- is, ubi Complutensem Lrasmice praetulit,’” ee (3 ) genuine text of the sacred canon. The most ingenious and important of these expedients is de- cidedly that suggested in the classification of manu- scripts which originated with the German criticks ; which had been suggested by MM. Bengel and Semler, but reduced to practice by the learned and accurate M. Griesbach *. It is not to be conceived that the original editours of the New Testament were wholly destitute of plan in selecting those manuscripts, out of which they were to form the text of their printed editions. In the sequel it will appear, that they were not al- together ignorant of two classes of manuscripts ; one of which contains the text which we have adopt- ed from them, and the other that text which has been adopted by M. Griesbach. A project had been also conceived by Dr. Bentley’, to dispose of the im- mense number of various readings which had been collected by Dr. Mills ; to class his manuscripts by ? Griesb. Pref. Nov. Test. p. 5. * Ego vero doctis nonnul- lis Bengelii observationibus admonitus eam viam quam Sem- lerus ingredi ceeperat, quamque diuturno studio edoctus unice veram esse perspexeram, longius et ad metam usque persequi me debere autumabam.” A 3 Dr. Bentley’s plan is thus briefly stated in one of his let ters; p. 237. ed. Lond. 1807. ‘* About a year ago reflecting upon some passages of St. Hierom, that he had adjusted and castigated the then Latin Vulgate to the best Greek exem- plars, and had kept the very order of the words of the origi- nal: I formed a thought 2 priori, that if St. Jerome’s true Latin exemplar could now be come at, it would be found to agree exactly with the Greek text of the same age; and so the old copies of each language, (if so agreeing) would give mu- tual proof and even demonstration of each other.” B2 Jn $f PF 44 ( @ ) the Vulgate, and to form a Corrected Text, which should literally accord with that translation as cor- rected by the hand of St. Jerome. But these schemes have been surpassed and super-. seded by the more highly laboured system of M. Griesbech. His project for classng the Greek manuscripts, in order to form @ more eorreet text, is not only formed on more comprehensive views, but rested on a higher basis. Instead of the au~ thority of St. Jerome, who flourished in the fifth century, he builds wpon that of Origen who flou- _rished in the third‘. Instead of the existence of two species of text, one of which corresponds with the Vulgate, and the other with the generality of Greek manuscripts, he contemplates the existence of three, which he terms the Alexandrine, the Western, and the Byzantine, from the different re- gions in which he supposes them to have preyailed °_ According to this division, he has formed his classi- fication of manuscripts, which he consequently dis- iributes into three kinds. A choice among their respective texts he determines by the authority of Origen °; whose testimony seems entitled to this respect, from the attention, which he, above all the * For this purpose he applied himself to a more exact scru-. tiny of Origen’s peculiar readings, and, with this view, under- scored the scripture quotations in his copy of that antient fa-, ther, in order to discover the text which was used by him. After describing this process he adds, Symboll. Critt. Tom. I. p- Ixxvil. ‘* Hoc igitur exemplar nobis instar est fragmento- rum illius ipsius codicis quem Origenes usurpavit.” .5 Griesb. Proleg. in Nov. ‘Test. p. Ixxiii. * Id. Symbb. Critt. passim. Cei4 antients, bestowed upon biblical criticism. Find- ing a striking coincidence to exist between his scrip- ture quotations and the celebrated manuscript brought from Alexandria, which was the scene of Origen’s literary labours, he thence determines the manuscripts, which belong to that class which he distinguishes as the Alexandrine’. The manu- scripts, which differ from this class, and comcide, in their characteristick peculiarities, with those which have been directly imported to us from Con- stantinople, he distinguishes asthe Byzantine. His third class, which contains the Western text, con- sists of a set of manuscripts, which have been prin- cipally found in Europe, and which possess many coincidences with the Latin translation, where they differ from the peculiar readings of both the pre- ceding classes. To the manuscripts of the Alexandrine class, it may be easily conceived, the highest rank is ascribed by M. Griesbach : the e authority of afer of a few of these outweighing in his estimation timation that of a multitude of _ the Byzantine *. ‘The peculiar readings which he selects from the manuscripts of this ay he con- firms by a variety of collateral testimony, principally drawn from the quotations of the antient fathers, and the versions made in the primitive ages®. To 71d. ibid. p. clxiv. seq. 8 Id. Proleg. in Nov. Test. Ixxii. 9 Id. ib. p. Ixix. Itaque textus ipsius potius quam librarii gtas indaganda est. Hc vero judicatur e crebro consensu cum aliis testibus, (in primis cum versionibus et Patribus) de quorum ztate nobis constat, et e copia talium lectionwn,”’ &¢. ( 6 ) the authority of Origen he however ascribes a para- mount weight, taking it as the standard by which his collateral testimony is to be estimated ; and using their evidence merely to support his testimony, or to supply it when it is deficient. The readings which he supports by this weight of testimony, he considers genuine; and introducing a number of them into the sacred page, he has thus formed his © Corrected Text of the New Testament, The necessary result of this process, as obviously proving the existence of a number of spurious read~ ings in the Received Text, has been that of shak- — ing the authority of our Authorized Version, with the foundation on which it is rested. Nor have the innovations of M. Griesbach become formidable, merely on account of their number, but their na- ture; as his corrections have extended to proscribin three important texts, in the fate of which the doc- trinal integrity of the inspired text becomes neces- sarily implicated: for, a proof of the partial cor- ruption of the sacred canon being once established © in important matters, its character for general fide- lity is necessarily invoived. And what heightens the alarm which may be naturally felt at the at- tempts thus made to undermine the authority of the Received Text, is the singular ability with which they have been carried into execution. The de- servedly high character which M. Griesbach’s ela- borate work has attained, affords the justest cause of apprehension from its singular merit, The com- prehensive brevity of his plan, and the scrupulous accuracy of his execution, have long and must ever { W )> command our respect. Such are concessions which 1 frankly make to M. Griesbach, while 1 withhold my applause from his critical emendations. How- ever divided the opinions may be which are held on the purity of his text, the merit of his notes is not to be-denied. As a general and correct index to the great body of Greek manuscripts, they are an invaluable treasure to the scholar, and necessary acquisition to the divine. Indeed, admitting his classification of manuscripts to be erroneous, as I am inclined to believe his text is corrupt, yet from the clear and comprehensive manner in which the various readings are disposed, by merely varying the principle of arrangement, they may be applied toany system of classification, whenever a beiter is devised. But these observations are strictly limited to the accuracy of his execution ; to the merit of his plan I have many objections to make. In his predilec- tion for the Alexandrine text, which he conceives he has discovered in the works of Origen, I am far from acquiescing. For I cannot see that M. Gries- bach has evinced, by the production of character- istick affinities, that the text used by Origen was ra- ther the Alexandrine than the Byzantine. There is in fact an indecision in Origen’s testimony, arising, from those readings, termed inconstant, in which’! he quotes as well against, as with the Alexandrine text, that destroys the force of his partial testimony in its favour. Did they merely consist in occasional - deviations from this text, they would be of little moment : for Origen, like every divine, in quoting a sec Se, PR -he Az | tz oh - ( 8 ) from memory, and by accommodation, must have constantly deserted the letter of the text. But when his deviations from one text prove to be coinci- dences with another, there is something more than accident in the variation. There seem, indeed, to be three modes of accounting for this circumstance ; any one of which being admitted, destroys the weight of his testimony, wherever itis placed. He either quoted from both texts, or one of them has been interpolated from his writings, or his writings interpolated from it. Until the fcasibiliey of these cases is disproved, it seems vain to appeal to his testimony in favour of any one to which he but ge- nerally and occasionally conforms. But on whatever side his testimony is placed, there seems at first sight to be little reason to doubt; that it cannot be the Alexandrine. It is, in- deed, true, that he was a catechist of Alexan-~- dria *°, but this circumstance goes but a short way to prove that the text which he used was that which, in the German mode of classification, is termed the -Alexandrine. ‘The fact is, that he lived and died in a state of excommunication" from that church, *° Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. VI. cap. iii. p, 260, 1.15. p. 261, ], 15. ** As Origen was excommunicated by Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria, Pamphil. ap. Phot. Biblioth. n. cxviti. and was never formally restored, it must be concluded, that he never returned to that city. The causes of his flight from Alexan- dria were such as to preclude the possibility of his return, un- der cireumstances which could be grateful to his feelings. Much of this sad and disgraceful part of his history will not bear the xecital ; the following facts may be stated on the authority of C4) in which § principles were execrated, and his Cedrenus 4 Suidas; Cedren. Hist. Compend. P. I. p. 254. a. ap. Seri: Byzantt. Par. 1647.—iaei 3: 210 made phagaes perl ys Barévles eri KEE avl# AiBavov, eis ryy Te Pak wupay xa dh pai &tw Te pexprupie amo Tay xpwvcciloy ane Baadn, Kae TIS exxrns ewan. Thy Arskavdveray oi Of Avrav va 70 Bvetoos TH "Isdalav xAxkev Conf. Suid. v. Origen. Tom. I. p. 766. 1, 44, ed. Can1705. MM. Huet and Du Pin are consequently | right in serting that he never returned to Alexandria; Vid. Origeni. Lib. I. cap. ii. § xiii. p. 14. b. ed. Rothom. 1668. Nouv. iblioth. des Aut. Eccles. Tom. Il. p. 379. ed. Par. 1688. che opinion delivered by the learned M. de Valois, in his nos to Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. Lib. IV. cap. xxxiil. n. 4. p. 287. « Cant. is perfectly reconcilable with this representation. He nitions two sentences as having been pronounced against Orig:; one of excommunication, and another of deprivation : the Jter only he considered void, which does not affect the poinin question. Je Alexandrine church during the time that Origen flou- rishi, was governed by Demetrius, Heraclas, and Dionysius ; as my be collected from Euseb. ibid. Lib. VI. cap. xxxix. p. 29, 1. 18. Lib. VII. cap. i. p. 321.1. 16.—compared with Lib. V. ca. xxii. p. 241.1.7. Lib. VI. cap. xxvi. p. 292.1. 12. cap.xxxv.p. 28.1. 2%. The first of those bishops denounced him excommuni- caté; and the second was avowedly his enemy: Vid. infr. n. conf, Huet. Origenian. ibid. p.14.e. M. Huet indeed conceives that Dimy sius indulged a more favourable disposition towards him; buton grounds from whence I believe we must deduce the directly opposite conclusion. This friendly disposition is in- ferred by M. Huet, from the circumstance of Dionysius having addressed 4 letter to him on the subject of martyrdom. Bittell. ibid. cap. xivi. p- 319. 1. 16.: but those who remember that the cause of Origen’s flight from Alexandria was apostacy, must per- ceive, that advice on this subject must have been the most cruel insult that could be offered to Origen. And the known severity of Dionysius on the subject of apostacy, seemsto place the matter out of dispute ; he obstinately refused to receive persons who had been Shep 1-198. ¢ 10) writings condemned™; and the princi his commentaries were published in instead of Alexandria. From the forme\cireum- guilty of this sin, until they were reduced to the | of death ; Euseb. ibid. cap. xliv. p. 317. 1.9. We mu there- mpeoBilepos yetpolorndels ome Tis KavOVIKTS TE Kab pases rEKpOS GAmbiyh, sixclo a&iwpa rod mpecBuléps Pirdv te nat povor, Kobamp nob oo wis amosonns eyev & xAsming xat mpodelns Teds. “Apdapéva yep ailod BracPnpes dutris ousrcir, 6 xal éxetvo pansepirng Hpanvms 6 éricxomos, ws c&polnp yar GuTEAS EY OS DiraanSng TOU TIS ExxAnoias ope ry xcvwr, ix pace Tod naAod cite ToUToy EEETIAEY, Of TOU movngs Cs Cecviss Ola aAnSds mak per riya Exmeowy ey Slog Exh Tyv yay Beavodey wg aotpamn, xabamep orate wailypd dia Boros, Supod wey GAAS ues dewvod xclle ths aAnSclacy ext thy xorenevny Teractyny oper tgAtuce’ xat uaSioag ty +n Kaszapiwv pelpooére, — oxclevoy te nad ptrave Bie tov skepicas ixeice tyypaQus amiluricalo. *3 Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. VI. cap. xxi. p. 287. 1. 17. cap, XXIV. p- 288. 1. 10, &c. (cm) not influenced by it ; but followed the copies of the country in which his writings were published and dispersed. And this deduction is confirmed in an extraordinary manner by internal and collateral evi- dence. We are assured, on the highest authority, #,. / /9/- that while Palestine adopted the text of Origen, Alexandria adopted that of Hesychius*. And an extraordinary proof of this assertion exists in the manuscript termed the Alexandrine, as brought from that city. It contains a complete copy of the - version of the Septuagint, which, it is well known, Origen corrected, and inserted in his Hexapla ; yet whilea nearly perfect copy of his revisal is pre- served in the Vatican manuscript, it is found to be different from that which is contained in the Alex- andrine *’. It is indeed with little appearance of justice that Origen’s authority can be claimed in favour of the Alexandrian text. At an early period he settled at Cesarea in Palestine **: here he was ordained pres- ™ S.Hieron.adv. Ruffin. Lib. II. cap. viii. Tom. II.p. 249. * Al- exandria et Egyptus in Septuaginta suis Hesychium laudat auc- torem. Constantinopolis usque ad Antiochiam Luciani martyris exemplaria probat. mediz inter has Provincie, Pe/e@stinos co- dices legunt, quos ab Origine elaboratos, Eusebius et Pamphilus vulgaverunt, totusque orbis inter se trifaria varietate compug- nat, Et certe Origenes non solum exempla composuit quatuor editionum, e regione singula verba describens, &c. *S Birch. Proleg.in Nov. Test. p. xix. Blanchin. Evangel. Quadr. P. I. f. cdxcvii. ** Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. VI. cap. xxvi. p. 292. "Flos. & iv rove Oénciloy tig Inrwmévns Hyzuorias [rod “Arckdvdce] xed’ 3 rip ae Arsbavdecias petavdsacn inl vi» Kasoagsiay & ‘Qevyions wore ( ¥2 ) byter, and had a special license to expound the scriptures "7: and here the principal part of his commentaries were composed and _ published**; which were subsequently collected by Pamphilus and Kusebius his professed apologists and imitators, and deposited in the library of Cesarea"®. By those works the latter extraordmary person, when bishop of that city, was assisted *° in revising that edition of the scripture at the command of Constantine, which, it is a curious fact, became the basis of the Byzantine text, instead of the Alexandrine**, As to the churches of Rome and Alexandria, they re- spectively convened councils, in which he was con- demned ; and in the sentence which was pronounced against him, all the churches acquiesced, except those of Palestine, Phoenicia, Achaia, and Arabia **. noapevos % T This event is fixed by M. Huet to A.D. 231 Origenian. Lib. I. cap. ii. § xiii. p. 14, b. ' 27 Euseb. ibid. cap. XXul. p- 9S el 23.—meccBuregiz eheo= Seclan é Kaizageia pas Tay T70e emioxcroy [6 "Qpsyzrns ] avaha~ Bayes. Id. ibid. cap. XXVil. p: 292. 1. 25., O TKS “TepoooAd pwr mecEsws Aritavdgas, Qzbuticos Te 6 vata Kascagesayy roy walle xeovov ws bros eimesy mipog okt cts avte oe didaozarar, povw Ta HS Tov Belay reepie eeanve stag uab Ta Acme TE ExuAanoiasmd roy xpavlew OUVEN OPEV. : 8 Id. ib. cap. xxxii. p. 296. 1. 4. *° Id. ibid. p. 296. 1. 15. seq. * Id. ibid. conf. nn. ** and *? ut supr. * Tn: Vie Constantin. Lib, III. cap. xxxvi. p. 646. 1. 1337, conf. n. * ut supr. ; * Hieron. ap. Ruffin. in Apol. ‘ Damnatur a Demetrio Episcopo. Exceptis Palestine, et Arabia, et Pheenices, atque Achaiz sacerdotibus, in damnationem ejus consentit orbis, Roma ipsa contra hunc cogit senatum Conf. Baluz. Nov. Col. Concill. ut. supr. col 99—102. (8) From the authority of Origen, little support car be consequently claimed to the Alexandrine text, or to the German method of classification. And deserted by it, that text must be sustained by the character and coincidence of the manuscripts, in which it is preserved. ‘This, it cannot be dissem- bled, is the natural and proper basis, on which this “system of classification rests. The extraordinary agreement of those manuscripts, not only with each other, but with the western and oriental versions of the scriptures, is so striking and uniform as to in-. duce a conviction with many, that they contain the genuine text of scripture. Nor can this conformity, which appears at first sight extraordinary, be in reason denied. It is as- serted with one consent, by all who have inspected the principal of those manuscripts that contain the Alexandrine text, and who have compared their peculiar readings with the Old Italick and Syriack versions. It had been observed by M. Simon* before the German classification had existed even im conception ; and it has been confirmed by Prof. Michaelis **+, since it has been formed. The latter 23 Simon Hist. Crit. des Vers. chap. xv. p. 187. Comme cette traduction [la Version Syriaquej est tres-ancienne, il nest pas suprenant, qu’elle s’accord aussi quelquefois avec le manuscrit de Cambridge, et par consequent avec [’ Italique. Mais on peut dire en general, qu’elle s’accord plus souvent avec les exemplaires Grecs sur lesquels St. Jerémne retoucha Vancienne Vulgate, qu’ avec ceux aux quels elle étoit conforme. ** Introd. to New Test.by Dr. Marsh, Vol. II. p. i. ch. vii. sect. v. p. 27. Conhere hes 1-4 bY / { \ | C3 profound orientalist has formed those deductions, which have been already made, from the confor- mity of the witnesses, who are thus coincident, though remotely situated ; that, as currents preserve, by their uniform tenour, the purity with which they have descended from their common source, we may learn from the united testimony of those witnesses, what is to be considered the genuine text of Scrip-— ture *>. Such is the ground-work of M. Griesbach’s sys- iem, which is so broad and deep, as not to be shaken by the destruction of its outworks. If it is suseep- tible of any impression, its very foundation must be sapped: and we must commence by accounting for the extraordinary affinities by which it is held to- gether. A simpler principle must be in fact sug- gested to account for those affinities, than that which traces them to the original publication of the sacred text, by the inspired writers. And on descending to a closer view of the sub- ject, and considering the affinity observed to exist between the Old Italick version and the original Greek, there is at the first glance something sus- picious in the conformity, which betrays an alliance ef a recent date. For this affinity was not dis- coverable in the Italick version of St Jerome’s days. At the command of Pope Damasus, he undertook the revisal of the Latin translation, en account of *5 Id. ibid. p. 28. ‘ A reading therefore supported by the ’ connected authority of the Syriac, the Coptie, and the Latin versions, by a quotation of Origen, and the antient Greek manu- scripts of the Alexandrine and Western editions, is not only of great importance, but may in general be regarded as genuine.” (1) its deviation fromthe original **. This undertaking alone would fice, declare St. Jerome’s opinion of this dissimilaity, which he undertock to remedy ; if he had not a numerous places pointed it out *”. And his declardions are fully sepported by the tes- timony of St. sugustine **, who was no friend to innovation, aid who to the last declined using the version retou/ied by St. Jerome. *5 S. Hier. Marcel. Ep. crt. Tom. Il. p. 336. ‘“ Ne nos superbie ut acere solent, arguant, ita responsum habeant ; non adeo mehebetis fuisse cordis, et tam crass rusticita- tis,—ut aligaid de Dominicis verbis aut corrigendum putave- rimus, aut non divinitus inspiratum, sed Latinorum codicum vitiositatem que ex diversitate librorum omnium comprobatur, ad Grecain originem unde et ipsi translata non denegant, voluisse revocare.”? Conf. Damas. Epist. cxxiii. Tom. III. p- $49. ‘ Adversus quam invidiam duplex causa me consola- tur: quod et tz gui summus sacerdos es, fiert jubes: et verum non esse quod variat etiam maledicorum testimoniis com- probatur. Si enim Latinis exemplaribus fides est adhi- benda, respondeant quibus: tot enim sunt exemplaria pene, quot codices. Sin autem veritas est querenda de pluribus: cur cur non ad Grecam originem revertentes, ea quz vel a vitiosts interpretibus male reddita, vel a presumptoribus imperitis emen- data perversius, vel a librartis dormitantibus aut addita sunt aut, mutata, corrigimus.—De Novo nunc loquor Testamento, quod Grecum esse non dubium est.—Hoc certe cum in nostro sermone discordat, et in diversos rivulorum tramites ducit, uno de fonte quzrendum est.” *% Vid. Sim. Hist. des Vers. chap. v. p. 40. seq. *8 S. August. S. Hieron. Epist. yxx1.Tom. Il. c. 161. ¢. ed. Bened. ‘ Proinde non parvas Deo gratias agimus de opere tuo, quod Evangelium ex Greco interpretatus es: quia pene in omnibus nulla offensio est, cum scripturam Grecam contulerimus. Unde, Si quisquam veteri_falsitati contensiosus faverit ; prolatis collatis- que codicibus vel docetur facillime, vel refellitur. ( 16 ) To approach, somewhat nearer to the source of tle difficulty, we must look fromthe period which produced the Vulgate of St. Jerome, to that which brought it into general use. Abo the middle of the sixth century, this mystery bejins to clear up. At that period, Cassiodorus, who olserved the dis- sunilarity still existing between the original Greek and Latin translation, which Pope Damasus had in vain undertaken to remedy by publshing a more correct version, took a more effectual mede of curing the evil. Calling in the aid of the Greek eriginal, and taking St. Jerome’s version as its best interpreter, he undertook the correction of the Old Italick by the Vul- gate and Greek *®. And the method in which he performed this task effectually removed the dissimi- larity between them, which had so obstinately con- tinued to his times. ‘The monks who were employed in this work, were commanded to erase the words - of the former translation, and to substitute those of *® Simon. ib. p. 93. Cassiodore, dont le prineipal desseix était de donner une Bibliotheque des Auteurs Latins ou traduits en Latin, y plaga pour cette raison quelques ouvrages Grecs, et entre autres la Bible Grecque des septante divisée en LXxv livres. Ce qu'il fit commeil le témoigne lui méme, pour suiore la maxime de St. Angustine, qui croyoit gu’on devort corriger fes exemplaires Latins tant du Vieux que du Nouveaw Testament, sur les exemplaires Grecs. * Sed quoniam,? dit Cassiodorey * Pater Augustinus in Lib. I. de Doctrina Christiana com- mionetitadicens: ‘ Latini codices Veteris Novique Testamenti, si necesse fuerit, Grecorum auctoritate corrigendi sunt, unde et nobis post Hebrzeum fontem translatio cuncta pervenit,” ideoque yobis et Grecum Pandecten reliqui comprehensum in libris rated bas t PP the latter ; taking due pains to make the new writing resemble the old*°. The manuscripts thus cor- rected, in which, on the basis of the old translation, the corrections of the new were ingrafted, he had incorporated with the Greek original in the same volume: To the bibles which contained this text he gave the name of Pandects, causing some of them to be copied in the large, or uncial character ; and some of them, for the convenience of general readers, to be copied in 4 smaller **. Here therefore I conceive, the main difficulty before us finds an easy solution. 'T'o this cause is to be attributed the affinity discoverable between the Greek and Latin text, in which the patrons of the German method of classification seem to have discovered the marks of a high original, ascending to the apostolical days; but which really claim no higher authours than the illiterate monks of a bar- barous age: And here it is likewise conceived no improbable origin is traced for that peculiar class of manuscripts termed Codices Graeco-Latini **, which Gite His: iz ELGG, %®° Cassiod. de Div. Lect. cap. xiv. xv. Precor enim vos qui emendare presumitis, ut swperadjectas literas ita pulcherrimas facere studeatis, ut potius ab antiquariis scripte fuisse judicentur. Ce qu’il étoit difficile de pratiquer, lors qu’on changeoit plu- sieurs mots a la fois pour les rendre conformes aux exemplaires de St. Jeréme, comme il est arrivé souvent dans les manuscrits _ de Clermont et de St. Germain des Prez, et méme dans plusieurs autres qui ne sont pas si anciens. Simon. ib. chap. viii. p. 97. _.™ Simon. ibid. p. 94, 95. : 32 Id. ib. p. 92. Il y avoit par exemple, en ce tems-la des exemplaires Latins du Nouveau Testament de la maniére qu’ils avoient été retouchés par St. Jeréme. Les reviseurs qui étoient & i: ( 18 ) are now found of such utility in correcting or im corrupting the sacred text. Every circumstance ** persuadés qu’ils étoient plus exacts que les anciens, les refor= moient sur cette edition: ce qu’ils faisoient également dans le Grec et dans le Latin. Car c’ ( 21 ) stands. in support of the original position; and while it remains otherwise unaccounted for, the evidence of an affinity derived from the apostolical age is sufficiently apparent to support the German classification. Yet even this difficulty is not too stubborn to be conquered. And, turning to the consideration of the next revision, which the sacred text underwent, it seems to supply us with an easy solution. It has been asserted, and we shall see upon g good: authority, that Charlemagne directed his attention not only to the revision of the text of the Vulgate, but to the correction of the Gospels after the Syriack and Greek **, This, it will appear in the sequel, was in his days no impossible task, from the venera- tion in which Jerusalem was held, and the pilgri- mages undertaken to the Holy Land. We have, however, internal evidence of the-matter in dispute 3’. For the Latin and Syriack translations are observed to have some literal coincidences, particularly in the 36 Thegan de Gest. Lud. Pii ap. Duch. p. 277. Quatuor Evangelia que intitulantur nomine Matthei, Marci, Luce et Joannis in ultimo, ante obitus sui diem, cum Grecis et Syris optime correxerat. Vid, Sim. Hist. des Vers. chap. ix. p. 100. See Michael. ut supr. ch. vii. § 5. p. 27. and Dr. Marsh’s notes, p- 550. 37 Dr. Marsh's Michael. ch. VII. § v.p. 24, “ The readings of the Syriack version coincide very frequently with thé Latin,, in cases where our printed editions of the Greek Testament, or the MSS. of particular countries deviate from both. —By the Latin I understand at present—the common version as corrected by Jerome, ratified by papal authority, and known under the pame of the Vulgate,’’ ( 22 ) Gospels, which are alone said to have been retouched; while the Greek original is not found to partake of the affinity. Professour Alter, in a letter to Profes- sour Birch, describing the version of the Jerusalem Syriack, specifies five places m St. Matthew, in which it agrees literally with the old Italick, while it dissents from the Greek *. And Professour Mi- chaelis has observed of the Montfort manuscript, which has been confessedly corrected by the Latin, that in the short space of four chapters of St. Mark, it possesses three literal coincidences with the old Syriack, two of which agree with the old Ttalick, while they differ from every known manuscript ex- tant in Greek *9. ; The inferences which follow from these circum- stances, are sufficiently obvious. And the affinities thus traced between the Oriental and Western text contained in the old Italick and Syriack versions are seemingly to be attributed, not to the original autographs of the apostles and evangelists, but to the corrected translations of Jerome, Cassiodorus, and Charlemagne *°. Indeed the existence of affi- 33 In Matt. vii. 25. viii. 9. ix. 17, 28. xxvii. 40. Vid. Epist. Alter. ap. Birch. Prolegom. in Nov. Test. p. Ixxxv. 39 Mar. iii. 20, 34. vi. 48. Vid. Michael. Intr. to N. Test. by Dr. Marsh. Vol. If. p. I. ch, viii. §. 6. p. 286. *® The conclusiveness of these deductions will directly appear, on considering the age of the most antient MSS. now extant, which contain the Western text. With the exception of the ‘Cambridge and Verceli MSS. none of them can claim an an- +! | tiquity prior to the age of Charlemagne. It is therefore at least ' )possible, that any coincidence discoverable between the text of ( 23 ) nities between those versions, which the originals do not acknowledge, ought to be taken as definitive in establishing the fact. For surely it is of all sup- positions the most improbable, that the latter, which descended immediately from the common source of the whole, should want that conformity to the original, which was discoverable in two branches, which flowed from it, in collateral channels, and by a devious course. And probably these considerations which seem te reduce the distance placed between the Montfort | manuscript and those manuscripts which occupy the first rank in the new classification, will entitle the former to somewhat more serious attention than it has latterly received. The general opinion en- bar tertained of that manuscript, is, that it was written in the interval between the years 1519 and 1522, fer the purpose of furnishing Erasmus with an au- thority for inserting the text of the three heavenly witnesses in his third edition of the Greek Testa- ment. But this notion, which is rendered highly improbable by the appearance of the manuscript, is completely refuted by the literal affinities which have been already observed to exist between it and the Syriack. The knowledge of that oriental version in Europe was not earlier than 1552, when it was brought by Moses Mardin to Julius III, and even then there was but one person who could pretend to any knowledge of the language, and who was those MSS. and the Syriack version and original Greek, may not be more antient than the era of that prince; of course, assigned on most inconclusive grounds to the age of the apostles, 7. Cr obliged to receive instruction in it from the foreigner who imported it from the Kast, before he could assist him in committing it to print**. Yet admitting, that the knowledge of this version and language existed thirty years previously, which is contrary to fact, still; an attempt to give an appearance of antiquity to this manuscript, by interpolating it from the Syriack is a supposition rendered grossly improbable by the state of literature at the time. For no fabricatour - could have ever calculated upon these evidences of its antiquity being called into view. Notwithstand- ing the curiosity and attention which have been lat- terly bestowed on these subjects, and which no person, in the days of Erasmus, could have foreseen ; they have been but recently observed. These affi- nities, which cannot be ascribed to accident, conse- quently claim for this manuscript, or the original from which it was taken, an antiquity which is very remote. But its affinities with the Syriack are not the only peculiarities, by which it is distinguished. It possesses various readings in which it differs frofn every | known Greek manuscript, amounting to a number, which excited the astonishment of Prof. Michaelis and Dr. Mills 47. Some of them, we have already seen, are coincident with the Syriack and old Italian version ; but as it has other readings which they do not acknowledge, we cannot so easily account for these peculiarities, as by admitting” its relation to some other source, which, as not immediately ** Simon Hist. des Vers. ch. xy. Michael. Introd, ibid, ch, vii. §. 2 p. 8. * Michael. ibid. ch. viii. §. 6. p. 286. f 44: re ( 23 ) connectedwith them, is probably very remote. And if this sou'ce be traced by the analogy which it pre- serves to-he old [talick, it must be clearly of the very higlest kind. Though the testimony of the old Italick version cited in uvour of the German classification must be — given w, still it may be contended, that the con- currence of the Syriack and the Vulgate with the Greek of the Alexandrine recension, is adequate to suprort the entire weight of this system. To this I rep! ; that with respect to both translations, they — must ¢tand and fall with the original text, and that of a ery late edition. The origin of the Vulgate is well known; and not long previous to the com- menement of the fifth century. Nor can the Syriack clain a much higher original ;_ the oldest proofs of its intiquity are found in the quotations of St. Epirem*, who flourished near the close of the fourth. Near the beginning of this century, an ediion of the original Greek was published by Busebius, of Cesarea, under the sanction of Constan- tine the Great. A brief examination of this point will probably enable us to account for the coinci- dence, between the original Greek and those trans- lations, on which the German mode of classification now rests its entire support. #3; Vid. Michael, ibid. ch. vii. §. 6. p. 32; I add Dr, Marsh’s note 12. p. 554. ‘* That the old Syriac Version is quoted by Ephrem, no one will deny. It is certain therefore that it existed in the fourth century, but as Ephrem is the oldest evidence, that can be produced of its antiquity, it must remain a matter of uncertainty, whether it was made one, two or three genturies preyious to that period.’ ( 2% ) | The authority with which Eusebius was vested, to prepare this edition, was conveyed in tie follow- ing terms, as nearly as the original can le literally expressed ++, “ It seemeth good unto usto submit to your consideration, that you would oder to be written, on parchment prepared for the purpose, by able scribes, and accurately skilled in heir art, fifty codices, both legible and portable, so \s to be useful; namely, of the sacred scriptures, yhereof chiefly, you know, the preparation, and us to be necessary to the doctrine of the church.” If we now compare the authority thus committed to Eusebius, which seems to. have vested lim at least with a discretionary power, of selecting chiefly those sacred scriptures which he knew to be weful and necessary to the doctrine of the church, with the state of the sacred text as it is now markd in the corrected edition lately put forth by M. Giies- bach; we shall perhaps discover how far it is pro- bable he acted to the fuil extent of his powers, ind removed those parts of scripture from the circulated edition, which he judged to be neither conducive to use nor doctrine, and which are now marked as probable interpolations in the Received Text. They amount principally to the following ; the account of 4+ Constant. Epist. ap. Euseb. Vit. Const. Lib. IV. Cap, XXXvi. p. 646. 1. 13.—eeiwov yag nareDavn, To Inrdoas TH on guvictt, oes By wevrnxovta ownaria ev diPbégass eynaraoxivorsy iudvayywsd TE x) Weds Thy NENW edpETaxduisa, Oo TEXNTOY MUAALEAPUY 1) axgiGas Thy Tiny emicantrwr, yeuPnver nsAevoces® sav Siwy dnradn yeaQir, dry udrica viv T imoneuny x) The XeHoW TD whg ExxAncias Aoyey cvcynciay siya YiNdoKetse ( &3¥")) the woman taken in adultery, John vii. 53.—viii. 11. and three texts which assert in the strongest manner the mystery of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, and Redemption, 1 John v. 7. 1 Tim. ni. 16. Acts xx. 28. If two points can be established against Eusebius, that he wanted neither the power, nor tie will, to suppress these passages, particularly the latter, there will be fewer objections lying against the charge, with which I] am adventurcus enough to accuse him; in asserting that the probabilities are decidedly in favour of his having expunged, rather than the catholicks having inserted, those passages. in the sacred text. _ There will be less reason to dispute his power over the copies of the original Greek, when we know that his high reputation for learning, aided by the powerful authority of the emperour*’, tended to recommend his edition to the exclusion of every other; and when it is remembered, that the number of the copies of scripture was in this reign above all others considerably reduced on account of the destruction made of them in the preceding *°. 45 Antipat. Bostrens. Serm. I. adv. Euseb. Apol. pro. Orig. in Concil. Nic. Il. Act. v. “Eyo 38 dre piv worviswe 6 avne, oo) 2d%y T Tov Darawriony coyeapparuv thy Eee irabe yaoi, cluPnus ) Sporoye* Baoirixn yap covepyia xeopevG-, padius ra wavraxy® weog Ewurov cuvaryery novvETO. 46 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. VIII. cap. ii. p. 377. 1. 35. Euvlélé- Devas Dire nad gues. aravles Omnvine Tay puty Mpoceuxtngiwy Tes obnes 2 tnbas cig PxQos avrois Seweriors HOT AP AMTYAEVEC, tas dé evSdes nak isgas Tpades nara pecas dyogas wugi mapdidoucvas adrois émcidopev 603aAucis. The effects of this destruction of the sacred books, under Dioclesian and Maximian extended even ( 8) Let us add to these considerations, these further - circumstances ; that the pious emperour who had employed him to revise the text, had been at con- siderable pains and expence to multiply copies of the scripture *7 ; and that the edition thus dispersed, > as altered by Eusebius, was peculiarly accommo- dated to the opinions of the Arians #, who from the : to Britain. Vid. Usser. Britt. Eccless. Antiquitt. cap. vii. p. 90. ** Atque hee dira illa fuit a Diocletiano et Maximiano adversus Christiani nominis professores mota persecutio: de qua, recen- tior Scotorum historicus Hector Boéthus, [Scot. Hist. Lib. VI.] « Evagata est rabies illa, non modo ab Oriente in Occidentem, sed etiam per alterum orbem Britanniam 2? &c.—edque ‘ fere deletam fuisse Christianitatem in tota insula,’ Galfridus Mone- mathensis asserit; non alia et ipse authoritate quam Gilde nixus, ex quo hujus persecutionis historia ad verbum, pene ab illo est transcripta. In ea enim, ut apud Gildam habetur, * subverse per totum mundum Ecclesix, et cuncte Sacre Serip- ture que inveniri potuerunt in plateis exuste,” &e. 47 Id. Vit. Constant. Lib. ITI. cap. i. p. 566.1. 15. Of piv ra Scomvevca Aaya adavn woseiclas “wel Oreyerta weooératiov» 6 de [Kavsaslivos ] nab TavrTa mrnOvvery ex BuctAsmay Snoavpay eyaAomeemer mupucnevy MorrTraT +a Cope vee ey0Moderete 48 This is a point which may be established from the declara- tion of the council of Philippopolis, after the schism which took place, in the council of Sardica, between the Eastern and Western churches; when the orientalists declared for the opinions of Arius. The strongest protest of that council was directed against the doctrine of one substance which is asserted in the forementioned verses, 1 John v. 7. 1 Tim. iii. 16., &e, which I conceive were suppressed in Eusebius’s edition. Socrat. Hist. Eccles. Lib. II. cap. xx. p. 104 1. 23.—xa} yevopevor [ot ayaroaAsxol | ey 7 Didiawe wares HS Opaxns, idialoy. morivres cuvédgrov" nab Davepars Aosmrov TO [LEV O{LONCLOV avadnnarilecs Tuy Ob TB dvopoiw dosav, tmisoras ovlyparparles, mavraxs imortwrrorlaty. ( 29 ) reign of Constantine to that of Theodosius’, held an unlimited sway over the church ; and there will arise something more than presumptive proof in favour of the opinion which I have advanced ; that at this period an alteration was made in the sacred text, of which it still retains a melancholy evidence, particularly in the translations made from the edi- tion of Eusebius. With respect to the influence which his edition — had upon the sacred text at large, it is most strong- ly evinced in the early translations. If it can be shewn that it affected these, its more powerful ope- ration upon the original cannot be reasonably dis- puted. On reviewing the translations of the eastern text, and considering the Coptick, in the first place, which reads, in the disputed passages, against the Received Text, and with the Corrected, the fact ts not to be denied. For it possesses the. divisions *°, 49 For at least forty years, from the translation of Eusebius from the see of Nicomedia to Constantinople, A. D. 340, to the convening of the fourth Council of Byzantium, under Theodo- sius, A. D. 381. Socrat. Hist. Eccles. Lib. V. cap. vii. p. 268. 1.27. “Ovlw pe By of ”* gescavor em Tecoupanavle ten Tay edd] pica Tb- mrav xpalnoavles Thy TE Basirias Oxodcois sucvoray Qevyorles, oweEnrSoe wns Worew: ey Doraletce TpahavE ro alumlo, zat Oeodocia +8 Avyase to Wewtovy pnvi NoeuPpio, einads tlm. aileromeray SE uab aamcrAduBavor of Th; Gposoie wicsws ra; txxAnoias. Conf. Theodorit. Lib. V. capp. Vi. vii. p: 200. 1. 10. seq. *° Wetsten. Prolegom. in Noy. Test. Sect. i. § 11. Tom. I. p. 6. ‘ Eosdent [rilkes et xeParaie Eusebtanos] habet et Versio Coptica, uti in MSS. vidi, quod editor de industria _suppres- sisse videtur, ne scilicet paulum ‘ dubitaremus, versidnem N. T. ( 30 ) which Eusebius applied to the scripture, in invents ing his celebrated canons, with the aid of Ammo- nius’s harmony, and accommodating them to the Gospels. And this remark may be in some measure extended to the Syriack **, which, in possessing an affinity to the Vulgate, on which incontestably Eu- sebius’s edition had some influence, betrays very ‘Jecisive evidence of having directly proceeded from the same original. But as more immediately to our purpose, it may be stated, that a copy of this ver- sion preserved in the Laurentian library, bearing date as far back as the year five hundred and eighty- six, has subjoined to it the canons of Eusebius, and the epistle to Carpianus *, describing their use in ~ finding the correspondent passages of scripture. With these versions, those of the Ethiopick, the Armenian, the Arabick, and Persian, must stand ‘in linguam £gypti primis a Christo seculis, scil. vel secundo, * vel tertii initio factam esse,’ ut ipse in Preefatione pag. v. as- seruit; Eusebii enim tempora nos ad quartum seculum dedu- cerent.” Conf. Simon Hist. des Vers. ch. xvi. p. 19]. Les Manuscrits Coptes ont conservé, comme il a été déja remarqué les distinctions des Exemplaires Grecs, sur lequels la Version Copte du N, T. a été fait.—Ils marquent deux sortes de Sec- tions, comme dans les MSS. Grecs, scavoir les grandes qu’ils nomment xsPdéAasm, et les petites, qui sont indiquées aux marges.”” ** The Syriack version possesses divisions in the text at least similar to those of Eusebius. In some of the copies of the old version the Eusebian sections and epistle to Carpianus are found if we may believe Mr. Travis Let. to Gib. p. 190. * Vid. Gor, ap. Blanchin. Evangel. Quadrupl. Tom. IL. P. II. p- dixxxiii. ( & ) or fall; in admitting its influence upon the former, we must admit it upon the latter, as made after them, instead of the original’. Indeed the Cop- tick and Syriack have long become dead languages, being superseded by the Arabick, which is the learned language of the East, as being that of the Mohammedan scriptures. The Coptick and Syri- ack versions are consequently attended, in general, with an Arabick translation, added in a separate co- lumn ; out of which the priests, having first read the original which they rarely understand, on repeat the translation to the people *. Great as the influence which it thus appears, the’ edition of Eusebius possessed over the Eastern text, it was not greater than it possessed over the West- ern. Ifa doubt could be entertained that St. Je- — rome, revising that text at Bethlehem, (in the heart of Palestine, where Eusebius revised the original), would not have neglected his improvements; the matter would be placed beyond controversion by the epistle which he has prefixed to the work, and ad- dressed to Pope Damasus**. It places beyond all doubt, that, in correcting the text, the edition “of Eusebius was before iar as it describes his canons which are consequently Hei ctestiad: as applied to the text by St. Jerome. We consequently find, that the manuscripts of the Vulgate, of which seve- _ 3M. Du Pin deduces the Ethiopick from the Syriack, vid. Dissert. Prelim. p. 82: Renaudot deduces it from the Coptick, vid. Wetsten. Proleg. p. 110, $4 Sim. ut supr. * Vid. S. Hieron. Epist. Damas, Tom. IV. in init. ( 32 ) ral of the highest antiquity are still preserved im England and France, have the text accurately di~ vitled by the Eusebian sections **. The influence of the Vulgate upon the Old lias lick, which formed vidiotleel: branch of the Western text, has been already noticed. In the age of St. _ Augustine, it was making a sensible encroachment upon the antecedent translation. Ruffinus first fol- lowed it, and Cassiodorus brought it into general usage. In some of the oldest copies of the Italick, notices appear, declaring that they had been col- lated and corrected by the Vulgate ‘’. Bibles of 56 Cassiod. de Diy. Lect. cap. xii. Meminisse autem debe mus, Hieronymum omnem suam translationem in auctoritate di- vina, sicut ipse testatur, Broptes simplicitatem fratrum colis et commatibus ordinasse, ut qui distinctiones secularium literarum comprehencere minime potuerunt, hoc remedio suffulti incul- pabiliter pronunciarent sacras literas. En effet on voit toutes ces distinctions, dans les plus anciens manuscrits Latins qui nous ayons dela bible de St. Jeréme. Simon ib. chap. x. p. 122.— Id. ib. p. 126. St. Jerome avoit mis dans son Edition Latine une autre sorte de division gw’il avoit prise des exemplaires Grecs. Cette celle qui regarde les dix Canons d’Eusebe, et qui a été d’une grand utilité peur oter la confusion qui ¢toit avant St. Jerome dans les exemplaires Latins. 57 Simon ibid. p. 106. ‘« On lit de plus dans ce méme ma- nuscrit [de Saint Germain des Prez] ces autres paroles a la fin de Epitre aux Ebreux, ot finit le Nouveau Testament se- lon ancienne disposition des Bibles Latines; * Bibliotheca His eronymi Presbyteri secundum Gracum ex emendatissimis li- bris conlatus.’ Ce qui montre non seulement Pexactitude du Copiste, mais )’opinion commune de ces tems-la, qui étoit que St. Jeréme avoit retouché tout le Nouveau Testament sur tes exe emplaires Grecs. On ne parloit plus alors de Vancienne Version appellée Italique. Wes copistes ne decrivoient plus d’autre Bible ( 33) this description; written in the age of Hugue de S. Chair; are still preserved, with marginal references to St. Jerome and to the Greek ** ; the readings of the latter were probably taken on the authority of the Vulgate, which possessed the reputation of maintaining a scrupulous adherence to the original. After this period the new translation gradually su- perseded the old; and the former is now adopted by the Romish Church, as of paramount authority to the original *. If the influence of the edition of Eusebius ex- tended thus wide, embracing both extremes of the Roman Empire, as affecting the eastern and wes- tern translations ; it is not to be disputed that its operation on the original Greek must have been more powerful, where it was aided by his imme- diate reputation; supported by the authority of Con- stantine. Ihave already stated the reasons which have induced me to ascribe such influence to the first edition of the Scriptures published with the royal authority. Buta circumstance which tended to extend this influence, besides the great reputa- tion of the person by whom it was revised, was the Latine que 0 Edition de St. Jeréme. C’est pourquoi ilsles mar- quoient ordinairement 4 la fin de leurs livres.’ °° Simon, Nouv. Observ. sur le Text et les Vers. ch. i. p. 130. 59 Simon Hist. des Vers. ch. x. p. 124. Les Latins ont eu une si grande estime pour ce pere [St. Jeréme] que depuig mille ans ils ne se sont servis quede sa version. Les copistes les plus exactes ont suivi entierement pour la disposition des lie vres la methode qu’il prescrit dans ses Prefaces,’? &c. Vid. supr. n, °”. conf. Pref. Bibl. Clem. VIII. D ( 2 y mode of dividing the text, which was introduced with the sections that were adapted to Eusebius’s Canons. This division of the text, as we have seen, St. Jerome was aware, in adopting it in the Vul- gate, was of infinite service to those who had to struggle with great inconveniences in reading, from the want of a systematick mode of punctuation. But the advantage of it was even more sensibly felt in reciting ; for the practice of chanting the service, . introduced into the Greek Church from the antient Synagogue, was greatly facilitated, from its por- tioning out the text m a kind of prosaick metre. It can be therefore little matter of surprize that we find those divisions introduced into the whole body of Greek manuscripts © ; and that the stated num- bervof sixo, or verses, into which they are subdi- vided, is generally subjoined at the end of each of the books of Scripture °'. The bare existence of those divisions, particularly those of the former kind, in the manuscripts of the original Greek, which, as we have already seen, extended to the Eastern and Western translations, contains a stand- © Such is the declaration of one whose authority, on this subject, ranks, in the opinion of M. Griesbach, Symbb. Critt. Tom. [. p. xvii. above all others. Wetsten. Prolegom. Sect. i. §11. Tom. I. p. 6. ‘‘ Omnes etiam vetustissimét Codices habent xeParasm et rilavs Eusebianos, a prima manu, excepto Vaticana et Cantabrigiensi.”” These MSS. however cam be scarcely. termed exceptions, as will appear in the sequel. * Rob. Stephan. Preef. in Nov. Test. ed. Lut. 1550. ‘ Nec tamen omisimus Eusebii Czsariensis Canones—Sed ne nume- rum quidem sin@v, quum is in nostris prope omnibus codicibus inveniretur, in calce cujusque Evangelii et Epistole. ( 35 ) ing evidence of their partial descent from the edition set forth by Eusebius. They are found in the oldest of those which have descended to us; some of which contain declarations that they were adopted from older As it is thus bpparebe that Eusebius wanted not the power, so it may be shewn that he wanted not the will, to make those alterations in the sacred text, with which I have ventured to accuse him. In one or two instances Iam greatly deceived, or the charge may be brought absolutely home to him. St. Jerome informs us®, that the latter part of St. Mark’s Gospel was wanting in most copies of the Evangelist extant in his times; the beginning of the fifth century. As the passage is aleoliitely’ ne- cessary to bring the Evangelist’s narrative to a close, and as it introduces an apparent contradiction be- tween the accounts which St. Matthew and St. 6* In a beautiful illuminated copy of the Gospels, formerly in the Vatican, which was apparently written for the use of the Emperor, John II., who succeeded Alexius in the year 1118, a marginal note appears, which, while it declares that the ma- nuscript was a transcript from older copies preserved at Jerusa- lem, adds the number of the sections and subsections, after the usual manner. *EvayyeAsov udlae MarSaiov eypadn wah avleCandy tx sav ev lepocoAvpors wararmy ailiypaPov, Tov ey Tw ayiw oper emone.m évav, Ev sixors Burd, xeDaraloss tpraxociors werlnuorla Eola x. Te & IR Cod. Urbino-Vatican. 2, ap. Birch Proleg. in Nov. Test. p. xxvii. °3§. Hieron. Epist. cL. quest. iii. Tom. IIT. p. 416. Aut enim non recipimus Marci testimonium, quod in raris fertur Evange- liis omnibus Grecie libris pene hoc capitulum in fine non haben- tibus ; preesertim cum diversa atque contraria evapgelistis car teris narrare videatur. p2 Mark give of nearly the same incident, it is a mo» ral certainty that it must have been expunged from the original text, and not a modern interpolation ; for the contradiction affords a reason as conclusive for the former, as against the latter, supposition. As it existed in some copies in St Jerome’s day, it necessarily existed in more in the days of Euse- bius ; for we shall see that it evidently lost the au- thority to be derived from his powerful sanction. But though it contains many striking coincidences with the other Evangelists, Eusebius wholly omitted it in his Canons“: there seems to be consequently no other reasonable inference, but that his edition agreed with them, and with the copies extant in the times of St. Jerome, in omitting this passage. Now those Canons, compared with the passage in question, convey all the certainty which can be de- rived from presumptive evidence that he omitted this passage, not on the testimony of antecedent ° Tt is not found in the original copies of the Canons pre- fixed to the manuscripts of the Greek, nor in the translation of them prefixed to the manuscripts of the Vulgate; it is wanting in the marginal references of the Cambridge and Alexandrine MSS., and is omitted by R. Stephens in his Greek Testament, and by Victorius in his edition of St. Jerome. Several scholia occur in the MSS. of the original Greek, some of which assert that Eusebius did not refer in his Canons to this passage. I shall subjoin one or two which are quoted by P. Simon, and Prof. Birch. Schol. MS. Reg. n. 2868. ap. Sim. Hist. Crit. du Texte. ch. xi. p. 121. "Ev rics trav crliypaQun Ewe woe mantles é edayysaisyse Schol. MS. Venet. ap. Birch. Proleg. p- xxi. "Ey rics uty aileypa@ar ews dds wangelar 6 Evayyedisns, Ews & x) Evot Bios 6 TayQias tavovicere ( 37 ) copies, but as unsuitable to his harmonical tables ; for while they point out those passages in which each of the Evangelists relates something peculiar, as well as those in which they relate something in common with others, i¢ contains, at first sight, an apparent contradiction, which would be only likely to strike a person employed in the task of compo- sing such tables as those of Eusebius. The infe- rence seems to be as strong as the establishment of the point requires, that he first omitted this pas- sage of St. Mark in the sacred text, as he has omit- ted it in his Canons. Nor is the case materially different with respect to John viii. 1—11., which contains the account of the woman taken in adultery. That this narrative © constituted a part of the original text of St. John, there can be little reason to doubt. The subject of the story forms as convincmg a proof, in support of this supposition, as it does in subversion of the contrary notion, that it is an interpolation. There could be no possible inducement for fabricating such a passage ; but one obvious reason for removing it from the canon. It has besides internal evidence of authenticity in the testimony of the Vulgate, in which it is uniformly found; and external, in | the express acknowledgement of St. Chrysostome, _ St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and St. Ambrose, that | it is genuine ®s 7 pt, Augustine having specified the 6° Vid. Croii Observv. in Nov. Test. cap. xvii. pp. 130, 131. I shall subjoin the testimony of St. Jerome, as in point; S, | Hieron. adv. Pelag. Lib, II. cap. vi. Tom. II. p. 286. ‘In ( 38 ) reasons of its having been withdrawn from the text of the Evangelist °°. Eusebius has however omit- ted all reference to it in his canons; for it is nei- ther discoverable in the copies of the Greek, nor in those of the Vulgate. And in his “ Ecclesiastical History °”’, he has obliquely branded it with some other marks of disapprobation; apparently con- founding it with a different story. From these cir- cumstances, I conceive, we may safely infer, that Eusebius’s copies agreed with his canons in omit- ting this passage : from which it was withdrawn by him, in strict conformity to the powers with which he was vested by Constantine. As it is probable that he omitted those pas- sages, it is not less probable that he omitted at least one of those verses, 1 John v. 7, the authenticity of which has been so long a subject of controversy. Indeed, the whole three inculcate a doctrine, which is somewhat at variance with what we know, on the most indisputable testimony, to have been his pe- culiar opinions. The doctrine of Christ being of one substance with the Father is asserted in all of Evanglio secundum Joannem, in multis et Gracis et Latinis codicibus inveniiur de adultera muliere, que accusata est apud Dominum.” 66S. August. de Adultt. Conjugg. Lib. II. cap. vii. Tom. VI. c. 299. ‘ nonnulli modice fidei, vel potius inimici vera fidei, credo, metuentes, peccati impunitatem dari mulieribus suis, illud quod de adultere indulgentia Dominus fecit, auferrent de codi- etbus suis.’? *7 Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. III. cap. xxxix. p. 138. I. 5. “ExréSellas 0& [Tlamias] 9 AAny isopiay wegh yoreinds md qorraic &papliars Aa lanSeionc eat 8 Kopid® hy 70 zal? “EBpaive "Evayyéaser DELLE N Ete : C ‘39 ) them ; though most particularly in St. John’s Epis- tle. But on the subject of this doctrine, it is no- torious that Eusebius shamefully prevaricated in the celebrated Council of Nice. He first positively excepted against it, and then subscribed to it®; and at length addressed a letter to his Church at Cesarea, in which he explained away his former compliance, and retracted what he had asserted °?. On a person of such versatility of principle no de- pendence ought to be placed; not that I am in- clined to believe what has been often laid to his charge”, that he was at heart an Arian. The 68 Secrat. Hist. Eccl. Lib. I. cap. viii. p. 22. 1.94. Téle 38 & 7 cvvidy, "EuvozBi0s 5 trv Tlawdirs agocwwpiav tym, % rhs zy Tlaaaistvn Kaicapeias Thy tmicxomny nexrngwptyos, [bx pov Emisnoas, 1% Smoxebanevos cl Oct wpoadezzodat Tov Cpov Tne wisewe, Brus ama vols wodrvis witos cuvivecdy Te ~ ovvuneyoaey. The- odorit. Hist. Eccl. Lib. I. cap. vii. p. 30. 1.22, Kat sro eyiv- woney ’"EuceBios yeEvomevos Eriaxomos T75 Kaicagsias, wpoleouy [aey ouvizexwv 7m Ageayn vipecer tregov 0: dmoyeaas th tv Numaig ovvode, Conf. Theodorit. ib. p. 28.1, 2—7. Socrat. ib. p. 23. pace 69 Euseb. Epist. ap. Socrat. ib. p. 24.129. Kab oy rating ris yeaPis imayopevseions, garws ekprilas ablois To tx THs Bolas TE malpoc, 1 TO TH Dalpi buoeaiy, ax ankérasoy ailis xadlarpmdvopsy.—x) oh 4 To éx Tig Boies wuoraynlo mpoc LUT ivy Onrulexov evar TH ex yey Te mraleos etvary & wiv dg peas Omaexe TE walpos* Tada OF x) myiy cde Sues nares Ze cuynalaliSecSas 7 diavoia THs eveeRes Ddacuarsas, imayogevdons ix TE maleas elves Tov thoy, & ctv Héeos 75 ering adhd Tuyxavey. diomeg TH Oravoiae x, avlot cuviSepeda a8 thy Quvky re Gmossis waouilsucvor x 7. & Conf. Sozom. Hist. Eccl. Lib. IT. cap. xviii. p. 68. 1. 20—30. 7° This accusation which Dr. Cave, Hist. Litter. Tom. I. p. 177, has endeavoured to set aside, is founded on the above ( @.4 truth is, as indeed he has himself placed beyond a. douht,—he erred from a hatred to the peculiar no- tions of Sabellius 7*, who, in maintaining that Christ was the First Person incarnate, had confounded the Persons 7*, as it was conceived he divided the substance. Into this extreme he must have clearly seen that the Catholicks were inclined to fall7*, in cited expesition given by Eusebius, of the doctrine of one sub- stance; which is precisely such an explanation as an Arian would propose and subscribe to without hesitation: vid. Epi- phan. Her. lxix. p. 732. d. In this light the epistle of Euse- bius was regarded by the best judges of antiquity. Phot. ad Constant. Patr. Epist. cxtiv. p. 201. ed. Lond. 1651. “EvoéGiog 6 78 Taping, cits JodAocs, Erte oUVAdns OTs py "Apsancpa EGAWy Rodos piv adrod ra BiBrliar x) adrds JE pélapenrduevos MnIer, x) axa, Thy voooy avooroyer xy TH wclapersin OF wwAAOV Eavlov Deinavow cyte Tapérnlor. “Ov yap tavliv txsvas tig opotzpas, dy ay edoke amroA0~ yeiadas, cuvisnow’ B08 Ty ayice 1g olxepeninn cunPorioas CvVOdW GAAG ss rod spouois apecBevlas adrod cuverdeiy rp Peovnwals, x5 ovdvalled7- vats Th youn, Teprlevdlas x) TETO oahws wAAe Fe wAciouy Mapigs Tio, % TOS Kasoagevaw adra ypaeiou Emtsorn, 7 Sozom, Hist. Eccles, Lib. Il. bs xviii. p. 68. 1.31, Kat "Evsadsos pty émrlselo tov EvcéBiovy sis ta tv Ninccbae dogaila wept rod yells naivdlopeodvloe* 63%, raira pty emasvsiv Ono “EvsaSiv BY snv DaBearis ov erdiCery dokay. Conf, Socrat. Hist. Eccl. Lib. if cap, xxiii. p. 58.1, 2—7. 7+ Damas. Ep. ap. Theodorit. Hist. Eccl. Lib. V. Siig xi. p- 209. 1. 17.—rd¢ tn LaBerariz &enorBSodilas wAdwn, Tov avloy Aéyorlas nab Tlatépe civas nal Ysov. Conf. Epiphan. Her. LXII. Tom. I. p. 513. Har. xxii. p. 834. b. 6 Sozom. ibid. p. 68.1. 20. “Ev 08 1o Tore, wary wees Eauritg FswalaCov of Ewioxomor, axpiBoroydpcvor Wegl FO OMOBSIOY OVOLAG. oF pw yap, Ths TET wood: yopncvac, BraoQnusiv worle, a5 dmeépésws éxles Tov viop dosalovras, nob Te, Movlayou % LaperrAis eae etpiBovlo dt wadrisa wep re romdta, "Evod6iss te 6 Tlengire, nah Evsadios 3 “Avhoxeds. Vid. supr, nn,” et C 41 ) combating the opposite errour in Arius ; and on this very point he consequently maintained a contro- yersy with Marcellus of Ancyra’*, who was how- ever acquitted of intentional errour, by St. Athan- asius’>and the Council of Sardica’’. Whoever will now cast but a glance over the disputed texts, as they stand in our authorised version, will di- rectly perceive that they afford a handle by which any person might lay hold who was inclined to lapse into the errours of Sabellius. Will it be therefore thought too much to lay to the charge of Eusebius - to assert; That in preparing an edition of the Scriptures for general circulation, he provided against the chance of that danger which he feared, Me cancelling one of those passages, | ce welts and NR the remainder, 1 Tim. iii. 16. Acts xx, 28? Let the most prejudiced of the advocates of the German method of classing the Greek manuscripts, according to the coincidences of their respective texts, now take a retrospective view of their de- scent, as it has been traced from the edition of Eu- sebius. Let him compare the alterations which haye heen recently made on their authority in the 74 Socrat. Hist, Eccl, Lib, Il. cap. xx. p. 105. 1.16. “Ove Gyvorléov puévlos ors 0 agin BiBatov 4 Tah, *"EvotBios avecney- woey zy oAos rae BiBaiors ames avldy Dvareysnev0¢, a a7@06 Mapxearoy imdyeasls nad rnc pay Te pyc Mapxiaau’ ads avila oO aot eras, ws Prrdv cv peomrov roy Kdpiov, xada EaBérriog 6 AiBus xab Tledaos 0 Lamocalevs, Te Maexéaarx riodeyorlog. 5 §. Epiphan. Har. Lxxit. p. 837. b. 76 Socrat. Lib. UL. cap. xx, p. 105. 1. 9, ( ey text of Scripture, with his peculiar opinions. Let him then answer how far their collective authority ought to decide against the truth of any doctrine, or the authenticity of any verse which is at variance with the peculiar opinions of him by whom it was revised and published. In this impeachment of the original reviser of that edition of the Scriptures, from which there is more than a presumption, that all manuscripts of character have, in some measure, descended, its last feeble support seems to be withdrawn from the German system of classification. If any force be allowed to what has been hitherto advanced, the affinities on which it is founded are to be traced to a very different cause than a coincidence with the original text of Scripture, as published by the in- spired writers. Nor will it be thought that I pre- sume too far in explicitly denying,—That it ac- quires any support from the authority of Origen: That it receives any from the original testimony of the eastern and western versions: ‘That it derives any from the best and most ancient manuscripts, — or is countenanced in its important deviations from the Received ‘Text, by any which have not been altered from the times of Eusebius. Having thus removed the buttresses, and drawn out the braces which uphold this vast and uncement- ed pile, we need no further earnest of its falling to the ground, than the hollowness of its foundation. ‘The same materials, when reduced to a heap, may be employed in raising a new structure. Hitherto we have brought the integrity of the Received Text ( 43 ) barely within the verge of probability. The only positive argument on which it is impeached has been indeed disposed of; and a negative consequently established, by which it is covered. To entitle it to stand as authority, positive evidence, however, must be cited in its favour. With this object it shall be my endeavour to suggest a new principle of clas-_ sification, and to determine what rank the Received Text may be assigned, according to the proposed system. But more particularly it shall be my object to vindicate those important passages of the Received. Text which have been rejected from the Scripture Canon, on the principles of the German method of classification. SECTION I. By an analysis of the texts of different manu- scripts, we may be enabled to distribute them into different classes according to the coincidences of their peculiar readings. But we are thus afforded no means of determining which of those various readings existed in the sacred text, as dictated by the inspired writers, ‘The difficulty which origi- nates from hence naturally suggested the expediency of an appeal to the writings of the early divines, and to the versions of the primitive ages, in order to ascertain upon their authority, the probable state of the text at an early period, For this purpose a choice has been made of Origen, and an affinity traced between his quotations and the readings of a peculiar class of manuscripts; which readings as confirmed by the concurrence of the eastern and western versions, were supposed to possess suffi- cient evidence, in this united testimony, of their having formed a part of the original text of Scrip- ture. The objections to this method of investigating the genuine text of Scripture, have been stated at large in the last section, It was then my object to trace C=) the cdincidences on which this mode of classifica- tion is founded to a comparatively recent source ; and to refer them to the first edition of the sacred text revised by Eusebius, and published under the auspices of the Emperour Constantine. The peculiar objections lying against an appeal _ to the testimony of Origen were then generally spe- cified. Nor can an appeal be admitted to that of any of the Christian fathers, unless on particular occasions, where they deliver an explicit testimony, and expressly refer to the text of Scripture. Their collective testimony, though highly calculated to establish the doctrinal integrity of the sacred text, is wholly inadequate to determine its literal purity. This isan assumption, from which no one will find it secure to dissent, who is acquainted with their general mode of quotation’. But if any person is still sceptical on this point, let him review the state of the text as preserved in their quotations, as it has been extracted from their works by Dr. Mills, and is inserted in his elaborate Prolegomena*. And if he yet fails of conviction, let him examine the peculiar readings of Origen and Chrysostome, who of all the ancients are most entit!ed to attention, as their testimony has been collected by M. Matthzi, in the notes of his Greek Testament*. The fact ? Vid. Croii Observ. in Nov. Test. cap. xviii.—xxvili. p. 134, seq. Blanchin. Vind. Can. Script. Tom. I. p. xxvii. Sabat. Pref. Bibl. Ital. Tom. I. p. xxviii. § 64, &c. ? Vid. Mill. Proleg. Nov. Test. n. 368. seq. ed. Kust. 3 Matthazi Nov. Test. Tom. I. p. 43, ed. Rig. In his locis : ee , ergo preferatur auctoritas Codicum Grecorum Noyi Testamenti ( 46 ) is, they were so constantly exercised in the Serip- tures, which they had nearly committed to memory, that they quote, not by reference, but from recollec- tion. However scrupulously, of course, they adhere to the sense of the text, they frequently desert its letter.. As they constantly quote by accommoda- tion, and in explanation; as they frequently com- plete their expositions, by connecting different parts lectionibus Sanctorum Patrum. Eadem est ratio variantium lec- tionum, que in Origine, Chrysostomo, et aliis reperiuntur. Nec enim ist2 Patres ita diligentes erant in laudandts et eaplicandis litteris sacris, ut nunc sunt critici, ac facilius etiam quam nos, cum Grzci essent, vocabula similia inier se permutabant. Haud raro etiam Grecitatem secuti, neglexerunt verba contextus sacrt. Conf. not. in Matt. xvi. 13. p. 328, &c. Garbellius delivers himself in similar terms respecting the Latin Fathers and the old Itaiick version, speaking of the Codex Brixianus; Garb, ap. Blanchin. Proleg. in Evang. Quadrupl. P. I. p. 37.“ Ego sane cum Argentei Codicis nostri collationem cum Tertulliano, ac Cypriano instituissem ; quod inter Latinos scriptores ad ea Ecclesia tempora proprius accederent, quibus puriora veterum interpretum exemplaria esse debuerant, locis omnibus, quos illi ex Evangeliis eduxerant, mature perpensis, fundum mihi ali- quem parasse putabam, unde lectiones dicti Codicis ilorum authoritate firmare possem. Ast ubi aliquando dies diei illuxit, © falsum me, et fundum nullum certum labore illo mihimet com- parasse tandem cognovi. Ita easdem pericopas (uti observatum est) haud tisdem verbis, et nunc pluribus, modo paucioribus effe- runt.—Sed nihil certius, quam sacrorum librorum Novi preser- tim Feederis locos plerumgque e memoria penu, aliquando etiam tumultuario, ut res ipsa, aut tempus ferrent Eccleste Patres ad= tulzsse. Nisi si forte ad assertum aliquod probandum pracisa sacri textus authoritate opus foret. unc enim exacte, ac per partes efferebant; quod in laudatis aliquibus Tertulliani vail observabamus.”? ) Cam ) of Scripture, which de not succeed in the order of the context; they necessarily deviate from its exact phraseology* ‘These and other justifiable liberties which they have taken with the sacred text, as hav- ing been occupied in explaining its sense, not in preserving its readings, consequently render their testimony, unless in'very peculiar passages, of lit- tle further use, than, as I have already stated, to establish its doctrinal mtegrity. Deprived of the testimony of the primitive di- vines, our last appeal lies to the early Translations. But few of these are of sufficient authority to en- title them to any attention in deciding the matter at issue. With the exception of the old_Italick ver- sion, they are destitute of the external evidence, which arises from the testimony of those early di- vines, who might have appealed to them in their theological writings. Nor are the probabilities of the case much in favour of their antiquity. The Macedonian conquests had rendered the original language of the New Testament so general through- out the east *, that the absolute necessity of a Sy- 4 See Croius and Matthzi, ut supr. 5 It is not my intention here to espouse the opinion of Is. Vossius that Greek and Latin were the only languages spoken in Palestine in the Apostolical age. The Jews, at that period, as it is observable at present, adopted the language of their conquerors, but taught their children their vernacular tongue. This is evident from the following authorities: 2 Maccab. vii. 21, 24, 25,27. S. Hieron. Pref. in Com. ad Gal. Tom. VI. p. 134, c. Unum est quod inferimus—Galatas, excepto Sermone | Greco, quo omnis Oriens loquitur, propriam linguam, eandem | pene habere, quam Treviros, &c. Hence, P. Simon, reason- 4} — ( 48 ) riack and Coptick version was not immediately ex» perienced in the countries where those languages were spoken. And if we except those versions, there are none which can’ support any pretensions fo a remoteantiquity. The Ethiopick possesses the fairest claims + butif we must admit it to have been more than corrected from the Greek®, it must have been made at a comparatively recent period, as ap- pears from the time at which Christianity was esta- blished in Ethiopia’. With respect to the Syriack ing on the foregoing passage from the Maccabees, in answer fo Vossius, declares; Hist. Crit: du Nouv. Test. chap. vi. p. 60.— “ Ce qui prouve manifestement que le Grec étoit la langue wul- gaire du pays, et que les Juifs outre le Grec avoient conservé la langue Caldaique qu’ils avoient rapportée de Babylone, et qu’ils appelloient la langue de la nation,’’ By parity of reasoning we might conclude the same to have been the case in Egypt, which, not less than Syria, was under the dominion of the Greeks. We consequently find, that the principal authours of this country wrote in Greek as the learned language; and that inscriptions and coins of this country are written in the same language. The Coptick abounds in Greek terms, as I have particularly occasion to remark of the Sahi- dick, one of its oldest and least corrupted dialects; which is a sufficient proof of the prevalence of Greek in the Thebais where that dialect was spoken. 6 Vid. Mill. Proleg. in Nov. Test. n. 1191. Conf. n. *%, supr.. p- 31. 7 This event cannot be antedated to the reign of Constantine, as appears from the impression which was made by the preach- ing of the Gospel upon the neighbouring countries, which, though visited by the apostles, did not fully embrace the faith until the times of the first Christian Emperour, when they were visited by Addesius and Frumentius,* Socrat. Hist. Eccles. Lib. ; ( 49 ) and Coptick, which have those strong presitmp- tions against their antiquity, that have been already suggested ; the antiquity of the latter is confessedly worse than suspicious, as it is accommodated with the sections and canons of Eusebius*. The pre- tensions of the Syriack are scarcely less equivocal. As it is composed’ in different styles ?, and was thus possibly made at different periods, the probabilities are, thatthe more antient part of the version was retouched, when the translation was completed. The bare probability of this circumstance, corrobo- rated by the want of positive evidence in favour of the antiquity of this version, destroys its authority as a testimony to which we may appeal in determi- ning the genuine text of Scripture. The little satisfaction which is to be derived on this subject from the Syriack and Coptick versions, has entitled the Sahidick to a proportionable degree of respect. Insupport of the remote antiquity of IE Cap. xix. p- 49, iP 31. "AuSic Sy pernwovertzoy wat oorwes zor} Tov nora TB Bauciréus 6 Keisravicuos iwAativero’ ThyizauTe yee "Leddy ve civ tvordeu nab “IRnewy ra Suny wees TO xpisiaviler EAauRave Thy apm xiv’ Tivos OF Evency 7 mpodnun Tay tvdotigw exencamnyy oe Boaréw pit. Twine ob AmosoAos Anew Thy cig Ta Eun wopeiay twoiswlo, Qwuas wiv TWP TapSav amosonny ImedeyeTo* MatSaios d: chy AlSioriay BapSoro~ paiog OF ixdnpiro Hv curmppévny TAUTD "LyDicer® tiv pévtos evdotépw “Ivdiap Ff ampocorme? BagBapuy Erm aorra, diaPogns ypwouera yAuroaic, 206 re apo Tov Kwvsavrivg xpovww a Te Xpisiancps Aaoyos iparite. Tis OF aitia TH nal adtds xpisiaricas viv Epyouas xatarz~wy, Conf. p. 50. j. 11. seq. 8 Vid. supr. p. 29, n. °°. 9 Simon, Hist. des Vers. chap. xv. p. 187. E ( 90 ) this version, which is written in that peculiar dialeet of the Coptick which is spoken in Upper Egypt, a work has been cited, in which it is principally pre- served, and which, as supposed to be written by the heretick Valentinus, who flourished in the se- cond century, necessarily supports its pretensions to at least an equal antiquity °°. To the species of evidence on whieh this work is thus recommended to us as antient, I have much to object '*. The foundation on which the conclusion *© Version. Sahid. Fragmentt. a Woid. et Ford. Oxon. 1799. Prolegg. pp. 136, 139. “ Sed ulterius progredior, et vetustatem Versionis Sahidice factis probabo. Valentinum gyptium anno circiter vegesimo secundo vel vigesimo tertio seculi se- cundi floruisse, et librum ‘ Sophie’? seripsisse novimus.—Ex his colligo ‘ Sophiam’’ esse librum Grosticorum antiquissimum gui seculo secundo jam extiterit. Et cum Tertullianus ‘“So- phiam” Valentino adscribat, nullam video rationem cur non potius Valentino, quan alii Gnosticorum attribuam quorum voces familiarissimas mAygwpa, aiwv, pusnpsoy, yuo, Bapinrw, izrdaBawS, &c. sepissime exhibet. Cum vero plures Psalmi Davidici, et quedam Veteris Testamenti ac plura Now Testa- menti loca in hoc MS*°. Codice recitentur, que cum reliquiis Versionis Bibliorum /Zgyptiace, exceptis quibusdam varieta- tibus conveniunt; recte inde mihi videor conjicere : Interpreta- tionem Bibliorum Sahidicam seculo secundo jam extitisse. *T take no account of the aigument of M. la Croze and Dr. Wilkins, Prolegom. in Vers. Copt. p. v. drawn from the case of the ascetick Antonius, who, though said to have been not versed in Greek literature, is yet admitted to have read the seriptures, and to have heard them read in the church; from whence it is cencluded, he must have heard and read them in a Coptick translation. Letus however suppose him able to understand and to read Greek, though not able to speak or write it, and we shal! see that the authority which supports this argument con- cludes nothing. (ie SEY) in favour of its antiquity, is built, is in the first place, weakened if not destroyed, by the doubt- fulness of the fact, that any work of the kind has been really ascribed by Tertullian to Valentinus *. And this objection is considerably strengthened by the further consideration, that many works, under similar titles have been ascribed to his disciples **. The circumstance of this work being written in Sahidick, which was the vulgar language of the Thebais, seems to conclude not a little against the origin which it is ascribed, in being referred to — Valentinus. This heretick, who was a person of no ordinary qualifications “*, could not be ignorant ** Massuet. Dissert. Prev. in S. Iren. Art. I. Sect. iv. § 9. p. xvi. ed Bened. ‘Sunt qui putant scriptum ab eo [ Valentino] librum sub titulo “ Sophia,’? nixi his Tertulliani verbis adv. Valent. cap. 11. ‘Docet ipsa Sophia non quidem Valentini sed Salomonis.? Sed hc perperam explicant. Alludit enim Ter- tullianus, non ad aliquem Valentini librum, sed ad Sophiam no- vissimum eorum quos excogitavit Honum; ut legenti patebit.’ Conf. § 12. 15. 48. *3 Id. ibid. § 9. “ Discipulos quidem Valentini ‘ exsistentes extra omnem timorem, suas conscriptiones proferentes, plura habere gloriari, quam sint ipsa Evangelia’ narrat Ireneus Lib. III. cap. xi. n. 8. ‘In tantum siquidem processerant audacie, ut Novum Evangelium, quod “ Veritatis’’ nuncupabant, con- finxissent.’ At ipst Valentino nihil simile usquam adscribit,?? &c. Jd. ibid. p. xiii. ‘* Alexandriam profectus Valentinus, ibi ‘Grecorum artibus non mediocriter institutus est doctissimum enim fuisse scribit Hieronymus in Ose. cap. x. et Dialog. contr. Marcionitas, qui Origeni vulgo adscribitur, of ~ CAs TwY Beavave A. Mencpror of merQoorles* ole alo? mapuxrndncovlas. 5. Maxcpios of wpasis* ors > A 7 \ ~ QUTOL KAnpovoUNTeoE TAY Vive G. Maxcepios of wesvarles nat bp 5 ’ Osarles ryv dinorocdvny® ors > A G / avrot xoplacbicovlas. whe Maxdpros ob ecm noves* - OTs avrot eAenOnoorlate 8. Maxderor of xabagol rn uapdia* orsedrot rov@covarporla. 9. Maxcépios ob eipnvomorol ST avTor d10s Ozod xanbjoovlar. 10. Mazcpros of dedswrypévos e 4 vw a a) Evence inecsoovyns’ OTs abTaV ecby Bacirtia Tay Spceviive pia ls drvedioworw, 1 dwEwory x) ele Maxdéesoi tse, oray > re ~ \ cw xad duov wav wovnpoy oy a > ~ Vevdoevos Evexey Exod. 12. Xaiptlex) ayarracbe, ev ~ oT: & pusobds Uywy GoAvs ev ~ ~ eg Tors Bpavois ovTw yap eiwkay \ a « ~ Tes Weoilas, TBs po Dp.are Vers. Vulg. 1. Videns autem turbas ascendit. in montem, et cum sedisset acces-~ serunt ad eum discipuli ejus : 2. Et aperiens os suum, docebat eos dicens : 3. Beati pauperes spiritu : quo- niam ipsorum est regnum ceelo- rum. . 5. Beati mites: quoniam ipsi possidebunt terram. 4. Beati qui lugent: quoniam ipsi consolabuntur. 6. Beati qui esuriunt et sitiunt justitiam: quoniam ipsi satura- buntur. 7. Beati misericordes: quia ips? misericordiam consequentur. 8. Beati mundo corde: niam ipsi Deum videbunt. 9. Beati pacifici: quoniam ipsi filii Dei vocabuntur. 10. Beati qui persecutionem pa- tiuntur propter justitiam: quoniam quo- ipsorum est regnum ccelorum. 11. Beati estis, cum maledix- erint vobis et persecuti vos fuerint, et dixerint omne malum adversum vos, mentientes propter me. 12. Gaudete et exultate: quo- niam merces vestra copiosa est in celis. Sic enim persecuti sunt prophetas, qui fuerunt ante vos, ( 69 ) Class IIT. Cod. Mosc. 1. Iday && Tue OyARsy avon is 70 @c0s* zai rabicarlos ars, qpoonAbor avila of walvlat ave. 2. Kat avitkas vo $0 ~ A BUTE, idacxer aUTES Aéywr’ 3. Maxcpior of @laryot ra t ] a 7 ~ 2 « Drev.ale ors avTaDVisw 1 Rae CiAzia Tay Spare. 4, Maxcpios ok crevbevles? ors _ wbrol wapaxanbacorlas. tA u 5. Maxegsos of weacic? ort > A \ ~ @UTOb KAnpovouHTLC THY Yn 6. Maxapios of wesvavles nar ~ X\ oo Lares TH Sinasocovny’ OTs; > 7 4 airot xopracbncorlat. 7 7 "7.' Maxcesos ot eAemcovec* Os > \ ’ adres ercnOncovlas. 8. Maxcpios of xccBoegot 77 \ \ + xa pdia® Ors ated rov@scyeorlats 9. Maxcpios of eipyvomosoi . . ~ uA ots abToh viol Oecd uAnbacovlas. 10. Maxcpios ob dedwyudros J / e oe 2? ~ i> EVEXEY ObKGLLOTUYNS® OTs AUTAY ESbY % Bacirsia Tay Spavav. u 11. Maxcpsot tse Orcey dvedi- \ 4 ‘ ” cucw uzb diakocr zal eimwce ~ ~ ? ca ~ Mav amovngov CNA xa UUW, la eg > ~ evdouevos Evexey uz. XN ~ 12. Xaipde nal ayarrmcbe a < eee, ~ ot ~ Ors 0 probes tuwy wou ev Tos > ~ a J IW \ Beavis ovTw yao Binkay Teg 7 \ ve a= BPOPnT as, Tes WEO UWI. Cod. Briz. 1. Videns autem turbas ascen- dit in montem, et cum sedisset accesserunt ad eum discipuli ejus ; 2. Et aperiens os suum, Stay eos dicens: 3. Beati pauperes spiritu : quo- niam ipsorum est regnum ccelo- rum. 4, Beati qui lugent: quoniam ipsi consolabuntur. 5. Beati mansueti: ipsi hereditabunt terram. quoniam 6. Beati qui esuriunt et sitiunt justitiam: quoniam ipsi satura- buntur. 7. Beati misericordes: quoniam ipsi misericordiam consequentur. 8. Beati mundi corde: quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt. 9. Beati pacifici: quoniam ipsi filii Dei vocabuntur. 10. Beati qui persecutionem patiuntur propter justitiam: quo- niam ipsorumest regnum ceelorum. 11. Beati eritis cum exprobra- verint vos, et persequentur, et dix- erint omne malum adversum vos mentientes propter me, 12. Gaudete et exultate: quo- niam merces vestra copiosa est in ceelis. Sic enim persecuti sunt prophetas qui fuerunt ante vos. (CoO) A few general observations will suffice on the subject of those different classes of manuscripts in the Greek and Latin, as preliminary to further de- ductions. » That the manuscripts in both languages possess the same text, though evidently of different classes, must be evident on the most casual inspection ; they respec- tively possess that identity in the choice of terms and arrangement of the language, which is irreconcila- ble with the notion of their having descended from different archetypes. And though these classes, in either language, vary among themselves, yet, as the translation follows the varieties of the original, the Greek and Latin consequently afford each other mu- tual confirmation. The different classes of text in the Greek and Latin translation, as thus coinciding, may be regarded as the conspiring testimony, of those Churches which were appointed the wit- nesses and keepers of Holy Writ, to the existence of three species of text in the original and the transla- tion. bb On this conclusion we may however found ano- ther deduction relative to the antiquity of this testi- mony. As the existence of a translation necessa- rily implies the priority of the origimal from which it was formed ; this testimony may. be directly re- ferred to the close of the fourth century. The Vul- gate must be clearly referred: to that period, as it was then formed by St. Jerome *°; in its bare exist= % This period is antedated by St. Jerome, to the fourteenth year of the emperor Theodosius; A. D. 393. S. Hieron. Ca- {. in ence of course the correspondent antiquity of the Greek text with which it agrees, is directly esta- blished. This version is, however, obviously less antient than that of the Verceli or Brescia manu- script; as they are of the old Italick translation, while it properly constitutes the new. In the ex- istence of the antient version, the antiquity of the original texts with which it corresponds is conse- quently established. The three classes of text which correspond with the Vulgate and Old Italick Version, must be consequently referred to a period not less remote than the close of the fourth cen- tury. In attaining the testimony of the Greek and La- tin Churches, ata period thus antient, we have ac- quired some solid ground to proceed upon. But this testimony is of still greater importance, as it affords a foundation on which we may rest the tes- timony of St. Jerome, who flourished at that period. To his authority the bighest respect is due, not merely on account of his having then lived, and formed one of the versions of the Latin church, but his great reputation in biblical criticism. His testi- mony, while it confirms the foregoing deductions, made from the internal evidence of the Greek and Latin manuscripts, affords a clue which will guide us through this obscure and intricate subject. He bears witness to the existence of three editions of the sa- talog. Scriptt. Ecclesiass. sub. fin. Tom. I. p. 132. Usque in presentem annum, id est, Theodosit decimum quartum hec scripsi——Novum Testamentum Grace fidei reddidi, Vetus jux~ ta Hebrajcam transtuli,”’ ( 7 ) cred text, in his own age, which he refers t6 Egypt, Palestine, and Constantinople *”. This tes- timony is the rather deserving of attention, as it confirms, in an extraordinary manner, the previous assumption relative to the existence of three classes of text: and, as on the same broad distinction of the country where they are found**, the Greek manu- scripts have been distinguished, by modern criticks into three different classes, two of which are re- ferred to Egypt and Constantinople. The result of the investigation to which this view of the subject leads, will, I trust, end in deduc- tions not less important than certain. It will, lam fond enough to hope, prove beyond all reasonable ground of objection, that the three classes of text, which are discoverable in the Greek manuscripts, are nearly identical with the three editions, which 37 §. Hier. Pref. in Paralipomm. Tom. III. p. 343. Si Septuaginta interpretum pura, et ut ab eis in Graecum versa est, permaneret; superflue me, Chromati, Episcoporum sanc- tissime, atque doctissime, impelleres, ut Hebrea volumina Latino sermone transferrem.—Nunc vero, cum pro varietate re- gionum, diversa ferantur exemplaria; et germana illa anti- quaque translatio corrupta sit atque violata: nostri arbitrii pu- tas, aut e pluribus judicare quid verum sit; aut novum opus tn veteri opere cudere, illudentibusque Judzis, cornicum, ut di- citur, oculos confingere. Alexandria et Lgyptus in septuaginta suis Hesychium laudat auctorem. Constantinopolis usque ad Anti- ochiam Luciani martyris exemplaria probat. Mediz inter has provincie Palestinos codices legunt, quos ab Origine elaboratas Eusebius et Pamphilus vulgaverunt. Totusque orbis hac inter se trifaria varietate compugnat.’? Conf. p. 11. n. “* #* Vid. supr. pp. 4, 5. (43%) existed in the age of St. Jerome: with which they are identified by their coincidence with the Latin translation, which existed in the age of that christian father. Of Class I. That the Cambridge manuscript, which is the exemplar of the First Class, contains the text which St. Jerome refers to Egypt, and ascribes to Hesy- chius, seems to be sufficiently established by the following considerations : 1. It is next to certain, that this manuscript was originally imported from Egypt into the west of Europe. It not only conforms in the style of its characters to the form of the Egyptian letters, but in its orthography to the Egyptian mode of pronun- ciation *°. It also possesses the lessons of the Egyp- tian church noted in its margin. In proof of which those passages may be speciiied, which occur in St. John, relative to our Lord’s interview with the Sa- maritan woman, and his walking on the sea ; which were appointed to be read in the Egyptian church at the period when the Nile was retiring from its channel. We consequently find both places distin- guished by that mark, which declares them to have been lessons read at that period **. And agreeably 3 Vid. supr. p. 55.n. * Kipling. Pref. in Cod. Cantab. p. xvi. ‘* Denique anag- noste solebant /Egyptiaci, instante annua Nili exundatione, Ca to this representation, we find this manus¢ript te- ferred to Egypt, by the generality of criticks who have undertaken its description“, As it was thus authoritatively read in the church, it evidently fur- nishes a specimen of the text which from a remote period prevailed in Egypt. 2. The same conclusion is confirmed, in an ex- iraordinary degree by the coincidence of this manu- script with the vulgar translation of the Egyptians. Of the different species of text which modern cri- ticks discover in the Greek manuscripts, that of the Cambridge manuscript is observed to coincide, to a degree surpassing all expectation, not only with the common Coptick translation *, but particu- larly the Sahidick version *. As Greek was ma- Sabbatis apud populum legere, que Joannes tradidit Evange- lista de muliere Samaritana, diebusque simul Dominicis, que scriptis idem mandavit de Jesu Christo supra mare ambulante, Reperies autem, in nostro codice, cum hane tum illam sec- tionem, verbo ANATNOEMA insignitam.”” # Vid. supr. p. 55. n. ™. 4* Vid. supr. p. 55. n. 7°. 43 The affinity between the Cambridge manuscript and the Sahidick version is pointed out by Miinter, Dissert, de Indol. Vers. Sahidic. pp. 1O—46. A table of their coincident readings is given by Dr. Woide, Fragmentt. Vers. Sahid. pp. 132, 133: and every page in the antecedent collation of texts contained in the same work, abounds in examples. I shall present the reader with a specimen, taken from a single chapter of St. Mat- thew, of the coincidence of this MS. and version, in additions, contractions, alterations, &c. of the sacred text. Matt. xviii. 10. Eves Tay pineay télwv Rec. Mosc. unum ex his pusillis. Brix : but this clause is thus enlarged, ivig rav pregav relay msevovloy ~ ais ue. Cant. Sahid. unum ex his pusillis gui credunt in me. ( nifestly the current language of Egypt *#, and ma- nuscripts in that language were as obviously preva- lent in Egypt*’ ; we must conceive that the vulgar translations of this country were accommodated to the generality of those manuscripts with which the natives were acquainted. The conformity of the Codex Cantabrigiensis to those versions conse- quently proves, that this manuscript contains the text, which in St. Jerome’s age, when the Sahidick version was apparently formed*®, was generally prevalent in Egypt. 3. Inthe extraordinary coincidence of the Cam- bridge manuscript with the old Italick version pre- served in the manuscript of Verceli, we have a fur- ther proof, which establishes the same conclusion. This version was corrected by St. Eusebius of Ver- celi*?, who was exiled in the Thebais, where the Sahidick dialect is spoken, during the period that the Christian church was under the dominion of the Veron. bid. 29. wecay é» els rés wads adl8, Rec. Mosc. Pro- cidens ad pedes ejus, Brix: but this clause is thus contracted, woo ey Cant. Sahid. Procidens. Verc. Ib. $5. 7a aapanlopale auray is omittedin Cant. Sahid. Verc. though retained in Ree. Mosc. Brix. bid 17. aowep 6 ebvixdg nad 6 reharncy Rec. Mosc. si- cut ethnicus et publicanus, Brix: but this clause is thus altered, is 6 Suizds wat as 6 reAdeng. Cant. Sahid. #4 Vid. supr. p. 48. n. °. 45 Woid. Pref. in Cod. Alexandrin. sect. I. § 33. p. vi— “ In £gypto circa Alexandriam plurimi erant librarii et calligra- phi, et Eusebius quinquaginta codices Constantino magno, et Athanasius totidem Constantino curaverat adferri.”” 4° Vid. supr, p. 53. seq. * Vid.supr. p. 59. n. 75. Arians “*. The active life of St. Eusebius will scarce- ly admit of our conceiving, that he performed this: task, at any other period, than during’ the time of his exile. And the attachment of those hereticks' whom he unremittingly opposed, to the edition of Kusebius *°, most probably. induced him to yield to a natural bias in favour of the church which admitted him into its communion, and thus led him to follow the Received Text of Egypt, as revised by Hesychius. The affinity between the Verceli and Cambridge manuscripts, thus furnishes an addi- tional proof, that the latter is of Hesychius’s edi- tion, which, from St. Jerome’s account, must in St. Eusebius’s age have continued in Egypt ; as it re- mained to the age of St. Jerome. It is indeed in- conceivable, that St. Eusebius, in forming his transla- tion, would have followed any text, which was of | an equivocal character, or in less repute than that of Hesychius: his version consequently adds ano- ther and convincing testimony, to prove, that the Cambridge manuscript contains the text which in his age was current in Egypt. 4, We possess a collation of the manuscripts of Egypt, made in the year 616, which establishes the same conclusion, almost beyond controversion. At that period Thomas of Heraclea, who revised the Syriack version, published under the auspices of Philoxenus, Bishop of Mabug, collated that trans- lation with some Greek manuscripts, which he 48 Vid. supr. p. 54. n. 77. 49 Vid. supr. p. 28. n, 7°. ( 77 ) found in a monastery in Egypt, and has noted their various readings in the margin of his edition *. So extraordimary is the coincidence of these readings, with the peculiar readings of the Cambridge manu- script **, that some criticks have been induced to believe it was the identical copy used in the colla- tion **, This notion is however refuted, by the in- 5° Adler. de Versionn. Syriacc. Nov. Test. Lib. IT. p. 49. ed. Hafn. 1789. “ Post seculum elapsum Thomas Heraclensis no- vam hujus versionis [Syr. Philoxen.] editionem curavit Alex- andrie, ad duo vel tria exempla Greca castigatam, nimirum an- no Grecorum pccccxxvi!, h. e. Christi pcxvi.—Cum zonnul- lis Codicibus Grecis eam contulit ; quorum precipuas varietates, et passim. etiam versionis simplicis consensum vel dissensum, iz margine editionis sue adnotavit, simulque ubi versio ambigua vel intellectu difficilior videbatur, verba Greca appossuit.’ This information is derived from a notice, annexed to the Philox- - enian version, by Thomas Heraclensis himself; Adler. ibid. p. 46. ‘Collatus est liber iste cum duobus exemplis probatis. Translatus autem fuit hic liber quatuor Evangelistarum Sancto- rum e lingua Greca in Syriacam cum accuratione multa et Ja- bore magno, primo quidem in urbe Mabug, in diebus Sancti Domini Philoxeni confessoris [et] episcopi ejus urbis. Collutus. autem postea, multa cum diligentia, a me Thoma paupere, cum tribus exemplis Grecis, valde probatis et correctis in Antonia Alezandria, urbis magne, in monasterio sancto Antoniano.” —e Cod. Biblioth. Angelic. S. August. de Urb. f. 139. 5* Adler. ibid. p. 133. ‘ Quicquid sit, illud tamen extra om- nem dubitationem ponitur, Codices Thome simillimos fuisse Cantabrigiensi.” 5* This notion is espoused by M. Wetsten. Prolegg. in Noy. Test. Tom. I. p. 28. but opposed by Dr. Gl. Ridley Dissert. in Syriac. Vers. sect. vi. p. 61. The question is debated by Dr. Kipling. Preef. in Cod. Cant. pp. xvi, xvii. Adler. Verss, Syri- acc, Nov. Test. Lib. II. p. 132. and other criticks, ( 78 ) ternal evidence of the manuscript compared with the readings in question *, From the conformity of those readings to the Cambridge manuscript, not merely in texts which are common to it with other manuscripts, but in texts peculiar to itself *4, we must infer its conformity to the text, which even - to a late period was current in Egypt. ‘Aa Now as it is absurd to conceive that the peculiar readings ailuded to in the last three imstances can have proceeded from the one manuscript named in the first; or that they have been corrupted from each other 5°: as St. Jerome has ascribed a peculiar 53 Vid. infr. n. 5, 54 Adler. ibid. p. 132. ‘ Itaque, inter 180 circiter varietates, 130%: fere consentiunt Codices, B. C. D. L. 1. 33. 69. Urb. 2 Vind. 31. al. ef 19% solus D.’’ Id. ibid. p. 130. “ In reliquis igi- tur consentit criticus noster cum solo Cantabrigienst (Wetst. cod. D.) undevigestes ; nimirum, Matt. i. 7. viii. 28. ix. 15. xv. 6. xx. 28. Marc.i. 3. iv.9. vii. 13. Luc. yi. 1, 41. xii. 1, 2 xvill. 30, 34. xx. 36. xxii. 34. Joh. vi. 1. vii. 40. ix. 37. et accedente codice Vaticano sexies, Mat. i. 22. xvi. 8. xxiv. 37. Luc. viii. 26. x. 17. Joh. xii. 34.” One or two examples taken from St. Luke, chap. xx. will evince, that these coincidences cannot be accidental. We read in Luke xx. 13. rélov idevles Weanncovlas Mosc. Harl. ‘cum hunc viderint verebuntur,’ &c. Briz: but ides is omitted in Cant.Verc.and the margin of Char« ’ kel. On the other hand, we read in Luke ib. 34 yauior 1) nye Le toxovlas Mosc. Harl.‘nubunt et traduntur ad nuptias.’ Brix, Vulg: but this phrase is znterpolated with yevvaivTas % yevvaae yapiios nab yoporvlas, Cant. * generant et génerantur, nubunt et nubuntur.’ Verc. on which Charkel observes, ‘in priori exe emplo [ Vers. Syr. Vet.] ‘gignunt et gignuntur’ sed in Greco non est.” Marg. Philos. - 55 The latter of the two examples quoted from Luke xx. 34. supr. n. **, is supposed to contain a proof that the Cambridge 3 9 text to Hesychius, which is no where to be found, un- less it can be identified in some one of the foremen- tioned sources: andas in speaking of this text, he delivers himself in terms, which accurately agree with the text of the Cambridge manuscript °: we must from these premises infer, that the text of this manuscript is virtually the same with that which St. Jerome refers to Egypt and ascribes to Hesy- _chius. | Ad, ALats ai 2 7d f- Ss ott Kew See OL15. Dd sex r; . r. pti. Uz 7 t L - Of Class II. That the Vatican manuscript which forms the exemplar of the Second Class, contains the text which St. Jerome refers to Palestine, and ascribes MS. was not used by Thomas Heraclensis in forming his collation. It contains a reading, which though found in the Cambridze ‘MS. that critick declares was not in the copies of the Greek which he collated. Vid. Rid]. ut supr. pp. 62, 63. Adler. ut supr. p- 132. On the other hand the collation contains read- ings which are not found in the manuscript, though said by the collatour to exist in the Greek ; these would be indeed of litile consequence, if they were not confirmed by the coincidence of the old Italick version. I add an example, from the next chap- ter of St. Luke, to that which has been last cited. We read Luc. xxi. 11. onueia peyzarz isaiy Cant. Mosc. Vat.: signa © magna erunt,’ Cant. Brix. Vulg: but we read “ et hiemes?? Marg. Philor: and “ signa magna erunt e¢ hiemes” Verc. These instances will sufficiently exemplify the assertion made above, that the texts before us cannot be corrupted from thz Cambridge MS. 36 S. Hier. Pref. in ry Evang. Tom. VI. p-i. m (ler (, SOc: ay to Eusebius, seems to be clearly established by the following circumstances : 1. This manuscript possesses a striking coinci- dence in its peculiar readings with another manu- script, which is preserved in the Vatican library, where it is marked Urbin. 257, and which, we are enabled, by the internal evidence of its margin, to refer directly to Palestine, and to identify with the edition of Eusebius. At the end of the Gospels it contains a notice, specifying that it had been transcribed, and collated with antient copies, in Je- rusalem, which were deposited in the- holy moun- tain **. As the text is thus directly allied to the text of Palestine, it is identified with the edition of Eu- sebius, in having his Canons prefixed to it, and his sections and references accurately noted in its mat- gin°?, The affinity of the celebrated Vatican ma- *’ Birch. Prolegomm. in Nov. Test. p. xxix. “ Insignem hunc codicem, [Urbino-Vatic. 2.] quod singularem ipsius cum op- timis et probatissimis exemplaribus convenientiam observarem, bis omni diligentia et intentione contuli. Ubi enim a Recepto Evangeliorum textu recedit, plerumque codicibus Vaticane 1209, &c. se adjungit. 58Id. ibid. Ad antiquissima exemplaria exaratum esse [Cod. Urb. 2.] testantur subscriptiones ad calcem Evangeliorum. Eia/= yérsov xaila MarSaioy tyecn x) avteCrnbn Ex riiy ev “Lepooorvpross @rararae Plpeper Tay ty Ty aryl : amroneinévwv, ev sinxors Bumd, xePar- eiors TNZ. Evalyéasoy xara Méexoy eyeaQn tx tay iowedacuivwr, ev sin¢oss aoe xeQaraiore LAA. Evayyéawv xara Avxay trypan nab avteCarOn duoiws ix TwY aUTaY ailiyecQuv tv sineoss BLE, xeparaioss TMB. EpayyéAtov xara lodwny eypagn % aneCandn bolus ix var airav ailiyecPuv, evstyors alAy xeParetiors DAM. 591d. ibid. p. xxvii. “Codex [Urb. 2.] est octave form, | (SF ) huscript, thus traced through this manuscript to the oldest copies of Jerusalem, furnishes of course a sufficient warrant for our referring its text to the edition of Eusebius, which was published in Pales- tine. 2. This deduction receives a direct confirmation from the vulgar translations which were current in the same country from an early period. The striking affinity of the Urbino-Vatican manuscript to the three translations extant in the Syriack, is express- ly asserted by Prof. Birch; by whom that manu- script was twicé carefully collated®. ‘That existing between the celebrated Vatican manuscript and the Jerusalem-Syriack is even more striking ; and itis observed to extend to the Philoxenian version like- wise, and, by the intervention of the Vulgate, membranaceus, foliorum 325, et Quatuor complectitur Evan- gelia, guibus prefiguntur Canones Eusebii. Nitide et eleganter exaratus est. Primacujusque Evangelii pagina, littere majores in sectionum initiis, interpungendi signa, ut e¢ titros Eusebians an margine Evangeliorum obviis 6° Jd. ibid. p. xxix. “His adde consonantiam nostri [Cod. Urb. 2.] cum Versione Syra Philoxenis, Syra Veteri, Hieroso- lymitana,” &e. * Adler. ut supr. p.201. * Generatim igitur ad eandem Co- dicum Grecorum. familiam referenda est [Vers. Syra Hiero- solym.] cui libros Grecos, quibus i in castiganda Versione Phi- loxeniana usus est Thonias, supra vindicavimus. Sed tamen ut exempla Thome affinitate proxime accedent ad Cod. Can- tab, et ut nostra Versio cum Vaticano, omnium forte ups @tas tulit prestantissimo, propingua sit cognatione conjuncta.”” Birch. ut supr. Pp. XIX. *‘Insignem Codicis nostri [Vat. 1209.] prestaritiam, ipsa varietatum collectio huic operi in- serta satis superque demonstrabit—Mira in lectionibus quoque G ( 8% ) may be ultimately traced to the old Syriack or Pe- shito %. On its affinity to the Philoxenian and Je- rusalem versions, I rather insist, as the former is divided into sections °*, and has the Eusebian ca- nons and sections carefully inserted in some of the oldest copies ** ; and as the latter was apparently made in the fourth century, when the edition of Eusebius was published in Palestine®. As it is more than merely probable, that the valgar trans- lation was formed from the current edition of the singularibus conveniéntia cum—illa antiqua Versione Syra, qua seculo post C. N. sexto, sub auspicits Philoxenis facta, inse< quenti seculo, cura et studio Thome Heraclensis ad Grecos codices correcta et perfecta fuit.” *3 Comp. p. 61. n. *3. p. 13. n. *. p. 21. m. 87. 64 Adler. ut supr. p. 50. “Idem Themas Evangelia in capix tula vel sectiones destribuit, et pericopas diebus festis recitan- das constituit.”” * Adler. ut supr. p. 52. “ Preemittuntur Codici [Mediceo Florent. Vers. Philoxen.] index pericoparum diebus dominicis et festis in coctu sacro recitandarum, Epistola Eusebit ad Car-— pianum, ettabule decem Canonum harmonicorum Eusebit et Am- monit.— Margini Evangeliorum preter titulos pericoparum domi- nicalium, minio scriptos, et argumenta eapitum vel uiQaraler atramento exXarata, adscripli quoque sunt minio numeri -Ammo- niani pericoparum, et sub singulis indicatur tabula ad quam illud capitulum referendum sit.” *° Id. ibid. p. 201. ** Sed tamen, cum eandent dialectum re« periemus in Hierosolymitano, qui ex plurimorum, ni fallimur, eruditorum consensu, circa seculum quartum absolutus fuit, (libris enim Cabbalisticis Baher et Zohar immerito tam remota antiquitas a Judeis tribuitur:) non impedit, quo minus inter= pretationem nostram eodem circiter tempore, vel saltem intra guartum eo seatum seculum Hierosolymis editam fuisse statwere ansleamus,” ( 83 ) country; the affinity which the Vatican manuscript possesses to that, translation contains a very con- vincing proof, that it possesses the text of Eusebius and of Palestine ” 3. The striking coincidence of the Greek of the Vatican manuscript with the Latin of the Vulgate * leads to the establishment of the same conclusion. This version received the corrections of St. Jerome during his abode in Palestine ® ; it is thus only pro- habla that the Greek copies, after which he mo- delled it, were those, which from being current in Palestine, were used in thé monastery, into which he had retired: but these he as- sures us were of the edition of Eusebius7°. . For this edition he had imbibed an early partiality, through Gregory of Nazianzum, who first put the Scriptures into his hands 7*, who had been educated 67 It is thus probable that this MS. preserves this text even in a purer state than the Urbino-Vatican MS. The latter hav- ing been collated with more copies than one, thus adopted their respective peculiarities: and as the transcriber was evidently not a native of Jerusalem, but an inhabitant of some region situated more westerly, he adhered to the text which prevailed in his native country. We may thus naturally account for the approximation of this MS. to the Byzantine text, where it de- viates from the Palestine. ¢® Vid. supr. p. 61. n. 3°. °° Vid. S. Hier. ad Lucin. Ep. xxviii. Tom. I. pp. 82, 83. Id, . adv. Ruffin. Lib. ILL. cap. vii. Tom. II. p. 257. 7° Vid. supr. p. 72. n: *7. 7*§. Hieron. Scriptt. Eccless. Catal. Tom. I, p. 131. “ Gre- gorius, primum Sasimorum deinde Nazianzenus Episcopus, vir eloquentissimus preceptor meus, quo Scripturas explanante dis ici. ” «2 ( St ) at Cesarea in Palestine, with Euzoius, who had been at considerable pains with Acacius, to .restore the decayed library of Pamphilus and Eusebius in that city 7%. With this library St. Jerome was cer- tainly acquainted, having found the Gospel of the Hebrews in it, which he afterwards turned into La- tin’+. He has besides avowed his predilection for Eusebius’s edition, in revising that part of the Scripture Canon which contains the Old Testament ; having expressly followed Origen’s revisal of the Septuagint 7°, which, as he informs us, was incor-~ 7? Id. ibid. p. 131. “ Euzoius apud Thespesium rhetorem, cum Gregorio. Nazianzeno episcopo, adolescens C@esaree eruditus est : et ejusdem postea urbis episcopus, plurimo labore corrup- tam bibliothecam Origenis et Pamphili in membranis instaurare conatus est,” &c. 731d. ad. Marcel. Ep. cxx1. Tom. III. p. 398. “ Beatus Pamphilus—cum Demetrium Phalareum et Pisistratum in sa- cra bibliothecz studio vellet equare—Origenis libros impensius persecutus, Czsariensi Ecclesia dedicavit: quam ex parte cor- Fuptam, Acacius dehinc et Euzoius, ejusdem Ecelesiz sacer- dotes, in membranis instaurare conati sunt.” 74 Zaccagn. Col. Monumm. Vet: Eccl. Pref. p. Ixv. § 54. ed. Rom. 1698. ‘ Ecenim magno in pretio semper fuere Cx- sariensis Bibliothecz codices, utpote ab Origine primum, deinde a Pamphilo Martyre, ac demum ab Eusebio Czsariensi, viris doctissimis congesti fuerant. Sanctum enim Hieronymum iis- dem codicibus usum fuisse argumento est, quod Nazafenorum Evangelium in Bibliotheca Ceesariensi se reperisse testatur.’” Conf. S. Hier. Scriptt. Eccl. in Matt. Tom. I. p. 120. Comment, ~ in Matt. Tom. VI. p. 21. b. 73'§. Hier. Sun. et Fretel. Ep. cxxxv. Tom. Ill. p- $71 ‘ “ Septuaginta interpretum [editio] que in Eamdois codicibus reperitur,—a nobis in Latinum sermonem fideliter versa est, et Hierosolyme atque in Orientis ecclesiis decantatur,” &c. ( 8 ) porated in the edition published by Eusebius”. And he has clearly evinced his acquaintance with the same edition, in revising that part of the Canon which contains the New Testament, by adopting Eusebius’s sections in dividing the text of the Vul- gate, and prefixing his canons to that version, to- gether with the epistle addressed to Carpianus”’. These considerations, added to the known respect which St. Jerome possessed for Eusebius’s critical talents”*, fuily warrant our adding the testimony of the Vulgate to that of the Syriack version ; as prov- ing, that the Vatican manuscript, which harmonizes with those translations, contains the text, which in St. Jerome’s age was current in Palestine. 4. We possess in the present instance, not less than the preceding, a collation of texts, expressly made with the edition of Eusebius, about the year 458, which decisively establishes the same con- clusion. Euthalius, who at that period divided the Acts and Catholick Epistles into sections, as Euse- 7° Id. ibid. conf. ut supr. p. 72. n. 37. 77 Yd. Preef. in iv. Evangell. Tom. VI. p. i. “ Canones quoque, quos Eusebius Casariensis Episcopus, Alexandrinum secutus Ammonium, in decem numeros ordinavit, sicut in Greco haben- ‘tur, expressimus.” Vid. supr. p. 32. n. %, 781d. Apol. adv. Ruffin. Lib. I. cap. ii. Tom. II. p. 234. Pref. in Jos. Tom. III, p. 341, Epist. ad Sun. et Fretel. Tom. III. p- 377. 7 Zaccagn. ubisupr. p. 402. Floruit enim Euthalius—An- no ccccLvitt quo Pauli Epistolas versibus distinxit, vixitque ultra annum ccecxc, cum lucubrationes suas Athanasio juniori, Alexandrino Episcopo dicaverit, qui eo anno sacris infulis de~ coratus fuit,’? ( 86 ) bius had divided the Gospels *°, expressly collated his edition with correct copies of Eusebius’s edition, preserved in the library of Caesarea in Palestine*’. Of the peculiar readings of this edition an accurate list has been published, from a collation of manu- scripts preserved in Italy *. But so extraordinary is the affinity which they possess to the readings of the Vatican manuscript **, that some criticks have not % Euthal. Ed. Actt. Apostt. in Procm. p. 409. ed. Zaccagn. —hrayx@ tpnot ye tH Te Ta [pa tewv BiCrov ama 9 Kadormar Emsco= Ady dvayvavas ve nal wpocwdiar x Was avanPararwowoder, x) dssrcin Teluv Excens Tov viv Aemlonepws, mpocitaéac, adsAP? Adardost wpore Qiréscile— 8* Id. Ed. Catholl. Epistt. p. 513. ed. Zaccagn. “AveCanOn av Tlgaéeay x) KaSorsmwy “Emssodwy BiGatoy expos ra cexpioy cevlirypapa Fis tv Kascapsic BiCAsobnuns “EvosCle r& Tapping. Id. Subscr. Epistt, Paul. e Cod. Coisl. 202. dileCanbn d& 2 BiGrcs apes To ww Kasoapele ailiypaQov rig BiGAsobnuns re aye Tlappires xerpt Yer pe pen perv aoe, 8 Zaccagn. ubi supr. pp. 402, 403. n. $3 This affinity is pointed out by Zaccagni, ubi supr. p. 443, seq. who specifies the concurrence also of the Alexandrine MS. which harmonizes in the Acts and Catholick Epistles with the Vatican MS. Vid. supr. p. 61. n.*°. Zaccagn. Adm., ad Varr. Lectt. Euthal. p. 441. “Deinde varias Regio-Alexandrini codicis lectiones contulimus cum aliis modo memorati Alezan- drini Codicis variis lectionibus, qua in Anglicanis Bibliis Poly- glotizs sacro textui subjiciuntur, et ubi cum Regio-Alexandrino in omnibus conveniunt indicavimus,” &c. I shall subjoin a spe- cimen of the coincidence of the text of Euthalius and the Vati- can MS. in readings which differ from the Received Text : taken from the two first chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, Acts i, 14. 9 Maple Rec. xai Mapp. Euth. Vat, ib, 19. Axcrdzpa Rec. Axcddapax, Euth. Vat. Alex. ib. 24. dvadesEov rélav roy Mo ive ov €eréEw aabelv. Rec. avaderEov ov e&crzew tx ‘rélov trav Ovo tye Aa- Civ. Euth. Vat, Alex. ii. 6. ors yuacv Rec. Ore txsoev Euth. Vat. { 87 ) scrupled to assert, that this manuscript has been in- terpolated with the peculiar readings of Euthalius’s copies **. The coincidences existing between them admit of a more simple and certain solution, by considering Eusebius’s text, to which they are re- spectively allied, as the common source of the re- semblance:, The affinity between Euthalius’s read- ings and the Vatican manuscript consequently forms an additional proof, that the latter contains the text of Eusebius, as it was preserved in Euthalius’s age, in the library of Cezsarea in Palestine. Now as it is wholly inconceivable, that the coin- — cidences observable between those different texts, translations and copies can be the effect of accident, or of intentional alteration: as St. Jerome has ascribed a peculiar text to Palestine, which can be found no where, if it is not identified in the manu- scripts and translations of that country: and as the text of the Vatican manuscript, in the opinion of no ordinary judge, is of that kind which renders it par- ib. 13. xAcvaorles. Rec. daxrzvakoies Euth. Vat. Alex. ib. 14, Fiérpas. Rec. 3 Uerpos Euth. Alex. ib. 17. urna Rec. tastes Euth. Vat. Alex. ib. 22. x2Sd¢ nai aire. Rec. z2$a3 aives Euth Vat. Alex. ib, 27. aa& Rec. asa Eucth. Vat. ib. 38. zuaprias Rec. Ter auaphar ina Euth, Vat. Alex. ib. 40. apoexade Atywr Ree, @pacxade aish, Ayr Euth. Vat. Alex. ib. 43. tyiicio 3: caon Yoxp oles. Rec. iyévcle iv Iepecadyu* Rees te gy piyas ei Gallas aoTes. Euth. Alez. ; ** Wetsten. Prolegg. in Nov. Test. p.11. § 3. “ Hlud etiam observe, verosimile videri Codicis nostri [Alexandr.] scripto- rem opera Euthalii usum fuisse—quin et lectiones Euthalii (qua- _ Ies L. A. Zaccagnius edidit) sepissime secutum fuisse”” Conf. p. 26. ut supr. p. 61. n. ©. . f,.204- ( 88 ) ticularly worthy of Eusebius *: we may hence certainly conciude that the manuscript, in which all these characteristick marks are combined, con- tains the text which St. Jerome traces to Palestine, and ascribes to Eusebius. Of Class III. That the Moscow and Harleian manuscripts, which form the exemplars of the Third Class, con- tain the text which St. Jerome attributes to Luci- anus, and refers to Constantinople, is sufficiently established by the following considerations. 1. It is no where disputed that those manuscripts contain the text, which uniformly exists in the ma- nuscripts brought from Constantinople. These manuscripts, which far exceed in number those containing the Egyptian and Palestine text, con- tain the Vulgar Greek, which constitutes the Re- ceived Text, and exists in our printed editions. Such however were the characteristick marks of the Byzantine edition in the age of St. Jerome: in that age, a Lucianus, (as the copies of the edition revised by that learned person were termed) con- tained the Greek Vulgate ** and possessed the text 8s Vid. Dr. Bent]. Lett. p. 233. 86 S, Hier. Sun. ct Fretel. Ep. cxxxv. Tom. IIL. p. 377.— ‘* breviter illud admoneo, ut sciatis, aliam esse editionem quam Origines et Czsariensis Eusebius omnesque Greciz tractatores xouwny id est communem appellant atque Vulgatam, et a plerisque ( 89) which was current at Constantinople *’. As the pri- ority of the text of our printed editions to that age is evinced by the coincidence which it pos- sesses with the old Italick version **; the circum- stance of this text being still the Greek Vulgate, and still found at Constantinople, very decidedly proves, that it is identical with that which St. Je- rome ascribes to the same region, and assigns to Lu- cianus. 2. The text of the manuscripts which contain the Byzantine edition, is observed to differ materially from the oriental versions *?; which involves an ar- gument, though one it must be confessed, that is merely negative, which corroborates the same conclusion, The whole of the texts in St. Jerome’s age were reducible to.three °°. ‘T'wo of them are re- ferred to Egypt and Palestine, and are easily iden- tified, by their coincidence with the vulgar transla- tions, which still exist in these regions. The third nunc Asziaves dicitur; aliam Septuaginta interpretum, que et in iéaqAcis codicibus reperitur, et a nobis in Latinum sermongm fideliter versa est, et Hierosolymz atque in Orientis ecclesiis decantatur.”’ 87 Vid. supr. p. 72. n. 37, 88 Vid. supr. p. 70. 89 Adler. de Verss. Syrr. p. 132, “Itaque inter 189 circiter varietates, 130 5 fere consentiunt codices B.C. D. L. 1. 33. 69. Urb. 2. Vind, 31. al. et undevigesies solus D. E quo mani- feste patet Codices Thome [Heraclensis] a recensione Constan- tinopolitana, quam exhibent plurimi Codices Mosquenses, longis- ‘sime abesse,’’ &c, Conf. ut supr. p. 55. n. *°. p. 74. n.*, p. 81, Deh, { 9° Vid. supr. p. 72. n. ( 90 ) is assigned to Constantinople, where no language but Greek was vernacular. Consequently, as this text differs from those versions, and cannot of course be ascribed to Egypt or Palestine; we are left no aiternative but to ascribe it to Constantino- ple, which directly identifies it with the text revised by Lucianus. 3. The striking coincidence observed to exist be- tween the text of the Moscow and Harleian manu- scripts, and that of the Brescia manuscript, con- tains a further proof of the same conclusion. ‘There seems to be no alternative left us, but to conclude, that the latter contains a version, which had been made from the text revised by Lucianus ; or that it has been corrected by the Byzantine text, since the time of St. Jerome. The latter is a supposition, however, which must be clearly set out of the case. The orthographical peculiarities of the text of this ‘manuscript prove it at least antecedent to the age of Cassiodorus. It possesses the errours * which exist- ed in the copies that preceded his times, and which he undertook to remove from the text of Scripture® ; ** Garbel. Descrip. Cod. Brix. ap. Blanchin. Prolegg. p. 6. *¢ Nihil autem frequentius in Codice isto quam litterarum per- mutatio: O pro V, T pro D, sed pre czteris B pro V, et vice versa usurpatis. Aliquando etiam V pro Y, et e contra sed parce usurpatum inveni.”’ % Cassiod. de Inst. Div. Lit. cap. xv. ‘ Nune dicimus in quibus litteris sunt librariorum vitia corrigenda.—B. pro V, V pro B, O pro V, N pro M, contra orthographie precepta vi- tiose positas non relinquas.—Sed in his emendatorum codicum servetur exemplum.—Quod pronomen est, per D litteram nor per T scribendum est.” ( 91) -and it differs in its peculiar readings from the Vul- gate”, which, from the same age, wholly superseded the old Italick translation *. The strongest negative argument may be urged, from the circumstance of its thus differing from the Latin translation, that it is to- tally free from alteration. But as strong a positive argument may be urged, from its coinciding with the Byzantine text, that it is equally free from antece- dent correction. If we must admit, that the text of this manuscript has undergone alterations, it must be granted, that it is as much a new translation as the Vulgate ; as it differs as much from that transla- tion as the Byzantine text from the Palestine *. Nor is it to be disputed that it possesses that literal close- ness to the original Greek %, which, we are as- sured, was characteristick of the old Italick trans- lation 9”, ‘This character of literal fidelity seems to place out of dispute the possibility of its having been corrected since the age of the elder Eusebius. In the period intervening between his times and those of St. Jerome, the western world seems not to have possessed a person who was capable of forming such a translation. It is unnecessary to except here those learned persons who have been specified on a former occasion” ; as they were attached to a 53 Vid. supr. p. 63. seq. 9% Vid. supr. p. 16. n. *9. p. 33. n. 59 % Conf. supr. pp. 68, 69, 70, 96 Vid. supr. pp. 63, e 65. 97 Vid. supr. p. 57. # Vid. supr. p. 57. 99 Vid. supr. p. 54. n. Nn. n. ( 92 ) different text from that contained in the common, edition "°°. If the text '' of the Brescia manuscript — has been alteyed, it must have been consequently Toz corrected previously to the age of Eusebius *°*. 7 Vid, supr. p. 54. n.*%, 1-1 This expression must be strictly taken, as applied to the whole body of the text; for the Brescia manuscript has suffered some mutilations. Jt thus wants Luke xxii. 43, 44. Joh. v. 4. viii. I—11. vid. Garbel. ap. Blanchin, Prolegg. pp. 19, 22, 23. We must evidently ascribe these corrections to the influence of “ the rectified copies’? which are mentioned by St. Epiphanius, ‘vid. infr. p. 93. n. ‘°5. and which prevailed towards the ¢lose of the fourth century. But while these corrections clearly support the claims of the text to an antiquity as remote as this period, they do not affect the arguments by which it may be proved to be more antient ; since it evidently required no reference to the Greek to make those omissions, nor more than a knowledge of the fact, that they were made in the rectified copies. And this information might be attained without having ever seen one of those copies, by merely looking into the fathers; vid. Hi- lar. de Trin. Lib, X, § 41. August. de Adultt. Conjugg. Lib. IL. cap. vii. It is, on the contrary, evident, that between the pe- riod which is thus ascribed to this MS., and the times of Euse- bius, the western world possessed no person who was ade- quate to make so faithful a translation. Hence the conclusion of Garbelius, who antedates THE TEXT of this MS. at least to the age of St. Jerome, seems to be undeniable; Discr. Cod. Brix. ubi supr. p. 10. “ Exemplar autem hoe nostrum ex an- tigraphis illis manasse, qu non solum Hieronymi tempora, sed Hilarii Pictaviensis preecesserant, cum facies ipsa, tum loci ali- quot quos postea excutiemus, manifestissime evincunt.’? Vid. infr..993. De) «/supt. ps $7. ©, ‘* T take no account of some more modern corrections which have been made in the text of this MS. from the Vulgate of St. Jerome, as they are easily distinguished from the original writ~ ing, by means of the different liquid in which they are exes ( 93) And as it was manifestly formed by the Byzan- tine text, it consequently evinces the priority of that text to the Palestine, which was formed by Eu- sebius. As it thus proves, that, at this early period, this text existed, which prevails at Constantinople ; it clearly identifies it with that which is referred by St. Jerome to the same place and period, and ascribed by him to Lucianus. 4. This deduction is further confirmed by the positive testimony of St. Epiphanius. In reasoning on a particular passage of Scripture, he distin- guishes two species of text ; one of which was rec- tified, and the other left unrectified, by the ortho- dox : and he represents the copies of the former, as those which omitted the passage im question *?. cuted ; the former being written in ink, the latter executed in a silver pigment. Garbel. ibid.p.10. “ Quod vero Codicibus olim accidere solebat, nempe ab imperitis criticis ut perperam corrigerentur, huic quoque nostro in pluribus contigit. Non equidem quod corrector ille, quicumque is demum fuerit, aut adjecerit aliquid, aut immutaverit. Sed abrasis, que vitiosa censebat, ut recta non semel pervertit, sic mendosa supinus preterit. Supersunt enim ubique littercrum vestigia, unde na- tivam seripturam deprehendamus.’’ *3'S. Epiphan. Ancor. § xxxi. Tom. II. p. 36. b. “Aaad zat mxAauor, xeitas ty to xata AvxayEYayyeriw, ty Tois adiopSwros evTVyEZPos, «5 xéyprlar 7H paptupia & aysog "Elensaios ty 10 pera uipécewr, pos THs Ooxnoe Tov Xets ov meQrvivat Aéyovlas (deSadoEou eo: &Qelrovlo TO priey, QoBnevles, nab en voncarles aite +h Tera, “al TS iongueelalov,) “ nab yercpevos ty dywvia Wgwee, nat iytrelo 6 ida aire as Seoulos ainclos nai BD9n"Alyeros ioyuer adler.” These last words are quoted from Luke xxii. 43, 44. Conf. S. Hilar. de Trinit. Lib, X. § 41. p. 1062. a. Non sane ignorandum a nobis” C 4 Of the two species of text which were published at’ Constantinople, by Lucianus and Eusebius‘, that revised by the latter certainly retained the passage : for it is expressly referred to in his canons, and is retained in the Vulgate, which was formed after the text of his revisal'®. The edition of Eusebius con- sequently differed from the corrected copies of the orthodox, published in the days of St. Je- rome and St. Epiphanius. But this passage is wanting in the Alexandrine manuscript, as well as ia the Latin translation, which accords with it, and which is preserved in the Brescia manuscript. The text of these manuscripts is thus clearly identified with that which had received the corrections of the orthodox revisers ; and as they possess the Byzan- tine text, their joint testimony consequently proves est, et in Gracis et in Latinis codicibus complurimis, vel de ad« veniente angelo, vel de sudore sanguineo, nil scriptum reperiri. *4 Vid. supr. p. 72. n. 37. p. 26. n. 4, 705 It is thus marked in the margin of the Harleian MS. and in that of the Cambridge MS. £nr; and in the margin of the Verona MS. ccrxxxili X; this being the proper refe« rence to Eusebius’s Canon x, which consequently contains No. 233, referring to Luke xxii. 43, 44. 105 Jt is consequently marked in the margin of the manuscript and printed copies of the Vulgate, 283 X: and set against thé following words: ‘* Apparuit autem illi Angelus de ceelo, con- fortians eum. Et factus in agonia prolixius orabat. Et factus est sudor ejus sicut gutts sanguinis decurrentis in terram.’? These words are also found in the Verceli and Verona MSS., which contain the old Italick version: both, however, read “sudor d/ius guasi gutte ;”? the former also reads “decurren- tis swper terram,’””? while the latter reads “ decurrenies in terra.’ ( 9 ) the antiquity of that text to be as remote as the times of St. Epiphanius *” ; and of consequence evinces its identity with that text, which St. Jerome, who lived in the same age, assigns to Constantinople, and ascribes to Lucianus. Now, as the text preserved i in the Harleian and ~ Moscow manuscripts is that which exists in the ma- nuscripts, which are brought from Constantinople ; as it differs from the text of the Oriental transla- tions, and therefore cannot be assigned to Egypt or Palestine ; as it harmonizes with the text of the La- tin translation preserved in the Brescia MS., which preceded the times of Cassiodorus and Jerome ; and as it corresponds with the state of the Byzantine text, as described in the writings of St. Epipha- nius ; we may from these premises summarily con- clude, that it is identical with the text which St. Jerome attributes to Lucianus, and assigns to Con- stantinople. Ir the proofs which have been thus adduced at length are not deemed adequate to evince the iden- *°7 Tt is necessary to explain here, that St. Epiphanius was the acquaintance of St. Jerome, and bishop of a see under the Patriarch of Constantinople. As he lived when St. Jerome’s three classes of text existed, and speaks in general terms of one, he must be supposed to mean that which prevailed in the region where he lived. He has, however, placed this matter beyond mere conjecture, in referring to Joh. i. 28. Her. 11. p. 435. a. . He quotes ?y @:S2@aga as the reading of his own copy; & 6: Saria, as the reading of “ other copies.’* The former is found in the Byzantine text ; the latter in the Palestine; the trimer sonsequently contained the text of St. Epiphanius. ( 96 ) tity of the different classes of text which are still preserved in the Cambridge, Vatican, and Moscow manuscripts, with those which formerly existed in the editions of Egypt, Palestine, and Constantino- ple; it is difficult even to conceive what mode of proof will bedeemed adequate to that purpose. In every instance where that coincidence, which is alone calculated to prove such an identity, could be ex- pected, it has been sought, and found to exist. It has been traced in the manuscripts and vulgar translations prevalent in those countries ; and in the collations of texts and occasional versions which were made from those manuscripts and translations. And as this mode of proof is most full; so it appears to be most satisfactory. That the different texts of St. Jerome’s age, and of the present times, should amount exactly to three, must surely convey no slight presumption in favour of their identity. But phen. through the medium of the old Italick version, (which corr ated with some of the copies of the former period, and which corresponds with those of the present,) those extremes, however remote, are directly connected; the mode of proof which evinces the identity of the text which existed at. both periods, must be allowed to carry the force “ demonstration. : Independently even of the laboured proof by which I have endeavoured to establish this conclu- sion, nothing appears to be more probable, than that we.should possess copies of the different texts, which existed in the age of St. Jerome. The manner in which all manuscripts, that have de- ( 9 ) scended to us, have been preserved, would of itself render this point more than probable. It is how- ever a matter, not merely of probability, but of fact, that at least one copy and one version has been preserved for that period; for, the Vulgate and Alexandrine manuscript are both assigned to the era of Jerome'*. Even the latest of those manuscripts which contain the exemplars of our dif- ferent classes of text is not ascribed toa period less remote than the eighth century ; for. this is the date assigned to the Moscow manuscript, which con- tains the Byzantine text’®; the Vatican manu- script, which contains the Palestine text, lays claim to much greater antiquity. As those manuscripts have thus certainly existed for ten centuries, it is not to be disputed, that those from which they were copied might have existed for the remaining four, which intervene to the times of St. Jerome. And if this reasoning evince the permanence of the Byzan- tine text, it must, by parity of reasoning, evince that of the Palestine and the Egyptian. ~ When we weigh this probability against the only possibility which the question appears to admit, the result must clearly evince the exclusive stability of the grounds on which we have proceeded, in arriv- ing at the present conclusion. If it is denied that those three texts have descended to us, from the 108 Woid. Prolegg. in Cod. Alex. p. xvii. § 56. ‘ Scriptus est itaque Codex Alexandrinus antequam vir doctus teste Euthalio, anno 396, in sectiones Epistolas diviserat.” Conf. supr. p. 70. nN. 36, . - . ? Vid. supr. p. 62..n, %, . H ( 8 ) times of St. Jerome; it must be granted that one or more of them has heen formed since the age of that father. But taking up the question, as re- duced to this alternative, can there be a shadow of doubt, that the latter is a supposition, not merely less probable in itself, but involved in difficulties which are wholly inexplicable? For what supposi- tion can be more irreconcilable to probability, than that which implies, that the Latin translation, after having undergone such a change, should ultimately acquire the characteristick peculiarities of the dif- ferent versions which existed in the age of St. Je< _ rome? I will not insist at present on this circum- stance, that some of those characteristick marks consist in a resemblance to the oriental versions **° which implies, that those who created it in the Greek possessed an acquaintance with the eastern lan- guages, which certainly was not possessed by the most learned of the christian fathers. But the bare fact, that one of those versions which is contained . in the Brescia manuscript agrees both with the Greek and Latin copies of St. Jerome’s age ™, in omitting at least two remarkable passages, which are nevertheless still found in the Greek and Latin Vulgate '** which have generally, if not exclusively, prevailed from that time to the present day’, seems to place beyond all reasonable doubt, that this version claims an alliance to the text of the ‘meee in- m° Vid. supr. pp. 74, 81. “* Vid. supr. p. 37. n. %. p. 93. n. ‘3. Conf. p. 92.n. “™* Vid. supr. p. 94. n. *%, *3 Vid. supr. p. 32.n. 57. Conf. Simon, Nouv. Obs. sur te Texte et les Vers. p. 145. } i t f t ’ } ; : ( 99 ) stead of thelatter. Nor is it to be disputed that we stilt retain two of the texts which in St. Jerome’s age ex- isted in the Greek Septuagint ; however it may be denied that we possess those, which at the same period existed in the Greek Testament. For the Vatican manuscript possesses the text which Eu- sebius published from Origen; as unquestionably appears from its coincidence with the remains of the Hexapla'’, and the Vulgate of Jerome’. And the Alexandrine manuscript, as possessing a. different version, must preserve the revisal of He- sychius or Lucianus; most probably that of the for- mer, as it was originally brought from Alexan- andria°. From this matter of fact, we may surely conclude, that, as the copies of the New Testa- ment were infinitely more numerous than those of the Old, the three classes of text which are pre- served in the former are not less antient than those which are preserved in the latter: and consequently must be referred tu the age of St. Jerome. In the course of the above reasoning I have con- sidered St. Jerome’s testimony, on the existence of three classes of text '’, as extending to the New _ Testament, though it is strictly applicable to the Septuagint. Whether his declaration may be taken in this latitude, or not, is of little importance to the foregoing conclusions ; as all that I have endeavour- _ €dto prove has been established, independent of | ™* Vid. Blanchin. Evang. Quadr. P. I. f. cdxciii. cdxcvii. j 1 ~ 451d. ibid. f. cdxciii. 11° Negot. of Sir T. Roe. f. 414. 460,618. Conf. supr. p. 72. *? Vid. supr. p. 72. n. 37. H 2 ( 100 ) his testimony. The reader will easily perceive, that the existence of three classes of text in St. Je- rome’s age has been proved from the coincidence of the Greek with the Latin translations which ex- isted in the age of that father “*; and the identity of those classes with the three editions which I con- ceive to be his, has been proved from the affinity which they possess to the oriental translations *”?, But even independent of this circumstance, a suffi- cient warrant may be found, in his own authority, for taking his testimony, in the more enlarged sense, and aeetnae it to the Old and New Testament. It was obviously not his intention to limit his declara- tion to the latter; that he speaks only of it is mani- festly to be imputed to his having been exclusively engaged on the subject of the Septuagint. Of con- sequence, when he speaks of the New Testament, he explicitly admits that it was revised by Hesychius and Lucianus**. That it had been revised by Eu- sebius is not to be denied '** ; and St. Jerome has professed himself acquainted with his edition ‘**. While this learned father has likewise made a simi- Jar declaration, with respect to the editions of Hesy- ™8 Vid. supr. pp. 70, 71. "9 Vid. supr. pp. 74. 81. “eS. Hier. Pref. in rv Evangg. p. i. “ Preetermitto eos co- dices quos a Luciano et Hesychio nuncupatos paucoram homi- — num asserit perversa contentio: guibus utique nec in toto Ve- teri Instrumento emendare quid licuit, nec in Novo profuit emendasse, cum multarum gentium linguis Scriptura ante trane slata doceat falsa esse gue addita sunt.? *an Vid. supr. p. 26. n. “. p. 34, ne ©. "2 Vid. supr. p. 85. n. 77. ¢ tol ) chius and Lucianus ; he clearly intimates that they were in use in his days; and expressly declares, that they had their respective admirers'*3. Now, it is obvious, that the same causes which recommended any part of these different editions in any particular church, must have tended to recommend the re- mainder. St. Jerome has, however, informed us, respecting the Septuagint, that the different editions of it, as revised by Hesychius, Lucianus, and Euse- bius, prevailed not merely in particular churches, but in different regions ***; we must of course form a similar conclusion respecting the New Testament, which had equally undergone their revisal. As the whole bible was received in all churches, and differ- ent countries adopted different editions; nothing can be more improbable, than that their copies of it could have been composed of a mixed text; or that the region which adopted one part of the Canon from Hesychius, would take another from Lucianus. We are indeed informed by St. Jerome, that the -pertinacity with which the different churches ad- hered to the ancient and received text, was almost invincible *’ ; and in his Preface to the Latin Vul- *3 Vid. supr. p. 100. n. ™™. #4 Vid. supr. p. 72. n. 37. *5 Such is the constant complaint of St. Jerome in his Pre- faces; vid. Prxf. in Pentateuch. Tom. III. p. 341. Preef. in Jos. Ib. p. 341. Pref. in Paralipomm. Ib. p. 343. Pref. in Esdr. Ib. p. 344, &c. Hence St. Jerome delivers the fol- lowing injunction to his friends; Ibid. p. 344. ‘ Accedunt ad hoc invidorum studia; qui omne, quod scribimus, reprehendendum _ putant; et interdum, contra se conscientia repugnante, publice facerant, quod occulte legunt.—Itaque obsecro vos Domnion et ( 102 ) gate, he has declared, that the effects of this lauda- ble prejudice against innovation were really experi- - enced, with respect to the editions of Hesychius and Lucianus : though the copies edited by these learn- ed persons had every thing to contend with, from the rivalry of later editions, which had been pub- lished by Eusebius, Athanasius, and other orthodox revisers. This declaration of St. Jerome, and the reflexion which he deemed necessary to cast on the editions of Hesychius and Lucianus***, contain a sufficient proof, that the copies of those editions were generally prevalent in his age. In fact, a minute examination of the text of the Vulgate, which he published, enables us to determine, that, in forming that translation, he made use of versions formed from the editions of Lucianus and Hesychius. The proof of this last point I shall hereafter give in detail, as it contains the strongest confirmation of the main con- clusion, which it is my object to establish, that the three classes of text, which exist in the present age, existed in the age of St. Jerome. The bare pre- valence of those editions till the latter period, in- volves a proof, that they could have only obtained in Egypt, in Palestine, and Constantinople ; since, solely and respectively, over those regions extended the influence of Hesychius, Eusebius, and Luci- anus **7, Rogatiane carissimi, ut privata lectione contenti, libros non ‘efferatis in publicum; nec fastidiosis cibos ingeratis:—Si qui autem fratrum sunt, quibus nostra non displicent, his tribu- atis exemplar,” &c. vid. infr. p. 119, n. ™%, "6 Vid. supr. p. 100. n. ™, ? ‘Vid. supr. p. 72. B. >”. ( 103 ) ¥ shall now beg leave to assume, as proved, that the three classes of text which exists in the Cam- bridge, Vatican, and Moscow manuscripts, are iden= tical with the three editions of Hesychius, Eusebius, and Lucianus, which existed in the age of St. Je- rome. Other diversities are indeed apparent in the Greek manuscripts, but they do not seem to be suffi- ciently important or marked, to form the grounds of a separate classification. A peculiar order of manu- scripts is thus observed to exist, which differ very materially from the preceding, as they agree with each other in possessing many interpolations from the writings of later commentatours’**. But as they are consequently of partial authority, and are evi- dently formed on the basis of the Byzantine text, _ they maw be directly referred to the third class, and ranked under the edition revised by Lucianus. The same observation may be likewise extended toseveral manuscripts of a different character: some of which are observed to partake of the peculiarities ’ fe of a different class from that to which they princi- . pally conform. We thus frequently discover the influence of the Palestine text upon the Byzantine; which, doubtless, is to be attributed to the publica- tion of Eusebius’s edition, at Byzantium, under the auspices of the first Christian Emperour. It is cer- tain, that the orthodox, little satisfied with this edi- tion, republished a revisal'*®, on the death of Euse-. bius and Constantine. In this manner St. Athana- 78 Such are the Moscow MSS. denoted by M. Matthzi and M. Griesbach, Mt. a, d, e, g, 10, Fg ie 4 ™9 Vid. supr. p. 93. n. *°3, ( 104 ) ‘sius and St. Basil retouched some copies, of which, “oe iby an extraordinary chance, we seem to possess spe- scimens in the celebrated Alexandrine and Vatican *manuscripts"°. But these copies rather contained revisals of the edition which preceded their times, than constituted new editions of the text of Scrip- ture. If published by their respective authours, they appear not to have passed into general use. The text of St. Basil never received the royal autho- rity, and was therefore probably dispersed among a limited number of readers, and confined to a parti- cular region. The revisal of St. Athanasius re- ceived that sanction, having been expressly pre- pared at the command of the Emperour Constans ; but its authority expired with the influence of its authour, on the death of that prince, and his brother, the younger Constantine. The revisals of both these learned persons may be therefore directly re- ferred to the editions of Palestine and Constantino- ple, out of which they arose, and into which they: subsequently merged : and as they are contained in, the Vatican and Alexandrine manuscripts, which are respectively allied to those texts, we may con- sider them as little more than a repetition of the different editions which had been previously pub- lished by Eusebius and Lucianus. The whole of the Greek manuscripts may be con- sequently reduced to three classes, which are iden- 8° Tn the course of the following investigation, these MSS. will be particularly described: and the probabilities of their alliance to the corrected text of St. Athanasius and St. Basil, will be examined. ‘( Yen } tical with the editions of Egypt, Palestine, and Con- stantinople, as revised by Hesychius, Eusebius, and Lucianus. And the adequacy of this distribution may be established, with little comparative difficulty.: As modern criticks, after a careful analysis, are ena- bled to reduce all manuscripts to three classes; and distribute the Cambridge, Vatican, and Moscow ma- nuscripts in separate classes: hence, as these manu- scripts are likewise the exemplars of the different texts in the present scheme of classification, this scheme must necessarily embrace every variety, and mark every characteristick distinction which modern diligence has discovered in the manuscripts of the Greek 'Testament. Hence also it becomes possible to reduce every manuscript to its proper class in the new scheme, on knowing the class in which it was placed in the old mode of classification. As the Western, Alex- andrine, and Byzantine texts in the former method, respectively coincide with the Egyptian, Palestine, and Byzantine text in the latter; we have only to substitute the term Egyptian for Western, and Pa- lestine for Alexandrine, in order to ascertain the particular text of any manuscript which is to be referred to a peculiar class or edition. The artifice of this substitution admits of this simple solution ; the Egyptian text was imported by Eusebius, of Verceli, into the West"*', and the Palestine text, re- published by Euthalius at Alexandria'*, the Byzan- ** Vid. supr. p. 59. n. **. conf, p. 54. n. 7. p. 58. n. 4® Vid. supr. p. 86. nn. © et *, ( 106 ) tine text having retained the place in which it was originally published by Lucianus. In a word, a manuscript which harmonizes with the Codex Can- tabrigiensis must be referred to the first class, and willcontain the text of Egypt. One which harmo- nizes with the Vatican manuscript must be referred to the second class, and will contain the text of Pa- lestine. And one which harmonizes with the Mos- ' cow manuscript must be referréd to the third class, and will contain the text of Constantinople *?. It must be now evident almost at a glance, that the present scheme corresponds with the different methods of those who have undertaken the classifi- cation of the Greek manuscripts, and that it derives no inconsiderable support from their respective sys- tems. In the first place it accords with the plan of Dr. Bentley, whose object was to confront the oldest copies of the Latin Vulgate, and of the original Greek +, in order to determine the state of the text in the age of St. Jerome. And, conformably to his plan, it ranks the Vulgate and Vatican manuscript . %33 To the first class we may consequently refer the Cam- bridge, Clermont, St. Germain, Augean, et Boernerian MSS. which are critically denoted by the letters, D, D, E, F, G. To the Second Class, we may refer the Vatican, Alexandrine, {in the Acts and Epistles), Ephrem, and Stephens’s eighth MS. which are denoted by the letters B, A, C, L. And to the Fourth Class, we may refer the Alexandrine (in the Gospels), the Harleian and Moscow MSS. which are denoted by the let- ters A, G; Mt. V, H, B. * Vid. supr. p. 9. ns. %. ( 7 4 in the same class; which constituted the basis of Dr. Bentley’s projected edition. But it proceeds on a more comprehensive view of the subject, and confronts two other classes of the original Greek with correspondent classes of the Latin translation. And thus it leads not only to a more adequate me- thod of classification, but to the discovery of a more ancient text; by means of the priority of the old Italick version to the new or Vulgate of Jerome. It in the next place falls in with the respective schemes of M. Griesbach and M. Matthei, and de- . rives support from their different systems. It adopts the three classes of the former, with a slight varia- tion merely in the name of the classes; deviating from that learned critick’s scheme in this respect, on very sufficient authority’. And in ascertaining the genuine text, it attaches the same authority to the old Italick translation, which the same learned person has ascribed to that version*. It agrees with the scheme of the latter critick, in giving the pre- ference to the Greek Vulgate or Byzantine text over the Palestine and the Egyptian 7: but it sup- *35 ‘Vid. supr. p. 105. #36 M. Griesbach, speaking of the aids which were used by the first editours of the Greek Testament, in compiling their edi- tion, thus observes, Prolegg. Sect. ii. § i. p. viii.“ Latina certe usi sunt translatione fateor ; sed partim innumcris gravissimisque mendis corrupta, partim Recentiore tantum illa Vulgata, non vero longe prestantiore Antehieronymiana, que Itala vulgo dicitur.” *37 M. Matthzi, who frequently asserts the extraordinary coincidence which existed between his MSS. gives the follow- ing comparative estimate of the merit of his principal manu- ( 108 ) ports the authority of this text on firmer grounds than the concurrence of the Greek manuscripts. Hence, while it differs from the scheme of M. Mat- thei, in building on the old Italick version ; it differs from that of M. Griesbach, in distinguishing the copies of this translation, which are free from the in- fluence of the Vulgate, from those which have been corrected since the times of St. Eusebius, of Verceli, of St. Jerome, and Cassiodorus3*. And it affords a more satisfactory mode of disposing of the multitude of various readings, than that suggested by the lat- ter, who refers them to the intentional or accidental corruptions of transcribers; or that of the former, who ascribes them to the correction of the original Greek by the Latin translation 9: as it traces them ~ to the influence of the text which was published by Eusebius, at the command of Constantine. As a system, therefore, that which I venture to propose, may rest its pretensions to a preference ever other methods, on the concessions of those who have suggested different modes of classification. scripts, H, V, and those denoted by the letters A, D, E, G, D. Nov. Test. Tom. IX. p. 254. ‘ Hic Codex [H,] scriptus est litteris quadratis, estgue eorum omniwm gui adhuc in Europa tnnotuerunt et velustissimus et prestantissimus. Insanus quidem fuerit, qui cum hoc aut Cod. V, comparare, aut eguiparare voluerit Codd. Alexandr. Clar. Germ. Beern. Cant. qui sine ullo dubio pessime ex scholiis et Versione Latina Vulgata interpo- lati sunt. Per totum hunc Codicem vix quingue errores offendi, quos etiam suis locis sedulo notavi. Hunc et Codicem V in primis secutus sum,”? *8 Vid. supr. p. 59.sqq. Conf. p. 90. sqq- =. Vids supr.. n.:; ( 109 ) Independent of its internal consistency, and the his- torical grounds on which it is exclusively built, its comprehensiveness may, I hope, entitle it-to a pre- cedence: as it embraces the different systems to which it is opposed, and reconciles their respective inconsistencies. SECTION III. HAVING distributed the Greek manuscripts into three Classes, the next object of inquiry is, to ascer- tain the particular class, in favour of which, the clearest and most conclusive evidence can be ad- duced, that it preserves the genuine text of Scrip- ture. The main difficulty in such an undertaking, is, | believe, overcome, in referring these texts to the different regions in which they were edited. As we acknowledge no authority, but the testimony and tradition of the Church, in determining the au- thenticity and purity of the Scripture Canon; that text must be entitled to the preference, which has been preserved in a region, where the tradition has continued unbroken, since the times of the evange- lical writers. It is this circumstance which adds so much weight to the testimony of the Latin Church, as it preserved its faith unimpaired*, during the pe- * XXXIX Arr. § vi. “ In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand the Canonical Books of the Old and New _ Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.” Ib. Art. xx. ‘ Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and keeper of Holy Writ,’ §c. * Theod. Hist. Eccles. Lib. V. cap. vi. p. 200. 1.15. “Avurn yxe worn [2 aratorn] ras "Agescevints tverrétAnso AdLnse FH yag Eowegn TiS voow Tavins ehevsioa eee. Kovsarlivos jaty yee 3 Tor Kovcarrive waiduy rescRiraros, ual Kassas 5 vedtares, thy marpas wissy dunparor, dueriencav xa av daw OTarsrtiviars, & tis tomteng Bacirzds daxgarpyr diQuaake ry» svct Besar, CE) a riod of forty years, when the Greek Church resigned itself to the.errours of Arius?. In addition to the joint testimony of those Churches, various direct and collateral lights arise on this subject, to determine our choice in the different classes, among which we are to make our election. From possessing a know- ledge of the different persons by whom these texts were revised, we derive considerable support in chusing a particular class, or in selecting a peculiar reading. A comparative view of the classes of the Greek, or even of the Latin translation, regarded either relatively or apart, will frequently enable us to determine, by the principles of just criticism, the genuine Scripture text from the corrupted. On the most casual application of these principles to the different classes of text, they directly mark out the Byzantine edition, as that which is entitled to a preference over the Egyptian and Palestine. In the region occupied by that text, the apostolical writings were deposited; and they were here com- bined ina code, by-the immediate successours of the apostles. Here St. Paul, and his companion St. Luke, published the principal part of the Canon. From hence the great apostle addressed his Epistle to the Church at Rome*; and hither he directed his Epistles to the Churches of Corinth, Galatia, Ephe- 8 Y¥id, Supr. p. 29.0.7". _ * Origen. Pref. in Epist. ad Rom. Tom. IV. p. 459. ed. Bened.—“ Etiam illud haud absurde admonebimus, quod vide- tur hanc Epistolam de Corintho scribere, et aliis quidem pluribus indiciis, evidentius tamen ex eo quod dicit: ‘Commendo autem vobis Phoeben sororem nostram ministram Ecclesia, que est Cenchris.? Cenchris enim dicitur locus Corintho vicinus imo portus tpsius Corinth,” &c. ( 112.) sus, Philippi, Colosse, and Thessalonica‘; which were situated in the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Hi- ther St. John returned from banishment: here he remained until the times of Trajan °, exercising the functions of an Ordinary’; and here, having com- pleted the sacred Canon, by composing his Gospel and Apocalypse, he collected the writings of the other Evangelists, which he combined in a code, and sanctioned with the apostolical authority *. 5 This is evident from the superscriptions of the Epistles. Vid. infr. p. 115. 0. **. © Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. III. cap. xxiii, p. 112. 1. 10. "Eat rato xara tHy “Aciar its Tw Biw, megsAssoromevos, autos Exeivos oy nyame 0 "Incks, Amésores Gud xa *Evalyeassns "Iwan, Tas aoToSe Risiqrev ExnAnoias, awd Ths, UAT Thy vicov unTa Thy AousTeass TEAEUTHV, iraverSay Quyiis. ate Of cis TaToIs és To Biw megviv, amd Wo mrw= Espnvaios nak caodas roy Adyor paptipwr. misds O ay chev Sros Kanuns 6 Aackevdpets. wy G putv mporepos ev devrépw Twv mEos Tas Aipioese Sd:mws yedPer nara AcE, § Kal cytes ob mpeoRuregos waprupiow of vata Thy Aclay "lwasvn Te Te Koupsd padnrn cuuBeBannoress rapadedwnévar rey “Iwan, wagerewe yao avrois wexps tov T pat- avs yesvuv.”” Conf. S. Iren. adv. Her. Lib. Il. cap. xxii. p- 148. ed. Bened. 7 Clem. Alexandr. quisn. div. salv. poss. p. 112. “Emeidy yee TS Tupaws [Acueriard | TedevTnourtos, and Tis Tlates tug vice peTnrdey [8 Iwdvync | eis Th» “EQecor, amnes Trogon ASevos nat iol ve RAnsioyxwpa Tay 2Qvav, owe pay emioxomes naTasnowy, Ore OF grce zvuAnciag Gouscw, ome dt xAnpw Evaye Tine xAngdous Tov dad TB Tlyedmatos TH ACbVCLEVOV» Conf. Euseb. ub. supr. p- 142. 1 1—8. ® Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. III. cap. xxiv. p. 116. 1. 35. "Tustviny Dac rov mavra xpovov aypadu xexenpevov amgbyuar, TéAog nah im ty yeaPny 2aSely roidede mepey aiTlase Tay Tooavarypadevtay Tpiwy cic wavras dy xed eis adrov Oiadedonerwy, amodesacdar wiv Qacl, adydeaav adrois exyncetupnoavla* pduny OF pom ¢ tiie y3 And here every facility was afforded Linus, the first Bishop of Rome, and Timothy, the first Bishop of Ephesus’, from their connexion with St. Paul *°, St. Luke, and St. John", to form perfect copies of the New Testament Canon, which had been partly collected by the last surviving apostle. The peculiar text which exists in this region, is not merely supported by the consideration of the place in which it is found: it is also supported by the concurring testimony of the Eastern and West- ern Churches. It is that text which we adopted — immediately from the Greeks, on forming our print- ed editions and vernacular versions. And it is that which is exclusively used by the only learned branch of the Greek Church, which now exists ; and which is established in Russia. It is also the text which is supported by the concurring testimony of the old Acioreo Secs TH ypaOn THY mept Tar ep Tears nat uae apyny Te xnpoyatos imo TE XeicS remeaypcvav Snynci nab aandns ye o Aoyose 9 Id. ib. cap. iv. Pp: 91. 1. 15. Tinodeds ye ev ang ey Egéoc Tapoxias isogeira: wewtos tiv emonxomniy eiAnxevar'—— Aivos OF 3 wéwynras [6 TMabaoc] ovvovtos et Pons adres uate Thy devrégecy m™pos Tipodeoy tors oNnly Tr putas peTa Tlérpov ans Pwuaiwy enxrnaias thy dmicnomn 43n mporepov xAngwoers XMawras. Vid. infr. p. 115. n. ™. . © Comp. 2 Tim. iii. 10, 11. iv. 11,12. 21. The facts al- luded to in this passage are illustrated by the Evangelist St. Luke, in Acts xiii. 14, 50. xiv. 1, 2. xix. 22, On this subject we may particularly note the command given to Timothy on the subject of the Scriptures, 2 Tim. iii. 14, 15, 16. iv. 9. 13. It was given by the Apostle shortly before his death, and with a perfect foresight of his approaching dissolution, 2 Tim. iv. G, 7, 8 Act. xxv. 25. 38. Z ( 114) Ttalick version, contained in the Brescia manw- script"'; which is obviously free from the innova- tions of St. Eusebius of Verceli, of St. Jerome, and Cassiodorus"*. Consequently, it is the only text of the three editions which challenges the general tes- timony of the Eastern Church, and the unadulter- ated testimony of the Western, in favour of its imegrity. The particular manner in which the Western Church delivers its testimony, in confirmation of that of the Greek Church, seems almost decisive in evincing the permanence and purity of the text of Byzantium. ‘The Brescia manuscript, which con- tains this testimony, possesses a text, which, as com- posed of the old Italick version, must be antedated to the year 393, when the new version was made by St. Jerome”. It thus constitutes a standing proof, that the Byzantine text, with which it agrees, has preserved its integrity for upwards of 1400 years; during which period it was exposed to the greatest hazard of being corrupted. This proof, it may be presumed, affords no trifling earnest, that it has not been corrupted during the comparatively inconsiderable period of two hundred and ninety years, which intervene between this time and the publication of the inspired writings. For while 290 years bear no proportion to 1400, the chances of such a corruption must diminish in proportion as we ascend to the time of the apostles. The first ™ Vid. supr. p. 62. sqqe * Vid. supr. p. 90. sqq. *3 ‘Vid. supr. pp. 70, 71. ¢ a6} copyists must necessarily have observed a degreg of carefulness in making their transcripts proportion- able to their reverence for the originals, which they took as their models: from the autographs of the apostles, or their immediate transcripts, there could be no inducement to depart, even ina letter. It is,” however, not merely probable, that the originals were preserved for this inconsiderable period; but that they were preserved with a degree of religious veneration *. And if they were preserved in any ™ Tertul. Prescr. adv. Her. cap. xxxvi.p.211. ‘ Age jam qui voles curiositatem melius exercere in negotio salutis tue, percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas, apud quas ips adhuc cathedrz Apostolorum suis locis presidentur ; apud quas ipse auiheniice littere eorum recitantur, sonantes vocem, et representantes fa= ‘ciem unius cujusque. Proxime est tibi Achaia, habes Corin- thum. Si non longe es a Macedonia, habes Philippos, habes Thessalonicenses. Si potes in Asiam tendere habes Ephesum s si autem Italie adjaces, habes Romam, unde nobis quoque auc- _ toritas presto est. Statu fcelix Ecclesia! cui totam doctrinam | Apostoli cum sanguine suo profuderunt; uz Petrus passioni | Dominice adequatur; ubi Paulus, Joannis exitu, coronatur ; _ ubi Apostolus Joannes, posteaquam, in oleum igneum demersus, nihil passus est, in insulam relegatur! Videamus quid dixerit, ' quid docuerit, quid cum Afficanis Ecclesiis contesserarit.’ | The best commentary on the phrase, “ authentice littere,” used by this antient father, of whom St. Jerome speaks, Cat. Scrippt. Eccless, v. Luc. as being “ near the Apostles’ times,’” is contained in the following declarations of his disciple St. Cy- prian, who lived in the next succession after the Apostles; S. | Cypr. Presbb. et Diacc. Rom. Epist. 1x. p. 19. ed Oxon. “© Legi etiam Literas in quibus nec qui scripserint, nec ad quos | -Bcriptum est significanter expressum est. Et quoniam me in | tisdem literis, et scriptura et sensus et charte ipsee quoque mo- | Werunt, ne quid ex vero vel subtractum sit vel immutatum ; 12 ( Ages place, it must have been in the region contiguous to ‘Constantinople, where they were originally de- - eandent ad vos epistolam authenticam remisi, ut recognoscatis an ipsa sit quam Clementio hypodiacono perferendam dedistis perquam etenim grave est, si epistole clericee veritas mendacio aliquo et fraude corrupta est. Hoc igitur ut scire possimus, et scriptura et subscriptio an vestra sit recognoscite; et nobis quid sit in vero rescribite.’’ Id. Presbb. et Diacc. Ep. xxxii. p. 65. ** Quales literas ad Clerum Rome agentem fecerim, quidque illi mihi rescripserint, quid etiam Moyes et Maximus Presby- teri—eque ad literas meas rescripserint, ut scire possetis exem- pla vobis legenda transmisi. Vos curate quantum potestis pro diligentia vestra, ut scripta nostra, et illorum resoripta fratribus _ nostris innotescant. Sed et si qui de peregrinis Episcopi Col- legee mei, vel Presbyteri, vel Diacones preesentes fuerint vel _ supervenerint, heec omnia de vobis audiant; et si exempla epis- tolarum transcribere et ad suos perferre voluerint, facultatem transcriptionis accipiant. Quamvis et Saturo lectori, fratri nostro mandaverim, ut singulis desiderantibus deseribendi faciaty potestatem, ut in eats: um statu quoque modo interim com-— ponendo servetur ab omnibus una et fida consensio.”” With a view to explain the terms authentice littere, and exempla epis- tolarum, as used in St. Cyprian’s age, 1 have transcribed these | long passages: not so much in reply to the objections of Mr. Porson’s Letter to Adn. Travis, p. 276; as to illustrate the extraordinary care which was taken by the primitive Chris-_ tians to disperse and authenticate all documents which related to their Ecclesiastical Polity. If the early Church was thus careful in verifying and publishing the commonest documents; . with what care must she have proceeded when employed in, transcribing and dispersing the sacred Seriptures! Both the above-cited Epistles of St. Cyprian are upon the same subject; | and were occasioned by a communication from the Church Rome, relative to the martyrdom of Fabianus, their Bishop, | who perished in the Decian Persecution; Conf. S. Cypr. Ep. ub. supr. Pears. Annall. Cypriann. § viii. p. 20. The informa- ity, of which St. Cyprian complains, in the Roman Clergy, (it) posited. Tothis region, of course, we must natu- rally look for the genuine text of Scripture. It is indeed true, that those Churches, which were the witnesses and keepers of Holy Writ, vary in their testimony; and that the Greek original, as well as the Latin translation, have undergone some alteration: as appears from the classes mto which they are respectively divided. But, as they do not vary from each other in above one essential point, but generally conspire in their testimony, the tran- - slation following the varieties of the original; as we can also follow up these varieties to their source, and can trace them to the alterations made by Hesy- chius and Eusebius in the Greek, and to the corre- spondent corrections made by St. Eusebius and St. Jerome in the Latin: the fidelity of the witnesses still remains unimpaired, and the unadulterated tes- timony of the Eastern and Western Churches still lies on the side of the text of Lucianus. These deductions will receive additional confir- mation, and every objection to which they are ex- posed will be easily solved, by investigating apart the respective testimony of the Eastern and West- ern Churches. {In the course of this investiga- tion, it shall be my object to meet, those objec- tions which may be urged against the Byzantine text from the character of Eusebius and Jerome, who have avowed a predilection for the Pales- tine. was occasioned by the disturbed state af the Church at. that period. < ( Us ) I. The first argument which may be advariced im favour of the uncorrupted testimony of the Easterm Church, is deducible from the extraordinary coin- cidence observed to exist between the manuscripts: of the Byzantine edition. Though the copies of this edition, which constitutes the Greek Vulgate of the present age, and which seemingly constituted that of the age of St. Jerome, are considerably more numerous than those of the other editions’’, they possess the most extraordinary conformity, in their peculiar readings "°. Had they existed in a state of progressive deterioration, it is obvious, that, at the end of seventeen centuries, they must have: presented a very different appearance, The extra-, ordinary uniformity which pervades the copies of this edition, involves much more than a presumptive. proof, that they have retained their fidelity to the. common source, from which they have ricoh ably descended. { But that this source must be remote, is a fact, which is equally deducible from the consideration of. the number of the copies which we possess of the Byzantine edition. The text of this edition appa- rently possesses no intrinsick merit, that could en-. *5 Griesb. Symbb. Critt. Tom. I. p.cxxii. “ Pracipuus vero recensionum in criseos sacre exercitio usus hic est, ut earum auctoritate lectiones bonas, sed zn paucis libris superstites defen- damus adversus juniorum et Vulgarium Codicum innumerabilem pene turbam.”” ; , *© Matthei Preef. in Nov. Test. Tom. I. p. xxvi. ‘ Plerum- que enim melioris note Codices omnes inter se consentiunt. Qui vero notabiliter corrupti sunt, unde corrupti sunt, multis in faced facile intelligitur,”’ &c. Vid. supr. p. 107. n. '%. ( 119 ) title it to supersede the Palestine text, which was recommended by the united authority of Eusebius and the Emperour Constantine. And yet it has undoubtedly superseded the latter at Constantino- ple, where the Palestine text was first published under every advantage, arising from the authority of the persons by whom it was edited. Nay, it has superseded it so effectually, that scarcely a copy of Eusebius’s text is to be found in this region” ; where Eusebius’s edition was originally published. Nor is this all, but the Byzantine text must have thus superseded the Palestine text, within a short space of the death of Eusebius. This is apparent not only from the existence of the former text in the Alex- andrine manuscript, which was written within at least forty years of that period ; but from the coin- cidence of this text with the Brescia manuscript, which contains the old Italick translation, which pre- vailed until the age of St. Jerome. Now, when we consider the invincible pertinacity with which the churches persevered in adhering to the common or vulgar text ’*; it seems impossible to account for so The application made for manuscripts at Jerasalem, in order to furnish the Emperour, John II. with copies of a parti- cular description, will sufficiently evince how rare the Pales- tine text was at Constantinople. Vid. supr. p. 35. n. . conf, pe Blan. 8 Notwithstanding the extreme caution, which St. Jerome evinced in revising the antient Vulgate; having left the old readings uncorrected, and merely marked the superfluous words with an obelus, and the inserted terms with an asterism; his revisal was received with great jealousy, and gave considerable offence. Vid, supr.p. 101. n. . conf. infr. p. 137.n.. The : ¢ 120 ) ereat and so sudden a revolution as thus occurred at Constantinople, otherwise than by supposing, that the attachment to tradition prevailed over the influ- ence of authority ; and that the edition of Eusebius thus gave place to the text of Lucianus, having su- perseded it, but for that limited period in which it was sustained by the royal authority. ‘This assump- tion, which is confirmed in an extraordinary manner by the demand made by the Emperour Constans to St. Athanasius, to furnish a new edition on the death of Eusebius”, is finally proved by the immense number of manuscripis possessing the Byzantine text, which have been brought from Constantinople. Had not that change taken place, which it would be my object to evince, and at a period thus early, it is im- possible to conceive, how it could have taken place so effectually as to extinguish the edition of Euse- bius where it was originally published; or, so pieteE liarly, as to reinstate the text of Lucianus. Whatever force be allowed to these conclusions, following anecdote is vouched, on the authority of St. Augus- tine, of an African Bishop, who had endeavoured to introduce Into his Church the New Version made by St. Jerome from the Hebrew; S. Aug. Hieron. Epist. txx1. Tom. II. ¢. 161. c2 Quidam frater noster episcopus, cum lectitart instituisset in eecle- sia cui preest, interpretationem tuam, movit quiddam longe aliter a te positum, apud Jonam prophetam, quam erat omnium sensibus memorieque inveteratum et tot @tatum successionibus decantatum: factusque est tantus twmultus in plebe, maxime Grecis arguentibus, et inclamantibus calumniam falsitatis, ut cogeretur episcopus, (ea quippe Civitas erat) Jud@orum testi- monium flagitare.”’ » Vid, infr. p. 131. sqq. ( fF} it must be at least admitted, that, as the testimony of the Brescia manuscript enables us to trace the tradi- tion of the Byzantine text to a period as remote as the year 393*°; that of the Alexandrine manuscript enables us to trace it to a period not less remote than the year 367. The pedigree of this extraordinary manuscript, which is referred to the latter period, has been traced with a degree of accuracy which is unparalleled in the history of manuscripts. An im- memorial tradition prevailed in the church from whence it was brought, that it was written not long subsequently to the Council of Nice, by a religious woman named Thecla**. A religious person of this name certainly existed at this period**, to whom some of the Hpistles of Gregory Nazianzen*? are addressed; and the characters of the manuscript are of that delicate form, which evinces, that it was written by the hand of afemale. Nay, more than this, the tradition of the church respecting this ma- nuscript, which there is no just ground for impeach- ing, is confirmed in an extraordinary manner by the internal evidence of the text, as it possesses every characteristick mark which might be expected to exist in a manuscript written at that early period. I shall merely specify a few of the internal marks from which the learned editour concludes, that it was written between the middle and close of the @ Widesupr. pi 70. ne. *1 Vid. Negot. of Sir Tho. Roe, p. 618. 414. 460. * Vid. Usser. Antiqq. Britt. Eccless. p. 110. *3 Vid. Roe, ub. supr. p. 618. Woid, Pref. in Cod. Alex. gp. ix. § 44, 45, ¢ 122 ) fourth century. It possesses the Gospels. divided, by the sections of Eusebius, which were introduced in the former period**; it retains the Pauline Epis- tles, without those divisions, which were invented. in the latter period*5: and it contains, as a part of the authorized text*°, the Epistles of St. Clement, which, about the same period, were prohibited from being read in the Church, by the Council of Laodicea’’. For plenary information on this subject, the reader must apply to the admirable Preface of the learned Dr. Woide, by whom it was published. From such internal evidence, joined with the external testi- mony of the Church, has the age of this celebrated manuscript been determined**: and as it contains % Woid. ibid. p. vil. § 36. ‘* Indicem Periocharum seu Capitulorum antiquorum ante initium Evangeliorum ponit, quod et alii Codices MS Sti et Milii editio recte imitati sunt. Preee terea etiam numerum et titulum Pertocharum in summa pagina adscripsit. Etiam ad sinistrum marginem notantur hec Ca~ pitula que Millius quoque notare non neglexit.—Preterea, etiam numerus Cupitulorum litera alphabett minio appin- gitur.” 75 Id. ibid. ‘ In Actis Apostolicis et Epistolis Generalibus et Paulinis nulla Capitula apparent, in que Euthalius diviserat hos libros, licet paragraphos seu periodos a nova linea et ma- jori litera exordiri videas frequentissime. In Actis Apostolorum tantummodo in locis sequentibus notulam crucis observavi (qua in Evangeliis initium sectionum Eusebianorum et Capitulorum designat), scilicet cap. iii. 1. iv. ad fin. vers. 3. vill. 26. x. 12? &ce. © Vid. Bevereg. Cod. Cann. Eccles. Prim. Hlustr, P. Il. cap. ix. p. 116. *” Woid. ub. supr. § 53. 28 Td. ib. § 80. “ Si itaque lectores et formas literarum Coe dicis nostri, Clementis Romani Epistolas, et Psalmos Salomonisy ( 123 ) the Byzantine text, in the Gospels*?, it necessarily proves the antiquity of that text to be as remote as the year three hundred and sixty-seven, when the Epistles of St. Clement were formally separated from the Canonical Scripture *°. The space of time which intervenes between this ancient period, and that in which the sacred writings were published, is not so immeasurable as to pre- clude the possibility of proving, that the tradition, which supports the Byzantine text, though suspend- ed for a short period, was preserved uncorrupted. In the entire course of this period, there was but one interval in which it could be interrupted; dur- ing the forty years in which the Church was under the dominion of the Arians**. But over this period, the testimony of St. Jerome, who lived at the time, directly carries us; as he declares ‘that the text which prevailed at Byzantium, was that which had been revised by Lucianus**, who perished in the persecution of Dioclesian and Maximian*. The traditionary chain is thus easily connected. We Euthalii sectiones et rgzayior, que desunt, si cetera argumenta summam ejus antiquitatem confirmantia, consideratissime per- penderint, omnia conspirare videbunt, ut Codicem Alexandrinum intra medium et finem secult quarts scriptum esse ipsis persuadeant. *® Griesb. Symbb. Critt. Tom. I. p. ix. n.*. Hine accidit ut Codex Alerandrinus non in omnibus libris, eandem textus recen- sionem sequeretur. In Evangeliis exhibet recensionem Constan- tinopolitanam sive Asiaticam,” &c. *° Vid. supr. nn. * et *”. * Vid. supr. p. 29. n: sip 3 Vid. supr. p..72.n. “3. conf. p: 100. n. ™, $ Vid. infr. n. 3°, conf. Euseb. Hist. Roles Lib. VIII. cap. xiii. p. 393. 1. 32. ( 12% ) know that in Constantine’s age, Eusebius’s: text was published at Constantinople we know that Luci- anus’s Septuagint differed from it, and that m: St. Jerome’s. age it prevailed in the same region*’. There is consequently no alternative, but to admit, that the tradition, which was Loran neetesy<* period, was renewed in the latter. ) Now as the Scripture Canon, was not fab lished until the beginning of the second:century**, and as Lucianus most) probably completed his revisal. be- fore the year 284, when the Dioclesian era com- menced, the Byzantine text, if it has undergone any alteration, must have. been, corrupted in the course of this, period. It will be readily granted, for reasons already specified, that this alteration could not have taken place in the earlier part of this term’. The last.possibility which the question ad- mits, consequently is, that it was corrupted im the latter part of it, when the text was revised by the hand of Lucianus. But against this possibility, we have the silence security im the character of that learned and pious martyr. To his. skill in revising the saered text, -the most honourable testimony is borne, by the most unimpeachable witnesses; Eusebius and Jerome. 34 Vid. Eusebs Vit. Const. Lib. LV. capp. xxxvie xxxvile p. 646. sqq. 5" Vid. supr. p. 72. n. *2 ® §. Iren. adv. Her. Lib. V. cap. xxx. ps 380. O83: yag med MAAS yerve Ewpedn [ny dorondavilss], aAAa oyedoy tml Ths MeTEoas yeas, Teos TH TEAK THs Aowclears.aoxny. Vid, supr. ps 112. np. 6 et 7. 37 Vid. supr. p. 115. ( 125 ) These best judges of antiquity have expressed them- selves on this subject in terms of the most unqua- lified approbation**. One slight, yet important cir- cumstance, which the latter critick has left on re- cord, clearly evinces the scrupulous fidelity with which Lucianus discharged this sacred trust. The text which he published was that of the vulgar Greek, or common edition*?; which loudly pro- claims, that his intention was to preserve the in- spired text in the state in which he found it; though, in pursuing this course, he acted in direct opposition to the authority of Origen, who set him a different example. Let us now take this circum- stance into account, together with the critical repu- tation of Lucianus: let us consider, that the place and period in which he made his revisal, was the region where the inspired writings were deposited, and within a short distance of the period when they were published: let us then revert to the possibili- ties which have been already calculated, that the immediate transcripts of the writings of the Apostles % Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. IX. cap. vi. p. 444. 1. 22. Asziavas Te ave Te wavTe aeisos, Bia TE eyzparns % Tos iegots FLASHES GUYREXLOTNLEVOS* THs war ArTixXeiay wagowmlas meECm Burepos, &xSeis tl vig Nixowedéwy woAews, tra tavxadra Pacirede SariBov riyxare, Tapacywy Fe igi 78 Zpyovros Thy omtp is meols are ucxnanrias AMCAOY IGP, denwrngin wapadosers uTivTat. Se Hier. Catal. Scripp. Eccll. in Lucian. Tom. [. p.128. “ Lucianus vir disertissimus, Antiochene Ecclesie presbyter, tantum in Scripturarum studio laboravit, ut usque nunc quedam exemplaria Scripturarum Lucianea nuncupentur.—Passus est Nicomediz ab confessionem Christi sub persecutione Maximini”"— #9 Vid. supr. p. 72. n. ( io } and Evangelists could have been corrupted in little more than one hundred years, while the Byzantine text has confessedly retained its integrity for full eleven hundred*?. We may thence form a just estimate of the conclusiveness of that evidence which still exists in attestation of the purity of the text of Lucianus. In fine, a very short process enables us to prove, that the tradition which supports the authority of this text, has continued unbroken since the age of the apostles. The coincidence of the Vulgar Greek of our present editions with the old Italick transla- tion, enables us to carry up the tradition to the times of St. Jerome*'. The testimony of this learned fa- ther enables us to extend the proof beyond this’ period, to the times of Lucianus, in whose age the Byzantine text equally constituted the Vul- gate or common edition*. And the character of Lucianus, and the course which he pursued in re- vising the sacred text, connects this proof with the 4° Thus Jong has the Byzantine text existed, even by the confession of M. Griesbach, whose object required that it should be brought as low as possible. Griesb. Hist. Text. Epp. Paull. sect. 1. § 11, Mirum—nemini videbitur qui secum reputaverit sexto aut septimo seculo extitisse jam illam recensionem gue in codicibus plerisque habetur, et a textu vulgari typis excuso parum differt; zzde vero a seculo octavo vix novam recensionem ullam procuratam fuisse, nec variantium lectionum numerum znsigniter auctum esse, Si sphalmata demas a librariis dormitan- tibus admissa, et glossas nonnullas e margine in textum temere translatas.”’ * Vid. supr. pp. 70, 71. # Vid. supr. p, 72. n. ¢ 127) times of the inspired writers*}, who could alone im- press that authority upon one text, which, by bring- ing it imto general use, rendered it, from the primi- tive ages down to the present day, the xaw ixdeess, or Greek Vulgate. The mode of proof which thus establishes the authority of the Byzantine text, is not more deci- sive, from being positively than exclusively true. When applied to the Egyptian and Palestine texts, it is so far from establishmg an immemorial uninter- rupted tradition in their favour, that it completely limits their pretensions to a definite period. The manuscripts containing both these texts are comparatively few, having been generally super- -seded by the Byzantine edition*. We scarcely possess a second copy of the Egyptian text; and should almost doubt its existence, if it were not at- tested by St. Jerome, and if his testimony were not confirmed by the comcidence of the Sahidick ver- sion with the Latin translation of St. Eusebius, and by the agreement of both with the Cambridge ma- nuscript, and the manuscripts collated by Thomas Heraclensis**. ‘The manuscripts containing the Pa- 4 Vid. supr. p. 125. n. ™. #* Vid. supr. p. 118. n. %. p. 126. n. 4°. “5 Vid. supr. pp. 73—78. In addition to what has been ob- served on the MSS. collated by Thomas Heraclensis, supr. p- 78. n. >; it remains to be observed, that the Verceli, Verona MSS. and the Latin, nay, the Greek of the Cambridge MS. which respectively possess the text of Hesychius, have been copied from different exemplars. The Vercei MS. possesses the following passage, which is not found in the other three; Mat. ii, 13. “ Et cum baptizaretur lumen ingens circumfulsit ( 128 ) festine text are more numerous; but, according to the confession of M. Griesbach, they bear no pro- portion to those of the Byzantine edition. And they fall infinitely short of the number which might be expected to exist, when we consider the favour- able circumstances under which the Palestine text was edited by Eusebius, and republished, with manifest improvements, by Euthalius, at Alexandria. There is thus no presumption in favour of their anti- quity, arising from the number or general dispersion of the copies. The place from whence these manuscripts are derived, detracts not a little from their authority. de aqua, ita ut timerent qui advenerunt.” This passage was however found in the exemplar from which the Cambridge Greek was copied ; for the preceding verse is drawn out in such a manner, that single words occupy the place of lines, in order to fill up the space made by the removal of this passage, and to accommodate the Greek to the Latin: vid. Cod. Cant. fol. 10. ed. Kippl. As the Latin of this MS. is not so circumstanced, it was, of course, taken from a different copy from that which produced the Greek. The Verona MS., on the other hand, possesses the following passage, which is not found in the Ver- celi MS. Matt. xxiv. $1. ‘ Cum cceperint autem hee fieti respicite et levate capita vestra, quoniam adpropriat redemptio vestra.” This passage however occurs in the Cambridge Greek, ib. dexopevay d& rérav yiverdas ayaRAtbare nab emapare Tas ueQarals bay dors EyyiGes n AMOAUT PWT. Dyaay" and in the Cam- bridge Latin ib. “ Incipientibus autem his fieri,” &c. But the Cambridge MS. differs from the Verona, and agrees with the Verceli MS, in transposing Mat. v.4, 5. These remarks will, I trust, sufficiently prove, that an entire Class of MSS. possessing the Egyptian text, once existed. * Vid. supr. p- 118.n. %. p. 126. n. *. ( 129 ) They are ascribed by M. Griesbach to the Alexan- drine region; and there is little reason to question his, authority on this subject. Here the Egyptian text was published by Hesychius, and hence brought into the west by St. Eusebius, of Verceli*’; and here. the Palestine text was republished by, Euthalius, who corrected his edition by Eusebius’s copies, which were preserved at Cesarea**. ‘Now, taking the question on these grounds, there is little room for a competition between the Byzantine and Palestine editions. The country in which the one arose was that in which the apostolical originals were depo- sited; that in which the other was transplanted, was the soil in which the Arian heresy first arose and principally flourished*?. When we take this cir- cumstance into account, together with the peculiar opinions of Eusebius, by whom the Palestine text was revised and published, who lies under a suspi- cion of being tainted with Arianism*°, it seems to leave very little authority to a text which is particu- 47 Vid. supr. p. 105. n. 7”. 48 Vid. supr. p. 105. n. *.. 49 Euseb. Vit. Constant. Lib. II. cap. Ixi. p. 566. 1. 2. name as amo jasnpB omnSnpos péya mip eeyceror Xxpas piv Somep amd xopueig aokaevov tis “Arckavdpewv exxAnciass dsadpapar dB shy oipracay "Alyurray te xy AiBiny, ray tr’ éxexeve OnBaida non oF % Tas Anmwas iwereuero tmapyias Te x) mores" ws & povoug Hy Deity rs tov ixxAnoidy mpozdpec Aoyoss OvarrAnutilouévec, ara Te anda AUTATELVOILEVE» Conf. Socrat. Hist. Eccl. Lib. I. cap. Vi. p10. 7—11. Lib. Il. cap. xxviii. p. 120.1. 40. Lib. IV. cap. vil. p. 268. 1.27. Theodorit. Hist. Eccl. Lib. V.-eap. vii | p- 200. 1, 25—40. _ * Vid. supr. p. 39. nn. © et 7°. K ( 130 ) larly calculated to support the peculiar errours of Arius **. But the authority of these texts is not hnarete weakened by this circumstance ; that the tradition- ary evidence which may be urged in their favour is broken by the distance of Egypt and Palestine from Byzantium, where the originals of the inspired writers were deposited, and by the positive extinc- tion of both texts in the region where they were pub- lished. When we carry up our inquiries higher we find unquestionable evidence of two breaches in the chain of tradition ; either of which would destroy _ the credit of the text which hung on it for support. In the first place, the edition of Hesychius was positively superseded in Egypt by that of Eutha- lius **. And of the extensive influence of the edition of the latter, we have a standing evidence, in the prevalence of the Euthalian sections, which very generally exist in the Greek manuscripts®. In 5* Vid. supr. p. 28. n. #8. ** This point is clearly conceded by M. Griesbach, in pro- nouncing the Palestine text the Alexandrine; vid. way p- 86. nn. °° et 3%, 53 Zaccagn. Collect. Monn. Vet, Eccles. Preef. p. Ixviii. § lv. * At vero Euthaliz divisiones perpetuo in usu apud Grecos fi- isse, ii probe ndrunt, qui veteres Bibliorum Codices perlus-° trarunt, in quibus fere omnibus habentur Capitula ab Euthalio excogitata. Vidit enim multos Novi Testamenti seriptos Codi- ces. Robertus Stephanus—viderunt et alios Cedices viri doctis- simi, qui de Biblicis rebus tractérunt; sed hos omnes uno eodemque modo, in Evangeliorum quidem textu juxta Alexandri- num Cyrilli Lucaris Codicem, in reliquis vero ejusdem libris, Apocalypsi excepta, juzta Euthalium nostrum divisos fuisse li~ ( 131 ) fact, so little calculated was the Egyptian text to retain its ground against the powerful influence of the Palestine, under the double publication of Eu- sebius and Euthalius, that the former was soon ex- tinguished by the latter, in the region which may be termed its native soil. And so effectual has been its extirpation, that unless a few manuscripts had been imported into the West, we should retain no memorials of this text, but those which remain in the translations made in the Thebais, previously to the publication of Euthalius’s edition **. Very dif- ferent was the fate of the Byzantine text. Though it gave place to the Palestine text, in the times of Constantine ; the testimony of St. Jerome puts it out of dispute, that it must have been reinstated in a short period ** after the death of the elder Euse- bius. In the next place, the traditionary evidence in favour of the Palestine text is broken by the inter- vention of an edition prepared by St. Athanasius, under the auspices of the Emperour Constans *°. It quet. Vidi et ego plurimos Novi Testamenti scriptos Codices, quorum nonnulli eximia sunt vetustate venerandi, eisdem Alex- andrini exemplaris, et Euthalii nostri Capitulis insignitos. So- lum in Othobonianz Bibliothece veteri Codice, his literis et his humeris signato R. 1. vii. Apostolorum Acta in capitula li. divisa reperi, et in Aldi Manutii, Pauli Filii, Aldi nepotis Co- dice, qui nunc ejusdem munere inter Vaticanos 633%* numera- tur, alius a vuleatis titulorum ordo habetur.’ * Vid. supr. pp. 54, 55 et nn. in loce. 55 St. Jerome wrote previously to the year 393. vid. supr. p. . 70. n. *°. and Eusebius died in the year $40. vid. infr. n. 5. °6 §. Athan. Apol. ad Constant. § 4. Tom. I. p. 297. ed. Be- med, “E%:aSay ard ris Arstardpeias, Su sis te-sgarémeder cB &IEAS K2 ( 132 ) is a remarkable fact, that the application for this edition was made in the very year of the death of Eusebius *” ; who paid the debt of nature about the same time as the younger Constantine. An ap- plication of this kind, made at this remarkable pe- riod, if it does not convey some tacit censure against the text of Eusebius, clearly implies that some. dif- ference existed between his edition and the revisal of St. Athanasius. This supposition is not a little confirmed, by the known enmity which. subsisted between Eusebius and St. Athanasius *?; and by > the peculiar opinions of the Emperour,, which ) if 2 Vay i ox, 20% apis BAAUS THe, % .dv0v cig Thy Pwuny avirSov x) 7H tem wAngia TX var Emavtoy orapaSéuevoc, FETS yap pavou fos ports My toxoratoy Tals cvvakects T) aderQa oe &x typarba, 7 pbvoy ore oi meph EvotBiov 2yeanbav atta xar ud, xab avayeny tomar ers av ee t7 “Arskaverla amodoyncacSa nal ore wuxtia tay Seiwy leadie MEAEVIAVTOS HUTS {LOl KATACKEUAOUL, TAUTA WOINTAS AMESEAG, *’ The Benedictine fathers fix the time when S. Athanasius revised the Scriptures to the year 340: Vit.S. Athan. p. xxxiii. § 4.and the time when Constantine died te the same year, ibid. § 4. “lt ** Vid. Socrat. Hist. Eccles. Lib. LI. capp. iii,iv. pp..82, 83... °° S. Epiphan, Her. yxviui. p. 723. c. “Exéacvos 8 [6 Kwusar, rivos | ovyxpornonves Luyodov xara viv Dowieny éy Tepe 7 moans, éxéhevoz de Oimalev EYocPiov ris Kasoapeias, 0) aAaas Td¢e—— "Ey o8¢ nv 6 panacirng Tloranmy d wiryos " “Ewpaxas Tov EuoéBiov madeQorevoy © Oinalovta, nat ASavacwy ipwta, xaramovndes TH Avan nal Oaxpicas, ora yiveras ware trois aAnSéow, ameleiadlo Quy meyaan “EvosBiw Aéywv, Ed xadicn EY céGre, nai “Adavacsos asxéos av, Waca o& upivela, ris ivéynos Ta Toradre 5 Taira ausous "Evct ios, cigélas wiv cis ayaverinosy, uab cracas OAvoe TO dwmasiproy Aéyou “Ors ci elaDSa nrSere, nat pos njAcs Te ToadTa ailirdyéle, Gpx By CANIEdsouy OF KATNAYOP Uudi. Ei yop woe 'Tupercits, DONA BwAAOY EV TH UUGY WaT pidse ( ¥88 } léaned in a contrary direction to those of the Bishop of Cesarea °°, whose principles were unquesti6n- ably warped towards Arianism **.. But one consi- deration seems to put the matter out of dispute : had not Eusebius’s edition laboured under some impu- tation **, the demand of the Emperour might have been supplied, and that edition, which had been published but a few years before, might have been multiplied to any given extent, by transcribing one of Eusebius’s copies. Now it is important to observe, that while the undertaking of St. Athanasius makes this breach in the tradition of the Palestine edition : it serves to fill up the only breach which exists in that of the text of Byzantium: as his revisal suwc- ceeded the Palestine text, and partially restored | the text of Byzantium ®. It has been already ob- served respecting the celebrated Alexandrine manu- script, that it was written in Egypt previously to 60 Vid. supr. p. 110. n. *. - ® Vid. Epiphan. ibid. p.'723. c. conf. supr. p. 39. n. 7°. ®* It is particularly deserving of remark, that a principal charge urged against St. Athanasius and his clergy, in the Council of Tyre, summoned under Eusebius, was that of having burned the Bible, in the church of Ischyras, who was of the Arian faction ; Socrat. Hist. Eccl. Lib. I. cap. xxvii. p. 64. 1. 10. of & [wept "EvcéBiov] poe TO mpos ?ASavaoioy dear lees py avtov [ Ioxupay ] as mpecBurepoy® emralryérrovlacs xed OF noe 2 Tn¢ ete xomns akin Tinnoas, ef xetnyopiay evsyoclar xara Adauvasis, mpiParw AauBavorles ooo, 6 Iorveas twrarlilo epnasle yag ws tin ra mavetva £& EQ008 aemovuc* nab o Maxdéesos eiomnoncas tis TO Suoac~ Thplov, avergerle wiv Tv TpamECay, woTnpioy de xaTeaee povsinoy 1G OTs Ta tepe BiBAia xaléxavoe. > Vid. supr. p. 123. n. . cont. p, 131. n, ( 134 ) the year 367°. It remains to be observed, that as St. Athanasius returned to Alexandria from banish- ment in the year 338 °°, on the death of the elder Constantine ; and had revised the text of Scripture, in the year 340, under the Emperour Constans, and his brother the younger Constantine ; he con- tinued, with the intermission of a few months, to govern the Alexandrine church, from the year 367 to the year 373, under the Emperour Valens. It is of small importance to my present object, to cal- culate the chances, whether this celebrated manu- script contains St. Athanasius’s revisal of the sacred text ; of which it must be however remembered, that it was written, not merely in the last-mentioned period, but in the Patriarchate of Alexandria. But as it cannot be reasonably denied that his revisal was within the reach of the copyist, who has exe- cuted the task of transcription in a manner which is expensive and accurate; it must be observed, that Thecla has left unquestionail evidence in the, manuscript itself of having been biassed by the in- | fluence of the Patriarch; as she has inserted, in the book of Psalms, the epistle of St. Athanasius, addressed to Marcellinus °’. I profess myself at a °4 Vid. supr. p. nn. 77. et **. °5 Patr. Benedd. Vit. S. Athan. p. xxx § 1. “6 Tid. ib. p. Ixxxv. § 2, 3. 67 Vid. Woid. Pref. in Cod. Alex. Sect. IV. § 47. Pp. a Ahe learned editour adds the following apology, for this circum- stance; ibid. “Qui itaque his honoribus Athanasium atfficie- bant; curnon etiam Psalmis Prologum ejus, omnium e@stima- tione dignissimum adderent ? Si quis orationem Gregorii Nazian- zeni in laudem Athanasii legent, is hoc factum fuisse non con- ( 135 j loss to divine by what means the inference which follows from those facts can be evaded; or how the conclusion is to be disproved, that this manuscript approximates to the revisal of St. Athanasius. As- suming this point as manifest, it directly throws the testimony of the Patriarch on the side of the By- zantine text; as this text is adopted in the Gospels of the Alexandrine manuscript, which clearly con- stitute the principal part of the better half of the Canonical Scriptures. Much might be advanced in favour of this hypothesis, from the history of St. Athanasius; who, if he possessed no suspicion of foul play, felt no motives of personal dislike in re- jecting the text of Eusebius, might have been in- fluenced in choosing that of Lucianus for the basis of his text, as his edition was to be published at Constantinople. For thus, as two editions had been published in that region, he furnished the different parties which divided the Byzantine church, with an edition suited to their respective partialities. Much might be advanced to support it, from the known prudence and moderation of that great man, who ever followed conciliatory measures, and who must cesserit tantum verum etiam contenderit.”? In fact when we connect all the circumstances together relative to this matter— that Arianism was at this period prevalent at Alexandria; that St. Athanasius was accused of favouring the destruction of the Arian Bibles ; that he revised the sacred text immediately af- ter the death of Eusebius; that his prologue, as explanatory of Ps. ii. is directed against the errours of Arius: nothing can be more probable than that Thecla inserted it in her copy, either . with her own hand, or by the hand of a transcriber; if she em- ployed one. ( 136 ) have seen the inexpediency and danger of ventur- ing, in the infected state of the Eastern Church, to undertake at oncé the total suppression of Euse- bius’s edition. While this account affords a con- sistent and probable solution of the only difficulty which embarrasses the history of a manuscript. which varies from all that are known, in having a different text in the Gospels and the Acts and Epis- tles: the manuscript itself contains an irrefragable proof, that within that short period of the death of Eusebius in which it was written, the Palestine text had begun to be again replaced by the Byzan- tine. When we advance a step higher in scrutinizing the traditionary evidence which supports the au- thority of the Egyptian and Palestine texts, the apparent force which it appears to possess directly yields when it is submitted to the touch. In esta- blishing the claims of these texts to an immemorial tradition, itis rather fatal to their pretensions that we should happen to know the time of their origin. The period in which the Egyptian text was pub- lished cannot be antedated to the age of Hesy- chius ; as that in which the Palestine was published cannot be antedated to the age of Eusebius “. That both these editours made some innovations, in their respective texts, can scarcely admit of a doubt. This isan inference which necessarily fol- lows from the consideration of their haying pub- lished a text, which differed from the vulgar Greek, ** Vid, supr. p. 72. mn. 37. ( W837 ) or common edition. It is in fact expressly re- corded, that Eusebius published that text of the Old Testament, which had been corrected by Ori- gen; and that Hesychius admitted into his text of the New Testament numerous interpolations™’. From such an imputation the text of Lucianus is ob- viously free, as he merely republished the vulgar edition *. The antiquity of his text consequently loses itself in immemorial tradition; while that of his rivals is bounded by the age of their respective revisals. And this assertion, as I shall soon take ~ occasion to prove, is equally applicable to the Ita- lick version, which corresponds with the Byzantine Greek : and is contained in the Brescia manuseript. It must be obvious, of course, that the former cir- cumstance as fully confirms the claims of Lucia- nus’s text to an origin ascending to the apostolical age; as it detracts from the pretensions of Hesy- chins and Eusebius’s texts to an immemorial tradi- tion. True itis that St. Jerome seems to pass an indiscriminate censure on the editions of Hesychius and Lucianus’’. But, granting him to have pos- sessed that impartial judgment on this subject”, °° Thidem. 7° Yoidem. 7* Vid. supr. p. 100. n. *°. 7* Vid. supr. p. 88. n. ®, 7? Vid. supr. p. 100. n. 7. - 7* St. Jerome not only innovated in revising the Septuagint, but expressly followed the steps of Origen and Eusebius, who were the rivals of Lucianus; Vid. supr. p. 84. n.%. S. Hier. Proem. Dan. Tom. IV.p.495. ‘ Sed et Origenes de Theodo- tionis opere in Editione Vulgata asteriscos posuit; docens de- ¢ 13889 which is necessary to give weight to his sentence; yet when we come to compare St. Jerome with him- self; when we come to estimate, how much of his censure is directed against the vulgar edition of the Old Testament, which Lucianus republished ; and when we ascertain the standard by which he judged of the imaginary corruptions of the New Testa- ment, which the same learned person revised; we shall directly discern, that his opinion does not in the least affect the question under discussion 7°. From a view of this subject, as well from the positive testimony which supports the Greek Vul- gate, as that which invalidates the pretensions of the Egyptian and Palestine editions, we may sum- tnarily conclude, that, the genuine text of the New Testament, if it is at all preserved im the three edi- tions which have descended to our times, can be only conceived to exist in that of Byzantium. II. On reviewing the testimony which the Wes- tern Church, when examined apart, bears to the integrity of the text of Scripture, it affords the fullest confirmation to that borne by the separate testimony of the Eastern. On the weight and im- portance of the latter of these witnesses, I have al- fuisse gue addita sunt, et rursus quosdam versus obelis prano- tavit, superflua queque designans. Cumque omnes Christi ec- clesie, tam Graecorum quam Latinorum, Syrorumque et Egyptiorum, hanc sub asteriscis et obelis Editionem legant ; ignoscant invidi laborz meo qui volui habere nostros quod Greci in Aquile et Theodotionis ac Symmachi editione lectitant.” Conf. Tom. III. Ep. crv. p. 340. 75 On this subject I shall have an opportunity of speaking at large hereafter. . ( 139) ready offered a remark, deduced from the circum- stance of the Western Church having retained the faith uncorrupted, while the Oriental Church was infected with the Arian opinions *. A minute ex- amination of this evidence, will very chearly evince that it rests on the side of the Byzantine text, in- stead of the Egyptian or Palestine. The first argument, which may be urged from hence, in support of the integrity of the Greek Vul- gate, is deducible from the iext of the Brescia ma- nuscript. Of the author of this version we know nothing ; though it is remarkable for its extraordi- nary fidelity to the original Greek. We are, on the other hand, perfectly acquainted with the framers of the text of the Vulgate and Verceli ma- nuscript 7”, which correspond with the Palestine and Egyptian editions. Now, such is the result, which would precisely take place, had the fore-cited text derived its authority from the silent admission of the church, deduced from the primitive ages ; while the latter were expressly acknowledged as recent translations, from the time of their first pub- lication. It is obvious, of course, that if the testi- mony of the Latin church, derived from immemo- rial tradition, be preserved in any of those versions, it must exclusively exist in the Brescia manuscript. Andas this manuscriptaccords with the Vulgar Greek, it clearly proves, that the immemorial testimony of the Western Church is on the side of this text, 7 Vid. supr. p. 110. n. *. 77 Vid. supr. p.15. n. ~. p. 59. n. **. (: Say which we have already seen is similarly supported by the testimony of the Eastern. Nay, more than this, it may be shewn, that the bare undertaking of St. Eusebius Vercellensis to revise the Old Italick version not only subverts the authority of his own text, but that of Hesychius and Eusebius’s edition: and, of consequence, ne- gatively supports the authority of the text of Lu- cianus. That the original version of the Latin Church had retained its integrity uncorrupted, until the times of Pope Julius and St. Eusebius of Ver- celi, is evident: from the external testimony of Hi- lary; from the circumstances in which ‘the Wes- tern Church was placed; and from the inter- nal evidence of the version in question. It is Hi- lary’s express declaration that many of the copies of this version retained their purity untainted, even to his own times ; having been preserved not merely by the integrity of the earliest ages, but by their very inability to pervert or correct the primitive: translation 7°. -And this declaration is completely confirmed by the history of the Eastern and West- ern Churches, neither of which were sufficiently instructed in the languages spoken by both to un- dertake a revisal 7°. But what renders this fact of importance, is, that however the copies of the La- tin version vary among themselves, they preserve a conformity to some edition of the Greek original. The first considerable variety in these copies must 78-Vid. supr. p.'>7.:n.: 79 Vid. supr. p. 57, n. ** ( VW? j é be of course dated from the first revisal of the text by St. Eusebius, of Verceli ; since before him, there was not a person sufficiently informed, to undertake the correction of the Italick translation. Now it is clearly implied in the circumstance of St. Eusebjus’s undertaking to correct tbe current translation, that this translation must have differed from the ordinary Greek text, and from his own corrected Latin version: otherwise his attempt must have been without an object from the first, and without effect at the conclusion. As he under- took his revisal at the command of Pope Julius, who came to the Pontificate in the year 337 °°; the or- dinary Greck text was obviously contained in the edition of Eusebius of Cesarea, who lived, after this period, until the year 340°". It is, of course, manifest, that the received ext of Eusebius did not correspond with the Latin version in Pope Julius’s age ; and is consequently destitute of the primitive testimony of the Latin Church, as contained in the authorised Latin version. It is equally clear that the original Latin version did not agree with the text of Hesychius. As St. Eusebius has unquestionably adhered to the edition of the latter, in revising the Latin translation ; his undertaking to correct the one by the other, neces-. sarily implies, that a difference at first subsisted be- ‘tween them. It is consequently clear that the text of Hesychius is equally destitute of the primitive % Vid. Patrr. Benedd. in Vit, S. Athanas. p. xxx. § 1. a, ** Vid. supr. p. 192. n. °°. : ( V2 ) testimony of the Latin Church, as the text of Eu- sebius of Cesarea. Andas the corrected version of St. Kusebius when the proposed alterations were made, must have differed from the original transla- tion which remained uncorrected; it is apparent that the Corrected Version also must have equally wanted the testimony of the primitive Western translation. | As St. Jerome’s revisal was not yet made, the question now rests with that version of the Old Ita- lick translation, which corresponds with the Byzan- tine Greek ; and which consequently must have been identical with the primitive version. But here it may be objected, that St. Eusebius’s’ undertaking to correct the translation by the original,’ equally proves that the former differed from Lucia- nus’s text, as we have seen it differed from the text of Eusebius Cesariensis. But if this objection is not rendered null by this positive faet, that there is a third version, different from the revisals of St. Eusebius and St. Jerome, and confessedly more an- tient than that of the latter **; and that, while it is apparently uncorrected *, it literally corres- ponds with the Byzantine Greek *; it would ad- mit of the following obvious solution. St. Euse~ bius undertook his revisal of the Latin version, not merely when the Received Text of the Greek was contained in Eusebius’s edition ; but when this edi- *? Vid. supr. pp. 70, 71. 3 Vid. supr. pp. 90, 91, 92. ** Vid. supr. p. 63. sqq. ( 143 ) Re tion had, by the royal mandate, superseded the Byzantine text at Constantinople. It might not, therefore, have been safe ** for Pope Julius to au- thorise a version which was not merely different from the Received Text of the Greeks, but coin- cident with the edition which it had superseded. And this change took place after that greatest per- secution of the Church, which occurred under Dio- clesian and Maximian: in which the sacred Scrip- tures were soughi with more care and destroyed with more fury than in any preceding persecu- tion**. It was therefore possible, considering the degraded state of the Church, and the disastrous ‘situation of the bishop of Verceli, that a correct copy of Lucianus’s edition was not within the reach of Eusebius Vercellensis. It is probable that, in his choice of Hesychius’s edition, in correcting the Latin version, he was influenced not merely by in- clination *’, but necessity. It is certain, that, in -85 That the Emperours were not to be trifled with on this sub- ject is evident from the severe penalty to which even the pos- sessour of Arius’s works was subject, by a decree of one of the mildest of the Christian princes; Epist. Constant. ap. Socrat. Hist. Eccl. Lib. I. cap. ix. p. 32. 1. 3. "Exztvo yévlos wpomyortiw, Gs eh tis cUlyempye tm’ Apele cusleyty Qupadtin xprrbas, val ph eo Sus expoceveynay w@ret xalaverucny Tete Sdvatas tras Cnpricc wapaypius yar ards ith sere, xeOarinny Dwornoetas Thuwpiar. 86 Vid. supr. p. 27. n.*. 7 St. Eusebius was a corrector of Scripture, and, in his ear- lier days, a reader and imitator of Eusebius, whose critical ta- lents he admired; S. Hier. Cat. Scriptt. Tom. I. p. 130. It is not impfobable that he imbibed through him some share of the dis- taste to the Greek Vulgate. which was common to all the dis. ( 44) the state of the Greek Church, there existed 4 suf- ficient cause to deter him from following the copies ciples of Origen’s school; Id. S. Aug. Ep. Ixxxix. Tom. III. p- 319: and that he thus chose Hesychius, instead of Lucia- nus, when he was prevented by other motives besides his friend- ship for St. Athanasius and P. Julius, from following Eusebius of Cxsarea: Vid. Socrat. Hist. Eccl. Lib. UI. capp. v. vi. vii. p- 176... Conf. Lib. II. capp. xv. xxiii. p. 92. 109. _Hesychius certainly receded farther from the Greek Vulgate than Lucianus ; vid, supr. p. 88. n. *. p. 72. n. 97, And Eusebius Vercellensis, asa follower of Origen, must have held the Greek Vulgate in low estimation; of which, and of St. Eusebius, St. Jerome ~ speaks in the following terms; Hier. S. Aug. Ep. ub. supr. p- 319. ‘* Ommes veteres tractatores, qui nos in Domino pre- cesserant, et qui Scripturas sanctas interpretati sunt, &c,— maxime in explanatione Psalmorum—quos apud Graecos inter- pretati sunt multis voluminibus, primus Origenes, secundus Euse- bius Cesariensis—apud Latinos autem, Hilarius Pictaviensis et Eusebius Vercellensis episcopus Originem et Eusebium transtule- runt. Ego enim non tam vetera abolere, que lingue mee hominibus emendata de Greco in Latinum transtuli, quam ea testimonia, que a Judeis pretermissa sunt vel corrupta, proferre zn medium: ut scirent nostri, guid Hebraica veritas contineret. Si cui legere non placet, nemo compellit invitum.’? Conf. Pref, in Pentat. Tom. III. p. 340. Such were the predilections of Eusebius Vercellensis, and such the object of a true disciple of the school of Origen; to verify by the Heaapla the quota- tions from the Old Testament, which were found in the New, though not discoverable in the Vulgar Edition of the Septuagint. Now, if it can be shewn, that Hesychius followed this plan, and revised the New Testament by the Hexapla, while Lucianus merely preserved the readings of the Vulgar Edition of the Sep- tuagint ; and if it will appear, that Eusebius Vercellensis followed the former in correcting the Old Italick translation, we shalt have thus clearly ascertained one cause of the preference which was. given by him to the text of Hesychius over that of Lucianus. Thus much, however, may, I conceive, be clearly ( 14 ) of the authorised edition. That Church was then under the dominion of the Arians, who were not merely suspected in that age of corrupting the Scriptures, but who absolutely expunged a remark- able text which St. Eusebius inserted in his revi- sal **, and otherwise corrupted his version ®, shewn from one of the most remarkable quotations from the Old Testament, which occurs in the New. In Luc. iv. 18. we find, idcacdas ths CUVTET EHLERS Thy uapdicr, Rec. which, as the reading of the Greek Vulgate, was found in Lucianus’s text. ‘The same passage, however, occurs verbatim in the Septuagint, Is. \xi. 1. idoucdas ths cuvrergimmives rhv xapdiavy; and is consequently ren- dered, in the antient Vulgar Translation, Ib. Ixi.1. ‘* Sanare contritos corde.’’ But the phrase, idcacSas ths cuvreroynuéves shy xeediav, is not conformable to the Hebrew, ab awd wand; this phrase was consequently noted in Origen’s Hexapla, as not being synonymous with the original. Hence, in the Cambridge | MS. which contains Hesychius’s text, this phrase is omitted conformably to the text of the Hexapla; and the same obser- vation applies to the Verceli MS. which contains $¢. Eusebius’s text, in which this text is also omitted. But in the Brescia MS. (which, as containing the Original Latin Version, pos- sesses a text that was made previously to Origen’s Hexapla,) we read, conformably to the vulgar text of the Septuagint ; Ibid. iy. 18. “ Sanare contritos corde.” The grounds of Hesy- chius’s partiality to the former reading will be revealed in the sequel: the cause is apparent which induced St. Eusebius to give it the preference; and it must be obvious, that a few read- ings of this kind would give him, as a disciple of Origen, a mean opinion of the original Latin Version, and a high opinion of the text of Hesychius; and would consequently lead him to correct the one by the other. 88 Blanchin. Prolegg. in Evang. Quadrupl. p. 62. ‘ Ante- quam vero tollatur manus e tabula, unicum saltem laudati Co- dicis [Vere.] locum recitemus, quem Arzant eo tempore quo Auxentius Mediolanensem Ecclesiam armis exercituque occu _ paverat, (Valente et Ursacio Ecclesiam Sirmiensem incursanti- ( 146 ) In fact, when all these circumstances are taken into account, the history of the Latin version, which bus) de sacro Joannis Evangelio punienda manu Taptirauts (nempe vers. 6. cap. iii.) Hoc enim flagitium, quoniam depre- hensum fuit ‘circa annum reparate salutis $57, miram Euse- biani Codicis antiquitatem ostendit, atque inolite tradition? addit maximum pondus authoritatis. Legebatur nempe in Taudato, cap. ii. ‘ Evangelii secundum Joannem,’ vers. 6+ * Quod natum est de carne caro est, guia de carne natum est 5 et quod natum est de Spiritu Spiritus est, guza Deus Spiritus est et ex Deo natus est,’ ut adhuc in Vercellensi Codice habetur. Sed impii homines ea verba ‘ quoniam Deus Spiritus est,? dolo ac fraude ex omnibus Sacris voluminibus erasere ; ‘ut discimus a S. Ambrosio—in libro de Spiritu Sancto,” &c. Vid, S. Am- bros. de Sp. Sanct. Lib. III. cap, x. § 59. col. 676. This text, however, is but Joh. iii. 6. with a gloss of Tertullian, de Carn. Christ. cap. xviii. p. 308. which §. Cyprian, Concil. Carthag. p- 231. had repeated, after Nemesian, Bishop of Thibunis; and which was probably considered, on account of the repe- | tition, an erased text of Scripture, when the Arians fell under @ suspicion of corrupting the sacred text; and as such was re« instated by St. Eusebius in his revisal of the Old Italick Ver- sion. In vindication of St. Eusebius, it may be observed, that Instances occur of texts similarly repeated by Origen after his master Clement, which even M. Griesbach believed genuine ; and has consequently inserted them in his Corrected Text. 9 Such is the Verona MS. published by M. Blanchini, which, independent of the alteration of John iii. 6. as corrected by St. Eusebius, vid. supr. n. “*. possesses internal evidence of being an heretical revisal of St. Eusebius’s text. It is a curious fact, that the authour of this MS. not less than St. Eusebius, adopted a text from Tertullian de Carn. Christ. but which originally pro- ceeded from the Valentinians. The original Italick Version reads in Joh, i. 13. ‘ qui non ex sanguine, neque ex voluntate earnis neque ex voluntate viri, sed ex Deo natz sunt,” Brixs which w ords, with the single correction of sanguine to sanguinibus, after aiuarwy in the original, St. Eusebius retained in his revie ( 7 ) is otherwise involved in inextricable confusion, di- rectly ceases to be perplexed; and all the inei- dents detailed in it naturally arrange hemes in a clear and consistent order. The destruction of the Byzantine edition, under Dioclesian, made way for the edition of Eusebius, at Constantinople, and rendered a new supply of copies of the Latin version necessary to the West- ern Churches. As the first intercourse cultivated by the Eastern and Western Churches, which in- troduced the latter to a knowledge of the Greek, was during the apostacy of the former to the Arian heresy: the first endeavour to supply this defect produced a comparison between this version and the original, as it existed in. the authorized text of Euse- sal. But in the Verona MS. we read, ibid. ‘* Qui non ex san- guine, neque ex voluntate carnis, neque ex voluntate viri, sed ex Deo natus est.” On this subject, Tertullian, reasoning against the Valentinians, observes, ibid. cap. xix. p. 308. Quid est ergo, ‘ non ex sanguine, neque ex voluntate carnis, neque ex voluntate viri, sed ex Dee natus est.? Hoc quidem capitulo ego potius utar quum adulteratores ejus obduxero. Sic enim scriptum esse contendunt, non ex sanguine nec ex carnis voluntate, nec ex viri sed ex Deo natus est.——Intelligimus ergo ex concubitu nativitatem Domini negatam.’’ ‘What the Evangelist had gene- rally applied to the new birth of the regenerate, the hereticks applied to the nativity of our Lord; by changing “ nati sunt” into “ natus est.” The Valentinian from the negation in “ non €X sanguine neque ex voluntate carnis—natus est,’’ disproved ‘the incarnation ; and the Arian, from the degradation of “the only begotten Son,” to the rank of those sons who are adopted through Christ, disproved the divinity of our Lord. These readings of Joh. i. 13. iii. 6. will sufficiently reveal the true character of the Verona MS. which possesses several of the same heretical stamp. Li 9 ~~ ( 148 ) bius Ceesariensis, which excited suspicions of the fidelity of the translation. This discovery must of course have awakened the vigilance of the Western Church, which during this period preserved its or- thodoxy: and P. Julius, who then occupied the pa- pal chair, was consequently induced to employ St. Eusebius to revise the authorised version... The do- mination, however, of the Arian heresy at,this pe- riod, prevented St. Eusebius from correcting the translation. by the received text of the Greek Chureh, which had been published by Eusebius of Cesarea: and as he could not readily obtain a copy of Lucia- nus’s text, and as he obtained one of Hesychius’s with ease *?, he consequently followed the text of the latter, in forming his version. The influence of this emendation of the Latin version is directly perceptible in the greater number of the copies of the Italick translation; as they chiefly conform to the revisal of St. Eusebius, which now formed the authorized text of the Western Churches. So general was this influence, that, pro- bably on account of it, we retain but one specimen of the antecedent translation, which is contained in the Brescia manuscript: for which, we. are most *° How very general the copies of Eusebius of Cesarea were ’ in St. Jerome’s age, may be collected from the declaration ot the latter; supr. p. 35.n. ©. That Eusebius, of Verceli, might, have obtained copies of Hesychius’s text, ‘previously to his exile in the Thebais, may be collected from the intercourse, which -P. Julius maintained with the Alexandrine Church; Vid. Epist. Jul. ad Alexandrinn. ap. Socrat. Hist. Eccl. Lib. II. cap. xxiii.. p- 111. sqq. | | : ( 149 ) probably indebted to Philastrius Brixiensis. This conjecture will be doubtless admitted, when the age and character of this text are taken into account, together with the consideration of the place in whic it is found, and of the learning and authority of Phi- lastrius, who was bishop of Brescia’. Whatever opinion be formed on this subject, it is apparent that the Latin Church lost all confidence in the antient version, on the publication of an amended text by Eusebius Vercellensis. ‘The influence of his edi- tion is directly apparent in the works of St. Hi- lary", who was the friend and companion of the S° The authour of a work on the Antient Heresies, which is inserted in Bibliothec. Patrr. Tom. IV. p. 596. sqq. ed. Colon. Agrip. 1618. He flourished, under the Emperour Theodosius, A.D. 381. and is mentioned in the following terms by St. Augustine; Epist. ad Quodv. Tom. I. c. 818. a. “ Philastrius quidam Brixiensis Episcopus, quem cum Sancto Ambrosio Mediolani etiam ipse vidi, scripsit hinc librum, nec illas hereses pretermittens, que in populo Judzorum fuerunt ante adventum Domini.” When we take into account the learning and ortho- doxy of this antient father, and compare the peculiar omissions of the Brescia MS. vid. supr. p. 92. n. “*. with the description given of the copies rectified by the orthodox in the time when he lived, vid. supr. p. 93..n.*; it is highly probable, that the text of this MS. which has been preserved at Philastrius’s Church, is that of the Antient Latin Version, which he accom- modated to the orthodox copies, by omitting the suspected passages: vid. infr. p. 152. n. 1°, % Sabat. Bibl. Ital. Monit. in Vet. Ev. Int. Tom. III. p xxxiv.. “ Quid plura; versiculi Evangeliorum, quales in SS. Patrum voluminibus laudantur, maxime in Hilarii scriptis, tales leguntur lisdemque verbis in Codice Colbertino; nec ulla est descre- pantia, si quando aliqua occurrit, que non alicujus antiqui dectoris testimonio possit confirmari. Quod argumento esse ( 150 ) bishop of Verceli%; and who has quoted from his edition, in the whole of his theological writings. The quotations of Tertullian and Cyprian, which differ from this version, and yet accord with the Greek, contain a sufficient proof that they used a different translation 9. From the publication of St. Eusebius’s revisal, we are to date the origin of the varieties which were soon introduced into the Western version. The Latin Church now possessed, in the primitive and the corrected edition, two translations; and these soon generated a multitude of others, through various unskilful attempts to accommodate the old translation to the new, and frequently to adapt it to the Greek original. Of the manuscripts of this kind, we pos- sess a specimen in the Codex Veronensis, which has been published by M. Blanchini. It is manifestly formed on the basis of St. Eusebius’s version *; but has been revised and corrected throughout, By the original text of Hesychius. debet, eo Codice illam contineri Scripture interpretationem qua usi sunt antiqui scriptores: hec autem non alia est quam Vetus Vulgata.”’? Conf. Blanchin. pe Quadr. P. I. p. mo sqq- % Vid. supr. p. 54. n. '7. p. 58. n. 93 Thus much is in substance ivinfsseth by P. Simon, Hist. Crit. du Nouv. Test. chap. vi. p. 67. Pour ce que est de Tertullien et de Cyprien, bien qu’ils ne rapportent pas precisé- ment les mots de [Italique, parce qu’ils consultoient le Grec,. als la suivent pour ce qui est du sens.’ , ‘¢ It is printed in parallel columns with the Verceli MS. in M. Blanchini’s Evangeliarium Quadruplex ; and so exactly - agrees with it, in the general tenour of the text, that we can- constantly supply, from the one manuscript, those passages or. parts of words which time has obliterated in the other. ; ( Ir ) Such was the state in which, at the distance of half a century, the Latin version was found by St. Jerome, who describes it as containing nearly as many different texts as different copies. It was merely a matter of accident, that he was brought up with a dislike for the vulgar edition of the Greek, and with a predilection for the corrected text of Ku- sebius; having imbibed an early partiality for this edition, through Gregory of Nazianzum%”. And as it was natural, so it is unquestionable, that he took it as the standard, by which he judged of the merit of other texts; without suspecting that he was mea- suring by a line of which he had not ascertained the positive dimensions. ‘The result is, that he was hence led to underrate the edition of Lucianus, not less than that of Hesychius”: and consequently to allow neither their due weight, when he was re- vising the text of the Latin translation. Still, how- ever, uninclined to feel or profess an open partiality to the edition of Eusebius Cesarensis; whose text had been certainly revised by the orthodox in the same age, among whom we cannot include the ce- lebrated bishop of Cesarea%: his specifick object was to adhere to no particular text, but to follow the antient copies of the original. Under this view he also, not less than St. Eusebius, overlooked the co- pies of Lucianus’s edition, as modern. For the 5 Vid. supr. p. 15. n. 7°, s® Vid. supr. p. 83. n. 7%. %” Vid. supr. 100. n. 7°. ® Vid. S. Epiphan, Er. vxvitt. p. 723. d. conf. ut supr. p- 93.n *. ( 152 ) Greek Vulgate having been partly destroyed under Dioclesian, and superseded under Constantine%, it was not again restored until the reign of Theodo- sius’°°; when it quietly reinstated itself, on the ex- tinction of the party, which supported the Corrected Text of Eusebius. Under these circumstances, the celebrated Latin Vulgate was composed, which the Roman Church has now adopted as its authorised version. Not- withstanding the high reputation of St. Jerome, aided by the authority of P. Damasus, it was but slowly adopted by the Western Churches, which still persevered in retaining the primitive version. As St. Jerome’s reputation in Greek literature was however deservedly great, considerable use was made of his corrected text, in bringing the old Italick ver- sion to a closer affinity with the original. The in- fluence of the Vulgate on that version is conse- quently perceptible, to a greater or lesser degree, in all the more modern copies. Even the Brescia and Verceli manuscripts have not wholly escaped 9 Vid. supr. p. 27. n.*°. p. 26. n. 44. x00 The date of this event may be fixed to the final subver- sion of the Arian authority, under Theodosius, A, D. 381: when the Catholicks were reinstated in their churches; vid. supr. p. 29. n. *. A Council convened, at this time, in Con- stantinople, introduced a new order of affairs, with a new Bishop. Socrat. Hist. Eccl. Lib. V. cap. viii. p. 268. 1. 39. Mrdev OF 6 Baorreds [Ocoddzs0s ] Omegdépevos ovuvodov emmoxoray THE wits wistws, ovynarel, em) ro xpwrovar cov iv Ninel wisi, 1 NELeoT OVATE ™ Kavsavrive odes ewtoxomors %. Te Ee Conf. Sozom. Lib. VII. capp. vii. ix. pp. 285. 288. Theodor. Lib. V. capp. vil. vili, pp. 200, 201. ° a ( Fae } alteration ; though they have been corrected in sucha manner as to preserve the original readings'*. The Corbeian manuscript, which has been published with them, has been however more systematically cor- rected by St. Jerome's text’. Of the four manu- scripts, which constitute the Evangeliarium Quadru- plex of M. Blanchini, which, it is curious to observe, contains specimens of the principal varieties of the old Italick translation, the Verona manuscript is alone free from the influence of the Vulgate of Jerome‘. In this confused and unsettled state, the Western version continued, for more than a century, until the times of Cassiodorus. Of the effectual method which he took to settle the authorised version, by wholly superseding the old translation, and establishing the Vulgate of Jerome, I have already expressed myself at large on a former occasion**. With what suc- 7% Vid. supr. p. 92. n. *. vid. infr. n. ™. * Blanchin. Evang. Quadrupl. P. I. f. eclxiv. ‘ Exhibe- mus hic Codicem vetustissimum Corbejensis Monasterii n. 195. sexto szeculo descriptum Romanis literis, in quo vacabula per- sepe nullo discrimine sejunguntur. Cum autem eo Codice uterentur in Ecclesia, ut ex eo Evangelium in missa canerent, hinc persepe fit, presertim in Maitheo, ut interpolationes occur- rant, guibus codex simillimus efficeretur Vulgate ex Hieronymiana Versione. Ez tamen correctiones nullo negotio dignoscuntur, tum ex atramento, tum ex literarum forma.’’ Vid. supr. p. 20. n, *. *3 Td. ibid. P. II. f. dixxvi. ‘ Antiquam Latinam Italam Versionem quatuor Evangeliorum representat [Cod. Veronens. ] cum nativis lineamentis suis; estque nulliti—ad Hieronymianam emendationem exacta.” ** Vid, supr. p. 16, 17. ( (54 3} ess his efforts were crowned, may be collected from the general prevalence of this text which he ren- dered the authorised version. So universally has it obtamed, that if some copies of the old italick had not been preserved as relicks, or om account of the beautiful manner m which they were executed *°’, we should probably possess no specimens of this ver- sion, but those which accord with the corrected text of St. Jerome. This brief sketch of the history of the Latin ver- sion, to which it is necessary to attend, m order to appreciate the testimony borne by the Latin Church to the integrity of the sacred text, is completely con- firmed by the internal evidence of the version itself. And this evidence, when heard fully out, ends in establishing the following important conclusions :— That the purest specimen of the old Italick transla- tion is that which is preserved in the Brescia manu- script; that consequently, as the Byzantine text, which accords with it, must be that from which this translation was originally made; that text, of course, must be of the most remote antiquity, as the Italick version was icontestably made in the earliest ages of the Church. In order to substantiate these points, I shall begin with the investigation of the text of the Vulgate; as in constituting the last version of the Latin Church, it necessarily inherits the peculiarities of those ver- sions by which it was preceded. As St. Jerome has spoken of the state of the Latin text as it existed in *S Vid. supr. p. 60, n. *. ( ms ) his times, with fulness and precision; and, as it is implied in the principles of the scheme which it is my object to establish, that the three classes of that text, including his own version, exist even at the present day, as he has described them: it ought to follow, that what he has delivered on the subject of these texts which were before him, should agree with the copies which we retain. If therefore it will be found, on experiment, that what he has delivered on the subject of the Latin translation, is literally verified in that translation as it remains at this day; the result will surely constitute as decisive a confirmation as can be required of the solidity of the foundation on which my whole system is built. On separating St. Jerome’s new translation from the two versions which remain, there will be then little difficulty in proving, that the Brescia manu- script contains the text, out of which the other ver- sions were formed. 1. The general description which St. Jerome gives of the Latin copies existing in his times, repre- sents them as having the Gospels interpolated from each other’. The edition which principally pre- vailed in St. Jerome’s age, was that of Eusebius 706 §. Hier. Pref. in. 1v. Evangg. Tom. VI. p.i. “ Mag- nus siquidem hic zz nostris Codictbus error inolevit, dum quod in eadem re alius Evangelista plus dixit, in alio, quia minus putaverint, addiderunt. Vel dum eundem sensum alius aliter expressit, ile qui unum e quatuor primum legerat, ad ejus exemplum caieros quogue existimaveril emendandos. Unde acci- dit, ut apud nos mixta sunt omnia, et in Marco plura Luce et Matthzi, rursus in Mattheo plura Joannis et Marci, et in ceteris reliquorum, que aliis propria sunt inveniantur.” ( 6 9 Vercellensis. We consequently find, that the Vers celi manuscript accurately accords with this de- scription, and exhibits those interpolations in its text 377. 2. This censure St. Jerome has indiscriminately applied to the copies which existed in his age, while he speaks of the editions of Lucianus, as well as Hesychius'*. We infallibly know the standard by which he condemned them; as we possess, in his own Vulgate the pure text, pruned from these redun- dancies. But on collating the Brescia manuscript with the Vulgate, we find the latter attributes read- ings to one Evangelist, which the Brescia manu- 4 *°7 The proof of this assertion may be taken from Dr. Mills’s general description of the Cambridge MS. infr. n. *. which harmonizes with the Verccli MS. in an extraordinary manner. The following quotation, taken from Luk. xiv. 8, 9,10. and in- serted in the Verceli and Cambridge MSS. after Mat. xx. 28. will evince the coincidence existing between these MSS. and exemplify the declaration of St. Jerome; “ Vos autem queritis de pusillo crescere, et de majore minores esse. Intrantes au- tem et rogati ad coenam, nolite recumbere in locis eminen- tioribus, ne forte clarior te superveniat, et accedens qui ad ccenam vocavit te, dicat tibi; adhuc deorsum accede, et cen- fundaris. Si autem in loco inferiori recubueris, et supervenerit humilior te, dicet tibi qui te ad coenam vocavit: accede adhuc superius. Et erit hoc tibi utilius.’’ Verc. ap. Blanchin. Evang, Quad. P. J. p. clxiv. We read exclusively in Mat. xxi. 12. Et mensas numulariocrum et cathedras vendentium columbas evertit:’? Vulg. but we read in Luk. xix. 45. as well as Matt. xxi. 12. Et mensas numulariorum evertit et cathedras venden- tium columbas.’”” Verc. These passages also occur, with a slight verbal variation, in the Verona MS. a Vid. supr. Pp 100. ne BaP conf. P- 155. n. 7 ( a57 ) seript ascribes to two*°®. So far it verifies St. Je- rome’s account of the different copies of the Latin version, which I suppose to have existed in his era. 3. In referring to the very copies before him, St. Jerome cites different passages which belonged to different texts. He has thus quoted Mat. xi. 23. as differently read in his different manuscripts*'°. The one reading which he specifies, is, however, found in the Verceli, and the other in the Brescia manu- script"™. The text of both is thus almost identi- fied with that of the very copies which he col- lated. 4. In citing this peculiar passage, he adopts the reading of the Verceli manuscript; and merely refers to the Brescia manuscript, as his “ other 9 The following passage is omitted in the correct copies of the Vulgate, in Mat. xxiii. 14. but in the Brescia MS. it is in- serted, wholly in Mat. xxxiii. 14. and partly in Mark sii. 40. Luke xx. 47. “ Ve autem vobis Scribe et Phariszi hypo- crite, qui devoratis domos viduarum sub obtentu prolixe ora- tionis; propterea sumetis pluriorem damnationem,” "2 In the text of the Vulgate we read; S. Hier. Com. in Matt. Lib. I. cap. xi. p. 19. “‘ Et tu Capharnaum numquid usgue ad coelum eXaltaberis? usque in infernum descendes :’? in the annexed commentary we read; ib. “ In altero exemplari reperimus ; ‘ Et tu Capharnaum gue usque in ccelum exaltata es, usque in inferna descendes.” ™* Mat. xi. 23. “ Et tu Capharnaum xumquid usque in ccelum exaltaveris? aut usque in infernum descendes.’* Vere. « Et tu Capharnaum, gue uSque ad ccelum exaltaveris, usque in infernum descendes.” Brir. In Luk. x. 15. the Brescia MS., approaching still nearer to the Vulgate, reads, “ usque in coelum.” ( Ss 9 exemplar". But he evidently took the received text of the age as the basis of his revisal; and that text existed in St. Eusebius’ edition. The Verceli and Brescia manuscripts, of consequence, must not only agree with his Latin copies, but the former contained the received text, the latter the superseded edition of St. Jerome’s age; which is precisely con- formable to what is assumed as true in the whole of ihe present system. 5. In speaking of the general mass of text, as dis- persed in the different copies, which existed in his age, he declares that there were nearly as many texis as manuscripts’; yet he admits that some of them corresponded with the Greek™*. It is a remarkable fact with respect to the Verceli and Brescia manuscript, that while they differ from each other more than from the Vulgate, they respectively aceord with the Greek'’. We of course discover he Latin text preserved in these manuscripts, in the state in which it existed in the days of St. Jerome. It is thus, I trust, apparent, that St. Jerome’s ™. Conf supr ne? et). "3 S, Hier. ub. supr. p. i.—‘“ verum non esse guod variat etiam maledicorum testimoniis comprobatur. Si enim Latinis exemplaribus fides est adhibenda Reap Ona quibus : tot enim sunt exemplaria pene quot codices.” 114 Id. ibid. “ Novum opus me facere cogis ex veteri: ut post exemplaria Scripturarum tote orbe dispersa, quasi quidam arbiter sedeam; et quia inter se variant, que sint dla que cum Greca consentiant discernam.’’ "5 ‘This will fully appear, on comparing p. 156. n. "7. sak p. 177. n. 3. and p. 157. n. . with p. 186. n, , ( 059 ) | account of the Latin translation in his own age, is fully verified in the copies which exist at this day. It now remains, that we put the above system to the last test; and examine how far the account which he has given of his mode of correcting the antient version, may be exemplified in the same manu- scripts ; which, as we have seen, accord with the copies that he apparently used. The Verceli-ma- nuscript, I have already observed, as it constituted the received text, was taken as the basis of his revi- sal. On putting it through the process observed by St. Jerome, if the above system be true, it should confirm the account which he has given of his me- thod, by furnishing similar readings to those whieh his corrections produced. In making this experiment, I shall confine my attention principally to the first ten chapters of St. Matthew’s Gospel"®. Here, if any where, we may expect to find the authour’s principles accurately applied. ‘This portion of Scripture, as including the Sermon on the Mount, is obviously among the most remarkable and important parts of the Canon, and as such undoubtedly laboured by St. Jerome, “© As it is necessary to bring these notes within a moderate compass, in analysing these ten chapters, I shall confine my attention to the Various Readings collected by M. Blanchini, and noted in the lower margin of his Evang. Quadrupl. As that collection has been made without any view to the system which it is my wish to establish, and indeed without any know- ‘ledge of the classes of text on which is is founded. and as it is my intention to take those readings collectively, as they occur, no objection can be made to the selection, as partial, or accom- modated to my system. ( 160 ) with the greatest care. And as it occurred at an early period of his revisal, before the fatigue ‘at- tendant on so long and laborious an undertaking, had induced the authour to relax from his. original design ;. it thus promises to furnish a juster specimen of his mode of correcting, than any that may be selected from his work. 1. In correcting the antient ransleifohe: St. Je- rome treated with disregard the editions: of Hesy- chius and Lucianus'’’; as conceiving the Gospels in those editions interpolated from each other. 1 have already siated that his notions of the genuine text must be sought in his own version. But on esti- mating the Cambridge and Moscow manuscripts™*, which contain the text of Hesychius and Lucianus, by the standard of the Vulgate, they answer St. Je- rome’s description; and appear to be interpolated, as he has described them. 2. In passing over these editions, St. Penns de- clares, that it was his intention to follow the antient "7 Vid. supr. p, 100. n. "°. ™8 Dr. Mills, whose notions of the genuine text were in most cases answered in the Latin Vulgate, delivers himself in the fol- lowing terms on the subject of the Cambridge MS. Prolegomm. in Nov. Test, n. 1274, ‘* Hujus certe [Cod. Cant. ] de quo agi- mus, Greca quod attinet, vix dici potest quam supra omnem modum in iis digerendis licenter se gesserit, ac lascivierit Inter- polator, quisquis ille. In animo ipsi fuisse prima fronte credi- deris, non quidem textum ipsum exhibere, quem ediderant ipsi Evangeliste, sed observato dumtaxat S. Textus ordine ac his- toria, s¢ngula Evangelia absolutiora ac pleniora reddere, Hug enim Pies intromisse in cujusque Evangel teatum particule varie integraque perjodt reliquorum,” &¢, : ( 161 ) copies, in forming his version ®. When we ex- cept the editions which he rejected; by “the an- tient copies” he must have meant those which con- tained Eusebius’s edition, and the Vulgar Greek ; both of which were antient in St. Jerome’s estima- tion, particularly when compared with the recent text of the orthodox revisers. On comparing St. Jerome’s Latin copies with Eusebius’s Canons, they exhibit a redundancy in some places, and a defi- ciency in others **°. But on removing the super- fluous passages according to Eusebius’s text, the corrected text agrees with the text of the Vul- gate '**. And when a coincidence between the "9S. Hier. ub. supr. p. i. “ Igitur heec Preefatiuncula pollice- tur quatuor tantum Evangelia, quorum ordo est iste, Matthzus, Marcus, Lucas, Joannes, Codicum Grecorum emendata colla- tione, sed veterum.”? 120 On examining the mauginal reference annexed to Luke xiv. 8, we find in the Greek MSS. e€1, and in the Latin 177 X; which intimates, that section clxxvii. of Luke was con- tained in Table X. of Eusebius’s Canons. But as Table X. con- sists of passages found only in one Evangelist, of consequence, ‘this section (which is repeated after Mat. xx. 28. in the Vercelt MS. vid. supr. p. .n. '°7.) was not repeated in Eusebius’s edi- tion. On examining the marginal reference annexed to Mark xii. 40, we find pa; H, and 136 VIII: but as Tab. VIII. con- ‘sists of passages in which merely St. Mark and St. Luke corre- ‘spond, this section was not found (in Matthew) in Eusebius’s ‘edition, though found at Matt. xxiii. 13. in the Brescia MS. vid. ‘supr. p. 157. n. 19. ™! Thus on omitting the section which occurs in the Verceli MS. after Matt. xx. 28. and that which occurs in the Brescia MS. after Matt. xxiii. 13. vid. supr. n. ™°. according to Euse- bius’s edition, as indicated in his Canons, the text, when cor- rected, exactly corresponds with that of the Vulgate. M t r ( 162 ) Vulgar Greek and Latin copies discovered a defi- ciency in Eusebius’s text; the version of St. Je- rome, as corrected by the antient copies, corre- sponds with the text of the former ‘**. In both in- stances Kusebius’s edition and the Greek Vulgate, must have represented St. Jerome’s antient co- pies. 3. In forming verbal corrections, St. Jerome de- clures, that his method was to collate the copies of the old translation together, and when they agreed with each other, and with the original Greek, to leave the version in the state in which he found it 3. We consequently find that when the Brescia and Verceli texts agree with the Greek, there exists a correspondent agreement between them and the Vulgate '*. In a few instances St. Jerome has deviated from this plan; but they are exceptions which strengthen the general rule, as he deemed it necessary to apologise for them, in his 2 Thus Mark xvi. 9—20. Joh. vii. 53.—viii. 11.; thougly omitted in Eusebius’s edition, vid. supr. pp. 36, 38. yet as re- tained in some of the copies of the common edition, or Vulgar Greek, vid. supr. p. 35. n. %. et p. 37.n. 65, are inserted in the text of the Latin Vulgate. *3 §. Hier. ub. supr. “Igitur hac Preefatiuncola pollicetur quatuor tantum Evangelia—Codicum Grecorum emendata col- latione—quz ne multum a leetionis Latinee consuetudine discre- parent, ita calamo temperavimus, ut his tantum que sensunt videbantur mutare correctis, religua manere pateremur ut fuc- Fant cs £4 ™ The reader, on turning to pp. 67, 68, 69, may see this observation exemplified in the first twelve verses of St. Mas- thew’s fifth chapter. | | | ( 163 ) commentary *’. The Brescia and the Verceli texts, as they verify his account, must of course preserve the Latin version, as it was found in St. Jerome’s copies. 4. On collating those copies together, if they were found to differ from each other, St. Jerome’s plan was, te collate them with the old copies of the Greek, and thence to determine which of them agreed with the original’®. If one of his Latin copies agreed with Eusebius’s text, he consequently adopted the reading. But if neither agreed with it, he of course translated the original, and mserted the correction in his amended version. Now, on supposing that the Brescia and Verceli texts repre- BS In Matt. iv. 1. the Old Italick reads “in Bethlehem Ju- d@e,” Brix. Verc. Veron. and the Greek % B:Sadiu ois Tedaias, Gr. Vulg. but St. Jerome, on the authority of the Hebrew, cor- rected this phrase to “in Bethlehem Jude.” Lat. Vulg. He thus, however, apologizes for deviating from the authority of his Greck and Latin copies. Com. in Matt. Lib. I. cap. ii. p. 2. f. “ Librariorum hic error est, putamus enim ab evangelista pri- mum editum, sicut in zpso Hebraico legimus, ‘* Jude’? non “ Judex”—Judz autem idcirco scribitur quia est et alia Beth- lehem in Galilza. Lege librum Jesu filii Nave. Denique et in ipso testimonio quod de Michee prophetia sumptum est ita habetur ;.‘‘ Et tu Bethlehem terra Juda.” Here, of course, was St. Jerome’s authority. ™ S. Hier. Sun. et Fretel. Epist. cxxxv, Tom. III. p. 377. “© Sicut autem iz Novo Testamento si quando apud Latinos quzstio exoritur, et est inter exemplaria varietas, recurrimus ad JSontem Greci sermonis, quo Novum scriptum est Instrumen- tum: itain Veteri Testamento si quando inter Grecos Lati- nosque diversitas est, ad Hebraicam recurrimus veritatem: ut quidquid de fonte proficiscitur, hoc gueramus in rivulis.”? u 2 ( 164 ) sent St. Jerome’s Latin copies, and that the latter was the basis of his version: we find St. Jerome’s readings accounted for, on comparing those manu- scripts with Eusebius’s edition. The Vercelé and Brescva texts, in the first place disagree, where the former, which was St. Jerome’s basis, differs from the Vulgate*’. In the next place where the Brescia or Vercelt text corresponds with the Greek, we find its reading inserted in the text of the Vul- gate'**. In the last place, where those texts do not 7 Vid. infr. n. 7, 8 The following collection of texts will illustrate the diver- sity between St. Jerome’s Latin copies; and shew the peculiar readings, which were inserted in his Vulgate, from the Primi- tive Latin Version, on account of their agreement with his old Greek copies. Mat. ii. 9. supra puerum. Verc. Veron. [émdve & Fv rd waidler. Vat. Gr. Vulg.] supra ubi erat puer. Bria. Vulg.-—iii. 16. descendentem de ceelo, Verc. Veron. [xaruBairor. Vat. Vulg.] descendentem, Brix. Vulg.—Ibid.17. dicens ad eum hic est. Verc. Veron. [atysou, Src; tet. Vat. Vulg.] dicens hic est, Brix. Vulg.—iv. 4. omni verbo Dei. Veron. hiat Verc. Loarri shh exmropevo.evy Oia soualos @e&. Vat. Vulg.] omne verbo quod procedit de ore Dei. Brix. Vulg.—tb. 10. vade retro me Satanas. Veron. vade retro Satanas. Verc. [imaye Ealavd. Vat. Vulg.| vade Satana. Bric. Vulg.—tb. 24. omnes curavit. Verc. Veron. (iS:pemevoew adres. Vat. Vulg.] curavit eos. Brix. Vulg.—lb. v.4, 5. vid. ie p. 63.—Ib. 11. propter justitiam Verc. Veron. [Wevdomevor tvexey gue. Vat. Vulg.] mentientes propter me. Brix. Vulg.—Ib. 12. in coelo. Vere. Veron. [és gots Spasois. Vat. Vulg.] in ccelis. Brie. Vulg.—tb. 13. valet. Verc. Veron. [ioyte tri. Vat. Vulg.] valet ultra. Brix. Vulg.—lb. 14. hujus mundi. Verc. Veron. [78 xécpe. Vat. Vulg.] mundi. Brix. Vulg.—lb. 32. dico vobis. Verc.Veron .[Aéya tpiy Ort. Vat.Vule.} aico vobis guia. Brix. Vulg.—Ibid. qui dimissam duxerit me- chatur. Brix. Vulg. [4 daronervpéviy yaunoas poxdran Vat. 0; tae € 165 ) so correspond, in which case both St. Jerome’s basis and his “ other copy” must have differed from the original, we there find that the Vulgate not only differs from both, but accords with the Greek of Eusebius **?. It must be of course evident that the —yaynon. Vulg.] desunt. Verc. Veron.—Ib. 38. dentem pro dentem. Verc. Veron. [xj idéile dvri sdévres. Vat. Vulg.| et den- tem pro dente. Brix. Vule.—vii. 13. quam. Verc. Veron. [er Vat. Vulg.] quia. Brix. Vulg.—ix. 15. jejunabunt in illis diebus. Verc. Veron. [9 rote mszicacw. Vat. Vulg.| et tunc jejunabunt. Briz. Vulg.—Ib. 25. venit et tenuit Verc. Veron. [sioeaSav txpa- rnce. Vat.) intravit et tenuit. Brix. Vulg.—x. 18. stabitis. Verc. Veron. [axSnezcS:. Vat. Vulg.] ducimini. Brix. Vulg.—lb. 23. quod si in aliam persequentur vos, fugite in aliam. Verc. Veron. desunt : Vat. Vulg. Brix. Vulg.—Ib. 24. dominum. Vere. Ve- ron. [rev xupor ats. Vat. Vulg.] dominum suum Brix. Vulg. —lIb. 35. dividere filium. Verc. Veron. [dxacas avSpwrov. Vat. Vulg.] separare hominem. Brix. Vulg.—tIb. 42. non peribit mer- ces sua Verc. merces ejus. Veron. [8 un amorion tiv usoSov avre ‘at. Vulg.] non perdet mercedem suam. Brix. Vulg. The following collection of texts will equally illustrate the diversity between St. Jerome’s Lat. Copies, and shew the pecu- liar readings which he adopted from the Received Version, on account of their agreement with Eusebius’s edition of the Greek. Matt. v. 11. beati eritis. Brix. Veron. [yaxapsoi tse Vat. Vulg.| beati estis. Verc. Vulg.—Ib. 30. mittatur, in gehen- nam. Brix. [sis yeenav dxeASn. Vat. eat in gehennam. Verc. Ve- ron. Vulg.—vi. 1. elemosynam Brix. [dxasecvvny. Vat.] justitiam Verc. Veron. Vulg.—Ib. 13. quoniam tuum est regnum, et vir- tus et gloria, in secula. Amen. Brix. desunt. Vat. Verc. Veron. Fulg.—x. 3. Jacobus Alphei et Lebbeus gui nominatur Taddeus. Brix. [laxsGosé tr? Adgaiz, x Oaddaioc. Vat.j] Jacobus Alphei et Judas Zelotes. Verc. Veron. Jacobus Alphei et Thaddeus. Vulg. . 9 The following collection of texts exhibit the peculiar read- ings which St. Jerome introduced into the Vulgate from possess- ( 166 ) Brescia and Verceli manuscripts must preserve the Latin text in the state in which it existed in the best manuscripts from which St. Jerome formed the Vulgate. ; Tuis METHOD of correcting the Latin version seems liable but to the one objection which it is my main object to establish ; that the text of Eusebius, ing a juster knowledge of the Greek, and preserving a closer adherence to the copies of Eusebius’s edition. Mat. i. 25. non cognovit. Brix. Cant. Veron. [2yivwoxey. Vat. Vulg.] non cognos- cebat. Vulg. Corb.—ii, 9. et stetit supra. Brix. Verc. Verone [ius isa9n id. Vat.] usquedum staret supra. Vulg. Corb.— iv. 18. cum autem transiret. Brix. cum transiret autem Vert. Veron. [azpraauriy d: Vat. Vulg.| ambulans autem Vulg. Corb. —v. 22. fratri suo sine causa, Brix. Verc. Veron. [ro ad:ada airs. Vat.) fratri suo. Vulg.—vi. 2. perceperunt mercedem. Bria. Verc. Veron. [anixzos tov yacdov. Vat. Vulg.) receperunt Vulg. Corb.—Ib. 8. nollite--similare eis. Brix. Verc. Veron. [ui—ipowSire atlots. Vat. Vulg.] nollite—assimilari eis. Vulg. Corb.—ix. 28. veniente autem eo in domum Briz. et venit in do- mum. Verc. Veron. [iaSovh 3: eis trv oixiar. Vat. Vulg.] cum autem venisset in domum. Vulg. Corb.—Ibid. ceeci ki. Brix. cceci duo Verc. Veron. [ot rugarot. Vat. Vulg.] coeci Vulg. Corb.—x. 5. precipiens eis et dicens. Brix. Verc. Veron. [wapalysiaas avreig aéywr. Vat. Vulg.| precipiens eis dicens. Vulg.—Ib. 10. dignus enim est operarius mercedem suam. Brix. Verc. Veron. [aévws yap & ipydrns ts toOpns adr. Vat. Vulg.] dignus est enim ope- rarius cibo. suo. Vulg. Corb. While these examples, together with those quoted, supr. n. *5 et infr.n.™°. demonstrate, that the Vulgate has had no in- fluence on the Brescia MS; they illustrate, in the particular instance of the Corbeian MS. the influence which that version has had upon some copies of the Old Italick.. The examples quoted supr. n.'**, on the other hand, evince the influence which the Brescia teat has had on the Vulgate. ( dey ) by which St. Jerome in some places **° modelled his translation, possessed not authority equal to that of the Old Italick version. And we consequently find, that this very objection was made to the Greek text by Hilary the Deacon*; and to St. Jerome, by 13° In the examples cited supr. nn. * et 9, it is observable that St. Jerome generally possessed the authority of the two species of text contained in his old Greek copies (i.e. Vat. Vulg.) in favour of his corrections. When those copies dif- fered, and Eusebius’s text (Vat.) agreed with his basis (Verc.) it is likewise observable he followed their joint authority, against that of the common Greek (Vulg.). In one instance, Mat. v. 22, he has followed the authority of Eusebius’s text, against the joint authority of his Latin copies and the Greek Vulgate. Butfor this deviation from his usual plan, he offers the following apology ; Com. in Matt. Lib. I. cap. v. p.6. “In guibusdam Codicibus additur ‘sine causa,” ceterum in veris, definita sententia est, et ira penitus tollitur, dicente Scrip- tura; “ qui irascitur fratri suo.” Si enim jubemur verberanti alteram prebere maxillam, et inimicos nostros amare, et orare pro persequentibus, omnis ire occasio tollitur. Radendum est ergo “* sine causa.” From hence it appears that St. Jerome’s main dependance was on the copies containing Eusebius’s text, which were indeed generally supported by the Greek Vulgate; but these he termed his “ true”? rather than his ** antsent copies.” His declaration that “ sine causa”? was to be erased, clearly evinces that this reading was found in the whole of the Latin copies with which he was acquainted; his words, of course, by implication declare, that the testimony of the Old Italick was in this instance collectively against Eu- sebius’s edition: vid. infr. n. ™. "31 Vid. supr. p. 57. n. *°. Hilar. Comment. in Gal. ii. “ Tria hee mandata ab Apostolis et senioribus data reperiuntur, id est, “‘ ut observent se ab idolatria et sanguine” sicut Noe, * et fornicatione.’’ Que Sophiste Grecorum non intelligen- tes, scientes tamen a sanguine non abstinendum, adulterarunt Scripturam, quartum mandatum addentes “ et a suffocato”’ observandum.” ( 168 ) Helvidius, who accused him of following copies that had been corrupted **. And that this objec- tion was made with effect, is apparent; from the Old Version having still maintained its ground in the Latin Church even against the authority of St. Jerome ; and from the difficulty which attended its final suppression under Cassiodorus™*. But this testimony of the Latin Church against the new, version is not merely negative ; but may be thrown on the side of the Byzantine Greek and of the Pri- mitive Version. Hilary, indeed, in objecting to the Greek copies, supports a reading ™* which proba- 37S. Hier. adv. Helvid. cap. iv. Tom. II. p. 135. “ Et erant”’ inquit Lucas, ‘‘ pater illius et mater admirantes super his, que dicebantur de eo.’’ Licet tu mira impudentia hee in Greacis Codicibus falsata contendas, que non solum omnes pene Grecie tractatores, sed nonnulli quoque e Latinis, ita ut in Grecis habentur, assumpserint.”” Here consequently the whole nearly of the Old Latin Version was against the Re- ceived Text, of Palestine, as published by Eusebius: vid. infr. big 133 Vid. supr. pp. 16, 17. *% The history of this reading is curious, and constitutes one of the many proofs which evince the integrity of the Greek Vulgate. In Act. xv. 20, the common or Vulgar edition reads, aniyerbas amo tov aMoynuatwv Tov elowAwY Keb THs amopveias % 78 Bunt % ta wincos. But the reason of the prohibition “< from strangled and from blood’’ not being understood ; the following explanatory gloss, which has crept into the text, xat doa av wy Sérwow tavlois yivecbas, eréposs om wosetv, was added, in order to accommodate the passage to Gen. ix. 4. 5.7.6. This meaning, however, seemed to some of the revisers of the Latin Version to be expressed in awéxyeobas 18 cipedlos; yet apprehen- sive lest it should be understood as a ‘ prohibition from eating blood,’ they superseded “a suffocato”’ by “ sicut Noe.” Such ( 169 ) bly existed only in the Received Text, as revised by St. Eusebius of Verceli ; and thus merely sup- ports the credit of that translation. But Helvidius supports a reading which is found in the Brescia and Byzantine text, against one which is found in the Palestine text and the Vulgate of Jerome". was the reading of Hilary’s copies, vid. supr. n. %": but the Greek which is left behind, after expunging +@ x78, will not bear the sense he assigns it ; or any meaning but that of refrain- ing from partaking of blood, vid. 1 Tim. iv. 3. The vulgar reading is, however, right; the prohibition of the Apostles hav- ing been evidently levelled against the inhuman and depraved rites, in which the early Pagan converts fancied themselves licenced to indulge; vid. 2 Pet. ii. 1, 13, 14, 19. Rev. ii. 14, 20. conf. Athenag. Leg. pro Christt. p. 4. c. et Just. Mart. Apol. maj. p. 70. a. b. ed. Par. Orig. contr. Cels. p. 272. ed. Cant. S. Epiph. Her. xxvi. p. 84.'c. 87. b. 135 Luke ii. 33. 6 walnp air xal 4 watne. Vat. pater illius et mater. Vulg."IwonQ xal 1 parne. Vulg. Joseph et mater ejus. Briz. Verc. Veron. Corb. The reading of Eusebius, which St. Jerome adopts, he defends by reference to Joh. i. 46. “ Hier. adv. Helv. cap. ix. p. 138. ‘Ac ne forte de exemplariorum veritate causeris, quia tibi stultissime persuasisti, Gracos Co- dices esse falsatos: ad Joannis Evangelium venio, in quo ple- nissime scribitur; ‘Invenit Philippus Nathanael, et ait illi; uem scripsit Moyses in lege, et prophete invenimus Jesum filium Joseph.’ Certe hoc in tuo Codice continetur. Responde mihi, quo modo Jesus sit filius Joseph, quem constat de Spi- ritu Sancto esse procreatum?”’ But the reading of the Greek Vulgate and Old Italick Version may be easily defended against ' this solemn trifling ; and the refutation of Eusebius and Jerome may be effected with ease. In Joh. i. 46. the sacred historian merely relates the declaration of Philip ; in Luke ii. $3. the in- spired writer speaks for himself. From Joh. ii. 11. vii. 5. it will appear that had Philip at this time declared his belief in ( FO y He consequently not only supports the authority of the Greek Vulgate while he detracts from that of the Latin ; but by his appeal to Latin copies, ‘he proves that the Vulgar Greck was exclusively sup= ported by the suthority of the orginal Latin Translation. As St. Jerome is thus deserted by the testimony of the early Latin Church, his own testimony is in- adequate to support the authority of the new Vul- gate against that of the old, or primitive version. His declaration, that he purposed following the old copies, has been taken in a positive, not relative sense %°; his words, instead of being interpreted with sdfenenes to the rectified copies which pre- vailed in his times, have been understood of the the divinity of our Lord, it must have been by an oversight of the sacred historian. And from Luke ii. 48, 49, 50, it will appear that had S¢. Luke assigned any Father to Christ but God, it must have been by grossly confounding what our Lord had expressly distinguished. However “foolish the persuasion’? may be deemed, the Vatican MS. and Latin Vulgate are here, J am persuaded, grossly corrupt. oa *6 On the publication of a new edition of the sacred text by the orthodox revisers, vid. supr. p. 93.n.°%,p. _ n. *°°, the Received Text edited by Eusebius became, properly speaking, the old. This mode of expression was not unknown to the Greeks. In this sense St. Ireneus speaks of the old copies of the Apocalypse, while he asserts even of the original work, that it was published ix the age zn which he flourished. S, Iren. adv. Her. Lib. V. cap. xxx. p. 330. Télav o& Era txorloy, wad by mor 02 ToV¢ omedasols nad aApKaiors avlvypapas re apbue rere nee. va, xal paplupsvley adtéy excivay Tav xer’ day *Twavyny BWEZMIT WY, yak te Aoys doazxorles nuas—Conf, ut supr. p- 124, n. angie LOT. tay *3 ( We 3 copies of Pierius and Origen, to which he appeals occasionally “7. 'They have been however strained beyond what they will bear: for no general decla- ration ought to be taken in the strictness of the let- ter. As he was professedly a reader of Adaman- tius '*, and of Pierius, whom he calls the younger Origen “?; he might have found the readings of their copies, m their commentaries, without in- specting their manuscripts. Had he possessed co- pies of the kind, he was nota person likely to sup- press the fact; or introduce them to the acquaint- ance of his readers, under the loose and indefinite title of “antient copies.” Nor is his shyness to speak explicitly on this subject to be reconciled with his minute description of the text of Lucianus and Hesychius, and of the canons of Eusebius of *37'§. Hier. Com. in Mat. cap. xxiv. Tom. VI. p. 54. ‘In quibusdam Codicibus additum est “ neque filius :” cum a Grecis et maxime Adamantii et Pierii exemplaribus, hoc non habeatur adscriptum: sed quia in nonnullis legitur, disserendum videa- tur.”’ Of whatever service it may be to the partisans of the Alexandrine recension to talk of these copies of Origen and Pierius, I am not apprehensive, that any advocate of Euse- bius’s text will quote zhzs passage against the Greek Vulgate. 138 §, Hier. Cat. Scriptt. Eccless. in Pamphil. Tom. I. p. 128. * Origenis volumina manu ejus [sc. Pamphili] exarata reperi ; quz tanto amplector et servo gaudio, ut Creesi opes habere me credam. Si enim letitia est unam epistolam habere martyris ; quanto magis tot millia versuum.” ©9 Id. ibid, in Pier. “ Pierius Alexandrine ecclesiz presby- ter—florentissime docuit populos, et in tantam sermonis, di- versorumque tractatuum, qui usque hodie extant, venit elegan- tiam, ut Origenes junior vocaretur.”’ ( Hei Caesarea. But what must lay the question at rest, is the confession of St. Jerome himself; who not only declares that he possessed copies of Ori- gen’s Commentaries which had been transcribed by Pamphilus '*, but expressly admits, that Origen’s library had fallen into decay, and had been partially restored on vellum by Acacius and Euzoius"*. As Origen’s library consisted of volumes written on the papyrus; such a library having been alone suited to the finances of a man, who lived in poverty, and was supplied with the means of publishing his works, by the munificence of his friend and patron Am- brose ‘8 ; it would have been rather a hazardous attempt in St. Jerome to boast of possessing his ori- ginal copies. The authority of Origen’s Commen- taries became a sufficient voucher to St. Jerome, - for the readings of Origen’s copies; in this manner they are occasionally cited by him, while he gene- rally conforms to the text of Eusebius. St. Jerome’s authority is therefore inadequate to support the credit of the Vulgate against the au- thority of the antient Latin eranutatvont His ver- sion, as founded 6n a preference for Eusebius’s text, was built on an accidental partiality “+; and on the the same foundation rests the standard by which he condemned the text of Lucianus *%. His transla- “4° Vid. supr. p. 100. n. ™. nei 85.n. 77. infr. p. 173. n. 5, *" Vid. supr. p. 171. n. *? Vid. supr. p. 84. nn. 7%. et 73. »* Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. 4* Vid. supr. pp. 84, 85. * That he condemned it, on judging it, merely by Euse- ( “dvs ) tion is besides destitute of the authority of the an- tient Latin Church, which continued to retain the primitive version. But as far as was consistent with St. Jerome’s plan, his testimony may be cited in support of this version, and of the text of Lucianus. He admitted the authority of the former in correct- ing the Received Text of his times: and, im follow- ing the edition of Eusebius Cesariensis, he ad- hered to a text that approximates very closely to the Byzantine edition. The event is, that the Vulgate of St. Jerome approaches much nearer to the primi- tive version of the Western Church, than the Re- ceived Text of his age, as revised by the hand of St. Eusebius of Verceli. We have now brought the determination of the question to the consideration of the two versions’ which preceded the Vulgate, and which exist in the Brescia and Verceli manuscripts. But a choice between these texts may, 1 trust, be decided with little comparative difficulty. Considering the question, as resting between these two texts, it must be admitted, that one bius's text, taken as the standard, he has himself placed out of dispute. After describing Hesychius and Lucianus’s text, as interpolated, vid. supr. p. 100. n. 7°. he thus observes; Pref. in 1v. Evang. Tom. VI. p-i. “ Canones quoque quos Eusebius Casariensis Episcopus Alexandrinum secutus Ammonium, in decem numeros ordinavit, sicut in Greco habetur expressimus. Quod si quis de curiosis voluerit que in Evangeliis, vel eadem, vel vicina, vel sola sint, eorum distinctione cognoscet. Magnus siquidem hic in nostris Codicibus error inolevit,’”’ &c. ut supr. p- 155. n. ™, ( 1% ) forms the basis of the other. They possess that extraordinary conformity, which can be only ac- counted for by such an assumption. We how- ever know the authour of the Verceli text '47 ; while we are ignorant of that of the Brescia manuscript. _ Regarding the question as confined to the consider- ation of these two, St. Eusebius in forming the Verceli text, must have necessarily taken as his basis the Brescia translation. Now this conclusion is fully confirmed on considering the mode in which St. Eusebius necessarily proceeded in forming his revisal. On going through the process which he obviously must have followed, we may produce a text which literally corresponds with the Verceli manuscript. On decomposing the version which he produced, we discover, in its elements, the text of the Brescia manuscripts. We cannot be mistaken in the version of St, Eusebius; as the Verceli manuscript, though clearly not the authour’s autograph, has been pre- served at his church in Piedmont “* ; it is, beyond all reasonable ground of doubt, a copy of the edition which he revised: and we discover strong and in- delible marks of this version having been the Re- ceived Text from the times of P. Julius, in the works of subsequent writers ‘4°. We can be as lit- tle mistaken in the Greek text by which he formed “4° Vid. supr. pp. 67, 69, et p. 165. n. "9, “47 Vid. supr. p. 59. n. 73, *48 Vid. supr. p. 60. n. 3%. *49 Vid. supr. p. 149. n. %e. ( ds ) his revisal; its literal coincidence with the Cam- bridge manuscript proves it to have been the edition of Hesychius ‘*° ; and this supposition is confirmed by the fact of the authour’s exile in Egypt, where the text of Hesychius prevailed’. Now on as- suming that the Brescia text formed St. Eusebius’s basis, which was to be corrected by the Greek of the Cambridge manuscript ; every difference inthe Verceli MS. which was formed by correcting the one from the other, may be explained and accounted for. This assumption may be established by a brief ex- emplification. 1, When St. Eusebius’s basis and his Greek copy agreed, there was no room for a correction; we consequently find that when the Brescia and Cam- bridge manuscripts agree there is a correspondent agreement in the Verceli manuscript ***. 2. When the basis and Greek disagree, there ought to be an agreement between the Greek and the revisal ; consequently, on collating the Brescia and Cambridge manuscripts, and translating the Greek text im passages where it differs from the Latin, we produce the text of the Verceli manu- script 5° Vid. supr. pp. 63, 64, 65, 67. *5* Vid, supr. p. 54. n. *7. *s* ‘This position may be verified, by a collation of the ex- ‘tracts given in pp. 67, 69, from the Cambridge, Brescia, and Verceli MSS. 53 The following collection of texts will illustrate the diver- sity existing between St. Eusebius’s Latin basis and his Greek text ; andthe correspondence of his Corrected Test with the ( 1% ) In both cases, therefore, when the basis and ori- ginal agreed or disagreed, to the consideration of latter. Matt. ii. 9. stetit supra ubi erat puer. Brix. [isaba ircinw TS aasdie. Cant. ] stetit supra puerum. Verc. Veron.—iii. 16. descendentem. Brix. [xalaBaivey tx t& seavé. Cant.] descen- dentem de celo. Verc. Veron.—Ib. 17. dicens hic est. Brix. [aéyera pos adrov, Stéc iss. Cant.] dicens ad eum hic est. Verc. Veron.—iv. 4. omni verbo quod procedit de ore Dei. Bria. [wavrt fru: ©-&. Cant.] omni verbo Dei. Verc.—ib. 10. Vade Satana. Brix. [iwaye iricow ws Lelave. Cant.] Vade retro Satana. Verc. Vade retro me Satanas. Veron.—Ib. 24. vuravit eos. Brix. {aeilas iepcmevee. Cant.] omnes curavit. Vere. Veron.—v. 4 beati qui lugent, &c. Brix. [wancpios of wpacis x. 7 & Cant.] beati mites. Verc. Veron.—Ib. 5. beati mansveti, &c. Brite [ancora ot wevbavles x. t-£. Cant.] beati gui lugent. Verc. Veron. —Ib. 11. beati eritis. Brix. [yancépiot tse Cant.] beati estis. Verc. Veron.—Ibid. mentientes propter me. Brix. [évexey dnasoovvnse Cant] propter justitiam. Verc. Veron.—Ib. 12. in celis, Brix. [iy 7@ Seara. Cant.] in coelo. Verc. Veron.—lb. 13. valebit ultra. Brix. [isyta. Cant.] valet. Verc. Veron.—Ib. 30. mittatur in gehennam. Brix. [améadn sis yéevav. Cant.] eat in gehennam, Verc. Veron.—lb. 32. Dico vobis quia. Brix. [aéyw tyiv. Cant. } dico vobis. Verc. Veron.—Ibid. qui dimissam duxerit mechatur. Brix. desunt. Cant. Verc. Veron.—Ib. 38. et dentem. Brix. [édvra. Cant.] dentem. Verc. Veron.—lb. 41. vade cum illo duo. Brix. [imaye wer ard ts arra dvo. Cant.) vade cum illo adhuc alia duo. Verc. Veron.—Ib. 44. orate pro calumniantibus nobis. Brix. [meooevyeode trig tix tmngeaQovrwr. Cant.] orate pro calumniantibus. Verc. Veron.—vi. 1. elemosynam. Bria. [dsmes- octvmvy. Cant.] justitiam. Verc. Veron.—Ib. 13. quoniam tuum est regnum et virtus, et gloria, in secula. Amen. Briz, desunt. Cant. Verc.Veron. [hiat Cant. a cap. vi. 20. ad. ix. 2.]—ix. 5. tibi peccata tua. Bir. [cor ai ayaprias, Cant.] tibi peccata. Verc. Veron. ]—Ib. 15. jejunabunt. Brix. Consevouow év Exeivais rais ruégors. Cant.] jejunabunt in illis diebus. Verc. Veron. Ib. 28. veniente autem eo in domum. Brix. [xat ipyeras cis thy oixiar. Cant.) et venit in domum, Vere. Veron.—Ib. 28. ceci illi. ( WT ) which the question is necessarily limited, the result is precisely that which would have occurred, had the Brescia manuscript formed the primitive text which St. Eusebius corrected by the text of Hesychius. _As the testimony of St. Eusebius’s version thus clearly supports the antiquity, i evincing the pri- ority, of the Brescia text, it appears to me, that, when it is taken into account with other texts of the same edition, they annihilate the authority of He- sychius’s text ; and thus undermining the very foun- dation on which they are mutually built, necessa- rily destroy their common credit ; and by conse- quence establish the exclusive authority of the text of the Brescia manuscript. Brix. [és 840 tugaci. Cant.) duo ceeci. Verc. Veron.—x. 3. Jaco- bus Alphei et Lebdeus qui nominatur Taddeus. Brix. [lansBes 6 +e “AAQaie nab Ac@Gaios. Cant.] Jacobus Alphei et Judas Ze- lotes. Verc. Veron.—Ib. 18. ducimini. Brix. [ra0rcecbe. Cant.] stabitis. Verc. Veron.—lb. 23. [ay 2 ty ry GAAn Oicinzow tpcisy Qetyie cis Thy ZAAnv. Cant.] quod si in aliam persequentur vos, fugite in aliam. Verc. Veron. desunt. Briz.—tb. 35. separare hominem. Briz. [dyaee isdv. Cant.] dividere filium. Verc. Veron. —Ib. 42. perdet mercedem. Brix. [amonéon 6 wsobss. Cant.] pe- ribit merces. Verc. Veron. I subjoin from the Cambridge MS. the correspondent passages to the extracts given from the Ver- celi MS. supr. py 156. n. °?. Matt. xx. 28. "YT mers ob Cyrzize a inp abkincas, nat tx pei€avos EAatIoy cives cioepyducvos OF xab wan paxanbévles demrvncasy pn dranrewar Sas [l. avunrivacde | eis rhs 2Eeyovlag tomes" wnmote evdeZoreges oe iwtadn, xat aeoreadon 5 Sere vouryrwp Elan cor "Ers nat Ywee* x xaTarxyudnon "Edy & avenions cig Tov Hrlova Tomer, xas eéadn ca atlav, eget cor 6 JemvoXA/Twp Liraye ers Kya" xxi tsas cor t8to yencwor. Cant. Luke xix. 45. ual veg tpamias Tov norrvBiswy ekéyery, nal Tes nabédpas Tay wAer THY Toes WEES ECAS. Cant. N Wis ( 1% ) The most remarkable of the copies of the old Italick version, which conform to the edition of St. Eusebius Vercellensis, are those contained in the Verona and Cambridge manuscripts. While they preserve a verbal cowncidence in many places, and a general conformity to the text of Hesychius ** ; they exhibit a deversity between themselves in num- berless readings. From those peculiarities, we may make several deductions, which will serve to esta- blish the foregoing assumption. If in accounting for the conformuty of the text of those manuscripts to the Greek, we suppose them severally made from the text of Hesychius ; their conformity to his edi- tion, and their diversities among themselves, may be explained; but their verbal coietdences are wholly inexplicable. 'T’o account for the last pecu- liarity, we must conceive them formed on the basis of some common translation. And taking this cir- cumstance into account, every peculiarity in their respective texts admits of an easy explanation. As their cotnczdence in the first case is explained, by conceiving them formed on the basis of some ante- cedent version ; and their conformity in the second by conceiving them corrected by some common Greek text ; their diversities in the third are ex- 5+ The coincidence of the Verceli and Verona MSS. with Hesychius’s text has been already pointed out; supr. p. 175. n. *53, The whole of the correspondent readings there extracted, from those MSS. are found also in the Latin version of the Cambridge MS. with the exception of those mentioned in nn. 355 et 155, ( 179 ) plained, by conceiving them corrected by diferent hands **. Now, as the coincidences of the Verceli, Verona, and Cambridge MSS. are common to the Brescia MS. their joint testimony, so far, proves, that this manuscript contains the original version, on which they have been severally formed. And, conform- ably to this notion, we find, that frequently where those manuscripts differ from each other, and one of them conforms to Hesychius’s text; the other coincides with the Brescia manuscript*®. It is #85 The following various readings of a single text, while it illustrates the diversity existing between the Verona the Cam- bridge and the Verceli MSS. will of itself almost prove, that both the former MSS. have been corrected by the Greek. Matt. x. 10. aztos yag & tpyatns THs TeoPus aire. dignus enim est operarius mercedem suam. Verc. Brix. dignus enim est ope- rarius mercedem (air) ejus. Veron. dignus enim est operarius (ts tees) esca sua. Cant. Instances of this kind occur in almost every page of the Camér. and Veron. MSS. vid. infr. p- 180. nn. * et *. The following reading appears to me to demonstrate, that the text of the latter of those manuscripts has been corrected immediately from the Greek; Luc. xy. 10. im) i aueprwro super unum peccatorem. Verc. Brix. in pecca- tore. Veron. The authority for this reading plainly lies in & &yaplwao, mistaken for & apeflwsz, probably on account of the absence of zai. *6 The Cambridge and Verona MSS. appear to have been first formed on the basis of the Brescia text, by corrections taken from the Verceli text; after which those MSS. were severally ‘revised by the original Greek of Hesychius. This assumption is confirmed by many of their peculiar readings, which re- mained unaltered, both under the first correction and subsequent ‘revisal. Isubjoin a few examples; Matt. ii. 1. venerunt Hiero- solyma, Briz. Veron. ( Joseph. De Bell. Jud. Lib. VII. cap. ix. § 3. Tom. II. p. 399. ed. Havercamp. os OS Exner vores n TOA, OnAoy de TOP toi Kesie curapiSpeserrwr, 0 Os Thy axuny Tis woAcws HAdyAacs Néguys Percpnevos zaTaQporerts 78 Suze, TACEKADEGE TEs GZOXIECEIS, eimas Swartoy thy TAnSuv eagiIuncacdtar of Y zedons Sogrins, ~ ~ / Tacyxe RAAEITAI,—THY pay Suparwry ehuogs wevre pvgradns npidunzar, mpos of ikaxicyiaa x mevtaxcora. yivovra: 0° avOoay, iy Exase Pina Savrupiras Sauer, wugiades EBdounnoyra « diaxdcias, xaIagdv anavray « ayiwy. Conf, Lib. II. cap. xiv. § 3. © Act. xxviii. 22. 7 Ibid. 21. ( 19a) Christianity formidable to the Jewish nation. ~The concurring testimony of Christian and Jewish wri- ters, places it beyond a doubt, that as early as the reign of the Emperour Claudius, when the new converts were known under the appellation of Na- zarenes®*, a circular letter was sent from Jerusalem, enjoining the dispersed Jews to excommunicate the Christians, under that title, in all their syna- gogues?. 3 Selden. de Synedrr. Vett. Ebrzorr. Lib. I. cap. viii. p. 122. ed. 1679. ‘ Certe ut Suidas ita Joannes Antiochenus, in Chronologicis suis nondum editis cum Euodii illic episcopatu Christiani nominis Antiochie ortum conjungit, quem post de- cennium ab Ascensu Domini evenisse scribit, seu sub Claudiu initia. Etiam et nominis autorem ibi Euodium illum facit. Verba sunt: "Ey 3 rais dpyais rns Baorsias tS adres Kravois Kaioapos, werd 73 dvarnQadnvas soy Kipioy nuay 2 Ody Incty Xers dv, peter brn ince mpuros pera rev ayrov [léxpov Tov Amrosonoy Thy xergoroviay wis Emionxomns tis Avrwoyeiov peyadns woAews tng Lupias eAaPev Evddios yevomevos Tlarertpyns. Kal tot abr tmsoxoare X pisvavot wrvopacrnoay, Ts avre imicxome Evodle mgorousAncavros avrols x) mriSioavtos To wvone tere. TI pwnv yap NaCwoaion % Taasdatos ExaAsyro of Keisiavoi. Comp. Act. xi. 1.3, 22.26.28. Pears. Expos. of Creed. Vol. II. p. 111. ed. Oxon. 1797. 9 Just. Mart. Dial. cum Tryph. Jud. p. 335. b. ed. Par. 1615. —GAn is meseltror, Avdeus yelgTovnoavTeEs ixAextds, ais Waoay Tw olnendvny Emeurbare, xnpiocorras ort, aiperig rs adeog x) avoKos tynyeeras amd “Inos twos Tadsrais wade. Id. ibid. p. 234. b. Gminteivars yop Tov Iinerory x) pd adTe Tas mpoPnras avTe x Wy iN 2 4 ahs iamilovras im’ adroy xab coe wéabarra avtie—arinalert, ~~ - ~ . ’ > .% . HATOURUAEVOS EV Tals cuvaywyais vAdY TES MisevoyTas Em TOV Xpiscv. S. Epiphan. Har. xxrx. p. 124. ¢. Ov péror yap oF viv Iedaiuy maides meds reres [rds Na€weaiss | xixrnvras piooss GMa avscineror ErowSery nal pylons nuteas, xab eet Tv Eomtpay, tps Tig Tyatpasy, OTe evyas emvreAdow Ey Tals QUTMY oUVAywyAls, ( 195 ) At how early a period the Christian Church adopted this mode of communication from the J ew- ish Polity, must be apparent from the first council, held in the reign of the same Emperour, at Jerusa- lem, after the model of the Jewish Sanhedrim*. On that great revolution which took place in the divine economy, on the formal abrogation of the Jewish ceremonial, and the emancipation of the new converts from legal observances, that strong line of distinction was drawn between the Christians and Nazarenes, which gave to the new religion a new appellation, and exhibited Christianity in its extrinsick purity. On this occasion “it pleased the apostles and elders and the whole church,” assembled in council, “ tosend chosen men,” and “ ¢o write emapivrat adtois, nal dvadnuarigeor Paoxorres, Ovi EmiKaTapaoae 6 @cbs Tes Na@weaies. nae yep TeToKS meplooorepoy VEX BO, dee +o amd Iedatwy avths wras, “Inody xnevoces elves Xpisov. Comp. Lightf. ut supra. p. 278. 2° Vitring. ub supr. p. 598. ‘* An itaque non vides, Syne- drium hoc Hierosolnitanum Christianum prorsus ordinatum esse ad formam Synedrii Hierosolymitani Judaicz, et de omnibus rebus sacris in et extra Judzam statuebat ; de omnibus Legis questionibus majoris momenti judicabat :—Orta est questio non levis momenti, an Gentes salutis suze cupidz, fidem in Christum mecesse haberent munire observantia Legis Mosaice. De qua cum variz essent Doctorum sententiz, visum est Ecclesiis illius definitionem committere Senatuz et Ecclesia Hierosolymitane. ‘Qui postquam de hoc negotio decrevissent, Legatos cum Epise tolis mittunt ad varias Ecclesias Gentium, quibus suam senten- tiam de proposita questione exponunt. Formam Literarum ‘prorsus convenit typis Literarum Synedrii2? Comp. Lightf. ub. supr. p. 283. 02 ( 196 ) letters by them*'; in which a general dispensation was granted from-Jewish ceremonies, and precau- tions were used to obviate some excesses, which might arise from the unlicensed abuse of Christian liberty **. _.In such habits of intercourse, the Christian Church had already existed, for half a century, on the completion of the New Testament Canon”: from the reign of Claudius, in the middle of the first age, to that of Domitian, near the beginning of the second. ‘That in the latter period, this intercourse was still strictly maintained, is rendered certain by documents of unquestionable authority. St. Igna- tius and St. Polycarp, who lived at this period, and who enjoyed the intimacy, and succeeded to the la- bours, of the apostles, explicitly mention the custom of convening synods for the purpose of ordaining _ persons to convey circular letters through the differ- ent churches'*: and in this manner they took espe- Act. xv. 22. 2 Tbid. 23. *3 Vid. supr. p. 124. n. %°. * §. Ignat. Epist. ad Polyc. cap. vii. p..42. ed. Cler. 1724. Tgéres, Tloavxapmre Scomanugisorare, ouLBsrsoy ayaye Seomgeme~ sarovy nab KELOTOVATAl TIV%, ov ayamntov Ara EXETE nal Goxvory as Ouvncetas Seodpomos xaAciodar Titov xatabiocas, ive Togeusels EIS Lupiay dodaon Daw Tnv oxvoy ayamny eis ducap Xeisd. Id. ibid. cap. vill. p. 42. “Emsi ey Wacais rais exxAnomis sx nouvnsnv- yparbat, dia ro eaipuns macy we aod Tpuwddos cig NecoroAiy ws 70 Sérnue meoorasos, yearpes rais Eumpesdev exxAnoiais, ac Oct youn xentnpens, cig Td © adTSs To AUTO TOHOGA of piv duveepevos melss mer at, of O emisokas dia Tév DO cv wepmouevwr, ive Dodaciire aiwviw Enya, as atic un S. Polycarp. Ep. ad Philipp. ( #97 ) cial care that their epistles should be generally dis- persed through the Christian world. Accounts of the martyrdom of those primitive bishops were thus transmitted tothe most distant provinces, in epistles; attested with that care’, which I formerly had occa- 5 cap. xiii. p. 191. “Eypasbar? jos nal dusis % Tyvarios, tua tev 5 toréoyntors cig Duplav, ual re Tap Yudv AMOKOLION YuammaTo Sen mrovnow, tv AdBw nareov eUSerav, Eire ?yw Ele Ov Merb mpEec~ Redoovra uab wep) tuav Vas émisoras Iyvaris ras meuQdeloas Hui iw avr, xa drras, dous elyouey Tae Aw, eMEUrpajrcy Div, xasas eversiAaods’ aitives Omorerayevas clot T™ émisokn zavrn. Conf. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. IIL. cap. xxxvi. p. 132. 1. 14. 25. sqq. et infr. p. 200. n. 73 et 24, 5 Superscrip. Polycarp. Martyr. p. 195. ‘H éxxAnsla 78 Oxi, 7 waeomsan Dmvgvay, TH tuxAnoia TB OeB ry waponton iv DiraDAQig, nat Waoas tals nate wavra tomoy Ths dyias Kadsormis “Exndrnoias magoimiais, Arcos, sipnuny nal aydon amd Och Tarpes nab 7B Kupia Hav Ino Xpisé wAnduvIein. Conf. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. IV. cap. xv. p. 162.1. 21. sqq. This form, which was adopted from the Circular Letters of the Jews, ap- pears to have been general; Epist. Eccl. Goth. de Mart. S. Sabe. ‘ Ecclesia Dei que est in Gothia Ecclesie Dei que est in Cappadocia, et omnibus Ecclesie Catholice christianis ubique gentium habitantibus, misericordia, pax et charitas Dei Patris et Domini nostri Jesu Christi impleatur.”” ap. Sim. Metaphrast. And suitable care was taken that these Epistles should be deli- vered according to their superscription. In the Circular Let- ter of the Synod of Palestine, convened on the controversy which arose respecting the time of keeping Easter A.D. 190, the following charge is inserted; Euseb. ib. Lib. V. cap. xxv. p- 250. 1.10. xcle rd vérog ras ypa@ncy adrois procs emirtyeors cadre’ “Tig Of imisodns nudy Weigadnte nate Maoav exndnoiay aytivoada Siamepracraty smws jan Evorgor waar Tals padiwg mravacry ~Bautiv tas puxas. ( 198 ) sion to remark, was observed until the middle of the third century *°. After this view of so remarkable a part of the pri- mitive Ecclesiastical Polity, it must be nugatory to enter into a detailed proof, that the particular churches, dispersed throughout the Christian world, must have been possessed of correct copies of the Canonical Scriptures, from the earliest period. We are expressly assured by one who perused a collec- tion of those epistles preserved at Jerusalem”’, that numbers of the primitive pastors, who succeeded to the charge and labours of the apostles, traversed those distant regions which had been converted by the apostles, established churches in them, and deli- vered to them copies of the Gospels**. The Epis- *© Vid. supr. p. 115.n.™*. Conf. Martyr. Polycarp. capp> xx. xxi. p. 203. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. IV. cap. xv. p. 173. 1. 3. sqq- "7 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. VI. cap. xx. p. 284. 1. 20. Al wat [imisoral, &¢ mpos aAAHAS Dex eparloy oF Adyior nab eXXAn= cresinal avdpes] tis pas *Prrdy Inca», tv ry xalle thy AlAiav BiB~ AioInxn, pos TS Tyvinccde ta abrods démovlos txxAnotav “Arsgardpy tmonevacSelon* ap ng nal adrol tas UAas THs pela xelpas dmodioeus imi Traits cuvayayely dedvvrpsSa. A list of the whole of those curious documents, which are expressly cited by Eusebius, may be seen in M. de Valois’ edition, after p. 798. 18 Td. ibid. Lib. III. cap. xxvii. p. 183. 1.9. nal aaros démt wStoKs WALES zyvopiovle nelle récde, Thy mporny Takw Hg Tav "ArosoAwy eméyorles Diadoyns? of val Ore raAmavds Ovles Seompemeig padylei, 185 xdla male romwoy trav exxAncwwy meoncilaBandévlag Dro tav “ArrosoAwy Seusries Emwnodousy'—rmreila O: aamodnuias stAAd~ pevor, tgyov émléAay evalyeaisav, rois ers mamma aynxdors TB Tg misews Adys xneutlew soy KXerrov Pirchimesusvory nal rHy Tay Delay Evalyehioy magadidovas Teapny. ( 199 ) tles, which constitute the remaining part of the Canon, had been addressed to particular churches ; but the attention which the inspired penmen had employed to authenticate'®, and to disperse their writings*®: and the care which the primitive churches used in obtaining and circulating the com- monest documents*, renders it morally certain, that the whole Scripture Canon of the New Testament must have been dispersed as widely as the Chris- tian name, within a short period of its first publi- cation. . As we derive our proofs of the authenticity of the © Scriptures from the tradition of the Church; we deduce those of their integrity from the universal dispersion of the sacred writings. From the con- stant communication which was maintained between the churches, which had been planted by the apos- tles, and were the immediate depositories of their writings, it was impossible that any authentick work, which proceeded from them, could have existed in one church, without having been communicated to ‘another. The intercourse between the Syriack Greek and Roman Church, was of the closest kind, under the immediate successours of the apostles; some of whom were vested with the government of particular churches, at the very time in which the Scripture Canon was perfected. St. Clement, the companion of St. Paul, communicated with the Co- 19 Vid. 2 Thes. iii. 17. comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 21. Gal. vi. 11. Col. iv. 18. *° Vid. Col. iv. 16. 1 Thes. v. 27. Vid. supr. p. 196. n, “. p. 197. n. %. p. 115. n.™, ( 200 ) rinthian Church, from Rome”; St. Polyearp, ‘disciple of St. John, visited con and blanche. with the Syrian Church from Smyrna*; and St. Ignatius, his cpntemporary and friend, _ not. only communicated with the churches of Ephesus and Rome*+, but visited both in person*’. In the epis- 2S. Iren. adv. Har. Lib. III. cap. iii. p. 176. Made troy OF telte tore aed roy &mocdAwy Thy emirxowny xAngiras KAnumsy 6 zal payonxcls Tés axapids amosodes ual oupPeBAnxws adToiy— 2 pers ets yae qoAAol wareAsrovlo TOTE UO TAY aIroSOAWY dedidaynévas. "Em rare gy te Karuailoss saoews 2x OAtyrs Taig ev Kogir9w yevopévng adsrois emeseirey 4 ev “Pan exnhnola inavwrarny yeaQny trois KogwSiois—-Conf. §. Clem. I. Ep. ad Cor. cap. i. p. 146. Ba seb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. V. 353 vi. p. 217.1, 12. *3 Vid. supr. /p. 196. n. ™*. s. Iren. ady. Her. Lib. UL cap. iii. p. 176... TheAdaagmas 02 3 provov 0%) amosoAwy uadnrevdeis, uab ovveevees paPels qroAAots Tov Xeisdy Ewpanoriv, aArAa nal dard Amesd\wv xclasaSels chs thy “Aciay by ™ ey Epvern tnxrnotee emicuomas, ov nab nucis Ewpanouey ey WEoTN NLMY NAtKig.——emb Aywire emionunsas tn “Pan werrds awd tiv mpoctpynévay’ atedixay en ésperey eis Thy tunAnoiay TS OQcs.—éest dé nat émisorn TloAvxepre meds Dikiamncivs yeyeayytm x. 7% & Conf. S. Polycarp, Epist. ad Philipp. cap. xiv. p. 191. Evuseb. Hist. Keel. Lib. IV. cap. xiv. p. 161. 1.1. 14. 34, * Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. HI. cap. xxxvi. p. 130. 1. 9. ‘O waped wrticors sicéss viv DiaBorlog “Iyverins, THs mar “Avlonyeran Ond0x7s detiregas hv iaivoxomny nenAnpwnévas.——OVTw Onrea ev Zpuvern yevoneves, evSa 6 Tloavzcegntos Ty [Kiev [LEV EMSOATY ™7 NOTa THY "Egeaoy txxAnoix yexQet, mospitvos airing prnpapretay Ovnzips* Exégev 3: rn zy Mayrazice de Te Ee Teds ravrars % ™ “Pawn EXMANTIZ yeuQel. Conf. S. Ignat. Ep. ad Ephess. capp. i. ii. pp. 43, 44 Ep. ad Rom. cap. x. p: 74. S. Iren. adv. Har. Lib. V. cap. XXvill. p. 327. Euseb. ubi supr. p. 132. 1. 8. *S §. Ignat. Epist. ad Ephes. cap. xxi. p. 52. Teagedeo9s doree THs ExxAnoias THO ev Lvgia* obey dedepévos eb6 “Popny CUT thy Of ct b— Id. Ep, ad Trall. cap, xiii. p. 68. AomdG4las tues 1 dyawn ( 201 ) tles addressed by those primitive bishops to those different churches, much more is implied than that they were possessed of the inspired writings. St Polycarp speaks of the Philippians as versed in the Scriptures, while he quotes the Old and New Tes- tament*®; and St. Ignatius, in impugning some tenets of the early hereticks, appeals to the “ Gos- pels” and the “ Apostles*’,” under which terms the whole of the Christian Canon may be properly in- cluded. 5 If we may now assume, what it seems vain to deny, that any two of those churches possessed per- fect copies of the Scriptures, which were apparently possessed by the Catholick Church; we have thus a sufficient security, in the testimony which they re- spectively bear to the integrity of the sacred text, that it could not be corrupted. Admitting that ail the members of any particular church had entered into a compact to corrupt the inspired writings, and without this unanimity any attempt of the kind must -have been liable to be defeated by a few dissentient Epuvpratwy vat EQeoiwy. Conf. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ubi supr. p. 130. 1. 12. © §. Polyc. Epist. ad Philipp. cap. xii. p. 191. “ Confido. enim vos bene exercitatos esse in sacris litteris, et nihil vos latet ; mihi vero non est concessum modo. Ut his Scripturis dictuny est ‘Irascimini et nolite peccare:’ et ‘ sol non occidat super iracundiam vestram.’ Beatus qui meminerit: quod ego credo esse in vobis.”” Conf. Ps. iv. 5. Eph. iv. 26. 7S. Ignat. Ep. ad Philadd. cap. v. p. 78. mecoguyay 7g “Evalyerio ws gant Inc8, zak sois “Amosorois os mpecpulegia 2ueAne ias* xab ta> Teo@ntas cs ayariipiv dia 76 nab adres cis a8 — Ededyéavey’ noilnfyernévets ( 202 ) members; still they must have wanted authority to influence other churches to become a party in. the conspiracy. But the different interests which di- vided every particular congregation must have ren- dered such an undertaking wholly impracticable. Within less than a century after the publication of the apostolical writings, the sect of the Montanists arose, in the very bosom of the church, and spread itself from Phrygia to Gaul and Africa**®. As these 28 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. V. cap. iii. p. 212. 1. 39. ray ¥ ay. Qi cov Movravay xai AAuiBiadny xa Oxodsrov, Teoh TH Deuyiay ily vére apron any wee TB am paipaetine Umornbw mapa worAvig ixpegeutvor" —xal 9) SiaQwvias tangaguons wep trav dednrAwpsvwv, aids of xara thy DaradAizy @derQol, thy idiav ugiow xab megs TET WY, EpAaBH xcet apdododeéclarny imlatlecw’ ExSenevor x) Tay map avrois mrcoSiiluy wagligwy Siaopes EmIsorAas, as ew decpois ers imaprovlesy rois em” Aoizs 4 Dpuyias depois Seyapazay & pny aArnd xat *"Excusion TH Tore ‘Pwnaiwy emsoxomw, rig Toy ixnAnosiv signvns ivexa srpecGevorlec. Eleutherius is mentioned by Hegesippus, ap. Euseb. Lib. IV. cap. xxii. p. 182. 1.19, and S. Irenzus Lib. III. cap. iii, p. 176. as bishop of Rome, when they flourished. Of Hegesippus, Eusebius declares, that he lived in the first succes- sion after the apostles. Hist. Eccl. Lib. II. cap. xxiii. p. 78.1.1. and St. Irenaeus will speak for the antiquity of his own testi- mony, vid. supr. p. 200. n. 75. conf. infr. p. 216. n. . Euseb. Lib. V. cap. xx. p. 238. 1.36, From the history of Tertullian, who was contemporary with S, Irenzus, Hier. Cat. Scriptt. in Luc. Tom. I, p. 121, we may not only collect, that Montanism had spread to Africa, but that if the Church had betrayed its trust in corrupting the Scriptures, the sacrilege would have been exposed by the hereticks ; Hier. ibid. in Tert. p. 126. “ Ter- tullianus presbyter,—provinciee Africe, civitatis Carthaginiensis, &c. Hic cum usque ad mediam extatem Presbyter Ecclesia permansisset, invidia postea et contumeliis clericorum Romane Ecclesia, ad Montant dogma delapsus, in multis libris nove ( 205 ) hereticks were every where mingled with the Ca- tholicks, and used the same Canonical Scriptures, they must have discovered any attempt to corrupt their integrity. Nor could they have wanted the inclination to expose it; as the Catholicks convened synods against them, condemned their doctrines, and expelled them from their communion’. But, in the mutual recrimination to whieh their differences gave rise, the hereticks no where accuse the catho- licks, who derided their “ New Prophecies?°”’. of corrupting the sacred oracles. Let us even suppose this difficulty surmounted, and that the catholicks and hereticks, forgetting prophetia meminit : specialiter autem adversum Ecclesiam texuit volumina, De Pudicitia, De Persecutione,”’ &c. In fine, Euse- bius observes on the origin and extent of this sect, and their disaffection towards the Church; Hist. Eccl. Lib. V. cap. xvi. p. 230, 1. 5. cAiyor & joay Sros tay Devyav enmecinutvor, Thy OE KadOAS % Taouv Thy UT Tov Spavoy ExxAanaiay BAcoPnuciv donors To amnvIadopie wvetyoloc, STL UNTE TYAMY WATS mMaeodov cis airy» +o wPevdompoelixdy éAcuPave Teta. Vid, infr. p. 208. n. *. * Besides the Synod in Gaul, already mentioned, supr. n. *8, conventions were held against the Montanists, at Ancyra, An- tioch, and in many parts of Asia; vid. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. V. capp. xvi. xix. p. 228. 1. 13. p- 236. 1. 22. Respecting these Synods, a contemporary writer observes; Apolinar. ap. Euseb, » Tb. cap. xvi, p. 230.1. 10. trav yap xalla thy Actay misav morrdut xl worrayn tis Acias, tis TT0 ovverSoilwv, nal tes meocQarus Abyss tEdlacdilay nat BeBnrgs émopnvarviay % @nodoxipacavrwy THY aigeai, Btw OF the te ExxAnoias eLewoOncay, % THS nowwyixs elpxSnoav. Conf. Ibid. p. 227. 1. 33. sqq. %° Vid. supr. n.**. Conf. Euseb. Hist. Eccl, Lib. V. cap, xvi, p- 229, 1. 4. sqq. cap. xviii. p. 233, 1, 33. sqq- ( 20t ) their mutual animosities, had agreed ‘to corrupt the Scriptures; still the disagreements which arose be- | tween different churches, must have rendered any attempt on the integrity of Scripture wholly abor- tive, by leaving it open to detection. A difference of opinion, respecting the time of keeping Easter, interrupted the unanimity which had long subsisted between the Greex and Roman Churches**; and to such an extent was their mutual animosity carried, that the Western Church proceeded:to the extre- mity of excommunicating the Eastem**. A like diversity of opinion, at a period somewhat later, di- -vided the Roman and African Churches on the sub- ject of baptizing hereticks**. Had there existed 3" Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. V. cap. xxiii. p. 241. 1. 26. Drrnocws onTa nara tecde Pdsxatw ye why vs bok gg Racirsiag ‘fres| 8 bs yl dvaxwndelons, OTs On Hg “Arlas amaons at wan oe ws x Fiat dernawrsecs, ceARINS THY Terosganadencrny @ovto Oeiy imi ths Fe curnes Llasye toprns mapapuaariew, $y i Svew v0 mpofclov "Tedatloss mecnyopevlo. The Emperour Com- modus‘came to the throne A.D. 180. about 60 years after the death of Trajan, and 70 after that of St. John the Evangelist ; see the testimony of St. Ireneus, supr. p. 112. n. ®, who took a part in the controversy before us; Conf: Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. V. cap. ix. p. 222.1. 20. cap. xxii. p. en 1. 5. 7. 14. bcs xxiv. p.245. 1. 9—17. 3» Euseb. ibid. cap. Xxiv. p. 245. 1, 3. at réress 3 ply TIS “Paposwy meer og Bixtwp as pows the Acias ma&ons ape Talc apdpers Zen AnoiaZse 725 TecoVws2 6G ATOlELVELY WS Erigheaeaaes TNS KONG oe WereaT as nek ona eves ye Me Yeap parry Eu owwvynres aed» mavles 185 txcioe Avaungitlur woerPe. . 33 Euseb. ibid. Lib. VII. ge ii, p. 822. 1.18. tétw dy Ereperes Po) TewTny f) Atovugsos Tay wept Baglicpalos ris onwy dlurdras > ~ , ' > , \ « Carnaros 8 opinge snvinase dvaniwnsevtos, eb Osos sas 2E clacd” ¢ Me ) any ground of accusation against any of those churches, on this head, it seems wholly inconceiva- ble, that it could have escaped bemg urged: no such charge however is insinuated even obliquely against any of those churches. Though the proofs which are here adduced in fa- vour of the integrity of the sacred text, are merely negative ; they must be allowed to be fully adequate to its vindication. On the present subject, positive proofs cannot be easily produced, and cannot be re- quired in reason; any formal defence of the inte- grity of the inspired writings, in the primitive age, would indeed defeat its object, by conveying a sus- picion that it needed vindication. But as no ground of suspicion existed, we find no defence undertaken. That which was unquestionable from the first was received without exciting a doubt; and silence on this subject conveys a sufficient proof of inte- grity. It may be shewn, however, that the integrity of the inspired -writings was an object of attention and research at a period so early, that if it had been at all suspicious, it could not have escaped detection. The extraordinary circumstances which attended the ministry of our Lord and his immediate foijlow- ers, had given rise to many narratives, founded on traditionary accounts, in which some truth was re- tained with a great admixture of errour**, A num- &y aigicsws emis péQavlas, oe aehpz xaiSalgsive Conf. capp. lil. iv. p- 323. 1. 5. sqq. * Orig. Hom. i. in Luc. Tom. III. p. 932. d. To. péiles émiyeypayutroy naz Alyualies Evaldcason, nad vo emsyeypznucvoy Tar ° ( 206 ) ber of spurious works of this description were com- posed, particularly by the hereticks, who infested the Church from the earliest age ; and, under the title of Gospels and Acts, were inscribed with the names of different apostles **. Besides these, many of the writings of the apostles’ companions, had been read in different churches; and had thus become a part of the authorised text, though not of the Cano- nical Scriptures *°. In discriminating between these Qidena Edalyéarov of cvlygabarles tmeyetencav. épdlas O 7d xelld Oupav Edalyéaov 4dn OF erorAunce nab Bacireldng ypdrbas xalle Bacsrciony Evalyéasov’ roAAol yaty 2y Emexelencay x) xar& MalSiavy %) Ara mAciova. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. III. cap. xxy. p, 118. 1.34. Ev rots 090g xalellaxSw %) ray Tavae xpakewr H ypaPn—x amoxarviis Tlérge.—indn o ey rerosg thvtg % 7d xa "EBpalng Evalyéavv xaliactav, & parce “EBpaiwy of gov Xpisov wepadtdnercs xeipso taita piv male Tov aileAryoutrwy de Ein 35 Euseb. ib. p.119. 1.10. dvayxotws J& nab rérwv omws rip iy’ cidévas eyosmey adres Te TaUTES KaTaAcyor WeToInncdee ~ Tas bvomart réiv “AgrostAwy mpos rav “Alcerimaiv apoo- Degoncvas* ros ws Terps, xab Que, ual MalSha, hy nob rovwv mopar rhroig BAAwy Edalyérve wepreytouss ws Avdpee O xal "Lociove nad cov AAAwY “AmosirAwy mpaker. av Bdtr Banas dv ovfyecupal sav xalad Ssadoyas ixurncraclnay tis cvng tis pmamy cycrytiy NEIWCEV» 36 Td. ibid. cap. ili. p. 90. 1.7. "Emel 3: 6 aures “AgroroAos év qoig th céres mpropnosos Tis mpos Pwuates prmanv wemotrilos tla Tor aAAwy nab “Eppa, & Qacty Dmrcepyesy 70 TToyxevos* BiBriovs —iev on x €v eExxAnoias io, Ura | Dedmmuoo : ion 1% ev avro dednmoorevoevoy, nad trav narasclarwr orfyadéwy xexpnméves Twas avT@ xeTEIAn@a. ’ {d. ibid. cap. xxv..p. 119. 1 2. at apos tézos % Qecomevn BapvaBa emisorn, xab Tov "AmoscAny ab Acyoueras ddarxat ~ , ~ > / ” 5] > f \ Sy ay FAaUTA mravle Tw ailireyousvay av EbNe AVAYXKAIWE & xa T3Twp Sums Tov xoclarcyor memommpsday Oscexcivarles Tas—arnOeis Kod eMARSRS ( 207 ) apocryphal works and the authentick Scriptures, the antients have stated the grounds on which they rejected the former and admitted the latter; they have thus enabled us to judge of the adequacy of that evidence, on the authority of which they esta- blished the Canon. In selecting a period out of the primitive ages, which is best calculated to afford us satisfactory in- formation on this subject, our attention is immedi- ately attracted to that which produced the contro- versy relative to Easter. As this is a period in which party spirit ran high*’, it is a crisis which is likely to put us in possession of the truth, by exhi- biting both sides of the question. It is likewise dis- tinguished by the number of learned and inquisi- tive men, who adorned Christianity by their lives, and supported it by their writings; by many whose works have descended to our times. The synods which were convened almost simultaneously in the nal arwworoynpérac yexQas, val tas udrhag ward rattac, sx oaSynes piv, GAAL xai arlircyoutvass Buws OF Tapa reisas zy exxanoasinay yilwoxonevas. Id. ibid. cap. xvi. p. 107. 1. 18. Tére 0 re Kazuevros sucroyentn wiz txisora Qégeras*\——tavrny of nal ev Greisais ExxAnciais iad 7B xowe dedyposevpsyny Warhar re % xzS” nus ares Syveuccy. That the Epistle of St. Barnabas (of which Eusebius speaks less positively, than of the ‘‘ Pastor’? of Hermas, and the Epistle of St. Clement) was read in the Church, is apparent from St. Je- ‘rome’s tract De Nominn. Hebraicc. Tom. III. p. 534. in which it is annexed to the Apocalypse, as a part of the authorized text. 37 Vid. supr. p. 204. nn. 3" et **. ( 208 ) most remote’ provinces **, would constitute a suffi- cient proof of the close communication which was maintained by the Christian Pastors at this early period : if the remains of their circular letters which have been preserved, did not put it out of dispute, that they considered it a matter of conscience to. make a provision, that the result of their delibera- tions should be communicated to the remotest branches of the Catholick Church*®. At this period Narcissus, who, at an advanced age, had Alexander for his suffragan, was bishop of Jerusalem *°; Poly- crates, Serapion, Demetrius, Victor, and St. Ire- neus, respectively settled at Ephesus, Antioch, Alex- andria, Rome, and Lyons, were vested with the government of the principal churches in the Asia- tick, Syriack, Egyptian, Italick, and Gallican pro- 38 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. V. cap. xxiii. p. 242. I. 11. Tdvodas On nak cuyxpolycess Emscxdmwy tors rawtoy [rd wept TE Taoyee Cine) tylvorlos warles Te paw yvopn Ov zarisoAay zxnAnciassicoy Sypya rors wavlaxoce dslurezilo - @épélas Oo cicérs vor Tay xara Tlaratcivny -rnvixcds ovyxengdlnrévooy yeeDiiy oy MWEBTETARTO OQz6QsArog ag tv Kaicapeia mopownias emicnomos, ual Napuooos ths ty “Tepoga~ Abpos? nab cov eel “Paying O& Spotws wAAn grep) Te eure Calnpallocy teicnomoy Bidlopa dyAdou* trav te nate Tlovlov tgrscxdruv av TldaAnas Gs apyarares mpatéraxto’ zai cov nol Torriay d& gepoixsor, ao “Elpnvaios twreoxomes* its te tTwv xala "Ocponviny nol gees Excioe WoAcis® nat idiws Baxyuare ris Kopwiiwy éxxAnciag torionome’y nab wAsicwe Sowy LAAWYy K. Te So 39 Vid. Euseb. ut supr. p. 197. n.**. inf. n. **. *° Vid. supr. n. 3°, Alexandr. Epist. ad Antinoitt. “Aowd- eras tpas Napuicoos 6 eo ze diérwv cov romov TS emtoxomng miy ivScdty xal viv ovveteraCoueros pos did Twv evxav, Exatow DixatE Een Fvundcy x 7.8, Vid. Euseb. ibid. Lib. VI. cap. xi. p: 268. 1. 17. sqq. ( 209 ) vinces “*,. Among the writers celebrated at. that ‘period, we particularly distinguish Pantenus and Clement, of Alexandria ** ; Queen: afterwards pres- byter, of Palestine * ; a presbyter of. Rome**}: St. Irenzus, then bishop of Lyons; and Tertullian, presbyter of Carthage**. From the joint testimony of witnesses thus competent, and thus widely dis- persed, the most unanswerable body of evidence may be deduced in favour of the integrity of the Canonical Scriptures. In the first place, the integrity of the sacred wri- tings was, at this period, the subject of particular investigation. ‘The Marcionites, a sect which was particularly opposed by St. Ireneus and Tertul- lian, had rejected the principal part of the Canon, and corrupted the remainder**; and the Theodo- tists, who had been excommunicated by Victor*’, 4« Vid. supr. n. **. Euseb. ib. Lib. V. cap. xix. p. 236. 1. 20. Lepawinr, oyv—peTa Makiuivor, emicnower tis "Avtioxyéwv exnAncias natixes Adyos yerécSasr, plurmras ate [Te “Aworwapie] ey ida earisoAy ™ pos Kaepsxoy x Tlovrexdv® ey a SvevSivwy nab aords thp ettn [rar Ogvyar] aigerw, tmirzyes Taira. “Omws 0 zal t8r0 Ture, Ore rag Wudes tavTng rakews THs tmimarzutyns § veas weoPrileiac,? avila 4 tipyea wape waon th b xiopw adAPorih, wimonQa Spiny ut. E. "Ev tavtn df 77 t8 Lapamiwvos tricorn, x) dmoonpewoers Qégorras dsaPopwv Emvoxomrwy. | # Vid. infr. p. 209. n. 5%. 4 Vid. infr. p. 210. n. °*%. Conf. supr. p. 120m P . 4 Euseb. ib. Lib. II. cap. xxv. p. 83. L. 36. xatb ixxAnosasines ) ere Tdios tropa nala ZeOupiioy Pwpatwy yeyorus emionomos® os on ) Tpoxaw nila Dpvyas mpoisautrw yropans elyeapus darexSeics Me Te Ee | ..® Vid. supr. p. 202. n. * jet, Vid supr-p. 53. n.* | 4 Euseb, ib. Lib. V. cap. xxviii, p. 252. 1. 27.—Bixrwe Ee ( 210° ) and refuted by Caius, had systematically corrupted the sacred writings**. From the remains of Caius, and the works of Tertullian, it appears, that both these antient fathers had carefully collated the ge- nuine and the adulterated copies. Alexander and Origen, who were friends and correspondents’, were professed collectours of books; the former founded, at his own expence, the library at Jerusa- lem5*, and the latter laid the fowndation of that at Cesarea’*. Pantenus and Clement, who had been intimates of Alexander and Origen, were travel- wav oxvlic Oxdddlov, roy apynyor x welége raurns TAG aprnosSée amosacing, aWexnpuse THs xowwvias, mparoy eimovle Prov cySeomov roy Xpisov— #8 Id. ibid. P- 253. 1, 37. raross Lriobdlbaluucs % ddras mmeph Tv avtray Te ade sidan [Tate dnradh] Quvas, rBroy ixeoas wov tporov. L papas wiv Seias apoBws pepabiconrtbenot, 5 9 Caius ap. Euseb. ibid. p. 254. 1.16. Ei yae vis Seances Cryxopicas airav Exdsa to ailiypade seleew mpds GAAnAa, xc MAD ay eipor NaPortvla. aotyOwa yiv tras To AgxAnmiade roig @rodsrs.— daw O réto1g ra “Eguodiae & cundides. vee yee Amodawvie BI avle tavlois eet cuuPura. eves yor ousxpivas Ta mparegov to avrar udllacuevacSile, rois veegov war emidsarenMelot, x) edpEiy xcblocmroaw anédova, Vid. supr. p. 146. n. °°, ‘Tertullian’s testimony will , be more particularly considered hereafter. #9. Vid. infr, nj, ** Vid. supr. p. 198. n. *7 5* Vid. supr. p. 84, n. 7%. 53 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. VI. cap. xiv. p- 274 1. 14.— Tdaiv & 6 MnawSels “Anz Eardpas 78 Karimevros dpa ny 76 Tarvraive iv ry woos “Qouyévny zmiscrn ponworeter, ws On yupinwr obra yevopdvov réiv av¥edv. Conf. eap. xi.’p. 269.1. 24. Id. ib. cap. Vi. p- 264.1. 4. Tevlaswoy dz Kanans dvadeEcnevos T7s nar” Aarskave eevee xallayncews——nadnysitoe ws % roy ’Npwyevny Tov Doilylay avra made tle yevecdan x» Tess ( 211 ) Jers, and curious enquirers into the subject under discussion. The former, in a mission undertaken. to India, on which he was deputed by Demetrius, successour to Julianus, in the see of Alexandria, there saw the Gospel of St. Matthew,-as originally written in Hebrew, which was preserved from the times of St. Bartholomew, the apostle of India*. And the latter, who was Alexander’s messenger from Jerusalem to Antioch, has perpetuated the tra- dition, which he received from an elder named Macarius, respecting the Epistle to the Hebrews; that it was originally written by St. Paul, in the same language, but afterwards translated into Greek by St. Luke the Evangelist**. These facts will sufficiently evince the wide dispersion of the sacred writings, and the attention which was devoted to. the subject before us, at this truly primitive pe- riod *. With respect to Origen, his testimony 5+ Buseb. ibid. Lib. V. cap. x. p. 223. 1.15.—6 Meslasvs 5 tis [vdés eASciv Aéyclas tvSa Adyos edgciv adrov mpQlacay thy avTE mapaotav, to xata MarSaiov Kdalyeriov, rape riow otros roy Xpisov Emeyywxoosy" ots Baporouaior tav AgosbAwy Lia xmpukas® aUTOIS Te “EBpaiwy pe pepuceosy cw T8 MarSais narareinboas yeapny’ hy ~) cules cig Tov dnAsuevov xedvor. Conf. S. Hier. Cat. Scripp. Eccless. in Panten. Tom. I. p. 124. 5 Id. ibid. Lib. VI. cap. xiv. p. 273.1. 8. xai ray ages “ERpwivs & eortsoNnYs Tavae yey eivecs Quoi Lo Kanuns | yevecpras OE “EBpators “EBpaknn Pavn* Agnapv ob QiArclinars aurny weSeounvedcarla, ixdovas Tois “EAAngw* odev toy avtiv xpaTa sdelonec as nelle Thy Eounvelary Taverns Te wng Emisodns, 4 Tav Ipadewy. Eira tmroBos zorsadyer* "Hon of ds &§ Mancpios érdye mpecBorepos, #.%.& Conf. Lib. TIT. cap. XXxviii. p. 134. 1, 20. %¢ The facts which have been related, on the authority of P2 : ( Sue Dp would be of itself sufficient to establish all that it is my object to evince. ‘Through motives of curiosity Justin Marty?, and Clemens Alexandrinus, relative to the wide dispersion of the name of Nazarenes, and to the discovery of a Hebrew copy of St. Matthew’s Gospel in India, supr. p. 194. n.% p. 211. n. 5+. afford each other mutual confirmation, and form an extraordinary proof of the wide and early dispersion of this Gospel, within a few years of our Lord’s ascension: vid. supr. p. 194. n. *°. The Scriptures were written as the new converts were able to receive them. Previously to the formal abrogation of the Jewish ceremonial, and the admission of the Gentile converts to the full participation of the Christian privi- leges, St. Matthew’s Gospel contained as perfect a view of the New Religion, as the infant Church was calculated to receive ;, comp. Act. xi. 1—4. sqq. And this Gospel, in insisting parti- cularly on the name of Nazarene, Matt. ii. 23. appears to me to contain internal evidence of having been written previously to this period, before the name of Christian was at all used ; vid. Act. ib. 26. It may be further observed, in illustration of this curious subject, that Apollonius, a primitive father, who flou- rished within 80 years after the death of St. John, relates, on the authority of tradition, that the Apostles were enjoined by our Lord not to leave Jerusalem for twelve years: Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. V. cap. xviii. p. 236. 1. 8. ts 08 ag tx wapadd. cews Tov Lilnew Qnot [6 Amoarrwnos] wpocllaxtvas toils apres "Amosdroscy El Owdena Erect un xXwpiodyver ths “Lepsoedrnw. With this account accords the opinion of the Greek Church, relative to the Gospel of St. Matthew. This work was sup- posed to have been written about eight years after our Lord’s Ascension, in Hebrew, for the early converts ; but translated into Greek by St. John, when the Church was emancipated for its subjection to the Jewish ceremonial. Schol. in Matt. xxviii. 20. e Cod. Vat. 36]. 363. et all. multt. +o xara MarSaiov "EYalyénesy eypc@n mag avr év ‘lepecaarp, TH "ERpaids OiaAznTw, "wera Yedves UuTw THs te Xpish avadrnr pews, Veegov dt rpweverdn nape Iwas. ap. Birch. Nov. Test. p. 181. Conf. Gricsb. Symbb. Critt. Tom. I. pp. Ixv. cly. ( 213 ) he visited Rome *’?,; and was deputed on a mission to Arabia®*; and from the discovery which he made of some obscure versions of the Hebrew Scriptures *?, it might be inferred, that he was a diligent inquirer into the authority of the New Testament. But his testimony may be collected not merely by implica- tion, but from his express declarations. He has drawn the justest line between the canonical and the apocryphal books°°; has ascribed the former 37 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. VI. cap. xiv. p. 274. 1. 27. 6 yeros Adaucrlios, nat téro yeep ay ro Opsyever dvoue, ZeQupive udla récds Ts xerves THs Pwoyatov exnAnoias nysyers, EmiOnunoas ~ f A > / 4 s an 3 , ‘ > ud 7) Papn Hab HUTOS TE YeaPer Aeyur. Evéaevos TNY COX AOTATNY Pomaiey exndnoiav ideiv. Wa & word dsalobas tmdverow cis Try "Arc&avopercev. 38 Jd. ibid. cap. xix. p- 283. 1. 20. mises tig roy spaliwlixay 2 byPy , Hf} os _ ~ f > L. N arvedids yeampcla Anunipivs Te Tw THs Magoring EmioxomH, xnoXb ~ , ~ > / 2 4 / ~ ~ > / < / Tw) TOTE TG Alyumts ewapyw, wWapa Te Tg ApaBias NYySpLevE® Os ey pela omeons amaons Tov "Opryévay méyrorey zowwvnoovla Aoyur are "FE ~ S$ \ es 27 5 ~ CREAN SS we ONYHOSY TapumeAPJEls VI AavTWY, aPiKVEITaL ENE TAY 5 i AezBiav. Conf. cap. xxxvi. p. 299. 1. 29. sqq. 59 Td. ibid. cap. XVI. p- 275. 1. 21. Toravrn o sionyélo 2 *Qevyéves rov Selav Aayov aanxpiPwpévn tEclaor, ws % Thy EBpaidee yAatlav expoadely.—mcct Ties ETepces, wupa Tas xolnwakevpévers Epe penvelas tvadatlacas, trv Axvag x) Lvupcye nab Ozodvliavos, EPevpety® aA > CaN ” a ps \ , fe , AS, ex aid odev Ex THeD BUN OY, Tov MAAK Aawarvgous XeWovy deiyvetoac, cis Pas meozyayer, ED av dhe rhv &MArrrHla, Thvog ap sicy 8x cide, aiTO THro povoy tmeonumvaro, os wou THv prV Epo ED 7 E05 "Aurio Nexoqorcs* anv Oo éy trip tow todos. Conf. cap. xviii, p. 278. 1. 13. 6° Id. ibid. cap. xxv. p. 290. 112. % & 7) Tear TOV eis TO nara MalSarov EvayyeAvoy [6 Qpryévns ] Toy exxAnorassxoy Qvaratlav Hovover, pdve réooapa cidévar Evayléaie maglipclar, od rug yeaPurt . ~ > PS Ns ey mapadicer waddv wep? tuv Tecoceuv Edalyeriov, &- nad pave > ye Os ots \ > \ > PA ~ ~ « wveiiippald bv ty ime Toy Beaver Exndnoia TE Oxd x. Ts ky ( 214 j their due and exclusive weight® ; and Has deduced their authority from the immemorial tradition of thé Catholick Church”; which his profound learning and local researches furnished him with ample means of investigating. If we now take the works of Clement, Origen, and Tertullian, and compare them with our Scrip- tires, as preserved in the original Greek, and in the Latin translation, it is impossible to resist the con- viction, that the sacred writings must have retained their integrity, since the times of those primitive fathers. We find them collectively quoted by those early fathers, under their proper titles, and on all occasions where their authority could be adduced. Of Tertullian it has been observed, that he contains more numerous and extensive extracts from the New Testament, than all the writers of antiquity, for a long succession of ages, have adduced from the voluminous writings of Cicero®; though his works ® Orig. Hom. i. in Lue. Tom. IIL. p. 932. d. Otrw seacd viv ty rh Kawn Avadnxn ta Ebalyére moddob edérnoay yoaras* GAN’ of Doxinos apemelin acs B raila Expwav, arrow twa abrwv eeertearlo. Taye Of nab rd * wexelencav? AchnIviaw Eyer naTnyoRiay Trav Xwels xXapicwaroc, sASovruw int thy dvayeaPny Trav EvalyeAiwre MarSaios yap ax imexeipnoey arr’ Byparbey e& wyis [Ivedzros wvdpevos* Suolws % Magnos % Iwavwns, mapa mdngiov dé % Asxés. Vid. supr. p. 205. n. 4 The testimony of Origen respecting the Epistles, which is too long for insertion in this place, is collected by Eusebius, Lib. VI. cap. xxv. p. 291. Vid. supr. n. °°. ‘3 Dr. Lardn. Cred. of Gosp. Hist. P. I. B. I. ch. xxvii. p. 644. “ There are perhaps more and larger quotations of the N. T. in this one christian author, than of all the works of Ci- (. 315: ) have formed a standard, by which succeeding wri- ters have endeavoured to model their stile. The writings of Clement and Origen have undergone a severer scrutiny than those of Tertullian; all the scripture quotations which are discoverable in such of their works as are extant, have been extracted from them, and have been disposed in their proper order**, ‘They contain ample and connected quo- tations from all the books of Scripture, which not only evince the general imtegrity of the sacred wri- tings, but demonstrate, by the most extraordinary coincidence with the vulgar Greek®, that the tex- ture of the phrase aiid purity of the language have remained uncorrupted for the vast period which has intervened, since the age of those primitive fathers. Ample and satisfactory as the testimony is, which is thus borne to the integrity of the sacred Scrip- cero, though of so uncommon excellence for thought and stile, in the writers of all characters for several ages.’’ °+ Vid. Nov. Test. Loce. ab Orig. et Clem. Alex. Allegatt. ap. Griesb. Symbb. Critt. Tom. II. p. 229. sqq. 65 M. Griesbach has noted the deviations of the Vulgar Greek from the readings of Qrigen, in the lower margin of his Symbb. Critt. ut supr. p. 241. sqq. When we throw out of the list the inconstant readings of Origen, and the peculiar readings of Clement, of whom M. Griesbach declares, ibid. p. 235. “8. S. oracula haud raro memoriter excitat, et sensum magis quam ipsa auctorum sacrorum verba repreesentat;’? and when we re- member the insuperable difficulties with which the antients had to contend in quoting accurately, as not knowing the use of a Concordance, and not having a text divided into verses: the literal coincidence of those readings, and the Greek Vulgate, twnust be considered next to miraculous, | ( 216 ) tures, it seems possible to connect it by’a few steps with the age of the inspired writers. Origen was the disciple of Clement, and Clement the disciple of Pantznus; and all of them were the intimates of Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem®: but Pantenus is’ expressly said to have been a disciple of those who were the immediate auditors of the Apostles®. Alexander represents Narcissus, who was likewise bishop of Jerusalem, as having been an hundred and sixteen years old, when he acted as his suffragan in that see, at Jerusalem®’ ; he of course must have en- joyed the same opportunities of conversing with the. immediate disciples of the apostles, which were pos- sessed by Pantenus. ‘Tertullian is referred to a period near that of the apostles, by St. Jerome, who drew his information from one who was informed by an acquaintance of St. Cyprian, his disciple®. 65 Vid. supr. p. 210. n. *%. 66 Phot. Bibliothec. cod. cvil1. T2rov rolvwy tov “Qeryevny, o 4 “Adepdvrioy trovonaterSa: Pacly aexgoalny nat didadoxov Adyeas yevioSas Kaguciloo te Drewuartws, xal Te ware Thy "ArE- ceevdpevcay zExxAnciacins dsducneAciz. Kajysile Oo: Tavlatve yevérSaas A‘yeot nab aexgoalny nal Te didaonarese dicedorove Tlavrasvoy 32 ray me Tes “Arrosohes Ewoanotwy anpotoastas 8 any GANG Kab THWY avTaY Excivwy diaxBoas. 6” Vid. supr. p,. 208. n. *. 8 S. Hier. Cat. Scripp. Eccless. in Tertul. Tom. I. p. 126. «* Vidi ego quendam Paulum Concordix, quod opidum Italiz est, senem, qui se B. Cypriani jam grandis @tatis notarium, cum ipse admodum esset adolescens, Rome widisse diceret, referreque sibi solitum, numquam Cyprianum absque Tertul- liani lectione unam diem preterisse: ac sibi cerebro dicere $ * Da magistrum;’ Tertullianum videlicet significans.’? Id, ib. ( 217 ) St. Irenzeus mentions his having been acquainted with St. Polycarp, who was placed in the see of Smyrna by St. John the Evangelist®’; and gives an affecting description of the accounts which he heard that venerable old man deliver of the apostle, and of the impression which, while he was yet a boy, they had made upon his recollection’*. With these facilities of arriving at the opinions of the apostoli- cal age, on a subject of such paramount importance as that of the sacred canon, it remains to be ob- served, that the apostolical tradition, as preserved by the succession of bishops throughout the Catho- lick Church, was at this period an object of curious investigation’’. Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, ex- in Luc. p. 111. “ Sed et Tertullianus, vicinus eorum tempo-. rum,”’ &c. *9 Vid. supr. p. 200. n. 73. 7 §. Iren. Fragmm. p. 340. ai yae te matdwy padnoess, cvvate Zxzcas TH Lexy EvSutas avTn® wee pe OuvacSas evmeiy wat tov técrop ey @ nadeConevos dseaéyelo 6 poandepros TloAvxcemos* nab tas mTpoodug nal rods choddest nar rov xepaxlipa r& Bisy nal thy TB cwpallos idéas* wah ros Owarédess Gs earoseiro 70s Td wAnIOS° nal rhyv pela "lode cuvavaseoPnv oo amnlyeare’ nol thy pete Tov AoLTOY TA Ewpocnorwr tov Kupiov? xl we cmeuvnoveve T85 AdyHs avtavy nal geoph ro Kupig wwe hy & rap EXEW WY GRAKOES XD wees duvepmewy are, ua, meh cng dacnaMas, ws mapa adromlav tng Cuns TE Adys maperAnQws 6 TloAv= Hop TOS amnfyerars avila cUnPwyee reis TeaQuic. 7* Clem. Alex. ap. Euseb. Lib. VI. cap. xiii. p. 272. 1. 29. wat tv TH Aoyw OF avTs Te wep TE macy exBradyvar [6 Kanuns } Sporoyely wos Twv Etaipwy Bs eruys mapa Tov apyabwy opsoBurépuy Gunnows Tapudocess, ypadn Trois pélalaira mapadéves Clement, in describing the sources from whence he drew his traditional. knowledge, proves that it must have been catholick, and di- rectly received from the auditours of the Apostles; Id. Stromat ( 218 ) pressly appeals to it in the controversy respecting Easter; and on this subject of comparatively minor importance, states the traditionary customs, as de- rived from St. Polycarp and St. John, in the churches of Smyrna and Ephesus”. Similar ap- peals are made to it, by St. Ireneus” and Tertul- lian, on the rule of faith which had been delivered Lib. I. p. 322. rétwy 6 piv tot vhs “EAAROss & “Iwiewds? 6 OF emt rhe peyarns “EAaados* THs molAns atego, adrav Evpiag a 6 Sk or *"Alyimles wAror O8 ava thy “Avalorgy nal ravrng 6 fev fig cov Agcupiay® 6 8 ey 77 Tlaaasstyn “EBpasos dvénadevr tgato oe meplluy wr, Juidues Supe wpuros Hy avemavodpueny, tv Alyumle Inpaoas AcAnSorae —GAA ob wly GAnTh Ths panaglas dowouarlag cwCovles wagzdoow, e0Sus ame Wérpe xed “laneBe neal Iwewe te xe) Tatas rar eho "Amosihuv, Bais Tagh TurQos eExdekawrvos, river JE of tolledow oex0808, jiuoy dh civ Oca % cis Mas, TH poyouna kmeiva wor *AgrosoAina nat aSnoopevor OME LATA. Conf. Euseb. Lib. Vv. cap. xi. p. 223. 1. 31. sqq. cap. xxviii. 1. 16. sqq. 7 Polycrat. Epist. ad Vict. ap. Euseb. ib. Lib. V. cap. xxiv. p- 244. 1. 13. rs OF nay 6 puxporégos wavrwv tui Torvnpdrns, xara Trupadecy Tay ovlyevav Ys, ols % mabnxonéInoe sicly adrav' inta ply Joa ovfyevels pa barienomar, Byd OF Bydooxe uul wdvrore Thy nuke nyayov db ovfyeveis pe, ray 6 Amos nevue Th Gbunv, bya By adsAQol, EEnuovree wévre brn Exo Ev xupiy, nab ovmPe- Parxxads trois Ard rig cinutvns adeADoIc, nal waoay aylas Toure NernrvIas, & wrygonas earl Tole naramrAnerowsvors. 73 §, Tren. adv. Har. Lib. TI. cap. iii. p. 177. anne x 4 & "Egicw bro Havas piv reSenerrmuéon, lwdwe de Trapanewavros CUTbIG psxer voy Tatars xeeveV, uaptus annsns ést t7s "Agrosonwy auexoocews. Of the means which St. Irenaeus possessed of investigating the primitive traditions, and of the curiosity which he exercised on this subject, he has thus spoken; S. Iren. adv. Her. Lib. IV. cap, xxvii. p. 263. “ Quemadmodum audivi a quodam Presbytero, gui audierat ab his qui Apostolos ordi. et ab his qui didicerant,” &¢. ( 219 ) to the Church by its origifial founders, and preserved by their successours”*. The former states, that the apostolical tradition was preserved in every church throughout the world’; the latter appeals to the apostolical writings as preserved in the particular ehurches, where they were deposited by their in- spired authours”*. 7 Tertul. adv. Marc. Lib. IV. cap. v. p. 406. “ In summa, si coustat id verius quod prius, id prius quod ab initio, id ab initio quod ab Apostolis; pariter utique constabit id esse ab Apostolis traditum, quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum fuerié sacrosanctum. Videamus quod lac a Paulo Corinthii hauserint ; ad quam regulam Galatz sint recorrecti; quid legant Philip- penses, Thessalonicenses, Ephesii; quid etiam Romani de proximo sonent, quibus Evangelium et Petrus et Paulus san- guine quoque suo signatum reliquerunt. Habemus et Joannis alumnas Ecclesias. Nam etsi Apocalypsim ejus Marcion res- puit, ordo tamen Episcoporum ad originem recensus, in Joan- nem, stabit auctorem, sic et celerarum generositas recognoscitur. Dico itaque apud illas, nec solas jam Apostolicas, sed apud universas, quz illis de societate sacramenti confcederantur, id Evangelium Luce abd initio editionis su@ stare quod cum maxime tuemur: Marcionis vero plerisque nec notum, nullis autem ne- tum ut non eo damnatum.” 75 S. Tren. adv. Her. Lib. III. cap. iii. p. 175.“ Traditio- nem itaque Aposiolorum in toto mundo manifestatam, in omni Ecclesia adest respicere omnibus qui vera velint videre: et habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis, et swecessores eorum usque ad nos,” &c. Id. ep. ad Florin. p. 339. tatra Te Wypare acipQure iss 77 euxrncie —sraita sa Diyuate, of mpd quay weecBuregos, oF xak Toig “Awosdross evpPaurncarres, & waptdwxay 2. Te 7 Vid. supr. p. 115. m.**. p. 218. n.*. The meaning as- cribed to azthentice litere, in the former quotation, has been opposed by Dr. Lardner, Cred. of Gosp. Hist. P. I. B. I. ch. | ( 220 ) As the early period in which those apostolical fa= thers flourished is thus easily connected with the age xxvii. Vol. II. p. 636. He supports his opinion on the autho- rity of Cicero, and of Tertullian, the former of whom uses the adverb atSevrixa;, and the latter the adjective authenticus, in designating the or?ginal of a work, as distinguished merely from a translation. And he contends, that the very originals cannot be meant by the phrase authentic@ litere ; as itis inconceivable the Epistle to the Romans could have been read at Rome, as written in Greek; or that the autographs of the different Epis- tles of the inspired writers could be found at more places than one; whereas. Tertullian refers to different places. But the former instances are wholly irrelevant. The case of an epistle which has been transcribed, and of a work which has been translated, are essentially different ; and the latter is wholly be- side the point in dispute between Tertullian and Marcion. They equally reasoned from the original Greek; of course with- out any regard to a translation. What seems decisive of the point is, that had merely authentick copies been required to de- cide the matter in debate, it was useless to apply to the places where the originals hed been certainly deposited ; as an authen- tick transcript of the Epistle to the Galatians, to speak but of a single instance, might be as easily obtained at Carthage, where the question was debated, as at Rome, Corinth, or Ephesus. And when Dr. Lardner objects, that the Epistle to the Romans was not read in the original Greek, at Rome, it seems to have escaped his observation, that it was written and addressed in this language to that Church, by the Apostle ; doubtless with the view of being read in the congrégation. I trust also, it would require more ingenuity than the objectour possessed, to prove, that because it was read from a translation, which I am forward to admit, it was not read also im the ori- ginal. Certainly the practice of the Primitive Church as fully warrants me in this conjecture, as the objectour in the con- trary: see 1 Cor. xiv. 27, 28. The reasoning of Dr. Lardner js therefore as unfortunate, as the instances which he has ad- duced impertinent. The reasons which support a different ( 221 ) of the apostles; it may be no less easily connected with that in which the Latin Vulgate was made, and the Alexandrine manuscript written; the joint tes- timony of which contains a sufficient evidence of the integrity of the canonical scriptures from the latter period down to the present day. St. Jerome, who formed the Latin Version, drew his information respecting Tertullian from one who had conversed witha notary of St. Cyprian’’. St. Athanasius, who lived when the Alexandrine manu- script was written, was present in the Council of Nice”, and the acquaintance of St. Epipha- nius, the friend of St. Jerome”. But the great sense to the passage before us, are possessed of different weight. That authentic litere was considered, in Tertullian’s age and country, synonymous with zpsa epistola, eadem epistola, St. Cy- prian places beyond controversion: vid. supr. p. 115. n. **: and of all suppositions it is only probable, that the originals of the epistles of St. Paul, which Marcion had corrupted, in his transcripts, had not been destroyed in the age of a person, who, like Tertullian, lived near the Apostles’ times; vid. supr. p- 217. n. °°. A comparison with any one of those Epistles, as preserved at Rome, Corinth, or Ephesus, would have demon- strated the corruption of Marcion’s Apostolicum: this is the whole which is intimated by Tertullian, and less than this ren- ders his argument nugatory. 77 Vid. supr. p. 216. n. ©. 78 Socrat. Hist. Eccles. Lib. I. cap. viii. p. 19. 1. 50. wares OF [roils “Ageiaris aipecews] yeratws dvrnyuri€ero “ASavdctos, Didnovos pty Tis “AAsEardgéwy ixxAncias’ cQod-a Of avtdr Ka timiis ayer 6 “Aréawdsos & imicuomast OS xal OQbr0g SaAicare zat aite x.7.& Conf. Sozom. Hist. Eccl. Lib. I. cap. xvii. p. 26. i. 7. 79 S. Hier. adv. Ruffin. Lib. III. cap. vii. Tom. II. p. 257. * Malui per Maleas et Cycladas Cyprum pergere, ubi susceptus > (. 222) ) Athanasius must have conversed with many who had known the disciples of Origen. Demetrius, who was contemporary with the latter, governed the church of Alexandria forty-three years; and his successours, Heraclas and Dionysius, who occupied the same see for thirty-three years subsequently to his times, were the disciples of Origen*®. But Dionysius was summoned to the Synod, held at Antioch, which was convened against Paul of Samo- sata*'; and Lucianus, the martyr, who revised the Byzantine text, was contemporary with Paul, who was deposed by the Synod of Antioch **. As he a venerabili Episcopo Epiphanio, cujus tu testimonio gloriaris, veni Antiochiam.’? St. Epiphanius himself has placed out of dispute that he was personally acquainted with St. Athanasius. I shall subjoin the anecdote which he relates; as drawn from the life, it paints, with the utmost truth of nature, the manners of that extraordinary man, who was an ornament to the sacred function. §. Epiphan. Her. txxut. p. 837. b. ‘apounv 0 adrds tya xpovy tet cov poneplrny Tawa “Adavecroy meh tite a8 Mapxiarz, wis dv tyos qeph adte. o OF Bae vorepameroynoaloes Bre madw pos adtr dwex Sas hvexn, worov 8 Oia TE meocwTs pedidoas SmeQnve, poy Suplas wh pangdy adToV sivmt, nab Os amoe Aoyno a wevov binges % Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. VI. cap. xv. p. 275. 1. 12. “Hpanrdy cov yrogimwv [ray “Qpiytves] Tpoxplvac——nowwvor nation tis xarnxiocws. Id. ibid. cap. xxix. p. 294. 1.21. the OF raw aired: xarnyncews TH darerBav Jadéveras Avoveros, cig nat Bros Tap *Apryéves Qorrnrar. & Euseb. ib. Lib. VII. cap. xxvii. p. 357. 1.12. 6 pix xar’ Arckdvdperay Arovioros mapaxrndels os dy iat nv odvodoy [2v “Arlie axela] &@ixovret yipas suS xab doddverey 7B capatos aitiacdneves, evil vay magoiary Ov emigortig wav airs yuopny nv Exos weph oH Cepive waperncac. 8? Alex. Alexandr, Epist, ap. Theod. Hist. Eccl. Lib, I. cap. * ( 223 ) survived this period, until the persecution of Maxi- min, and was not martyred until within thirteen years of the Council of Nice, he must have been a contemporary of St. Athanasius, and would have been doubtless present in that Synod, had he not been prematurely cut off among the martyrs of Palestine. By the intervention of Dionysius and Lucianus, the tradition is thus connected from the times of Origen to those of St. Athanasius, St. Epi- phanius, and St. Jerome. The testimony of St. Athanasius, who stands at the end of this succession, is adequate to decide al! that it is my object to establish *?. He has givena list of the canonical and apocryphal books, in his Festal Epistle*+, which forms a sufficient evidence iv. P- 15. Sx ayrodiles crs i Braynos imuvacaca 7 Euxrnoiasina soceBeia diacnania, Eflavs iss xed "Apri yas Ciidos Te udle “Ato year Tatas 78 apocadliws curddy xed xgicss sor amatlaye Emioxomwn cmaxnpuxSerles Tis ixuAncia; oe dsadiEauevs Avascrds Rmocuvyuryos tucwe Tpraiv igicxorwy woAveleis pgoree 83 Vid. supr. p. 131. n. °°. Conf. S. Athan. de Incarn. Verbs Tom. I. p. 96. b. ** St. Athan. Epist. Fest. Tom. I. P. ii. p. 962... ra 2: vis Kass [AsaStuns] aadw 2 axrdléon cimsivs Ess yep taiTae EYAITEAIA tiéccaza* zale MalSaior, xelé Maguor, xala Asxdir, xala ludeny. cite wile ratte, IIPASEIZE TON “AIIOETOAQN, xai “EMIZTOAAI KAGOAIKAI xadduerai tay “Awordaey iclét Erws peeks *TaxoBe a, Tléree O 8, cite Iwdwe y, zai pil2 ravras [kde a, 905 warois TIAYAOY “Awoséae siziy "ETMETOAAI dixallézcapes, 7 -gakes yeaQopevar Stws* e207 wpds Pwpales titra wees KopwSias dda° * pila taire meos Tannras? ~ Edis weds "E@egies® sina ag0s Ovrirmnsies, 4 aps Kodacati:, « pila r2ite apis Occoadonineis doo" x % meds “Efpaissr x) evdvs xpos Trader Ovo? apos dt Fitor iat * TeAlala Fi weg Didragwe" 1 wale Twaore Arcuanuyss. ( 228 ) of the integrity of the vulgar edition; in proving the same books to be now in use, which were re- ceived at the time of the Nicene Council. | What adds still greater weight to his authority, is the ex~- plicit appeal which he makes to the tradition of the Church, while employed in enumerating the Cano- nical Scriptures **. As he was present in the Coun= cil of Nice, where the Bishops of the Catholick Church were assembled together, and as he visited the churches of Greece*’, Syria*’, Gaul®*, and Ttaly*°, and governed that of Alexandria, he not only possessed the means of tracing the tradition to its source, but of ascertainmg how far it was catho- lick. The different editions which are incorporated jn the Alexandrine manuscript”, contain a sufficient waite mnyat te owlngie x.7.& Conf. Synops. Script. Tom. II. p- 177. d. sqq- 8 Id. in Epist. Fest. p. 961. ¢€. mapanand dubyeoSasy et meet av imiscode wegh tétwv [trav adnSwav BiPriov] xayo pormmoveruy yeaPes Dieite Thy avdynny nak To yenonov Ths eunAnoinge perruy os TETW? pynmovEdEerr, Yencoum—To TimW TE Evalyeaise Avnad, Ayuw x ates = =—"Eresdmeg tits emexsiencay avildfacSes savlois rao Acyoueve “Asrdxpuda, 1 Emyizas tadra ™ Seomvetsw Tpaepn, egh Hs EMAngoPoondnucy, xadus Magedooav Tos wWaToaow of em” Gexins, avronlas x) dcorepéres yevoutvos TE Adya® Edose xeeoly xpolpamédls Teepe yunotwy GOEAP DY, nab padovte avwsev, ee%g indica, ta xavondousva 4 wagadosivra, wiseudevra re Iie giver PiPAla. _ 8° Patrr. Benedd. Vit. S. Athan. p. viii. § 2. d. conf. S. Athan. Tom. [. p. 128. *” Tid. ib. p. xxi. f. vid. supr. p. 132. n. 5. * Sozom. Hist. Eccl. Lib. I. cap. xxviii. p. 86. 1. 4. *° Vid. supr. p. 132. n. * *®° Griesb. Symbb. Critt. Tom. I. p. ix. n. *. “ Rari erant—~ ( 225 ) proof that even the verbal niceties of the text did not wholly escape his attention. Having intended his revisal should become the Received Text, he em- bodied the three editions, which existed in his age, into one: he thus took the most effectual means of introducing uniformity into the Church, on a sub- ject, in which a difference of opinion must have been productive of greater ills, than could arise from merely verbal inaccuracies, in the authorised Scrip- tures. Regarded with these limitations, this cele- brated manuscript may be considered a full exposi- tion of St. Athanasius’s testimony to the integrity of the Sacred Text. To the testimony of St. Athanasius, as fully set forth in the Alexandrine manuscript, we may now add that of St. Jerome, as delivered in the Latin Vulgate; in order to confirm the evidence of the Eastern Church by that of the Western. Not to insist on the explicit testimony which he has borne to the different books of the Canonical Scriptures™, Codices qui universum Novum Testamentum complecterentur ; plerique partem ejus tantum continebant; nempe alii Evan- gelia, alii Epistolas Pauli, alii denique Actus Apostolorum cum Catholicis Epistolis. Hine accidit, ut Codex Alexandrinus non in omnibus libris eandem textus recensionem sequeretur. In Evangeliis exhibet recensionem Constantinopolitanam ——; in Epistolis Paulinis representat Alexandrinam recensionem ——; in Actis denique et Epistolis Catholicis textum sequis tur, passim ad Occidentalem recensionem conforma- tam.” * §. Hier. ad Paulin.. Ep. c111. cap. vii. Tom. II. p. 340. * Tangam et Novum breviter Testamentum. Matthzus, Mar- cus, Lucas, et Joannes ~—-- Paulus Apostolus ad septem Q (. 226 ) ; his Vulgate contains a sufficient voucher for the tes- timony borne by the Latin Church to the general integrity of the Sacred Canon. St. Jerome’s alte- rations extended to little more than verbal correc- tions”; he supplied some passages, and he ex- punged others, in the received text of his age: but he translated no new book, he removed no old one, from the authorised version. From the New Vul- gate, of course, we may ascertain the state of the Old; and thence collect the testimony of the Latin Church from the earliest period. As St. Jerome’s version, however, agrees with the list of St. Atha- nasius, in possessing the same authorised books, the testimony of both forms a sufficient evidence of the integrity of the Greek Vulgate; which contains the same Scriptures which those early fathers agree in pronouncing Canonical. As the testimony of the Alexandrine manuseript and the Latin Vulgate, is generally corroborated by that of the great body of manuscripts, containing the original Greek, as well as the Oriental and Western translations, their united evidence contains an irre- seribit ecclesias (octava enim ad Hebreos a plerisque extra numerum ponitur) Timotheum instruit, ag Titum: Philemonem pro fugitivo famulo deprecatur.—Actus Apostolorum nudam quidem sonare videntur historiam, et nascentis Ecclesie infan- tiam texere: sed, si noverimus scriptorem eorum Lucam esse medicum, cujus laus est in Evangelio; animadvertemus, pariter omnia verba illius, anime languentis esse medicinam. Jaco- bus, Petrus, Joannes, et Judas, Apostoli, septem Epistolas — ediderunt. Apocalypsis Joannis tot habet sacramenta, quot verba.” %* Vid, supr. p. 162. n. ( 227 ) fragable proof of the general integrity of the Sacred Canon. The certainty of this conclusion may be now summarily evinced, from a recapitulation of the foregoing deductions. From the constant intercourse which subsisted between the different branches of the Catholick Church, the wide and rapid circulation of the Scrip- tures must be inferred by necessary consequence. From their universal dispersion, must be inferred their freedom from general corruption’. Verbal errours might have arisen in the text, and have been multiplied by the negligence of successive transcri- bers: and the destruction of the sacred books in par- ticular regions might have afforded opportunity to particular revisers, to publish editions of the text with fancied improvements. But, from the different in- terests which divided the Church, these alterations must have been confined to unimportant points® ; and, from the general dispersion of the Scriptures, must have been limited to particular districts, or have continued but for an inconsiderable period”. ‘The state and history of the text furnishes numer- ous confirmations of these several positions. The testimony and quotations of the primitive fathers who lived at the time of the Paschal controversy, prove, that the Scriptures, which were then gene- rally used in the Church, were those which were % Vid. supr. pp. 192—201. %* Vid. supr. pp- 201—205. % Vid. supr. pp. 202—204. * Vid. supr. PP- 120. 130—136. Q2 ( 228 ) published by their inspired authouts”; and as far as the testimony of those early witnesses extends, that they are the same which are still in use in our churches®. The testimony of those primitive fa- thers is connected with that of St. Athanasius and St. Jerome, by a very few links, which prove, that the tradition, which was preserved in the times of the former, could not have been interrupted in the times of the latter... Their evidence is, however, as clearly as it is plenarily set forth in the Alexan- drine manuscript, and the Latin Vulgate, which, as delivering the same testimony at different times, and under different circumstances'*°, furnish, by their coincidence, an unanswerable proof of the integrity of the Canonical Scriptures. But the same positions admit of a different esta- blishment, from some antecedent observations. The Alexandrine manuscript contains an evidence of the existence of three classes of text as early as the year three hundred and sixty-seven'**; and consequently a proof of the permanence of the text of Byzantium from that time to the present'*. The existence of this peculiar text for fourteen centuries involves no inconsiderable proof of its permanence since the times of the Apostles'?. ‘This presumption, which ~ & Vid. supr. pp. 207—211. 35 Vid. supr. pp. 210. 214. 99 Vid. supr. pp. 221—223. 100 Comp.) p.15..n. *.p. 131, mes ** Vid. supr. pp. 121, 122. x2 Vid. supr. pp. 114. 126. ®3 Vid. supr. pp. 114, 115. ———_—=> ( 229 ) is so strongly corroborated by the multiplicity of the copies of this edition, and by their extraordinary coincidence with each other’, is finally confirmed by the testimony of the primitive Latin version; which, as obviously made in the earliest age, fur- nishes, by its coincidence with the Greek Vulgate, a demonstrative proof of the permanence of the Re- ceived Text or vulgar edition. In fine, the coincidence of the Greek and Latin Vul- gate, which contain the positive testimony of the Kas- tern and Western Church, constitutes a sufficient evi- _ dence of the integrity of the Canonical Scriptures. They prove, by their unity of consent, that the Sa- cred Canon is complete; without any deficiency or superabundance of books; and without any diminu- tion or increase of their parts or members. Their joint testimony consequently furnishes an adequate _ test by which we may, in most cases, correct their variations from themselves, and rectify the imper- fections of other texts and editions. Hence, in the first instance, they sufficiently establish the authority __ of those canonical books, which have been question- ed by private persons, or by particular Churches’. In the next place, their conspiring testimony esta- blishes the authority of particular passages, which have been omitted in particular versions, or can- celled in particular editions'’”, The private testi- 4 Vid. supr. p. 118. *°5 Vid. supr. pp. 70, 71. 114. verter p. 230. nz 8p! 287i n. 737. *°7 Mark xvi. 9—20. Joh. vii. 63.—vili. 11, vid. ee PP: y $5—38. ( 230 ) mony of individuals, the bye testimony of national churches, to which the evidence of fathers and ver- sions, as well as of particular manuscripts, is neces+ sarily reducible, can have no weight against the conspiring testimony of the two great Churches in the Eastern and Western world, which were the de- positaries of the apostolical writings. We may very — easily account for the suppression of particular pas- — sages, or even books, in a limited number of copies; but their occurrence in the great body of manus — scripts, which properly contain the testimony of ‘the Church, is not to be accounted for, otherwise than — by admitting them to have possessed that authority | i from the first, which procured them a place among the Canonical Scriptures. A closer examination of this point will, however, — place the integrity of the text beyond all reasonable ground of controversion. Of the different books which are numbered among the Canonical Scrip- tures, the Apocalypse, and Epistle to the Hebrews, have excited the most serious opposition’*. Of the various passages which constitute those books, Mark © xvi. 9—20. John viii. 1—11'°, have been exposed *8 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. III. cap. xxv. p. 119. 1. ire te ws EOnyy 1 "Lwavvs “Amoxcrudis ef Qaveiny Mv THES ws ZQnv aderGaiv. iregos de tyxeiwucr vols tporoyepévorss Id. ibid Lib. VI. cap. xx. p. 285.1. 6. tiv 58 beg “Amosoae dexcereriry porwr tmsoaay [a Faioc | pomporster, rny meds “Efpatss pun avvaeSwricas atxis Aowmwis* zqrei nat ekg deveo Tape “Paprcriwv Tighyy 8 volar an a *Amosods tuyxavev. Conf. Lib. VII. cap. xxv. p. 352. 1. he sqq- Lib. III. cap. iii. p. 90, 1. 2. 9 Vid. S. Hier. ut supr. p. 35. n. %. p. 37. ne © ( 231 ) to ihe most formidable objections. If, however, the canonical authority of the sacred volume be ground- lessly questioned in these respects, we may @ for- tiori conclude, that it is not to be shaken by any objections. In vindication of the Apocalypse and Epistle to ‘the Hebrews, it must be observed, that the objec- tions urged against them are merely confined to a doubt respecting the name of the inspired persons by whom they were written. ‘The former was con- ceived to have proceeded from John the Elder, whose tomb was shewn at Ephesus, together with that of St. John the Evangelist*’°; the latter was conceived to have proceeded from St. Luke, St. Clement, or St. Barnabas", the companions of St. ™° Euseb. ibid. cap. xxxix. p. 136. 1.15. %Sa xa} imisiicas ahi O¢ xalap Spel adr [to Tawria } to “Tware Groue* av Toy wey Meorepov Tlézgw x) IaxwBw x) MalSain x seis Aosmeis "Amocéners cuynaladtys, cadws Sndav tov “Edalycusmy* to S Eregov “Iwawnv, dsareiAws roy Adyory Exéporsy wage Tov tiv “AmostAwe aehucr, xaldlaccety mpratas atte tor Apisiwya” cabws Ts avTov TipecBuregoy dvomaer. ws x) did retwr arodsinwodas tw iropiy arnSiy Tov wo nate Thy Agia» Suarouia xexpacSas cigneérwr, ddo te fy “Ediow yeviosar pvnuara 9 txarspoy “Iwane ins viv AéyzoSas* vig x) dvayuaion pect Tov vay. Elnas yup Tov Devregov, Eien sig eQeAc’ vey apwror, whe in Gromeros Qegouadyny *lwavwe Amoxadubi Ewpaxévar. Vid. Lib. VII. cap. xxv. p. 353. 1. 44. ‘sqq- Conf. S. Hier. Cat. Scriptt. Eccless. in Joan. Tom. I. *p. 121. 13S, Hier. Cat. Scriptt. Eccl. in Paul. Tom. L p. 190. * Epistola autem que fertur ad Hebreos, non ejus creditur prep- “ter styli sermonisque dissonantiam ; sed vel Barrabe juxta Ter- tullianum; vel Luce Evangelista, juxta quosdam; vel Chee mentis, Romanz postea Ecclesi« Episcopi, quem aiunt senten- ( 232 ) Paul the Apostle"*. The particular objections urged against those books, from the internal evi- dencey I shall consider hereafter; the following con- siderations appear to me to remove all doubt of their authority, as constituting a part of the sacred Scripture. In the first place it is not disputed, by the most strenuous oppugners of those books, that they con- stituted a part of the Canon’. Admitting thus much, which, by the way, is all that is worth con- testing, the pomt in dispute may be brought to a speedy determination. It has been urged in objec- tion to those books, that the one introduces the name of St. John '™, the other omits the name of St. tias Pauli proprio ordinasse, et ornasse sermone.”” Conf. Tert. Lib. de Pudicit. c. xx. p. 617. Clem, Alex. ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. Lib. VI. cap. xiv. p. 273. 1. 8. sqq. Conf. Lib. IIT. cap. xxxviil. p. 134. 1. 18. sqq- "2 Comp. Act. xiii. 2. &c. 2 Tim. iv. 1, Phil. iv. 3. Conf. Euseb. ibid. cap. iv. p. 91.1. 17. p. 92. 1. 6. "3 Dionys. Alexandr. ap Euseb. ibid. Lib. VII. cap. XXV. p. 352. 1. 23. iyo 08 dServoa mev Sx ay TOAMHCAYLL TO SiBAIov monary airs did omedis ixovrov adkagan. Id, ibid. p. 353. 1.3. — ~ > 3. .y > xarcicdar piv dy adrov “Iwdwnr, « elvar thv Loxpnv “lwavwe > ~ ‘ << ~ ravtny &n avTeew. aris py Yae Elval ThVOS % Seomvedse ouvawa. \ xo oe \ Ss. 2 , >_\ < ~ lA ae (nat ped’ treca) ors mtv dv “lodwns isl» 6 radra yecQwv [aye *Iwdwns 6 Bréruv 1) andor Tara] daisy Aéyouts mwirevTeor® grokog OF St0s &%ndov. Huseb. ib. Lib. II. cap. xxxviii, p. 134. 1. 14. v4 Is imisean te Kanpeilos] ris Te0s “EBeaias morre vonucile — . \ PN y \ > \ eqe \ > > , a Mr cepasrels, n0n o£ ] qouroAcees palets tioty &€ avrns Xproapsvos, P oad: seal wraplovigne ors wa veoy Umaexer ro tl Sev ElMOTWS Zoo%ev, word ois Aosmors tharadex Saves ypaupact ts “Ag. OSA, 4 Dionys. ibid. p. 353, 1.5. Od paw eadiws av covPoiumu cero ( 233 =) Paul's, contrary to the practice of those Apostles, in their genuine writings. This distinction seems decisive of the question, and directly identifies the true authours of the Apocalypse and the Kpisile. The introduction of the name of the inspired writer implies an authoritative declaration of the aposto- lical function: such a designation is, of course, as properly abandoned by both Apostles in dictating epistles to the whole church, or to particular congre- gations not in their jurisdiction: as it was properly assumed by them, in addressing those churches over which they assumed an immediate authority. St. John, in his Catholick Epistle, and St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, declines using the title; for this obvious cause, that the one was no universal Bishop, the other not an Apostle of the Hebrews, but of the Gentiles"®. But in addressing the parti- Elvas Tov “Amocodov, Toy viov ZeReduiz® tov adeAPev IaxwGer & vo Edalyéarov Oo ucla “lwcwwny Paruyeyenunevor, 6 a borisory n veSormy. —i pir yae Edafyenicns, sdap8 To oven avTs rrapelyouget* BOE unouvooe EauTov, Bre Nia Te Edalyedls, sre Sia rys “En- asoAyis.—s ob thy Amoxaarudiy yealas, eoSic te faurov ey aexn P HCOTaT TEs 15 Vid. supr. p. 231.n.™. Conf. infr. n. 9, 116 Clement, of Alexandria, has put this argument more forcibly ; Clem. Alex. ap. Euseb. ibid. Lib. VI. cap. xiv. p. 273. 1.19. set 6 Kugios, amostros ay TS Tlavroxearogec, awisarn ™ eos “EBpactec? dia peterornta, & Matiroc, os dv cis ra "ESvy drresaruévos, bx elyeder Eaurov “EBpaiwy Amoscroy: dd se thy weds Tov Kigior Tian, die Te FO tx wegecias %) Toie “EBeatess imistarswv, “ESvay xnpuxa ora x) Amésodor S. Hier. Comm. in Gal. cap. i. Tom. VI. p. 120.f. “ Et in Epistola ad Hebreos, propterea Paulum Solita consuetudine, nec nomen suum, nec Apostoli vocabulum preposuisse, quia de Christo erat dicturus: “ Habentes ergo ( 23%) cular churches of Rome and Corinth, or thé seven churches of Asia, both St. John and St. Paul, in in- troducing their names, assert their apostolical autho- rity. With respect to the Apocalypse, of course the controversy must be now at an end; for it is as certain, that John the Elder possessed no authority over the seven churches, as that those churches were governed by St. John the Evangelist, until the reign of the Emperour Trajan”’. And with respect to the Epistle to the Hebrews, it may be as briefly decided. ‘Though St. Paul has declined introduc- ing his name into this Epistle, he has asserted that authority over Timothy, in deputing him on a mis- sion '*, which is irreconcilable with the notion of its having proceeded from any person of inferiour au- thority; or is indeed clearly demonstrative of the fact, that it was written by the great Apostle. As these considerations, deducible from the in- ternal evidence, seem to annihilate the force of the objections raised to those canonical books; the ex- ternal testimony of two witnesses, who are above all exception, fully confirms the authority which they derive from the ecclesiastick tradition. St. lrenzeus, who was but one remove, in the line of succession, from St. John, having heard his disciple St. Poly- Principem, Sacerdotem et Apostolum confessionis nostree Je- sum:’’? nec fuisse congruum, ut ubi Christus Apostolus : di- cendus erat, ibi etiam Paulus Apostolus poneretur.” “7 Vid. supr. p. 112. nn. ° et”. ‘8 Euthal. Argum, in Ep, ad Hebrr. p. 671. xat 2 72 aZyew, © yidone ere Toy ade Agoy nav TruoSeor amoncrvpévoy’ Belg yee By clues aartAuaay sis Ovanoulay Tipdbeov, si wn TladAog x. Te ee ( 235 ) carp "9, expressly ascribes the Revelation to the Evangelist **°; and speaks of the apocalyptick vi- sion as having been seen in his own age, towards the end of the reign of Domitian **. And a con- temporary of St. Ireneeus, Clement of Alexandria, whose authority Eusebius represents as decisive ™*, relates that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by St. Paul in his vernacular tongue, but translated into Greek by Luke the Evangelist ***. To the tes- timony which St. Irenzeus bears to the work of St. John, we may add that of Justin Martyr “+, Ter- tullian **5, Melito **°, Theophilus **’, Apollonius***, - and Clemens Alexandrinus **°, who flourished in the m9 Vid. supr. p. 200. n. 73. p. 217. n. 7. 329 Vid. supr. p. 170. n. *°. conf. p, 112. n. & ** Vid. Euseb. supr. p. 112. n.° ™ Td. ibid. *3 Vid. supr. p. 211. n. ©. ™ Just. Mart. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 308. wag tale carne tis * Tropa Iwavvns, sis tay “Amosckwy te Xpish, ev “Aqroxadives evonern ail, yidva Ern worices ty Tepecarip, ths 79 tyuclépy Xara qiszvcarlas TpoePrtevae 35 Vid. supr. p. 219. n. ™6 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. IV. cap. xxvi. p. 189. 1. 1.) adyos aire [MeAlrwves | wept mpoPrletac, 5 2 wepi Dirovediag x) % xAzis® x 5a weph 7B daBerw, % THs “Amoxardews “lwzvve. +77 Td. ibid. cap. xxiv. p. 187.1. 27. ~ aaro [ovlyptupe re OxoQins Péptlas] weds tH aipeciy “Eguoytras thy imvyeaghy ixor, by 3 2x ras “Aronardpews *lwarve xéxerilas wxclupics. 5 Jd. ibid. Lib. V. cap. xviii. p. 236.1. 11. xdyp‘las 38 [fs AmdaAdnos] % paplupiaas ans ris “Twavvs “Axouzrirpews- 1 vEKpop 8: Durdner Seia mpos adté “Twas &y rp EQeow tynyé Sas isopsi. ™9 Td. ibid. Lib. VI. cap. xiv. p. 273.1. 8. “Es & ais [78 Kanyeilos | Cadlomdcecs Euscrarla cineiv, waony THs BaaSixe Tpadig ( 236-) age of St. Ireneus ; and Origen “*, who flourished at the beginning of the subsequent zra. And to the testimony which Clement has borne to the Epistle of St. Paul, we may add that of St. Clemens Roma- nus “! in the same age, and of Origen ‘* and Dio- nysius Alexandrinus ‘}in the succeeding. Euse- bius of Caesarea, who flourished at the beginning of the following century, and whose opinion must be allowed to possess great weight, though he speaks rather dubiously in assigning the Apocalypse to St. John *3*, ascribes the Epistle to the Hebrews to St. Paul "35 without hesitation. And St. Athanasius '% 2ortl|emé voce exearoinlacs Dnyhoeist un Of tas dvirevyouevas mapenIwy. Conf. Griesb. Symbb. Critt. Tom. II. pp. 616, 619. 620. *3° Orig. Hom. in Joan. Tom. IV. p. 95. d. ri det weph +B dae ~ ~ ~ , “a mecoilog Aéyew tars TO 790s TE Ince, Iwawe; O¢ EvalyéAsoy ty xaluAréde Aosmrev » byparbe DEG trav Amroxddrv in x. 7. é 5* Vid. supr. p. 232. n. ** Orig. Hom. in Ep. ad Hebrr. Tom. IV. p. 698. iyo 2 crroPalvopevos eimosu diy OTL TA Wey voNMale TE AmosoAsesiv® 4 ot Qpacrs ual n cwvSecic, aropynwovetoarlos TéVv0s TH GMOSCAGHey need aomegel oyprroypadnoailos ra eipnudva ume TS OWaoxdrz. et tio Bp zunrnoia exer TavTny emisoAny ws Tlatag, avTn evoOMyrcite@ % emt THTO, 33 From the following quotation of Heb. x/84. and express reference to St. Paul, Dr. Lardner has: concluded, Cred. of Gosp. Hist. Vol. IV. p. 663. that Dionysius considered that Epistle the work of the great apostle ; Dionys. ap. Eus. Hist. Eccles. Lib. VI. cap. mii. p. 304. 1. 34. e2éxrrov OF nat bmavexdpur ot adeADot. nob ray eeeayi Tiv tmapyorluvy O.oiws ExElVOIS ois 5 Tlatiaros tuaprignoc, werd xXepas mpooedéEarlo. 1% Vid. supr. p. 230. n. 7°, 135 Vid. supr. p. 232. n. "3 136 Vid, supr. p. 223. n, **. Pe es ee an ( 237 ) and St. Jerome **’, at the close of the same cenitury, speak in the same terms, without limitation or exception ;_ these extraordinary men may be al- lowed to deliver the opinion of the Eastern and Western Churches*#*, if the testimony of either may be collected from the statement of individuals. Of this “ cloud of witnesses,” each of whom is a host in himself, the earlier part lived at that pe- riod ¥9, when the true state of the question could 437 §. Hier. Dardan. Ep. cxxrx. Tom. II. p. 370. Quod si eam [ Epistolam ad Hebreos] Latinorum consuetudo non reci- pit inter Scripturas Canonicas; nec Grecorum quidem Eccle- sia Apocalypsim Joannis eadem libertate suscipiunt: et tamen nos utramgue suscipimus, nequaquam hijus temporis consuetudi- nem, sed veferum scriptorum auctoritatem sequentes, qui ple- rumque utriusque abutuntur testimoniis, non ut interdum de apocryphis facere solent, (quippe qui et Gentilium litteraram raro utantur exemplis,) sed quasi canonicis et ecclesiasticis. "8 Greg. Nazianz. Orat. xxi. ed. Par. Tom. I. p. 376. c. zat TAGAY nzy Baharay PiSrov waoay 2 veav [8 ASavdcios] Exwehe~ enous xtc. Id. ibid. p. 397.a. Cicas & Srv, © maideuSels % WANEVTAS, Wee dgov uty Emiouowns etvas cov ExeivE Biow x) Tpowor, VOLLOV 35 6 dpSodozias 7a eueive Soynala. S. August. contr. Jul. Pe- lag. Lib. I. cap. vii. Tom. X. p. 519. b. “* Hieronymus—qui Greco et Latino, insuper et Hebreo eruditus eloquio, ex Occi- dentali ad Orientalem transiens Ecclesiam, in locis sanctis et in literis sacris, usque ad decrepitam vixit ztatem. Hic onznes, gui ante alum, aliquid ex utrague parte orbis, de doctrina eccle, Siastica scripserant, legit,’? (&c. 139 St. Clement is referred to A.D. 80: Justin Martyr to A.D.130: S. Irenezus to A. D. 160: Melito to A.D. 170: Theophilus to A. D. 180: Clemens Alexandrinus to A. D. 190. Apollonius to A. D. 192: Tertullian to A. D. 200: Hippolytus to A.D. 220: Origen to A. D. 230: Eusebius to A.D 320: S. Athanasius to A. D. 330: S. Jerome to A, D. 380. The ( 238 ) have been scarcely missed by the most careless in- quirer ; and the testimony of those primitive fathers is connected by a very few intermediate lmks with that of the last witnesses to whose authority an ap- peal has been made on the subject under discus- sion. As far as respects the number of the canonical books, the Vulgate, which is in use im the Eastern and Western Churches, admits of the clearest vin- dication. If even those books, which are repre- sented as of doubtful authority, admit of so full and satisfactory a defence, we may necessarily infer the unquestionable authority of those which have never excited suspicion. The works of Clement’ and Origen ‘* in the East, of Tertullian ** and Cyprian “3 in the West, who generally quote from all the canonical books, are sufficiently declaratory of the testimony of both Churches, as derived from imme- morial tradition. ‘The evidence of Lucianus and Eusebius, to whom St. Athanasius "** and St. Je- earliest of those witnesses lived nearly in the age when St. John saw the Apocalyptick vision; vidsupr. p. 124. n. 76 me Vid. supr. p. 235. n. fi “1 Vid. supr. p. 215. ee , ™ Vid. supr. p. 214. n. 43 The three books of boutinetaly which St Cyprian Ed. Oxon. p. 17. sqq. has collected not only from the New but the Old Testament, contain a sufficient voucher for the above as- — sertion. “# Vid. Synops. Script. Tom. II. p. 204. a. conf. Lib. de Sy- nodd. Tom. I. p. 735. e. Socrat. Hist. Eccl. Lib. II. cap. x. p. 87.1. 37. Sozom. Hist. Eccl. Lib. III. cap. vi. p. 98. 1. 39. S. Hilar. de Synodd. p. 1168. c. Ed. Bened. ( 239 j ' rome ™ respectively refer, will connect the tradi- tionary chain, as extending from the apostolical age to the final establishment of Christianity under the Emperour Theodosius. After this period it must be unnecessary to search after proofs in support of the integrity of the Canonical Scripture ™*°. At the last-mentioned period, two remarkable passages, asi have already observed, had been partially withdrawn from the sacred text '#’ ; though now admitted almost without exception, Gitte the vulgar text of the Eastern and Western Chuches: The testimony of those Churches, not less than the integrity of the sacred Canon, is involved in the fate of those passages; since their authority must be impeached, if either passage prove spurious. A few considerations, however, in addition to what has been already advanced, will place their authority beyond all reasonable exception. The objection to those passages lies in the cir- cumstance of their being absent from some copies of St. Jerome’s times, and from some which have de- scended to the present period. But this considera- tion falls infinitely short of proving them spurious, or more than expunged from the text of Eusebius, 5 Vid, supr. p. 125. n. 4° The testimony of his writers, from the earliest age, has been collected by Dr. Lardner in his Cred. of Gosp. Hist. The evidence of those who support the authority of the Epist. to the Hebrews, and Revelations, is summed up in Suppl. to B. 1. P. 1. Vol. II. p. 331. sqq. Vol. III. p. 355. sqq. aa ai xvi. 9—11. John villi, L—11. vid. supr. p. 35. n. %, p. 37. n. : ( BO ) and, after hisexample, omitted in the text of the orthodox revisers. That they were absent from the former edition, is evident from the testimony of the Eusebian Canons, in which they do not appear ‘* ; that they were absent from the latter, appears from the positive testimony of St. Jerome, confirmed by that of St. Epiphanius '*°. The determination of © the question must therefore turn on this alternative ; their having been suppressed in the received text of St. Jerome’s age, or znserted in that of the sub- sequent period. ‘The entire circumstances of the case tend to establish the former, and disprove the latter supposition. : The probabilities that Eusebius suppressed those passages in his edition, have been already calcu- : lated 5’, and, until disproved, I am free to con- clude, have been established from the circumstances under which his edition was published. That they were omitted also in the text of the orthodox revi- sers, is, [ conceive, evident, from the testimony of St. Jerome; as he lived in the age when both these editions prevailed, and declares, that those passages were absent from the generality of copies extant in his times *5*. 'T'wo witnesses will be now sufficient to establish the authenticity of those passages, and to connect the chain of tradition, from which their authority is derived ; one, to prove that they were “8 /Vid.isupr./p.36. 1: °. “9 Vid. sup. n. 77, "59 Vid. supr. p. O20mo054 *5) Vid. supr. p. 35. sqq- *5* Vid. supr. n. **7, i ———rr ( 241 ) removed from the prevailing text of the age; and one, to show that they existed in the antecedent edi- tion. For the first position St. Epiphanius, who describes the text of the orthodox revisers, is the best voucher. He, however, declares that these persons positively omitted some exceptionable passages : and we find the passages in question omitted in those copies, which want the passage which he declares was suppressed ‘+. For the second position, the best voucher must be his contemporary St. Jerome, who has inserted those passages in his transla- tion **. He has thus implicitly asserted their ex- istence, in the old copies of the original '*, by which he corrected his version. As his testimony to the existence of these passages is, consequently, an- tecedent to the only grounds of suspicion on which they are impeached ; it is adequate to remove any objection to which they have been exposed, as fill- ing up that breach in the ecclesiastical tradition, by which their canonical authority is properly sup- ported. Clear as the case is in which it is conceived that hese passages were suppressed ; that in which it is supposed that they were interpolated is involved in inextricable difficulties. On reviewing, however casually, the internal evidence, it seems as fully to *3 Vid. supr. p. 93. n..*3, Hence we find, that not only Luke xxi. 43, 44, is wanting in the Alexandrine, Vatican, and Brescia MSS. but John viii. 1—11. The Vatican MS. also omits Mark xvi. 9—11. vid. Griesb. nott. in loce. = Vid. supr. p. 94. n. ™. p. 35. n. %. p. $7. n. ©. *°S Vid. supr. p. 161. n. 7. R ( 242 )} establish the former, as to invalidate the latter posi- tion. The history of the adulteress, contained in St. John, would be likely to offend some over scru- pulous readers ; as liable to be misrepresented by persons waywardly inclined to pervert the sacred oracles. ‘The narrative of the resurrection, con- tained in St. Mark, would he likewise liable to ex- ception ; as containing some circumstances in the account of that event, apparently different from that of the other Evangelists. These considerations would operate as strongly in obtaining the suppres- sion of those passages, as in preventing their in- sertion in the Sacred Canon. If we suppose them authentick, they contam no difficulty which may not be easily cleared up; if we suppose them spu- rious, it is as impossible to account for their being so exceptionable, as they thus appear, as it is to ac- count for their having been admitted, with all their imperfections, into the vulgar text of the Eastern and Western Churches. No object appears to ex- ist which could have induced any person to invent — eet ee ee ee such passages, no influence which could have in- — duced those Churches collectively to ain them in the Canon. When we inspect more narrowly. the purpose & which the different Kvangelists had in view, we find — those passages more than reconcilable with the ob- ject of their different narratives. 'The proof of the resurrection was indispensable to the completion of” etego te » the Gospel history, by whatever person it might be — written ; this being the great miracle on which the ; truth of Christ’s mission depended, and the proper — ( 2 ) object of the apostolical testimony"’ 'This proof was given, by the express appointment of our Lord, in Galilee "57; and, by manifesting himself by the most infallible evidence to his apostles, ‘“ showing them his hands and his side **.” Let it be however observed, that St. Mark records the promise, which foretold this plenary revelation of our Lord to the disciples‘? ; and that his account of the accom- plishment of it is contained only in the suspected passage ‘°°. From its being thus indispensably ne- cessary, not merely to complete the general pur- pose of an Evangelist, in writing a Gospel ; but to complete the express object of St. Mark, it must be considered a part of the authentick canonical text. - With respect to the questionable passage in St. John, the proofs of its authenticity, though more remotely sought, are not less decisive. According to the tradition of the primitive Church, St. John composed his Gospel, with the express view of op- posing the rising heresies of the Nicolaitans and Cerinthians **. Of those heretics the apostle de- *5° Act. i. 21, 22. x. 39, 40, 41. comp. Pears. on Creed. Vol. I. p. 380. ‘57 Comp. Matt. xxvi. 32. xxviii. 7, 10, 16. *58 John xx. 20. *89 Mark xiv. 28. “ But after that Iam risen, Iwill go before you into Galilee.” ro Id. xvi. 14. “ Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. Comp. Matt. xxviii. ’7, 10, 16, 17. *' '§. Iren. adv. Her. Lib. III. cap. xi. § 1. p. 188. « Hane fidem annuncians Joannes Domini discipulus, volens per Evan- R 2 ( 244 ) clares; “ thou hast them that hold the doctrineof Balaam, who taught—to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate. Repent, or else I will come unto thee quickly**,’ &c. Marriage had been condemned and rejected by those abandoned mis- creants; who asserted the lawfulness of the most promiscucus intercourse of the sexes’. And by — this doctrine, which was but too well suited to the low state of morals in the times of heathen supersti- tion, they had seduced numbers from the severe discipline of the primitive church. It was therefore required, by the express object which the Evan- gelist proposed to himself, in writing against them, that he should provide a remedy for both evils; to prevent the inroad of vice on the one hand, and to provide for reclaiming it on the other. With this i view, he selects out of the incidents of our Lord’s gelii annuntiationem auferre eum, gui a Cerintho inseminatus erat hominibus, errorem, et multo prius ab his gut dicuntur Nicolaite, qui sunt vulsio ejus que falso cognominatur scien- — tia,’ &c. Vid. infr. n. *%. Conf. Tertul. adv. Her. cap. 7 xxxiii. p.210. Hier. Preef. in Matt. Procem. ad. Euseb. Cremon. ~ Tom. VI. p. xi. 162 Rey. ii, 14, 15, 16. 83 '§. Iren. ib. Lib. I. cap. xxvi. § 3. p. 105. °Nicolaite autem magistrum quidem habent Nicolaum, unum ex viI qui primi ad Diaconium ab Apostolis ordinati sunt; gut indiscrete 7 vivunt. Plenissime autem per Joannis Apocalypsim mani 4 tantur qui sint; xwllam differentiam esse docentes in maechando,” &c. Conf. ae Hist. Eccl. Lib. IL. cap. xxix. p. 123. 1, 18. ; S, Epiphan. Her, xxv. p. 77. ¢. | J i] ( 265 ) life, the remarkable circumstances of his having sanctioned a marriage by his presence '®*; and par- doned a penitent adulteress, on the condition of her «‘ sinning no more *’.” Viewed with reference to those circumstances, these narratives are corrobo- rative of each other; and are illustrated by the de- — clarations of our Lord, which the Apostle relates ; “they teach to conumt fornication—repent, or I will come unto thee,” &c. In this view they are necessary to complete the object of the Evangelist ; whose intentions in writing are in a great measure frustrated, if we suppose them suppressed. The testimony which the Eastern and Western Churches bear to the authenticity of Mark xvi. 9—20, John viii. 1—11, in adopting those passages in the great body of manuscripts of the Greek and Latin, is consequently most amply confirmed by the internal evidence, and nothing weakened by nega- tive testimony, by which they have been condemned. Conceiving those passages spurious, it is above the reach of ordinary comprehension, to discover an adequate cause for their having been generally re- ceived; considering the immense number, and wide dispersion of the Scriptures, and the obvious objec- tions to which those passages were exposed from the earliest period'®*. That they occur in the vulgar ee oon i. ITT, a> Eb. viii. 11. *66 The following observation of Victor Antiochenus, on Mare. xvi. while it seems to establish the above position, will bring the subject before us home to Eusebius Cesariensis ; _ Biblioth. Patrr. Tom. IV. p. 336. c. d. ‘* Etsi Maria Magda- ( 246 ) edition of the Greek and Latin is indisputable; and the only mode of accounting for this circumstance, is, by conceiving them part of the original text, as. published by the inspired writers. With respect to John viii. 1—11, it is indeed less constantly retained in the Greek*®’, than Mark xvi. 9—20"°*; but while the cause of this circumstance lena et Maria Jacobi, et Salome aromata preeparaverant, atta- men si Eusebio Cesariensi fides est, non sunt tres ille, que orto jam sole ad monumentum venerunt, sed aliz imnominate.— Secundum Eusebium igitur, Marcus non de Magdalena, sed de aliis incerti nominis mulieribus hee narrat. Neque enim fieri potest, addit idem, ut Magdalena post tantas res visas, orto de- mum sole, ad monumentum veniret, aut quis lapidem revolveret inquireret.”? 107 Griesb. Nov. Test. not. in Mar. xvi. 9. ‘* Habent peri- copam hance Codices Grect, excepto uno B, omnes; Evange- listeria, etiam antiquiora, e. g. 1, 2, 6, Mt. B. H; Versiones, etiam Syra Hieros.” &c. Id. not. in Joh. vii. 53, ‘* Pericopa de adultera extat in D, G, H, K, M,N,” &c. On Cod. L. the learned M. Griesbach observes, Symbb. Critt. Tom. I. p. 159. “ vers. 53 usque ad viii. 11. deest in L. vacuo quidem re- licto spatio, sed non tanto, ut pericopa scribi in eo _ potuisset.”” To these uncial manuscripts, M. Griesbach adds more than 100 MSS. written in the smaller character, which retain this passage. 8 Bengel. Apparat. Crit. var. in Joh. viii. 1. p. 251. ed Burk. “ Versio Coptica in alio cod. habet, in alio non habet ; neque habet translatio ejus Arabica. Versio Syriaca Nov. Test. non habet.—In quibusdam manuscriptis codicibus Syriacis invenitur, inquit Joh. Gregorius, sed asterismo hoc notatur ROwWHI MIMS quod non sit textus.’’ Id. ibid. p. 252. “ ad cap. x. Joh. amandata est in Vaticano Versionts Persice Co- dice; ad calcem Evang. Joh. in nonnullis, et apud Er. et Pari- sinis tribus, (quorum duo ezpresse affirmant, eam im antiquis exemplaribus eastare:) et apud Armenios Cod. duo Seculi X. aire AE, ee ew =e ( 47 ) is sufficiently apparent *°?, we can trace the tradition in favour of this passage, to a period so remote, as ta place its authenticity beyond controversion,, It will be readily granted, that if this passage be an inter- polation, it must have been invented by some one. But of those persons, who possessed the power of introducing it into the sacred Canon, as having re- vised the Scriptures, there is not one to whom it can be ascribed with the smallest appearance of reason. 1. As this passage occurs zn the Greek, it cannot be ascribed to Athanasius or the last revisers. As far as we possess any knowledge of their editions, they omitted this passage '”?: it is quoted by antece- illud exemplum in textu non habent, in fine vero Ev. Joan. est positum, cum notatione in Codd. antiquioribus et melioris notz non inveniri.” *9 Td. ibid. p. 251. ‘ Omittitur etiam in Cod. MS. Ebne- riano, sed tantwmmodo a vers. 3. ac sub finem Evangelii secun- dum Johannem ita suppletur, et versui 2 annectitur, ut fucile appareat, librarios periocham, pro genuina agnitam, a publica tantummodo* lectione removisse.”? Id. ibid. p. 252.— et plane Codices hanc periocham omittentes swnt Jere Lectionaria: ut mirum sit, eam non in pluribus codicibus omissam, et tamen hodie complures de ejus germanitate dubitare.”? 7° A distinctive mark by which those rectified copies are known, is the omission of Luke xxii, 43, 44; but these verses are omitted in the Alexandrine and Vatican MSS.: we must therefore rank these manuscripts among the copies rectified by the orthodox. In neither, however, is Joh. viii. 1—11. appa- rent: we must therefore infer, that it was one of the passages which were omitted by the orthodox revisers: which suppo- sition fully accounts for the variation of MSS, with respect to this passage. ( 248 ) dent writers'’': and St. Jerome, in introducing it into the Latin Vulgate, has implicitly declared’, that it was found in the copies antecedent to their revisal. Nor can it be ascribed to Eusebius Cesa- riensis; it does not occur in his text or canons, and is apparently glanced at in his history, as entitled to little credit'?’. Nor can it be assigned to Lucianus or Hesychius; for their real or imputed interpola- tions were rejected, on the credit of the same copies, by St. Jerome'’*, in whose Vulgate this passage is. certainly retained. As it exists, however, in the Egyptian and Byzantine text'?’, and was not:in- — vented by those persons, by whom these editions were first revised; it must have necessarily existed in the original text from which they were respec- tively derived. 2. As occurring tn the Latin, this passage cannot be ascribed to St. Jerome, the last reviser. He ex- pressly states it existed in the old Italick version '’°, which preceded his revisal; and in it we conse- quently find it at this day’77. Nor can it be as- *7* Vid. infr. p. 250. *72 Vid. supr. p. 161. n. "9, 773 Vid. supr. p. 38. et nn. dg loc. 74 Vid. supr. p. 100. n. * WS Of this assertion the MSS. marked D. G; viz. the cele- brated Cambridge and Harleian Manuscripts are sufficient vouchers: vid. supr. p. 246. n. *97, 376. Vid. supr. p. 37. n. %, 177 It occurs in the Codex Corbeiensis and Gatianus, not to mention other MSS.: and these MSS. possess that similarity — among themselves, and that diversity frem the Vulgate, which © proves, that this passage could not have proceeded from St. — ( 249 ) eribed to Philastrius of Brescia, or Eusebius of Verceli; for it does not occur in those manu- scripts **, in which alone their respective texts can be supposed to exist. As it, however, occurs in the Old Italick translation, in which it existed in the times of St. Jerome; the only inference is, that it must have existed in this version, when it was ori- ginally formed. Thus following up the ‘tradition of the — and Western Churches, until it loses itself in time immemorial; we find their united testimony as deli- vered in the Received Text, fully establishes the authenticity of the passage under consideration. And this evidence is finally confirmed by the ex- plicit testimony of early ecclesiastical writers. Wherever we might expect any traces of this pas- sage to exist, we find it specifically noticed. It occurs in the Harmony of Tatian*7’, who wrote in Jerome. Isubjoin a specimen of the various readings; Joh. viii. 1. perrexit in montem. Vulg. ascendit in montem. Cord. Gat.—Ib. 2. et diluculo. Vulg. et mane cum factum esset. Corb. Gat.—Ibid. et sedens. Vulg. et cum consedissei. Corb. Gat.— Ib. 3. in adulterto. Vulg. in mechatione. Corb. Gat. et statuerunt. Vulg. et cum statiassent. Corb. Gat.—Ib. 4. e¢ dixerunt ei. Pulg. dixerunt ad eum.—lIbid. in adulierio. Vulg. in meechaiione. Corb. Gat.—Ib. 5. Moyses mandavit nobis hujusmodi lapidare. Vulg. precepit nobis Moyses ut qui in adulterio deprehenditur lapidetur. Corb. Gate #78 Blanchin. Prolegomm. in Evang. Quadr. p. 178. 179 Vid. Tatian. Harm. ap. Biblioth. Patrr. Tom. II. p. 184. That the original of the Latin Harmony, which is here referred to, was the Diatessaron of Tatian, has been proved by Dr. Lard- ner, from the concurrence of the Latin and Arabick translations, ( @2.4 little more than fifty years of the death of St. John; it is noticed in the Synopsis of Scripture’**; which is generally ascribed to St. Athanasins; and in the Diatessaron, which is ascribed to Ammonius, by Victor Capuanus"". Nor was it unknown to Huse- bius *, to St. Ambrose *?, to St. Chrysostome, and St. Augustine’*. But the testimony of St. Jerome is definitive in establishing the authenticity of this passage. While he expressly states, that it existed in the old version of the Latin’, he has implicitly admitted, that it existed in the ancient copies of the Greek, by giving it a place in his Vulgate**. Tak- ing therefore ae testimony of the Eastern and West- ern Churches, as contained in the Received Text and the external testimony of St. Ephrem: Cred. of Gosp. Hist. Vol. II. p. 123—132. 18° Vid. Synops. Scrip. ap. S. Athan. Tom. II. p. 185. e. Although this work is now generally admitted not to have been compiled by St. Athanasius ; vid. Patrr. Benedd. ibid. p. 124: the learned M. Bengel has proved, from the internal evidence, that it must have been written in or near the age of that ancient father; Apparat. Crit. P. I. p. 30. ' '8« Vid. Evangg. iv. Narrat. Ammon. Alex. ap. Biblioth. Patrr. Tom. III. p.22. Although M. de Valois has proved that this Diatessaron differs from Ammonius’s Harmony; Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. TV. cap. xxix. p. 194. n. ™: it is admitted by Dr. Lardner to contain the substance of that work, Cred. ib. pp. 133, 134. As it was known to Victor Capuanus, who probably disposed it in its present form, vid. Eibl. Patr. ibid. p. 22. it must have existed before A. D. 545. 82 Vid. Euseb. ut supr. p. 38. n. %. *83 Vid. S. Ambros. Tom. II. col. 892. § 4. ed. Bened. 84 Vid. supr. p. 37..n. ©. 185 Vid. supr. p. 38. n. © 85 Vid, supr. p. 116. ne. a ( Saf) and Version; as supported by the uninterrupted chain of tradition, and as expressly avouched by St. Jerome; we must acknowledge this pas- sage‘*? asa part of the genuine text of Scripture, or reject that testimony, on which the whole of the Sacred Canon is proved authentick. The determination of the integrity of the Greek Vulgate, now turns on the decision of this question, whether those texts relative to the doctrine of the Incarnation, Redemption, and Trinity, which have been already mentioned, as impugned by the advo- cates for a more correct text than exists in our printed editions, must be considered authentick or spurious. T have hitherto laboured to no purpose if it is not admitted, that I have already laid a foundation suffi- ciently broad and deep for maimtaining the authen- ticity of the contested verses. ‘The negative argu- ment arising in their favour, from the probability that Eusebius suppressed them in his edition, has been already stated at large***. Some stress may *87 T subjoin M. Bengel’s summary of the external testimony which supports the authenticity of Mar. xvi.9—20. Apparat. Crit. not. in h. 1. p.170. ‘ Irenaeus, Ammonii monotessaron, Harmonia Tatiano adscripta, Eusebii Canones, Synopsis apud Athanasium, Ambros. in Luc. xxiv. et Lib. II. de Sp. Sanct, c. v. et Lib. I. de Poenit. cap. vil. Augustinus, Gregorius, Photius, Theophylactus. Agnoscunt etiam periocham Cle- mens Rom. Clemens Alex. Dionysius Alex. Justinus Martyr, Hippolytus in trad. apost. de charism. Nestorius ap. Cyrillum Alex. Cyrillus Hier. Damascenus, Cassianus, Procopius Gazzus, Anastasius Sinaita, Nicetas, alii.’’ 8 Vid, supr. pp. 27—42. ( 25a 3 be laid on this extraordinary circumstance, that the whole of the important interpolations, which are thus conceived to exist in the Received Text, were con- trary to his peculiar notions. If we conceive them cancelled by him, there is nothing wonderful inthe matter at issue; but if we consider them subse- | quently interpolated, it is next to miraculous that they should be so circumstanced. And what must equally excite astonishment, to a certain degree they are not more opposed to the peculiar opinions of Eusebius, by whom I conceive they were cancelled, than of the Catholicks, by whom it is conceived they were inserted in the text. When separated from the sacred context, as they are always in quotation, the doctrine which they appear most to favour is that of the Sabellians; but this heresy was as con- trary to the tenets of those who conformed to the Catholick as of those who adhered to the Arian opi- nions. It thus becomes as improbable that the for- mer should have inserted, as it is probable the latter suppressed those verses; and just as probable is it, that both parties might have acquiesced in their sup- pression when they were once removed from the text of Scripture. If we connect this Grcumstance with that previously advanced, that Eusebius, the avowed adversary of the Sabellians, expunged thes¢ verses from his text, and that every manuscript from which they have disappeared is lineally descended from his edition, every difficulty in which this intri- cate subject is involved directly vanishes. ‘The so- Jution of the question lies in this narrow space, that he expunged them from the text, as opposed to his [> Pas) peculiar opinions: and the peculiar apprehensions which were indulged of Sabellianism, by the ortho- dox, prevented them from restoring those verses, or citing them im their controversies with the Arians. Thus far we have but attained probability, though clearly of the highest degree, m favour of the au- thenticity of these disputed verses. ‘The question before us is, however, involved in difficulties which still require a solution. _ In order to solve these, and to investigate more carefully the claims of those verses to authenticity, I shall lay them before the reader as they occur in the Greek and Latin Vul- gate; subjoining those various readings, which are supposed to preserve the genuine text. Acts xx. 28. Tpooéyle Bx iavicis—mornaty~ Attendite vobis—regere ec- cw Thy éxxAnciay 78 Océ, a» clesiam Dei, quam acquisivit mepiemorncalo dia te idiez aivclos. sanguine suo. Vulg. Vulg. 1 Tim. ni. 16. Kal Guoroyepiras piyx ist ra Et manifeste magnum est rhs eioeBeiag wusigiorr Oeds ?g- pietatis sacramentum, quod avept9n ty capxl, idizaseS iv manifestatum est in carne jus- arvpdlimVule, tificatum est in spiritu—Vulg. 1 Joh.! vs. 7,.8- “Ors resis elzw of waflogdvlec,— Quoniam tres sunt qui tes- timonium dant in celo; Pater, Verbum, et. Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Eé tres sunt gut testimonium dant in 79 TvcDua, xai ro bdwe, xz) ro «terra: Spiritus, et aqua, et win” nar oi Tetig cis Of cic. sanguis: et hi tres unum sunt. Fulg. Fulg. ( 254 ) As the Byzantine text thus reads, in Act. xx. 28, gxxancizy re Oes, and in | Tim. iii. 16. @sde EPavEpuitn § the Palestine, or Alexandrine, according to M. Gries- bach, reads, in the former place, inxangiav 7# Kupis, and in the latter, 0¢ ég2veoo3n. In 1 John v. 7. the Byzantine and Palestine texts agree, while they differ from the common reading of the Latin Vul- gate ;—omitting % 1 zea, o Marie, 6 Aéyos % 1d ayvov TIvevpeu’ 2 Eros ob tpeis tv cigs, Kab Tees Elow oF paptupzvres éy tm yn, Which occurs in the Received Text of our printed editions; and answers to “ in ceelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra,” in the Latin Vulgate. Such are the prin- cipal varieties of those celebrated texts. In proceeding to estimate the respective merit of these readings, the first attention is due to the in- ternal evidence. In reasoning from it, we work upon solid ground. For the authenticity of some part of the verses in dispute we have that strong evidence which arises from universal consent; all manuscripts and translations supporting some part of the context of the contested passages. In the remaining parts we are given a choice between two readings, one only of which can be authentick. And in making our election, we have, in the common principles of plain sense and ordinary language, a certain rule by which we may be directed. Gross solecisms in the grammatical structure, palpable oversights in the texture of the sense, cannot be ascribed to the inspired writers. If of any two given readings one be exposed to such objections, ( (2b ») there is but the alternative, that the other must be authentick. On applying this principle to the Palestine Text, in the first instance, it seems to bring the point in dispute to a speedy determination. ‘The reading which it proposes in the disputed texts is not to be reconciled with sense, with grammar, or the uniform phraseology of the New Testament. 1. In Acts xx. 28, the phrase ixxanciav +e Kupi¢ is unknown to the language of the Greek Testa- ment, and wholly irreconcileable with the use of idle aimaros for aimartos aire, in the context, as lead- ing to a false or absurd meaning. The phrase tuxanoiay T# Oee is that uniformly used by the evan- gelical writers, and that used above ten times by St. Paul **?, to whom the expression is ascribed by the. inspired writer. And @ 1p apd rp, which is rendered in our Authorised Version, “line upon line, line upon line;’’ which phrase, of course, leaves very little meaning in the etymology of St. Epiphanius. As this antient father applies the term to a Principle of the Nicolaitans, S. Ire- neus, Lib. I. cap. xxiv. p. 102. ascribes it to an Aon, and Theodoret to a Person; Her. Fab. Lib. I. cap. iv. p. 195. d. which different representations are perfectly reconcilable among themselves, though wholly irreconcilable with the St. Epipha-— nius’s derivation. The “Apyz, “Asay, and Zwr%e, with which Kavaavyady is identified in these explanations, were considered Angelical Existences: vid. Massuet. Dissert. Prev. in Iren. p. xxxvill. § 60. The term Caulauchau must be understood with reference to the Pleroma of the Gnosticks ; a term by which those hereticks designated the Divine nature; vid. Massuet. Dissert. Praev. in Iren. § 12. p. xvii: the Orientalists having rejected the notion of a vacuum, and conceived that all things “were God; who produced the visible and invisible worlds by irradiations or protrusions of his essence. See Burnet. Archzol. Philos. Lib. I. cap. vii. p. 89. Lond. 1728. Comp. Yajur Veda in Asiat. Research. Vol. VII. p. 251. and Maur. Orient. Trin. pp. 537. 388. ‘We thus find the name Caulaucau applied to the “Lon, in whose form the second Christ, or the Saviour, ( 2 ) Hebrew Gospel, which was used by the Ebio- descended; S.Iren. ib. cap. xxiii. § 5. p. 102, Quemadmo- dum et mundus []. mundi] nomen (esse) in quo dicunt descen- disse et ascendisse Salvatorem, esse Caulacau. Igitur qui hee didicerit, et omnes angelos cognoverit, et causas eorum, invisi- bilem et incomprehensibilem eum angelis et potestatibus uni- yersis fieri, quemadmodum et Caulaucau fuisse.” The applica- tion of this term to the Saviour, or second Christ, is thus ex- plained by S. Ireneus, Ibid. Lib. Hi. cap. xvi. § 1. p. 204. “ Qui autem a Valentino sunt [dicunt] Jesum—ipsum esse qui per Mariam transierit, in quem, z/lum, de Superiori, Saleatorem descendisse, quem et Christum dici, quoniam omniwm gut emi- sissent eum, haberet vocabula: participasse autem cum eo, qui esset ex dispositione—ut cognosceretur Pater, per eum Salva- torem quidem qui desuper descendisset, quem et ipsum recepta- culum Christi, et universe Pleniiudinis esse dicunt, lingua quidem ‘unum Christum Jesum conjitentes, divisi vero sententia.”’? And on another occasion he describes this Personage as proceeding or emanating from the Father, the Christ, and Spirit, and the whole Angelical host, by an_ union and congregation of their several perfections and virtues; adding, Ibid. Lib. I. cap. ii. § 6. p. 12: be Ynacor Tar Aiwrwry tmeg elyer ty Eautw xardAscor eaSnporaroy cusereyxapiss—mpoRaricvai—as pov v8 TlAnpouaroc, g by tor inody, cvxal Dwryen Beosayopeus iva, x» Xpisd: Tideioy napmoy Tor ingey, vy x "ied Te YORE vat, x Xpisdy, oid , ~~. x ae ) Abyor wdlgwrvparcc, % Lavra, Na + dvd Gavtwy elves, The following quotation will now explain how the term Caulachaud has been applied to this Saviour, “ ike ore Christ, who was the receptacle of the Divine Pleniiude; who was called AU things, because he was from ail;’’ Zohar. P. I. fol. 31. 2 in Beresith. ed Mant. »—*sacpy ie. “ Dixit Rabbi Jose, quis sensus illius; ‘* Cui sunt Diz seu Elohim propingui?” Potius dicendum videtur propinguus quam propingui. Sed est Deus Supremus, Deus timoris Isaac, Deus postremus. Sic propinqui dicendum. £¢ Fortitudines seu Majestates aut Potentie sunt multe que procedunt ex Uno. Et hi omnes Unum sunt.” The last cited words, ‘‘ hi omnes unum sunt,”’ expressed in the original by an qn>:, clearly contain the true exposition of the Wo (« BW ) nites**’, if not by the Cerinthians, both of which 225 sects were opposed by St. John **’, not only retained the same doctrine, but inculcated it in the terms which were used by the Jews*’’. It is therefore Gnostick KAYAAYXAYA, as this word should be properly written; the final A, which was omitted by St. Epiphanius to make way for his etymology, being preserved in a MS. of St. Trenzus, quoted by the Benedictine editours, which, adding ** deus’? to “ calaucu,” probably read cauLaucups, for €AULAUCAUD. 5 Kuseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. III. cap. xxvii. Edafyeriy & pore wa xad “EGpates Asyoutva [ot EPsavactos | e[LEvOby Toy Aowruy oprngov ixaidvlo Aoyor, Conf. S. Hier. Comment. on Matt. cap. xii. Tom. VI. p. 21. b. = Tertul. Prescr. adv. Her. cap. xxxiii. p. 210. “ At iz Epistola eos maxime Antichristos vocat [Johannes], qui Chris- zum negarent in carne venisse, et qui non putarent Jesum esse Filium Dei: illud Marcion, hoc Hebion vindicavit.—Hece sunt ut arbitror genera doctrinarum adulterarum, gue sub apostolis Suisse, ab ipsis Apostolis discimus. Conf. supr. p. 243. n. *® p- 263. n. 728, *7 From the following passage it appears, the doctrine of the Trinity was inculcated in the Hebrew Gospel; S. Hier. Comment. in Ezech. cap. xvi. Tom. IV. p. 371. h.— et refer- tur ad Spiritum Sanctum, qui apud Hebrzos appellatur genere feemineo nv. In Evangelio quoque Hebreorum, quod lectitant ‘Nazarei, Salvator inducitur loquens; ‘ Modo me arripuit Mater mea, Spiritus Sanctus.” On this passage Dr. Allix ob- serves; Judgm. of Jew. Church, p. 178. This passage of the Nazarenes’ Gospel would never have been understood, if we had not known, that the Jews call the Hely Spirit Zmma, — Mother; as well as Binah, Understanding: as we see in Zohar and other Cabalists.”” Comp. p.*166. sqq. As it is certain, that Origen used the Hebrew Gospel, Hier. Cat. Scriptt. Eccll. in Jacob. Tom. I. p. 119; the conformity of the following — phrase to the above statement, as terming the Holy Ghost Kypie, sufficiently declares, that this Gospel was the source ( 273 ) indisputable, whatever becomes of the text of the heavenly witnesses, that the doctrine which it incul- cates was forcibly obtruded upon the attention of St. John, in the very words in which the suspected passage is expressed. From viewing the state of the subject, as before the apostles, let us now consider the manner in which they have discussed the points at issue be- tween them and the hereticks. The determination of this matter is decisive of the true reading of the contested passages. With respect to the hereticks who were opposed by St. Paul, as it has been al- ready observed, it was not only a fundamental arti- cle of their creed to deny the divinity of the Logos, and to degrade him into the order of secondary and angelical existences; but a leading doctrine to deny that Christ became incarnate, and suffered, other- wise than in appearance, for the redemption of mankind. The opposition of these notions to the explicit declarations of St. Paul, in the contested verses, must be directly apparent; and they appo- sitely illustrate the strong emphasis with which the apostle insists on the Incarnation and Redemption, from whence Origen adopted the passage; Orig. Selectt. in Ps. cxxii. Tom. II. p. 821. dnc Kupiov Ulargds 4 V8 antya i Capa wasdicnn 0 Kupias 78 “Avis Ivetuaros 4 Yoyn: va 2 mela Kigios & Oks uav tgw, Ob yas ToEIS TO vy ciow. The latter part of this phrase, which was unquestionably adopted from some heretical sect, who evidently borrowed it from the Jews, constitutes another evidence, that the subject of 1 Joh. v. 7. was before St. John when directing his Epistle against those heresies which arose while there was some connexion between Judaism and Christianity. Conf. Hom. in Joh. Tom. IV. p. 64. a. T ( 2m ) in both passages: “ God,” he declares, “ was mani- fested in the flesh ;” and “feed the church of God which he purchased with his own blood.” But what is more immediately to our purpose, those he- retical tenets evince the obligation which was laid on the apostle to assert the divine nature of our Lord as strenuously as he asserted his human. This we observe to be as effectually done in the Received Text, where the term God is expressly introduced; as the contrary is observable in the Corrected, where that term is superseded by “ the Lord,’ or “he who was manifested.” Of conse- quence, the circumstances under which those verses were delivered as fully confirm the reading of the one, as they invalidate that of the other. The apos- tle expressly undertakes to warn the Church against those hereticks, whose errours he is employed in refuting. “ Therefore watch,” he declares to, the Ephesian pastors, “ and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warm every one night and day with tears***.” To Timothy he de- clares, “ If thou put the brethren im remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ.”—* Take heed unto thyself,” subjoins- the apostle, “ and to thy doctrine; continue in them*,’ &c. But if we omit. “God,” with the Corrected Text, St. Paul is so. far from delivering ‘ any warning on the subject of those hereticks, even while he expressly alludes to the doctrines which AA Ach eo SI. “9 1 Tim. iy. 6, 16. ( 275 ) they had corrupted, that he rather confirms their errours, by passing them over in silence. And this is the more inadmissible, as it is contrary to the usual practice of the apostle, who on similar occa- sions, when he was less imperatively called upon to deliver his sentiments, asserts the Divinity of our Lord in terms the most strong and explicit***. These conclusions are further supported by col- lateral evidence. St. Ignatius, an auditour of St. John, who impugned the errours of the Nicolaitans respecting the divinity of the Logos**, adopts the identical expressions of St. Paul, in an Epistle ad- dressed to the same church at Ephesus**, and in- 2 §,. Iren. adv. Her. Lib. III. cap. xvi. p. 204.—sed previ- dens Spiritus Sanctus depravatores—per Mattheum ait ; Christ autem generatio sic erat; et quoniam hic est Emmanuél, ne forte tantum eum hominem putaremus—neque alium quidem Jesum alierum Christum suspicaremus fuisse, sed unum et eundem sciremus esse. Hoc ipsum interpretatus est Paulus, scribens ad Romanos,—* quod promisit—de Filo suo qui factus est et ex semine David, secundum carnem.’ Et iterum ad Ro- manos scribens de Israél, dicit; ‘‘ Quorum patres et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem qui est Deus super omnes benedictus in secula.” Et iterum in Epistola que est ad Galatas, ait ; «© cum autem venit plenitudo temporis, misit Deus Filium suum, factum ex muliere,”’ &c. Conf. Rom. i. 1. 3. ix. 5. Gal. iv. 4. 23 Vid. supr. p. 243. n. 23a §. Ignat. a ad Ephes. cap. i. doa Camvencarres ey ai.are ‘O:5, To ith 5 yEmOP Epyoy TeAgins punprizesy- cap. Vil. fis re Esty “cageixds TE nab iis anieln. yeventos uab ayenros, &y owext res Ons cap. XIX. T ola ne xpAvyns, aTive ey novyia @z2 wee on. ‘Tae by EDaveg ain TOIS ALWobYy warace Bacireia MOSeizerc, Oc eSparivws Davesscys cig xawdrara aidie Cur. aepyre de tAdusaver <8 Tape Osa QRNETIC[AEVOFe pp- 12, 13. 16: we fe be > 2 ea ( 276 ) sists on the divinity, incarnation, and passion of Christ, in language the most full and explicit*. Had all antiquity been silent on the subject of these contested verses, which are supported by the most full and unexceptionable. evidence, the single tes- timony of this apostolical father would determine the genuine reading beyond controversion. With respect to 1 John v. 7, 8. it has been al- ready observed, that it was directed against the peculiar errours of the Nicolaitans and Cerinthians, Of those sects it has been likewise observed, that they respectively dented that Jesus was “the Son of God,” and ‘ came in the flesh,” though they mutually expressed their belief in a Trinity. Such are the fundamental errours which the apostle undertakes to refute; while, at the same time, he inculcates a just notion of the Trinity; distinguish- ing the Persons from the substance, by opposing meess In the masculine to %& in the neuter *. *33 Td. ibid. cap. vil. Eis iareds tri, oapximos te xas mr:vna- Tints, Yewnrtos nal ayévenrac, ev oxgul yevonevos eos, ty aSavary lon arnSivn, xed ex Macias nai ex Océ, wearoy nadnros xal ror anazyns. Id. ib. cap. xvili— 0 yar Ocds judy Inabs 6 X pisos ixvoQognon id Mapiac, uur oixovouiaw Och, éx omépuatos Te Aad, Tlvevpares 3: dyiu. Os eyewndn nal eCamriodn, va co wader ro Udwe yaragion. Kal erade roy prota Ta abavos TTB H wagdevice Magiac, zal 6 roxeTos adTis, syolws vel 6 Savaros TH Kupis. 23+ Two authorities, which are above all exception, will fully evince the justness and happiness of this distinction. Tertul. adv. Prax. cap. xxii. ‘ Ego et Pater unum sumus.” Hic ergo jam gradum volunt figere stulti, immo ceci qui non videant, primo “ Ego et Pater,’ duorum esse significationem ; dehine in novissimo, “ sumus?? non ex unius esse persona, quod plu- raliter dictum est ; tum quod unum sumus,”? non unus sumus. | 2 3 Against those who denied that “ Jesus was the Son of God,” he appeals to the heavenly witnesses ; and against those who denied that he ‘ was come in the flesh,” he appeals to the earthly. For the admission of the one, that the “¢hree,’”’ including the Word, were “ one” God, as clearly evinced the divi- nity of Christ, as identifying him with the Father; as “the spirit’ which he yielded up*’, and “ the blood and water” which he shed upon the cross*°, evinced his humanity, as proving him mortal. And this appeal to the witnesses is as obvious, as the argument deduced from it is decisive: those who abjured the Divinity of our Lord, being as natu- rally confuted by the testimony of the heavenly _ witnesses, as those who denied his humanity by the testimony of the earthly. Viewed with reference _to these considerations, the apostle’s argument is as | full and obvious, as it is clear and decisive: while it is illustrated by the circumstances under which ‘his epistle was written. But let us suppose the seventh verse suppressed, and he not only neglects the advantage which was to be derived from the concession of his opponents, while he sums up “ the witness of men;” but the very end of his epistle is |Si enim dixisset unus sumus, potuisset adjuvare sententiam ‘illorum. Unus enim singularis numeri significatio videtur, ad- jhuc eum duo; masculini generis. ‘ Unum’? dicit, neutral | verbo, quod non pertinet ad singularitem, sed ad unitatem, ad Similitudinem, ad conjunctionem,” &c. In the justness of this distinction, an eminent Critick acquiesces: Vid. Pors, Lett. p- 240. *85 Luk. xxiii. 46. | *36° Joh, xix. 34, 35. ( 278 ) frustrated, as the main proposition is thus left un- established, that ‘“‘ Jesus is the Son of God.” And though the notions of the hereticks, on the doctrine of the Trinity, were vague and unsettled, the Church was thus left without any warning, against their peculiar tenets, though the apostle wrote with the express view of countercaaia their errours. Not : to insist on the circumstances of the controversy, — the object of the apostle’s writing, not less than the tenour of his sense, consequently require that the disputed passage should be considered an integral part of his text. The reader must be now left to determine how far the internal evidence, supported by the cir-| - cumstances of the controversy in which the sacred” writers were engaged, may extend in establishing tlie authenticity of the disputed verses. As em polations, we must find it as difficult to account for” their origin, by considermg them the product o chance as design. For, assuming the reading of the Corrected Text to be genuine, is it not next to” miraculous that the casual alteration introduced into the Received Text should produce so extraordinary an effect on each of the passages, and attended by consequences so various and remote; that it should amend the solecism of the language, supply the'de-. ec tive sense, and verify the Ki circumstanc under which they were written? But how is the: improbability diminished by conceiving them the product of design; while they appear to be unsuit- able to the controversies agitated in the primitive) Church? ‘The early heretics did not subscribe to: ( 29 ) those parts of the canon in which they occur; and they did not meet the difficulties of those disputes which were maintained with the later*’. In order to answer the purposes of those controversies, Christ, in two of the contested passages, should have been identified with “ God,’ who “ was mani- fested in the flesh,’ and “ purchased the Church with his own blood.” And instead of “the Father, Word, and Spirit,’ the remaining passage should have read, “the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” Otherwise, the interpolated passages would have been direct concessions to the Gnosticks and Sabel- lians, who, in denying the personal difference of the Father and Son, were equally obnoxious to those avowed adversaries, the Catholicks and the Arians. Nor did the orthodox require these verses for the support of their cause; they had other pas- sages which would accomplish all that they could effect ; and without their aid, they maintained and established their tenets. Admitting the possibility *37 Hence we find, that the writers who stand next in suc- cession to the apostles, as they found the divinity of our Lord impugned, and the Scripture testimonies which proved it ex: plained away by the heretics, insist more emphatically on this point, vid. S. Ignat. ut supr. p. 276. n. 333. To this early practice of perverting the language of Scripture, St. Polycarp, a contemporary of S. Ignatius, and auditour of St. John, bears witness, in the following apposite testimony, Ep. ad Philipp. Cap. vil. p. 188. [ls yag, ds av wn Suodroyn "Inody Xpisdv év Gupxi hnrvSivat, avringisds inst wal Os dv weSodedn ra Adyia TS Kugis mpos Tas iDiag twsuuiac, nab Ayn Bate arasacW, wate xelow thvets, Eros wewritonds iss TE Cararz. Conf. S. Iren. adv. Her. Lib. I. cap. i. § ik p-"2. ( 280 ) of an interpolation, in the three instances, we must be still at a loss to conceive with what object it could have been attempted. On taking the reverse of the question, and suppos- ing the Byzantine text preserves the genuine read- ing, every difficulty in the subject under discussion admits of the easiest solution. The circumstances which induced Eusebius, of Czsarea, to suppress those passages, which apparently favoured the er- rours of the Sabellians, have been already specified. And the alierations which they underwent in his edition, as contained in the Palestine text, were effected with as little violence as possible to the con- text or meaning. Kviz, as a word nearly syno- nymous with @z, was inserted im Act. xx. 2873*; _ - "38 That the term Kzpio; has thus crept into the text, has — been determined by Prof. Michaelis, from the varieties disco- verable in the subjoined readings ; Marsh*s Mich. Vol. I. ch. v1. § xiii. p. 336. “ Of the followig different readings, Acts xx. 28. Qe, Kupie, Eps®, Kupis @r8, Ock x) Kopia, Kupie = Ore, the first is probably the true reading, and all the others are te be considered corrections or scholia, because @:@ might easily give occasion to any of these, whereas none could easily give eccasion to @:. If St. Luke wrote @:, the original of Kuss and Xp: may be explained as corrections of the text, or as marginal notes; because “ the blood of God’ is a very extra- ordinary expression; but if he had written Kopie, it is enconceiv= able how any one could alter it to @:, and on this principle the great number of different readings is inexplicable. It seems as if different transcribers had found a difficulty im the passage, end that each corrected according to his own judgment.’* The improbability of such a correction is infinitely increased when we consider, that, if a change has been made from Kopiz ©, it must haye been made early m the fourth century, ( 281 ) the Sabellian tendency of the passage was thus ob- viated, and the harshness of the phrase, which as- cribed blood to God, was removed. After the ana- logy of a similar passage in Col. i. 26, 27. TO pos ipsoy ipaveowdy ois wylas—o mwaztos t2s dckng 7B pousngis rate—os iss Xeises, 1 Tim. in. 16. was chang- ed into pitya ts prusnpiov, os Epavegwon : ds being pre- served in the masculine to denote a person, and in this form agreeing with Xgisos, sylleptically impli- ed in pusigiv 9, Out of this reading, pusigiv ¢@ when Sabellianism was in a great measure revived by Mar- cellus, of Ancyra.. The revival of this heresy must have raised insuperable obstacles to prevent this text from being admitted into the context of Scripture by the orthodox: and unless it was interpolated by them, there was no party existing at the time to gain it admission into the sacred canon. The Arians, it is obvious, cannot be accused of attempting such a correc- tion; and the Sabellians were unable to effect any thing in this respect ; as they were an inconsiderable sect, rendered still less competent, by the opposition of both Arians and Catholicks. *89 This conjecture is supported by the Oriental versions, the varieties in which are at once reconciled, by considering the neuter noun pusrpiey taken, by a syllepsis, in the masculine 5 which notion is alone reconcilable with the reading proposed by M. Griesbach, in the Greek; peye ist +d THs evoePelag pusietov, 0¢ @DaveptSn. This, I beg leave to suggest, is the sim- plest explanation of the reading of the Coptick, Sahidick, and Philoxenian version; and thus, M. Griesbach and Dr. Lau- rence, who have formed very opposite conclusions on this sub- ject, are easily reconciled in principle. The former declares, Nov. Test. not. in h. 1. .“ Copt. Sahid. et Syr. p. in m. {exhibent] %, qui;’’ the latter declares; Rem. on Griesb. Classif. of MSS. p. 78. “ in both the Coptic and Sahidic the word MYETHPION mystery is decidedly proved to be masculine, by the definitive article masculine [1 in one case, and 1 in the ( 282 ) igavecdSx naturally arose*4°, merely by correcting other, prefixed.—A similar remark, respecting the Philoxenian version, is made by its editour.”’ From hence I would con- clude, with M. Griesbach, that the authours of those versions read in the Palestine edition, which they followed, pusipior os spavepo9n: but I here reason from the premises laid before me, as I am wholly unacquainted with the Oriental languages. 74° That pusnprov 3 épavepdSy is not the original reading, is, I conceive, manifest ; as it is thus unaccountable that this phrase, which is wholly unexceptionable, should have been ever chang- €d to pusipiov Os ePavepwdn. If, on the other hand, we suppose &s %PavepoSy the original reading, the change, it must be con- fessed, was easy both to 9 «Pavepd9n and Qcds t@ayepi9n: as the neuter gender was obviously suggested by the context puri ptov; and, in the uncial character, OZ is easily converted into ©x, the usual abbreviation of @EOE. But puriesor os tpavegaSn could not have been the original reading; as unsuitable to the object of St. Paul in writing the Epistle before us. So great a solecism as I shall show in the sequel, finds no justification in Col. i. 27. And the change of % to ©, which is not at all suggested by the context, if at all made, must have been made in the fourth century; when the Sabellian errours raised thie same obstacles to such a correction, as to that of G:% to Kupis in Act. xx. 28. If, in the last case, we suppose ©= the ori- ginal reading, OX might have been first suggested by those transverse lines having been omitted, in the hurry of transcrip- tion, which distinguish OF and @Z; and this alteration, which was apparently justified by Col. i. 27, might have been finally recommended, as the word O£ had, in this form, the appear- ance of an accidental omission; and as it afforded a ready ex- pedient of converting @Z into OX, by an erasure. As the con- currence of the Eastern and Western versions proves this cor- rection to have been made as early as the fourth century, when the text was revised by Eusebius; it is certainly a correction which he may be supposed to have made, as it is conformable to his peculiar notions. . ( 283 ) the false concord. 1 Joh. v. 7. presented fewer difficulties to the corrector; the iteration in the sen- tence made it merely necessary that the obnoxious passage should be erased; and it was consequently expunged by Eusebius, as little conducive to the doctrine of the church, from being calculated to support the Sabellian errours. Regarded in this view, there is little more on the subject before us which needs a solution. The last evidence of au- thenticity, which is specified in the rule proposed by M. Griesbach, for determining a genuine from a spurious reading**", is thus clearly made out im fa- vour of the text of Byzantium; for thus all the vari- eties in the passages before us, are easily accounted for, on considering them corruptions of the genuine text, as preserved in that edition. Thus reasoning on the very grounds chosen by the adversaries of those texts, the question of their authenticity is easily decided; as far, at least, as respects the internal evidence. It is now merely necessary, that the testimony of competent witnesses should be adduced, to corroborate the internal evi- dence, with external. Of the manuscripts which have been cited on this subject, 1. the Vatican***, and fifteen of the Greek > Vid. supr. p.'258. n. **, 4 The true reading of this celebrated MS. is set out of dis- pute by the following document, which is deposited in Sion College; to which my attention was first directed by my learned friend, Mr. Watts, the librarian. In a collation of the Vatican MSS. made for Dr. Berriman, when engaged in the defence of 1 Tim. iii. 16. the annexed reading of the Vatican MS. appears; ( 28% ) Vulgate*#, read in Act. xx. 28, @:#; im which read- ing they are supported by the manuscripts of the - Latin Vulgate, without a single exception *“. About fifty Greek manuscripts of the same edition also read @cz, but in conjunction with Kupis **. the following note being prefixed to the papers in which it is found, in the hand writing of Dr. Berriman. “ In the year 1738 I obtained, from the very learned Mr. Thomas Wagstaffe, then at Rome, a more exact and particular account of the Greek MSS. of St. Paul’s Epistles, in the Vatican library, and that of Cardinal Barberini, than had been ever before com- municated to the world. Mr. Wagstaffe had for some time free access to the Vatican, and the liberty of collating MSS. in the absence of the librarian, and in that time I was favoured with the accurate collation of four texts which I desired, (Act. xx. 28. Rom. ix. 5. 1 Tim. iii. 16. and 1 John v. 7.) and of five more added thereto, (Gal. i. 12. Phil. ii. 6. Col. ii. 9. Tit. ii. 13. and 1 Joh. v. 20.) The following collation of the disputed text is added, along with the above-cited, in Mr. Wagstaffe’s hand, “ Act. xx. 28. Meootxere iauroic, xab mavtt +i orommniiy ev @ tuts To wvedue TO wyrov EdeTO tmicudmas, Torcbve THY ExxAnolay 78 Jeb, nv mepieroinouro, did TE dtuatos Te idie’ MS, Bible, from whence Sixtus V.’s Septuagint was printed.” And this testi- mony is confirmed by the collation which was made of this MS. for Dr. Bentley, vid. supr. p. 61. n. %. As it notes no various reading of this text but r# aiparos +8 idix, p. 74. the MS. must have read, with the copy which was collated, txzAyoia» Te Ok. ~ 243 Griesb. Nov. Test. not. inh. 1. Vulgatum @cé habent codd. 4, 22, 46, 65, 66, 68, et quantum e silentio collatorum suspicari licet, 7, 12, 16, 23, 25, 37, 39, 56, 64.”” For one of those MSS. Cod. 25, I can answer, having collated it in the British Museum}; where it is marked Harl. 5537; it reads ri» éuxrnciay t8 Oc& av megueroinocaro die TE idie aiperos. *+ Mill. Nov. Test. not. in h. 1. “ Vulg. in omnibus Codd. Lat. /Ethiop.”” &c. _ #8 Vid. Griesb. Nov. Test. not. in h. 1. ( 285 ) 9. The Alexandrine***, and all known manu- scripts **7, except two of the Palestine, and one of the Egyptian edition, read in | Tim. iii. 16. @es; the Latin Vulgate reading ‘‘ quod,” in opposition to every known manuscript but the Clermont**. 24© That the true reading of the Alexandrine MS. in 1 Tim. iii. 16. was Ozts, not 2, we may appeal to the testimony of those who first examined the MS. Independent of that of Junius, who first examined it, and of Mr. Huish, who collated it for the London Polyglot; of Bps. Walton and Fell, of Drs.;Mill and Grabe, who have published its various readings; Dr. Ber- riman’s testimony seems to lay the question at rest. Having taken two friends, Messrs. Ridley and Gibson, to examine the MS. in the sun, and with the assistance of a glass, and having submitted the point in debate to two indifferent persons stand- ing by, Messrs. Hewit and Pilkington; he published the fol- jowing statement, as the result of their investigation; Dissert. ut supr. p. 156. “ And therefore, if at any time hereafter, the old line should become indiscernible, there never will be just cause to doubt, but that the genuine and original reading of this MS. was © i.e. OEOE.” Nay more, he openly charges M. Wetstein, whose single testimony is now supposed to turn the scale against this host of witnesses, with having admiiied to 2 common friend, that he saw the transverse line of the ©, the existence of which he afterwards disputed: Ibid. p. 156. The extreme futility of the plea, which is set up in opposition to this weight of testimony, will be exposed in the sequel. 247 Dr. Berriman, Crit. Disert. up. 1 Tim. ili. 16. p. 163. specifies ninety-one MSS. in his printed text; but in a manu- script note of a copy of his work, which was deposited in Sion College, extends the number to ninety-five. After the labours - of Prof. Birch, of Copenhagen, of M. Matthai, at Moscow, and other criticks, we greatly underrate the number of those MSS. in estimating them at an hundred. “48 Griesb, Symbb. Critt. Tom. II. p. 75, ‘ Itaque extra ( 286 ) 3. The whole nearly of the manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate contain 1 Joh. v. '7*°; which is not found in any Greek MS. but the Montfort ; a manuscript which has been obviously corrected by the Latin translation. Of the christian fathers who have been quoted on this subject, the following have been cited im fa- vour of the reading of the Received Text, or Greek Vulgate. 1. On Act. xx. 28. St. Ignatius*5°, in the aposto-— lical age; and Tertullian**, near the same period. — At the distance of a century and upwards from those primitive times, St. Athanasius***, St. Basil’, St. omnem dubitationem positum jam esse videtur, Claromontani Codicis lectionem primitivam non fuisse OF sed 0.” *9 Bengel. Apparat. Crit. not. in h. 1. § xix. Habet La- tina Versio antiquissima. ‘ Versus ille solemniter legitur tum — in Epistola Dominice in Albis dictee, tum in octavo Respon- sorio, in omnibus Dominicis a festo SS, Trinitatis usque ad — Adventum. Reperitur etiam in optimis quibusque et vetus-— tissimis Vulgate codicibus, ita ut paucissimi sint in quibus deest.? Henr. a Bukentop de Vulg. p. 307. Videlicet de Codicibus Hentenii, quorum circiter 24 ad hance epistolam col- lati sunt, 5 tantummodo omittunt. &c. 2° Vid. supr. p..275..m, : 25 Tertul. ad Uxor. Lib. II. cap. ili. p. 175. ‘* Quod sciam, ~ “ non sumus nostri”? sed ‘ pretio empti ;” et quali spreno 2m “ sanghine Dei.” F 252 S, Athanas. Ep. i. ad Serap. Tom. II. p. 653. e. & 03 Tlataos* tv & ipais ro [Ivete 5d ayioy Bere EmioKomEs morcccivesy vi ExuAnclay 7 @é, 7 ny WepeToTaTo dee Te ie ipeceT OSs *53S. Basil. Moral. Ree. esti xvi. Tom. II, p. 285. a. ed. Par. 1618. 6 sosnv & xarog Thy Yoyn. abré tidnow v imig TrOAceiVENY co wa» meoPatur Teakers. Ilpooexere By Eavrels Runavoiay 7B Océ. : ; ' ' Se ( 287 ) Epiphanius ***, St. Ambrose **, and St. Chrysos- tome *5°, deliver the same testimony. In the follow- ing age occur Tbas*57 and Ceelestinus***; and in the succeeding, Fulgentius**’, Ferrandus 60 and Pri- 254 S. Epiphan. Her. LxxIv. p. 895. a. xposixere Qnct Eavrots, Tavrt Te Torri ev @ ero vues To [Dsdpm 70 ayioy imizxonticy morpaive tcc ony ineAnoiay TS Oss. 255 §, Ambros. de Sp. Sanct. Lib. II. cap. xiii. Tom. IL. col. 663. d. “Dixit enim Paulus: ‘ Adtendite vobis, et omni gregi, in quo posuit vos Spiritus Sanctus episcopos regere ecclesia Dei.” 356 S. Chrysost. in Actt. Apostt. Hom. xt1v. Tom. IX. p. 333. a. Tleogéxere 2y Eavrois—mospceivery any txnrngiay TS Oi, iy wepemoincare dia 7Eidie aiwarcc—radsra Atyes ax eqewde Or ay favreis mpoctywpcr, Tore 4) 72 moiurion xepdaiver, Ev @ Duas TO muedyete mo Grav 2270 imicximes, mwospoivew Thy txnrnciay TE Och. oa micas dyaynor wage TE wrvevpwatos Thy yerporoviay Exyere Ono Toto yap ist Tay ESeT0° pia alrn aveynn® site Taresvery Thy iunaAnclav 7a. Océ. 257 Ibas, Epist. ad Marin, Pers. if2a7%Sn d © 6 Ocds’ § maille Qpovligov ris idias © ixndrnciag Tig to iiv wiper adres AulewSzions, % Thy nopoiay we “Alyurilis. parazas, *. 7. &. ap. Lab. et Cossart, Concill. Tom. IV. p. 665. b. ed. Par. 1671. 258 Ceelest, Epist. ad Synod. Ephes. ‘“‘ Respiciamus rursum etiam illa nostri verba doctoris, quibus proprie apud Episcopos utitur, ista predicens: ‘* Attendite” inquit, “ vobis—regere ecclesiam Dez quam acquisivit sanguine suo.’’ Ap. Baluz. Nov. Collect. Concill. Tom. I. p. 491. . *5? Pulgent. de Fid. ad. Petr. Diac. cap. xix.—in isto autem gacrificio gratiarum actio atque commemoratio est. carnis Christi, ——et, .sanguinis quem pro nobis idem Deus effudit. De quo Beatus Paulus dicit in Actibus Apostolorum, “ Atten- dite vobis—regere Ecclesiam Dei quam acquisivit sanguine suo.’ Max, Bibl. Patwr. Tom, IX. p. 80. h. *° Ferrand. ad. Anatol. Epist. cap. xiv. ‘ Nam ecce apud Miletum—Beatus dum traderet. Paulus; “ Attendite,” inquit, ( 288 ) masius***. In the next age we meet Antiochus*®, and Martin I.*°; and in the subsequent, Bede**, who is followed, after some distance of time, by Etherius***, Gicumenius*”°, and Theophylact**”. * vobis—regere Ecclesiam De?, quam adquisivit suo sanguine.” Dic modo Gentium Doctor, et responde nobis aliquid.— Dixisti Deum Ecclesiam adquisisse sanguine suo; quare non addidisti Filium,” &c. Max. Bibl. Patrr. Tom. IX. p. 506. h. * Primas. in Apoc. cap. vii. I add this reference on the authority of M. Griesbach ; with this acknowledgement, that I believe it to be an errour. I have not been able to find any reference to Act. xx. 28. in Primasius, nor is the authority of this father cited, on this verse, by M. M. Bengel, or Sabatier. In Primas. ibid. ap. Max. Bibl. Patr. Tom. X. p. 309.b. I find sanguine agni,’? which, it is possible, M. Griesbach, or the person whom he followed, might have mistaken for “ sanguine Dei.”” 26% Antioch. Hom. cxxi1. Auctar. Bib]. Patrr. Tom. I. p. 1214. e. ed Par. 1624. roig OF “E@eotors Aéywr* mporexeads EavTole —rowalvew viv ixuancley 78 Oc Conf. Hom. txi. p. 1122. d. *63 Martin. in Cone. Later. Rom.— et maxime preeceptum habentes apostolicum, “ attendere nosmetipsis, et gregi— regere Dez ecclesiam quam acquisivit per sanguitiem pro- prium.’’—Id. ibid. Pars ce mage! yeAbaey EyovTes cmoroAsnniy mporeyery 1 éavloic, 19 TH Towviv——momaivery Hv exxAnoiay TE Qed, av meguem moimodlo dia Te ide aipnctloc. ap. Lab. et Cossart. Concill. ‘Tom. VI. p. 93, 94. b. | *° Bed. Comment. in Actt. Apostt. cap. xx. Oper. Tom. ve ‘ p- 659. ed. Col. Agr. 1612.—“ Regere Ecclesiam Dei, quam acquisivit sanguine suo.” Non dubitat “ sanguinem Dez’? dicere, propter unionem persone in duabus naturis ejusdem Jesu Christi.” A *’ Ether. contr. Elipand. Lib. II. ‘ De quo Dei sanguine sub certo Dei hominisque discrimine, in Apostolorum Actibus— legimus: “ Attendite vobis, et universo gregi vestro, in quo ( 289 ) To these we may add some anonymous authori- _ ties*®*, whose age is not easily determined. 2. On 1 Tim. iii. 16. we may quote St. Igna- _tius*®, in the apostolical age; and Hippolytus?7’, in the age which siibcoiicd: The next age pre- _ sents St. Athanasius*”', St. Gregory Nyssene™, and St. Chrysostome*” ; and the following age, St. vos Spiritus Sanctus posuit apostolos regere Ecclesiam Dei.’? Et cujus Dei Ecclesiam subsequens sermo demonstrat ita di- _cens; quam acquisivit sanguine suo.” Aperte hic nomine | Deitatis et sanguinis, ccelestia et humana sociavit.”” Max. Bibl. | Patrr. Tom. XIII. p. 383. d. | *6 CEcumen. Comment. in Actt. Apostt. Tom. I. p. 152. ed. ay > moyecivesy Thy ixeAnciay® |Par. 1694. wpoctyle by Eaurois 7 Océ. *67 Theophyl. Oper. ed. Finett. Tom. III. p. 290. b. Venet. (1758. aspocéyéle Ev Eavlcis—omatver ryv txxanciay TE Océ, *8 Anon. ap. S. Athan. Tom. III. p.4.a. Al. ap. S. Chry- |sost. Tom. VI. p. 510. Auct. de xtu. Mans. Scholl. Codd, (15. 18. 37. Confes. Eccl. ier p- 139. | % Vid. supr. p. 275. n. 73%. | 3% Hippolyt. contr. Noet. cap. xvii. ©Ozts & cduals \B@avegadn. | 27 S. Athan. Ep. ry. ad Sa Tom. II. p. 706.—igecs yg Ardsonop oulyvopeny aurors vépovlay 6 oboves Xeipe aurois & 7 Adyesy lixleivorlay G78 x) Syoroyapéws uly ish go Tis sdoeBeias pus7gior” Ozis EPavegudn ty caext. 22 §. Greg. —— Orat. tv. Tom. II. P. 581. ed. Par, 1638.—xéies ci tor Acyce xngvooorles tv tate To Sadua te musngia adlauwnisew srs Qcds iDaseedSn ty cagul, Ors & Adyos cat ixisile 7. Conf. pp. 480. 445. 536. 595. 373 §. Chrysost. Comment. in 1 Tim. Tom. XI. p- 605. } Gmoroysntras, Qnci, me ya és} Pr) nS euceBeias pusnesor Oxs vegudn tv gacx) iixaiwSn iv wrevpale selésty 4 olxovopiae % iat muap - 1 2 s \ , >? eo ee 7 ~ , ‘ Poy To pusrzesoy tis STEgoy eieyes TO TpAypa Myer, Oss u ( 290 y Cyril’, of Alexandria, Theodorit*75, and°Eutha- lius?7°. At a considerable distance of time, occur Damascene*”?, and Epiphanius Diaconus?”; who _ are followed by Photius*7?, CEcumenius**°, Theo-) phylact**’, and others***, at different intervals. EPavepwon ty caput, terésw & dnuseeyose Conf. Tom. I. p. 497. VIII. p. 85. sqq. | . 7 §. Cyril. Alex. Orat. I. de Rect. Fid. Tom. V. P. ii. p. 124. ] ed. Par. 1638. agora nee peya ist vo rng evosBilag peosnpios ©); ipanedOn t iv cag! the op ri Garigevais 5 » OnAory oT8 meilile 5 mevlwg & ex Or8 Talpds Adyes* Srw yae tras wey TO 76 suceBetas Py @cbs Pais ls ey cagui——, Kai ayohopepiras. peye ish TO TAS evreBeias pusngsov* @ ad »” , ‘ a Tabra ply ev te xara TleAwssivny ev OAas ETEOL OMTW CUUmacadénle pagibgia, « Toeros 6 nad’ nuzs Siarypos* cpauevos ptr cmd vag Toy ExKAnoLAY naDarpioews, el plya DE mpoxdbas ev Tals nara ypeve¢ Tov epyorrwy emavesaceow ty ais TOAIT POT OI—HIANXO TOY ayaver cvagiSpov Te mARIOG paptipwv xallad macar imdeyioy aLVESHTAITO, dans "Alyinre, Lugias re x Tév Ev tois amo AiBuns % oY 6 an” avaronns xixraw pwexel 7d ‘TAdugindy xAina tapa- ‘ Telvect. = Vid. SupY, p. 27. n. ©. 3° Euseb. ibid. p. 437. 1. 23.—Taaaia rt ~) ora wala duduevav havor tml Yraiav Maverraviav re x “AQpimyiv 30’ Sdus Erect Bust rois apdros +8 Siwypd tov moAquov dmomelvavre, Taxicns newInoav toisuorng te Te Ocd x} slgnuns* THs | Bearley Tpoveias, Peidw THs Ti Kydcuv arrdraTOS 1 miseus Renata ( 296 ) in council. After the African provinces had been over-run by. the Vandals"; Hunnerick, their king, summoned the bishops of this church, and of the adjacent isles, to deliberate on the doctrine incul- cated in the disputed passage***. Between three and four hundred prelates attended the Council, which met at Carthage? ; and Eugenius, as bishop of that see, drew up the Confession of the ortho- dox?**, in which the contested verse is expressly quoted ***. ‘That a whole church should thus con- cur in quoting a verse which was not contained in 3 Evagr. Hist. Eccles. Lib. IV. cap. xiv. p. 395. 1. 45. “Oveiprxyos tnv Raoirslav ex Tilepins dradsEdpevocy rate “Apete Spnexevuv, wucrara dietiSeto aud) Bs ev AiBin Xpissevisc, Tes Te apSa mpecBevovras Osypata Pralduervog sis rny *Aperavov pet ae tiSecSas doZcv" 3° Edict. Hunneric. ap. Vict. Vitens. de Persec. Vandall.— *¢ Et quia in Provinciis a Deo nobis concessis scandalum esse ‘nolumus,—hoc nos statuisse cognoscite, ut ad diem Kal. Febr. proxime futurarum, amissa omni excusatione formidinis, omnes Carthaginem veniatis, ut de ratione fidei cum nostris venera- bilibus Episcopis possitis inire conflictum, et de fide Omousia- norum, quam defenditis, de divinis scripturis proprie approbetis, quo possit agnosci si integram fidem teneatis.” Max. Bibl. Patrr. Tom. VIII. p. 682. d. . 33 Vict. Vitens. ibid. p. 683. d. “ Appropinquabat jam fu- turus dies ilie calumniosus Kal. Febr. ab eodem statutus. Con- veniunt non solum universe Africe, verum etiam insularum multarum Episcopi,”’ &c. A catalogue of the bishops is given, p- 689. e. sqq. 304 Max. Bibl. Patrr. Tom. VIII. Pref. p. i. “ Iisdem [libris Vict. Vitens. de Pers. Vand.] inserta Professio fidei Catholicorum Episcoporum Africae, que ex Gennadio cap. xevii. probabilius creditur esse Eugenit Carthaginiensis Epis- copi—. *5 Ut supr. p. 292, n. 28, ¢ a7) the received text, is wholly inconceivable: and ad- mitting that 1 Joh. v. 7. was thus generally received, its universal prevalence in that text is only to be accounted for by supposing it to have existed in it from the beginning. 3. The testimony which the African church has borne on the subject before us, is not more strongly recommended by the universal consent, than_the immemorial tradition of the evidence, which attests the authenticity of the contested passage. Victor Vitensis and Fulgentius, Marcus Celedensis, St. Cy- prian, and Tertullian, were Africans?°°, and have re- ferred to the verse before us?°’, Of these witnesses, °° Cave. Cartophyl. Eccles. p. 99. “ Victor, gente Afer Vitensis in Africa Episcopus: An. 487.” Id. ibid. p. 104. “ Fulzentius Afer, ex Abbate, Ruspensis in Africa Episcopus : clar. circ. An. 508.” Id. ibid. p. 23. “ Cyprianus, Cartha- giniensis—ab An. 248. Episcopus Carthaginiensis.”” Id. ibid. p- 16. “ Tertullianus, Presbyter Carthaginiensis circa An. 192.” Bengel. Apparat. Crit. var. in 1 Joh. v. 7. § xiv. p. 461. ‘“ Expositio hec [vid. supr. p. 291. n. *°.] nomen auc- toris non habet adjectum; sed preter cetera, tenor versionis Latine, in dictis ibi citatis, ostendit, zn Africa olim eam esse scriptam. Et quidem scriptorem ejus esse Marcum Presby- terem Celedensem, argumento est illa epistola quam Hieronymus ad hune ipsum Marcum cire. A. C. 375 dedit, ubiait, “ De fide quam dignatus es scribere Sancto Cyrillo,” &c. 37 Vid, supr. p. 291. n. **3, sqq... It has been indeed disputed that Tertullian quotes any verse; and that St. Cyprian refers to any but 1 Joh. v. 8. Though the testimony of these early fathers must stand and fall together; as St. Cyprian obviously follows his master Tertullian: yet Tertullian’s testimony may stand by itself. I. It is evident the words “ qui tres unum sunt,” do not fall casually from him, in his controversy with Praxeas. (1.) They contain Praxeas’s doctrine expressed in ( 298 9 which follow each other at almost equal intervals, the first is referred to the age of Eugenius, the last his own language; ‘ Ipsum dicit Patrem descendisse in virgi- nem—ipsum esse Jesum Christum.” [Tertul. adv. Prax. cap. i.] This identity of Person between the Father and Son, Praxeas proved by Joh. x. 30. ‘ Ego et Pater unum sumus.”’ Hic ergo jam gradum volunt figere stulti, immo ceeci, Si enim dixisset unus swmus, potuisset adjuvare sententiam illo- rum.” [Id, ibid. cap. xxii.] The diversity between the Fa- ther and Word, he explained away by another expedient ; quid est enim dices Sermo nisi vor et sonus oris.’”? [Id. ibid. cap. vii.] Hence 1 Joh. v. 7. “ tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in ccelo, Pater Verbum et Spiritus, et hi tres unum sunt,” contains as just a description of Praxeas’s doctrine, as that heretick could have given. (2.) Of course, those words do not give as full an exposition of Tertullian’s notions, as this learned antient required, in answering Praxeas; “ Ego et Pater unum sumus.”’ Hic ergo jam gradum volunt figere stulti immo ceeci, qui non videant primo, ‘* Ego et Pater’’ duo- rum esse significationem ; dehinc in novissimo, ‘“ sumus,” non ex unius esse persona, quod pluraliter dictum est; tum quod “unum sumus,’? non unus sumus.” [Id. ib. cap. xxii.] He consequently explains his meaning by other adjuncts and epi- thets ; “ Filium non aliunde deduco quam de substantia Patris. {Id. ibid. cap. iv.] Czterum ubique teneo unam substantiam, in tribus coherentibus.’’ [Id. ibid. cap. xiie] In order to ex- press Tertullian’s notions fully, 1 Joh. v. 7. should stand, “ tres testimonium perhibent in celo, Pater, Filius, et Spiritus Sanc- tus; qua tres person@, una substaniza sunt.” This, by the way, is the true secret of his omitting the first clause of the verse ; and of Cyprian’s altering it in declaring, “ de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, et hi tres unum sunt.’’ For this exposition he certainly offers on the authority of Ter- tullian. II. In meddling at all with “ qui tres unum sunt,’ Tertullian must be supposed to introduce it as a quotation from Scripture; and taken in this light, it adds greater force and clearness to his reasoning, That he introduces it in this man- / ( 299 ) to that nearly of the Apostles. They thus form a traditionary chain, carrying up the testimony of the ner, is, I think, apparent from the following reasons: (1.) He quotes it precisely in the same manner as Joh. x. 30. “ ceeci non videant, primo, ‘‘ Ego et Pater” duorum esse significa- tionem; dehinc in novissimo ‘‘ sumus,’? non ex unius persona, quod pluraliter dictum est ; tum quod “ unum sumus’’ non unus sumus. Having, by these three reasons, wrested Joh. x. 30, from his adversaries, he applies it, thus interpreted, to the explanation of 1 Joh. v. 7. which was even more strongly on the side of his adversaries; “ tres unum sunt,” zon unus, quo- modo dictum est, “ego et Pater unum sumus.’”? The expia- natory phrase ‘ non unus,’ added to 1 Joh. v. 7. as well as Joh. x. 30, as clearly indicates a quotation, in the one case, as in the other. (2.) Considering the whole texture of Tertullian’s argument, it requires that ‘“ tres unum sunt” should be con- sidered a Scripture authority. As Praxeas built on Joh. xiv. 8. x. $0. Tertullian builds on Joh. xiii. 16. xvi. 7. for these texts clearly proved that personal diversity between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, which Praxeas denied; as they re- presented the Son as interceding wth the Father, and both as sending the Holy Ghost, and of course exhibited the three in different Persons. But it was necessary that Tertullian should not divide the substance, while he distinguished the Persons; and this it is which induced him to introduce Joh. xvi. 14. with 7. and to bind the whole doctrine together by 1 Joh. v. 7. as previously explained by Joh. x. 30: at the same time that he insists on the personal diversity of “ Pater et Filius.’’ His argument will now speak for itself; “ post Philippum et totam substantiam questionis istius (Joh. xiv. 8.), que in finem Evan- gelii perseverant in eodem genere sermonis, quo Pater et Filius in sua proprietate distinguuntur, Paracletum quoque a Patre se postulaturum, quum ascendisset ad Patrem, et missurum re- promittit (Joh. ib. 16. xvi. 7), et guidem alium, sed jam pre- misimus quomodo alium. Caterum “ de meo sumet”? inquit (ib. xvi. 14.) “ sicut ipse de Patris.”’? Ita connexus ‘ Patris in Filioy et ‘ Filii in Paracleto’ “ tres” efficit cohzrentes, alte- ( 300 ) African Church, until it loses itself in time imme- morial. rum ex altero, qui “ tres unum sunt” non unus (1 Joh. v. 7.) guomodo dictum est (John x. 30), ‘* ego et Pater unum sumus ;” ad substantiz unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem.’’ III. That St. Cyprian quotes Scripture is placed beyond con- troversion by his express declaration; scriptum est, * et hi tres unum sunt.”? And that this text is not 1 Joh. v. 8. is equally incontrovertible. (1.) The phrase used by St. Cy- prian is “‘ tres unum sunt,’’ not “ tres 7 unum sunt;” the latter is the phrase in 1 Joh. v. 8. the former that in 1 Joh. v. 7. (2.) This phrase, as found in 1 Joh. v. 8. when under- stood according to Tertullian’s interpretation, which St. Cy- prian holds fully in view, is nonsense or blasphemy. As the former of these fathers justly determines, that “ unus’’ in the masculine, opposed to “* unum’’ in the neuter, indicates a per- son as distinguished from a substance; this canon applied to “ et hi tres unum sunt,” in 1 John v. 8. makes “ the water and &lood’’ not only Persons, but of “ one’? substance with “ the Spirit !’? I forbear to point the inference. In following Ter- tullian, and referring to Scripture, St. Cyprian of course must be supposed to allude to 1 Joh. v. 7. when he declares; “ de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptwm est: et hi tres unum sunt.” The case of Cyprian being made out, that of Tertul- lian derives impregnable strength from it: admitting the former to have seen this verse, the only probability is, that it must have been seen by the latter: as it is absurd in the extreme to conceive it could have crept into the text in the period that intervenes between them, and have so generally prevailed as to be quoted by the whole African Church in the Council of Car- thage. IV. But one or two further considerations seem to set the matter out of dispute; and to demonstrate, that 1 Joh. v. 7. could not have been forged between the times of Tertullian and those of the Council of Carthage. In the term Son, lay the whole strength of the Catholick’s argument; in the term Word, lay that of the hereticks: Tertullian had particularly insisted on the former; and St. Cyprian had absolutely con- ( 301 ) 4. The testimony of the African Church, which possesses these strong recommendations, receives confirmation from the corroborating evidence of other churches, which were similarly circumstanced. Phebadius and Eucherius, the latter of whom had been translated from the Spanish to the Gallican Church, were members of the latter***; and both these churches had been exempt, not Jess than the Afri- can, from the effects of Dioclesian’s persecution 3°. Both those early fathers, Phcoebadius and Euche- rius, attest the authenticity of the contested passage : the testimony of the former is entitled to the greater respect, as he boldly withstood the authority of Ho- sius?"°, whose influence tended to extend the Arian nected “* Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus,”’ with “ hi tres unum sunt ;”? and yet the Council of Carthage, and the fathers of the African Church, thus uniformly quote 1 Joh. v. 7. “tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in ceelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spi- ritus Sanctus.’”? I must question the seriousness of any man who will persist in declaring, that he delieves the latter verse, which is directly in favour of the hereticks’ notions, and in op- position to the authority of Tertullian and Cyprian, could have been invented by any member of the African Church ; or that any authority could have gained it admission in this form into the received text of that Church, but that which it derived from the implicit conviction of its members, that it was written by St. John the Evangelist. *8 Cave. ub. supr. p. 56. Pheebadius Gallus, Agenni Epis- copus, clar. An. 359.” Id. ibid. p. 88. “ Eucherus senioi, ex Monacho Lerinensi, ab An. circ. 434. Lugdunensis Epis- copus.” 3 Vid. supr. p. 295. n. ™. #° Pheebad. contr. Ariann. sub. fin. Sed non sum nescius —Osii momen quasi quemdam in nos arietem temperari—. > ( 302 ) opinions in the Western world, at the very period in which he cited the contested passage. In addi- tion to these witnesses, we have, in the testimony of Maximus, the evidence of a person, who visited the African Church; and who there becoming’ ac- quainted with the disputed passage, wrote a tract for the purpose of employing it against the Ari- ans?"*, The testimony of these witnesses forms a valuable accession to that of the African Church. 5. We may appeal to the testimony of the Greek Church in confirmation of the African Churches. Sed hanc contra nos errigentibus machinam brevi admodum sermone respondeo. Non potest ejus authoritas przscribi,- quia aut nunc errat aut semper erravit,” &c. Max. Bibl. Patrr. Tom. LV. p. 305. c. 3" Vid. supr. 292. n. *. Bengel. Apparat. Crit. var. in h.l. p. 471. “ Auctorem Collocationis Lint. opusee. Athanas, Tom. III. p. 226.] hodie docent esse Maximum Confessorem : qui A. C. 640, monasterio suo, prope Constantinopolin relicto, in Africam iwit: An. 645. Romam venit: et An. 655 Constan- tinopolin retractus est. Unde colligas, Maximum dicti Jo- hannei, [1 Joh. v. 7.] antehac sibi ignoti, apud Afros fuisse potitum ; eaque re exultantem, ipsius dicti ornandi et produ- cendi causa Dialogum fecisse.—multa dicta ex Noy. Test. (ne de LXX interpr. dicam,) eo modo citat, qui Codzcibus Africanis — respondet: et hoc dictum ‘ tres unum sunt,” si ille ex scholio duntaxat aliquo, si ex Latinis monumentis id repetisset, si alle- ‘gatio ex ulla parte minorem firmitudinem haberet: quomodo — Athanasius, Greecus doctor, eo utens potuisset introduci? quo-— modo auctor totius Colloguii coronidem ac summam in e€0 posu~ isset? quomodo Johannes td dicere diceretur ? quomodo deni- que Arianus, diu reluctatus, cederet? Vix plus huic Dialogo tribui potest, quam tribuimus modo. Latinis Afrorum Codi- cibus notitiam dicti sine dubio debet ille auctor: in Grecis an deinceps repererit, considerent eruditi.’” ‘ ( 303 )j Not to insist at present on positive testimonies '**, *? To the testimony of Maximus, already cited, n. 3". we may, I believe, add that of Socrates, who not only asserts, that the Greek text of St. John’s epistle had undergone some cor- ruptions ; but appeals to the old copies of the original, on a reading of 1 Joh. iv. 3. and to the ancient interpreters, as assert- ing, that “‘ some had corrupted this Epistle; wishing to sever the humanity from the Godhead.” For having declared, Hist. Eccl. Lib. VII. cap. xxxii. p. 381. 1. 32. airiza yiv ilyéncas, Sts dy 7H xadcrmn "ledwe yiypunle tv tois waraiosc arliypeQass, O75 “ nay mina o amorver tov Incdy, ard TS OcB dx Eo”? ravrny yap Try Oiavoray Ex THY Maram avtiyezQwy Tepicidov, of yweitew awe TE Tis vixcromias arSpume Burdueros ty» Oxorx7a: he directly ob- serves to the purpose already specified: Ibid. 1. 36. a3 < Qi WaAraios EQILNVELS aUTG T2TO ET ETH ANIZYTOs as Teves ity pasisp- YROAYTES THY emisoAy, Aves amo tT Oce sav &vSpucroy Sérorres. cuvavianwtas OF arSpwrdrns T7% Oeoryts* x Sxéts ict dvo, ara iv. Valesius, n. *. in h. 1. observes; “ fallitur hic Socrates, et dum Nestorium reprehendit, in Eutychetis errorem dilabitur, qui post unitionem, non duas in Christo, sed unam duntaxat natu- ram esse existimabat.”? And yet | Joh. iv. 3. v. 7, 8. as read in the Latin Vulgate at this day, fully bears out the allegation af Socrates. 1. It reads in 1 Joh. iv. 3. “ omnis spiritus gué solvit Jesum, ex Deo non est ;” and thus exactly corresponds with war wredua 0 Aver toy Lnoty dad té Ocd Sx Eos, in Socrates ; in opposition to the Greek Vulgate, which reads, 3 wav aviiua 3 ur Soroyer Tov Incéy Xpisdv év cagut ZAmAuSora, ix re Oc® a iss: expressly with St. Polycarp, St. John’s disciple, vid. supr. p. 279. n.**7. 2. Inretaining “ tres sunt qui testimonium dant in ceelo, Pater, Verbum, et Sp. Sanctus, et hi tres unum sunt,”’ together with “ tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, spiritus, aqua, et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt ;’’ it substantiates the charge, brought against the Greek copies, by Socrates ; that they had undergone those mutilations which separated the humanity from the divinity; the latter being demonstrable only from vers. 7, which has been obliterated in the Greek. 3, As reading in vers. 8. “ tres unum sunt,’”? instead of of s;:7; eis ( 304 ) the disputed verse, though not supported by the éext of the original Greek, is clearly supported by its context. ‘The latter does not agree so well with itself, as it does with the testimony of the African Church. The grammatical structure, which is im- perfect in itself, directly recovers its original inte- grity, on being filled up with the passage which — is offered on the testimony of this witness*?. Thus | far the testimony of the Greek Church is plainly corroborative of that of the Western. 6. In fine, as Origen and Eusebius have both x6 & eio1, which occurs in the Vulgar Greek; and thus predi- cating “ unum sunt’’ of Spiritus et Sanguis,’? as well as ** Pater et Verbum,”’ it naturally justifies the inference of So- erates, respecting the divinity and humanity of Christ, which he represents as one, 15 2x/rt ciot duo, dAAd fv. ‘The allusion, in this passage, to “ et hi tres uum sunt,” 1 Joh.v. 7, 8..as these verses are read in the Latin Vulgate, is sufficiently obvious. It seems to justify a conjecture, that Socrates wrote « & x:fras,. tics duo, &Ara Eve But some officious scribe, ignorant of the variation in 1 Joh. v. 8. («is 76 %, in the Greek Vulgate, being rendered “ unum sunt,” in the Latin) turned a Seripture quo-_ tation into an heretical assertion, by changing é xeiras into dxér For an example of x:tras in the sense ascribed by S. Jerome to positum est, ut infr. p. 310. n. *. conf, ib. n. *, et supr. p. 93. n.', The reader may determine for himself, how far it is pro« bable, Socrates might have acquired so-much knowledge of the Latin version through M. Celedensis, or some other Latin in- terpreter. As he long survived P. Damasus, vid. Socrat. Hist. Eccles. Lib. VII. cap. ix. p. 354. under whom St, Jerome revi-_ sed the-Latin text of the Vulgate in which the above readings occur, he had sufficient acquaintance with the affairs of the Western Church to attain information on this subject; vid, Lib. II. capp. xxx. xxxi. p. 127. sqq. #3 Vid. supr. p. 260, conf. p. 254. ( 305 ) thought that one church becomes a sufficient votichet for one even of the sacred books of the Canon?*; and as Eusebius has borne the most unqualified evi- dence to the integrity and purity of the Church of _ Africa?"‘, we can have no just grounds for rejecting _ its testimony, on a single verse of Scripture. And when we consider the weight of the argument arising _ in favour of this verse from the internal evidence ; how forcibly the subject of it was pressed upon the attention of St. John; and how amply it is attested by that external evidence which is antecedent, though deficient in that which is subsequent, to the times of the apostles, our conviction must rise, that this pas- ' sage is authentick.. But when we add the very obvi- ous solution which this want of subsequent evidence | receives, from the probability that Eusebius sup- pressed this passage in the edition which he revised ; and which became the received text of the Church, which remained in subjection to the Arians, for the forty years that succeeded: I trust nothing further can be +: sig to convince any ingenuous mind, that 1 John v. 7. really proceeded from St. Jghn the Evangelist. _ I shall now venture to conclude, that the doctrinal | integrity of the Greek Vulgate is established, in the _ vindication of these passages. It has been my en- _ deavour to rest it upon its natural basis; the testi- | mony of the two Churches, in the eastern and west- | # Vid. supr. p. 236. n.*. Conf. Euseb. Lib. VE Gap. XV. | p. 291. 1.40. | _ 5 Vid. supr. ps 295. n. 3°, x ( 306 } ¢rn world, in whose keeping the sacred trust was — reposed. In two instances alone, which are of any _ moment, their testimony is found to vary; and in — these the evidence is not discovered to be contra- _ dictory, but defective: and-this, merely on one side. To direct us, however, in judging between the wit-_ nesses, the internal evidence at once reveals, that an errour lies on the side of that testimony which | is less full, as it is not consistent when regarded — alone. Hence, on confronting the witnesses, and _ correcting. the defective testimony by that which is more explicit, every objection to which the former was originally exposed, directly disappears, As this is a result which cannot be considered acci-_ dental, there seems to be no possible mode of ac- counting for it, but by supposing, that there was a period when the witnesses agreed in that testimony | which is more full and explicit. However inade-— quate therefore either of the witnesses may be con- sidered, when regarded separately; yet when their testimony is regarded comparatively, it is compe- tent to put us in possession of the truth, in all m= stances, which are of any importance. It is scarcely necessary any further to pielindl this discussion, by specifying the relative imperfec tion of those systems, to which the present scheme me is opposed. Those of Dr. Bentley and M. Gries- bach are fundamentally defective in sacrificing the! testimony of the Eastern Church for the immense. period, during which the Greek Vulgate has pre- vailed; that of M. Matthei is scarcely less excep> tionable, in rejecting the testimony of the Western ( 307 ) Church for the still greater period, during which it has been a witness and keeper of Holy Writ. - In fact, whoever saps the basis on which the inte- zrity of the inspired Word is properly sustained, must necessarily build on a foundation of sand. Whe- cher we build on the authority of Origen, or of the Antient Manuscripts, or that of the Versions of the Oriental or of the Western Church, all our docu- nents must be taken subject to the testimony of ‘radition. But it seems to bea strange perversion of reason, which will lead any man to give a pre- ‘erence to such vouchers over the proper witnesses of the inspired Word. For while the testimony of the former is subject to the same casualties as shat of the latter, in having the stream of tradition rendered turbid in its course; it is exposed to infi- aitely greater chances of corruption, from external sources. Particular Manuscripts, not to speak of she sacred writings, yet of the antient Fathers are jable to gross and wilful corruption at the first ; and Versions may be made, for aught we can deter- mine, from corrupt copies, or by unskilful hands. In these possible cases, we are possessed of no cer- tain criterion to arrive at the truth. But we must be assured, that the Sacred Writings were delivered in immaculate purity, to those churches, to whom they were committed; that they were guarded from corruption, by commanding that veneration, which as never been excited by any human work; and a they have been dispersed to a degree, which endered their universal corruption utterly impos- sible, and consequently not likely to be attempted. x2 ( 308 ) It seems therefore to savour of something worse than paradox, to proceed on the supposition, that the copies of Scripture are generally corrupted ; an that the ‘true reading may be acquired in ot and suspicious sources. SECTION V- THE integrity of the sacred canon being once laced beyond the reach of the objectour’s excep- ions; the main object of the present inquiry may 2 said to be already accomplished. The great end hich the inspired founders of the Church had in ew, in delivering to their successours a written strument, was to furnish them with an unerring ile of faith and manners. But it is not necessary | the perfection of this Instrument, that it should guarded, bya perpetual miracle, from the chances literal errours. The real practical advantages : any rule of faith or morals, must result from a ligious adherence to the precepts which it incul- tes. But it will not be disputed, that those pre- »pts might have been conveyed in an endless va- ety of manners by the inspired writers; and that e language in which they chose to deliver the pre- pts may be endlessly varied, while the doctrine is -eserved unchanged in its intention and substance. Vere an exact literal acquaintance with the phra- logy of the sacred text indispensably necessary Nei attainment of the important truths which it veals, it is obvious the inspired writings could ( 310 ) be beneficial to a very limited number of readers, and to those merely in the time of their perusal The impression which the facts and precepts of the divine work leave on thé mind, is indeed vivid and permanent; but when the volume is closed, few re tain an accurate remembrance of the language it which they are expressed: and no memory was evel adequate to the task of retailing the whole worl without many omissions and misrepresentations. The general and doctrinal integrity of the sacrel canon being preserved from corruption, there exist no obvious or necessary cause, that the text sho be preserved immaculate. How fully impresse with this conviction the inspired writers were, mu be directly apparent from the use which they hay made of the Septuagint, which was ever considere a free translation*. ‘Those who were best quali to inform us on this subject have expressly declar that the apostles have quoted from that versie ‘De Epiphan. de Menss. et Pondd. P, vi. Tom. II. p. 16) d. év 7) Exatosw Tiscapaxosa Yaapa exEbTO rws* *Aduval % xapiSt iopanr ie@Bila auwrr & tsi Epumvevduevcc. * Kupte a mpos ot, eioduscdy wx. Lpdoyes Tn Davi.” ogee dv wig ywAdy sigh of de ERdoumxovradvo repeal wparheDantipes wd, § dkhoens od Saereiby iromoay Tov sixor, nab apumvevoay. © Kup sigeba my Ory tigdusody mB, mporyEs TH Duyn Tg de4oews pee nat ope abhipdures 2 aotlas 6 aie Exisns: rotwy amd re Poaxus i qos Suolos avravy xara thy wpoodaxny waileys od Tar ipunvevlay uerucvors, OTL xAAGS Of Aaryot wposereanses els Opdaw OQeAcay TOV pEAAOTAY Sav cig thy Ta Oes ais ayerIos a vid. infr. nn. * et 3, ip > S, Hier. adv. Ruffin. Lib. Ul. cap. ix. Tom. IL p. 25 * Apostolici viri Seripturis utuntur Hebraicis; ipsos, Apostol! ( sll) Yet while they are no where observed to follow it, where it misrepresents the sense, they are fre- quently observed to quote it where it merely deserts the letter’. While the circumstance of their wri- ting in Greek clearly demonstrates the prevalence of that language among their early converts; it is observable, they made no provision, that the primi- ' tive church should possess a better translation of the Old Testament, than that of the Septuagint. It must be therefore inferred, from their practice, that they considered the literal errours of that tran- slation a matter of minor importance. et Evangelistas hoc fecisse perspicuum est. Dominus atque Salvator, ubicumque Veteris Scripture meminit, de Hebraicis voluminibus ponit exempla:—in ipsa cruce "nay rnd x oN Eli Eli lama azavtani: quod interpretatur; ‘ Deus meus, Deus meus, quare me dereliquisti:’ non ut a Septuaginta positum est, * Deus meus, Deus meus, respice in me, quare me dereliquisti :? et mulia his similia. Nec hoc dicimus, quod Septuaginta in- terpretes suggillemus, sed quod Apostolorum et Christi major sit auctoritas: et ubicumque Septuaginia ab Hebre@o non dis- cordant, thi Apostolos de interpretatione eorum sumpsisse exeme- pla, ubi vero discrepant, id posuisse in Greco, quod apud He- br@os didicerant.”? Videatur Id. Procem. in Lib. XV. Com, Is. Tom. IV. p. 174. 3 Vales. Epist. de Vers. Septuag. Interp. Sires Euseb. Hist. p. 791. 1. 88. Czterum ut ea que dixi, in compendium redigam, de versione LXX ita censeo. Primum quidem, uni- cam semper fuisse LXX Seniorum versionem—hac semper usos esse Juda@os Alexandrinos, et reliquos Hellenistas. A Judeis deinde Christianos eam accepisse. Negue enim Apostoli et ptimores illi Christiani alia Veteris Instrumenti interpretatione Greca sunt usi, quam ea que vulgo in Synagogis Judaorum Hellenistarum /egebatur.”? ( 312 ) We are not however at liberty to conclude, that the inspired writers abstained from revismg the Greek version of the Jewish Scriptures, because’ | they considered a purer text of no importance to the early converts. It is rather implied in their prac- tice, that they considered the advantages resulting — from a purer text, would not be compensated by the inconveniences which would arise from disturb- ing asettled state of affairs. The authority of the Greek version was already acknowledged by mul- | titudes of the Gentile proselytes to Judaism; and — through the instrumentality of it; numbers might — be led to a knowledge of christianity, who would be so far from accepting a new version from the hands al of the apostles, that they rejected the notion of their divine commission. On these grounds, I will not say it was politick, but I helen it was agreeable — to the principles of the apostles, who never gave unnecessary offence, to retain the received text, as read in the synagogue. And on these grounds, I conceive we may meet the advocates for a Cor- rected T'ext or Improved Version of the New Tes- tament, in defending the Received Text.or Vulgar edition. Admitting that we were-agreed on the discovery of such a text, which, for my own part, I reject as an idle chimera; the general reception — of the Vulgar Text and Authorised Version, and the — existing prospect of its extensive diffusion, would still render it a question, whether a change would not be for the worse, instead of the better. And in favour of these prejudices, we may plead a very antient prescription. On the first endeavour to ( 313 ) impose a new version on the Latin Church, similar apprehensions were felt, and like discontent was manifested by its members‘. Though on these grounds the Greek Vulgate would admit of a fair defence, I am prepared to dis- pute its claims to a preference over every text and edition, on. different principles. It challenges the testimony of tradition in its favour, for full eleven hundred years, even by the concession of its oppo- nents’; and unless I am altogether wrong in my _ealculations, that period may be demonstrably ex- tended to full fourteen hundred®. The inferences flowing from these circumstances have been already made ; and if any force be allowed to what I have advanced, it must be allowed at the least,—That this text is of the best edition, and that it is free from any considerable corruption in the general te- nour of the text, and in the parts affecting any point of doctrine. With respect to the verbal integrity of the text, I am far from asserting that I conceive the Greek Vulgate immaculate. On the contrary, I believe it may be inferred, in the strictest consistency with what has been hitherto advanced, that the Byzan- . * S. August. ad Hier. Epist. rxx1. Tom. II. col. 161. ‘ Ego sane te mallem Grecas potius canonicas nobis interpretare scrip- turas, gue Septuaginta interpretum auctoritate perhibentur. Perdurum enim erit, si tua interpretatio per multas ecclesias ceeperit lectitari, guod a Grecis ecclesiis Latine ecclesia dissa« nabunt, &c.”? Conf. supr. p, 119. n. "8 § Vid. supr. p. 126. n. *°, ® Vid, supr. pp. 71. 121, ( 314 ) tine text may possess verbal errours, while the Egyptian and Palestine editions preserve the ge- nuine reading. As these different texts underwent the revisal of separate hands; it is possible that the care which was employed in removing an imaginary defect, might have created a positive errour; and that the errour which thus arose might have been propagated through all the copies which have de- scended from the same edition. 1 here only enter my protest against the inference, that these errours could have extended to important points; or that — the edition in which they abounded could have pre- vailed for more than a limited period, and during the operation of some powerful cause, against the received text, which generally prevailed in the christian world, as published by the apostles. On this possibility we may fairly ground an in- quiry into the verbal integrity of the sacred canon, And the undertaking affords additional inducements to invite investigation, as it is not only curious in itself, but promises the most favourable result to the reputation of the Greek Vulgate. In the course of this inquiry, I am wholly deceived, or it may be shewn, that the principles on which the Vulgar Text ~ has been judged, are wholly fallacious; and that there are criteria by which we can not only esta-~ blish the relative purity of that text, and evince the imperfections of other editions; but trace the cor- ruptions of the latter to the very source in which they have originated. I. The most formidable objections to which the credit of the Greek Vulgate is exposed, arise from the ¢ a } complicated apparatus of M. Griesbach. - Some idea of the manner in which he proceeded in forming his Corrected Text, may be collected from his critical description of those manuscripts which he denomi- nates Codd. L, 17. ‘The principles of his criticism are reducible to two canons, which are laid down in his description of the latter manuscript’. In judging between different readings, he decides ; that attention must be paid, 1. to the internal marks of authenticity ; 2. to the consent of the oldest and best witnesses, con- sisting of manuscripts, versions, and fathers; especi- ally if they are of different kinds of text, or follow _ different recensions*. With respect to the internal evidence, he makes it depend upon various circumstances; to determine _ which he lays down a variety of rules, applicable to most possible cases?. In estimating the external. evidence, he considers the Alexandrine and Western editions antient and separate witnesses. Of the fathers and versions which he principally quotes, he joins in alliance with the Alexandrine text Origen and the Coptick version '°; or, by their joint or sepa- 7 Griesb. Symb. Critt. Tom. I. p. xxviii, sqq. Tom. II. p- 87. sqq- q 8 Id. ibid. Tom. II. p. 90. n. *. * In judicandis lectionibus ~ spectatur, (1) znterna earum bonitas, que pluribus rebus cer- nitur: (2) testium (codicum, versionum, patrum) antiqguorum et Lonorum consensus, presertim si e diversis familiis orti sint, diversasque recensiones texlus sequantur.”? Conf. Proleg. N. T. p- Ixxix. § e. 9 Id. Pref. in Nov. Test. Sect. III. p. lix. sqq. © Id. Symbb. Critt. Tom. I. p. cxl. Copta [versio] tam presse sequitur vestigia tum Origenis tum cognatorum cum hoe codicum, ut meridiana luce clarius appareat, posse omnino ex ( 316 ) rate authority, determines those readings which he deems Alexandrine". ‘To these witnesses he unites’ other vouchers, whenever he finds them coincident ; combining the testimony of Clement, Eusebius, Athanasius, Basil, and Cyril, with that of Origen ” ; and strengthening the evidence of the Coptick by that of the Vulgate and Syriack version’. With the Western text he, of course, endeavours to unite the testimony of the Western fathers; combining, hac translatione judicium fieri, non solum de indole universa sed de singulorum etiam locorum lectionibus exemplaris istius, quod interpres in vertendis sacris libris usurpavit,”’ &c. Conf. Proleg. N. T. p. Ixxviil. c. ** Td. ibid. p. cviii. ‘ Lectiones codici nostro [L.] cum uno alterove Alexandrino communes pro lectionibus Alexandrine recensionis indubie sunt habendz.’’ Id. ibid. p.cxxix, Inter omnes quotquot supersunt Evangeliorum codices nullus propin- quiore affinitate cwn L et Origine conjunctus est Codice C— Sed vix unquam C et L in lectione a textu vulgari diversa, que non sit nullius plane momenti conveniunt, guin Origines ultro comitem tis sese adjungat. Que observatio, memoratu longe dignissima, firmissimum presidium est ¢heori@, quam tuemur, de recensione Alexandrina, et de textus, (quem hi codices, con- junctim spectati exhibent,) antiquitate, patria, et prestantia.”’ » Td. ibid. p. cxxxiiil. “ Vicimus igitur, Codices C et L— plenos esse Alexandrinarum lectionum vetustissimarum, edsdem- que, ubi a vulgari textu ita discedunt ut inter se consentiant, semper, paucissimis forte locis exceptis, lectiones exhibere easdem, quas Origines ex suo exemplari excitavit.—Quos in Evangeliis perpetuos fere habuit [Cod. C] comites, (nempe Originem, Clementem, Eusebium, Athanasium, Cyrillum, et in- terpretem Coptum, nec non /Ethiopum et Armenum) ad eorundem in Epistolis quoque societatem, tantum non semper applicat. Itaque in his etiam libris textus ejus Alexandrinus est et vetustus.”? 3 Vid, Symbb. Critt. ib. p. Ixxx. sqq. ( Se. as far as is possible, the evidence of Tertullian and Cyprian, with that of the Latin translation’. To those readings, which are supported by the greatest weight of evidence, he necessarily gives the prefer- ence. But he attaches very different degrees of importance to his different witnesses: according to the following scale of gradations’’. 1. The testi- mony of both recensions must be received in sub- jection to the internal marks of perfection or errour. 2. A reading which, when internally regarded, is apparently good, is admissible on the single testi- mony of either the Western or Alexandrine recen- sion, in opposition to that of the Byzantine. 3.The authority of the Alexandrine is preferable to that of the Western, as it is less generally corrupted; but the conspiring testimony of these witnesses is of the greatest weight, in recommending a peculiar reading. The main stay of this complicated system, which is intended to form an alliance between the Alexan- drine and Western texts, in order to outweigh the ™ Td, ibid. pp. cxvili. cxix. *S Tb. ibid. Tom. II. p. 624. ‘ Ex quibus omnibus efficitur, (1)—in judicandis lectionibus alterutri recensioni peculiaribus sententiam ferendam esse secundum interna bonitatis lectionis cujusque criteria: (2) lectionem in se spectatam bonam ac pro- babilem—przferendam esse lectioni vulgarium—librorum, si alterutrius recensionis, sive Alexandrine, sive Occidentalis ei patrocinetur: (3) majorent tamen esse.—Alexandrine, utpote minus interpolate, auctoritatem, quam Occidentalis—. Quanti vero momenti nobis esse videatur wtriusque recensionis consen- tiens testimonium, sepius diximus.” Conf. pp. 143, 144, 145. Proleg. N. T. p. Ixxix. sqq. ( 318 ) authority of the text of Byzantium, isrested on the supposition, that both the former are antient and separate witnesses **. But this is a supposition which is certainly founded in errour With respect to the antiquity of those editions, it remains to be proved, that it is prior to the times of either of those persons of the name of Eusebius, who published the Alexandrine or Palestine text, and revised the West= ern version. And the intercourse which St. Euse- bius and St. Jerome maintained with the East'7, renders it wholly inadmissible, that their versions should be considered separate witnesses from the Alexandrine or Palestine. 'Their known predilec- tion for Origen’’, leaves their testimony, when quoted as separate authority for the same text, entitled to something less than respect. Not to in- sist on later intermixtures of the Eastern and West- ern texts, which are antecedent to the existence of almost every manuscript with which we are ac- quainted’®; we need not pass those concessions, which the force of truth has extorted from our op- ponents, for a proof that these texts are inextricably confused, and blended together *?. * Vid. supr. p. 315. n. & *? Vid.supr. p. 54. n.*7. 221. n. 7% 83. nm © ef 7% ™ Vid. supr. p. 144. n. *7. 137.0.” 172onR, =" ee 79 Vid. supr. p. 14. sqq. comp. p. 22. n. *. * Griesb. Symbb. Critt. Tom. I. p. ¢xxviit. Ex his mani- festum jam est—nullum superesse Codicem, qui ubique unam atque eandem recensionem ita exprimat, ut lectiones ex altis recene stonibus admixtas habeat nullas, trium quos inter se compara- ‘vimus Codicum exemplo constare potest. Nonnunquam enim Origines et D conspirant, dissentiente Codice L; itemque D ( 319 ) Admitting any force to exist in the foregoing re- marks, it is still a point in dispute, that the Palestine or Western text is antecedent to the text of Byzan- tium. Ifall that has been hitherto advanced be not fundamentally erroneous, neither of those texts can be antedated to the fourth century; at which period the last-mentioned text demonstrably existed**. A priority may be indeed claimed for the Alexandrine or Palestine text, on account of its alliance to Ori- gen’s writings. But not to insist on the possibility of this text having been interpolated from his wri- tings; the inconstant readings of that early father renders this plea at best inconclusive ; as it evinces the antiquity of the Byzantine text, by the same proof that it establishes that of the Alexandrine. | Such appear to be the fundamental errours in M. Griesbach’s system; which have spread un- soundness through his whole superstructure. But objections do not apply more forcibly to the plan on which he has’built, than to the materials which he has employed in erecting his structure. We find neither solidity nor consistence in the different parts of his system. His theory, which is founded on an assumption of the existence of an Alexandrine and Western recension, is borne out by the coincidence of those manuscripts, which he considers antient, with the quotations of Origen. But we have only to take his own account of the state in which he et L interdum concinnunt, refragrante Origene.’? Conf. pp. eix. cxi. Proleg. N. T. p. Ixxviii. b. ** Vid. supr. pp. 25. 70. 130. &c. ** Vid. supr. p. 119. conf. pp. 70, 71. ( 320 ) fmds the best part of his materials, in order t6 dis cover the extreme insecurity of the fabrick, which he has buttressed with props so unsound, and raised on so hollow a foundation. . With respect to the testimony of Origen, which is the basis of his system; he admits sufficient for us to see, that when strict verbal accuracy is sought, it is not entitled to the smallest attention. According to M. Griesbach’s voluntary concessions, his works must have gone through a course of progressive deterioration, which must leave us ata distance infi- nitely more remote from a knowledge of the pris= tine state of his text, than of that of the inspired writings. It appears, in the first place, that no re- liance can be placed on the printed editions of his works, as retaining his text; and as little on the fidelity of his different transcribers¥. Admitting his testimony subject to these errours, it is further conceded, that no dependence can be safely rested on his accuracy of quotation; as he constantly de- serts his written authorities**. And supposing that we have miraculously escaped an errour in pursu- ing a reading through these chances; it is farther *3 Griesb. Symbb. Critt. Tom. I. p. cix. “ Zbrari etiam qui Origenis opera transcribendo propagarunt, et editores qui typis excudt ea curarunt, sepenumero justo negligentiores fuerunt in describendis aut recensendis locis e S. S. citatis, eosque e Codi- cibus junior ibus aut editionibus bibliorum Grecorum, ‘quibus adsueti ipsi erant, interpolar unt.’ *+ Id. ibid. p. viii. “ tenendum est—non ubique satis certo nobis constare, quid in suo exemplari legerit Origenes ; nam nox solum paullo iiberius interdum oracula S. §. ezcitavit, pallulum immutato uno et altero yocabulo, aut constructionis ordine,” &€. — Pl r 1 oy ( 321) ~ granted, that there is no security in depending on the very copies which he used, as they too were suf- ficiently often corrupted *’. With regard to the character of those Manu- scripts, on which our critick chiefly depends, it finally proves to be the case, that they do not jus- tify his speaking of them in terms more respectful. It does not appear, that in the course of his inqui- ries, he discovered one which preserved either of his favourite recensions, unless in a state of corrup- tion **. In numberless instances he demonstrates their defects, and traces the errour to its origin*’. Nay, in one sweeping clause, he demolishes their authority, by openly’ proclaiming, even of. those which he holds in the highest repute, that they are fouled, in every page, with corruptions from mar- 25 Id. ibid. “ tenendum est, exemplar Origenis, utut prestan- ~ tissimum, et alii nulli secundum, zon tamen ab omni omnino labe immune fuisse ; fieri igitur potuisse, ut in nostro codice [L] conservaretur prisca et nativa lectio—ubz Origenis exemplar in- terpolatum jam esset.’? Conf. p. cxxXxil. *© Vid. supr. p. 318. n. *°. *7 Griesb, ibid. p. cvi. ‘ Certe exemplari usus est, [libra- rius qui Cod. L. scripsit], in cujus margine a manu recentiori annotate erant lectiones varie, e junioribus libris decerpte, quas cum librarius noster correctiones esse autumaret, passim pretulit eas antiquis et genuinis lectionibus, que in archetypi sui textu primitus exstabant. Atgue sic irrepsere in codicem nostrum lectiones nonnulle sed perpauce juniores nullius pretii.’? Conf. p. 96. If the point were worth disputing in the present place, the assertion might be reversed, and the contrary con- elusion to what is here assumed as true, might be just as eagily r ( 322 ) ginal scholia, and from the: agri ne cs me. uting antient fathers * iy sas With respect to the tebdietona of ¥oinoicaty: we find as little reason to repose a greater degree of confidence in them, than on the authority of parti+ cular Manuscripts. The Coptick and Sahidick, the later Syriack and Italick**, cannot be accounted antient or separate witnesses. » As these versions are — divided by the Eusebian sections **, they»possess:ins ' ternal evidence of having in some measure'descend+ ed from the Palestine edition. Anagreement be+ tween such witnesses, may thus furnish evidence in — favour of the reading of Eusebius’s text, but none whatever of the text of the Apostles and Evanges lists. With respect to the Persick and Arabick?*; b 7 *8 Griesb. Pref. in Nov. Test. Sect. II. p.l. “ Caeterum © nullius codicis vitia de consulto me celasse aut -dissinmilasse, — satis inde patet quod innumeros gravissimosque errorés, in iis commissos codicibus, guos ceteroqui magni facio, velut B C D L 1 33 124 157, &c. ingenue fifa. Conf. Sect. Il. p- Ixiv. 9 In the present instance I would be bnderetaad to mean that edition of the Old Italick, which was revised by St. Euse- bius Vercellensis, and through his influence generally adopted in the Latin Church, between the times of Dioclesian’s perse- — cution, and the reception of a new revisal, made by St. i Jerome.. So Adler, de Verss. Syriace. Lib. TH. p. 50. Idem: Thomas Evangelia [Vers. Syr. Philox.] in capitula vel settiones distri=— buit, et pericopas diebus festis recitandas constituit.”* Conf. supr. p. 82. n. &. p. 29. n. °° ~=Woid. Prolegg. — — Fragmentt. p. 140. * No one, it is presumed, will elak a Ligier antiquity * these versions, than the age of Constantine, when Eusebius re- ( 923 ) they follow the fate of the same edition. Of these versions, however, as well as of the Gothick?, vised the Scripture. Whether we conceive them made in that age, or at a subsequent period, we can easily account for their affinity to the Palestine edition, by making due allowances for the influence of Eusebius’s text, as authorised by Constantine; vid. supr. p. 26. n. “*. conf. p. 34. n.°. It is certain, that this pious prince took the Christians in Persia under his protection, and propagated the Gospel more extensively in Arabia; Euseb. Vit. Const. Lib. IV. cap. viii. p. 631. 1.2. av9oudvo¢ yéror mopar a) Tlepoav yéves mwAnSivery Tas Te Oc® Burnciac, Awks ve pevpicevdpsg Taig Xpis® woiuvars tvayerdcecdas, yatewv iat rn retov axon, o1c TiS nowos Tov KmovTayd undivov Tar navTadlda thy Tay amdvrwy tiohye mpovorav. Socrat. Hist, Eccl. Lib. 1. cap. xix. p. 49.1. 31. wos By pvnpoverréon x) Saws teh vav nopav rs Raciréws [Koveavrive] & Xpisiawowos emAraldvelo’ rnvneire yag “lwWav re rév ivorégw 9 "IRnewv Ta tn, meds To xpicvaevilew Adu Bave Thy apxnve Conf. Euseb. Vit. Const. Lib. I. cap. viii. p. 502. 1. 20. Lib. IV. cap. 1. p. 654. 1. 15—21. It is equally certain, that, as this prince was ambitious to diffuse the knowledge of revelation, and mul- tiply copies of the Scripture, (Euseb. ib. Lib. I. cap. viii. p. 502. i, 26. Lib. III. cap. i. p. 576. 1. 17.) the Gospel was read in Arabia in the reign of his successour, Constantius. Theophi- lus, who was deputed by this prince on a mission to that coun- try, and founded three churches in it, brought back this infor- mation, on his return to the Emperour; Philostorg. Hist. Eccl. Lib. IIL § 5 p. 488. |. 17. ed. Read. Cant. 1720. xexeSev [@cdprros] eis. Hy kAAHY ap ixero "Tdxhv [rv peEyaany *AgaPicer 1, 27.], %) wonrd vii» rag’ adrols du edayiis Opuptwy emavwpIaraTo. ya nadeCouevs ray edalyedimay dvayrwspdtav emoislo ry GHPOMoW, x. Fe Es As the Goths embraced Christianity through motives of policy, to conciliate the Emperour Valens, who was addicted to Arianism, they adopted the faith with the errours of that heresy; Conf. Socrat. Hist. Eccl. Lib. IV. cap. i. p. 213. 1. 29. cap. XXXiii. p. 256. 1.1. sqq. At the early period when this Emperour reigned, the Gothick version was made; Id. ibid. ¥2 ( 32 ) Saxon*#, and Slavonick *+, the testimony of which p- 256. 1. 8. tore 38 9 “OTAQIAas & rev TérSuv tmicnomos, rpeuparre EDsdpe Tordinds ras Oclas Teapas cis trav Lorwy peraBaddy TBs BagBdexs pavddvew ra Sele rdyice magacxvace. But as this translation was made during the period when the Church was under the dominion of the Arians, and by a person who propa- gated the errours of those hereticks among the Northera ‘tribes, it was obviously accommodated to the text revised by © Eusebius. We thus easily account for the affinity discoverable between the Gothick Version and the Palestine text, or, as M. Po Griesbach terms it, the Alexandrine Recension. It is worthy — of remark, that at this period St. Athanasius was alive, who — revised Eusebius’s text under the Emperour Censtans; vid. supr. p. 131. sqq. Socrat. ibid. cap. i, p. 214. 1. 19. "OYaans 3: *Apemvss addnoas TOoaiesrevos, Oewa xara tiv pn Toadre Qeovdrluy tgyaouro, ws meoiuy & ris isopies OnAdoer Adyos. mala OH Tov xXpovoy Tove, rhs ply iv “Poun sxurAnolas mpoeriues AsBépiac éy St ra Aaskavdeelx, ris piv Guoscis wisews, "ASaraoios* ris Ob “Apia Bibs ASx106 N 33 The testimony of the Gothick version big disposed of, we have nothing to apprehend from the Anglo-Saxon or Sla- vonick. What influence the Gothick or Latin Vulgate may have had on the former of these last-mentioned versions, I am unable to determine; the destruction of the sacred books, as far westward as Britain, and the dispersion and influence of Evusebius’s edition, as authorised by the Emperour Constantine, will sufficiently account for any affinity this version may possess to the Palestine edition; vid. supr. p. 27. n.**, The British Churches are certainly numbered among those who are men- tioned in the Epistle of Constantine, as having concurred in the decision of the Council of Nice, respecting the time of keeping Easter; Epist. ap. Euseb. Vit. Constant. Lib, III. cap. xix. p. 588.1. 37. ty’ eee 0 dv xara thy Tov Pwyslov wOA Te x} AQpinny, "Iraniav te amacay”Alyuwrov, Dmaviav, Daddies, Bpetlaviac, Aifiasy—pie «) cupPdnm Quadrleras youn, aopevns tito wy 4 Uperéga mpoodeentons cuvecscee The historian further observes, that copies of this Epistle were dispatched into all the provinces of ( 325 ) is unaccountably drawn into the decision of the pre- sent question, it must be observed, that if they are admitted as antient witnesses, they cannot be re- ceived as separate authorities. Descending from the testimony of Manuscripts and Versions to that of the primitive Fathers, we find no more reason to admit their voice, as defini- tive, against the tradition of the Church and the authority of the Greek Vulgate. The testimony of Eusebius, Athanasius, Basil, and Cyril, cannot reckon as the evidence of antient or separate wit- nesses**; their concurrence proves no more than is proved by the coincidence of the Coptick and Phi- Joxonian version; that this conformity is derived _ the Empire; Ibid. cap. xx. p. 589. 1. 28. ravens Bacireds dricodts igoduaptcay yeaPay iD Exasns Emapyias Ciemiumero tomleilecSas Tig alte Davies To xaSapwtaroy x) Tis weos TO Seiov iciac, magtywy xoig eruyaveer. As he addressed an Epistle to Eusebius on the subject of keeping Easter; he at the same time enjoined him to prepare copies of the Scripture ; Euseb. ib. Lib. IV. cap. xxiv. p. 644. 1. 29. 6 oO: tiv ixxdAnciav TB OcB wewpovonytrosy moi xalacxevts Scomvevsay Aoyiwy cis Huetegov modcwmoy EneliSe +3 yetupma® arrd oy x) wegi tHs aywlarns +8 Tacye | degins. |. # This Version, according to M. Griesbach, follows the By- | -zantine text, instead of the Alexandrine; Prolegomm. in Nov. Test. Sect. IIL. p. lxxv.— hee recensio, guam Coustantinopo- | Gitanam hinc nominare licebit, in Patriarchata Coastantinopoli- | tano potissimum propagata ac per librarios innumeros deinceps _ Tonge lateque disseminata, et in Slavonicam etiam Versionem (cujus tamen codices ipsi inter se haud raro dissentiunt,) | transfusa.” : | 35 On this subject I shall have an opportunity of speaking at | Jarge hereafter. | | ( 326 ) from the text of Eusebius. The concurrence of Clement and Origen in the Hast, with Tertullian and Cyprian in the West, may be conceived enti- tled to greater attention**. But, im the first place, the very existence of such a coincidence of testi- mony, must be disputed #7. And granting that it exists in some cases, it is still a point to be proved, that it at all identifies the Scripture text used by those antient fathers. The works of those early writers lie under the positive imputation of being corrupted*, The’ co- 3° Griesb. Symbb. Critt. Tom. I. p. exviii. * Hine enim colligimus, plerasque lectiones Codicis D—extitisse jam in in illis libris Grecis, e quibus conficta est Versio Latina Vetus, qua usi sunt Tertullianys, Cyprianus, aliique.—recte etiam pro antiquissima eam a nobis haberi, cum eandem in Tertullian: ob Cypriani allegationibus jam inveniamus, Sed altera Recensio, quam proper perpetuum patribus Alexandrinis et cum versi- onibus in Agypto confictis Alexandrinam appellamus aque wetusta est, utpote que Clementis jam et Origenis @v0 exe stitzt.”” : 3? T subjoin a few examples of remarkable texts, in which Origen differs from Clement, and Cyprian from Tertullian, Mat. v. 48, & warkp & ey ‘ois bec den Clem. & werip 6 Baris. Vat. Orig. Ib. x. 39. evgnaet airiy. Vulg. Orig. cwoet adtny. 33. Clem. Luc. xii. 9. tvdmoy tov alyéaov. Vulg, Origy Eumpoosey riav afyérwy. Cant. Clem. Mat. xxv. 41. 7d HroWfcem ouévoy 7 dixBeaw Vulg. preparatum diabo lo. & Frolaacey 5 marine pe TY Oa Gerv Cant. quem paravit pater meus bla Cypr. Gal. i, 9. alycros 2 Sead, edaltyeniOnlas wag 0. Vulgs angelus de ccelo aliud adnunciet preterquam. Cypr. afyeros Beard edalyenionla Alex. angelus ex ccelo aliter evangelizaverit, Teri. a 8 The monks of Palestine brought this charge against those who took a part in the Nestorian and Eutychian controversy, ( 327 ) pies of Cleiment and Origen were corrupted in their life time? ; the manuscripts from which Tertullian’s which arose very shortly after the death of St. Athanasius ; Epist. Monn. Palest. ap. Evagr. Hist. Eccl. Lib. HI. cap, XXXi. p- 363.1. 34. 19 8 Satna, 9 yap % Aoyes walepwy worAAauis WYOSEDKAOT ToAALs OF “Amworwaple Adyes, Adaveriw x Fenvogia a) Oavpalucres 9 ree we Tay emiypaQay avaleSeixacw? ote paAisce T3s ToAAys Tos Tas Was aoeBetas oQélegiCorlat. Ruffinus, about the same period, brings the same charge against the heterodox, ‘not only of the Greek but of the Latin Church; Rufin. de Adult. librorr. Orig. ‘ Verum ne cui forte minus ad creden- dum videantur idonea ea que ex libris Grecorum Scriptorum exempla protulimus, non pigebit etiam Latznis Scriptoribus talia guedam accidisse monstrare, et calumnias immensas, ex adulteratione librorum suorum, sanctis et probatissimis viris esse commotas. Et ne quid aperte credulitati desit, res que sint adhuc memorie nosire retexam, quo testimonii veritas neminem ‘Tateat.” Int. Operr. spectt. ad Orig, Tom. IV. p. 53. b. - % Thus much is apparent from the controversy between Rue finus and St. Jerome, on the adulteration of Origen’s works ; Rufin. de Adult. libror. Orig. p.50.sqq- S. Hier. Apolog. adv, Ruffin. Lib. II. capp. iv. v, p- 244. sqq. The charge of Ruffi- nus is expressed in the following words; Rufin. ib. p.. 50. b, “ Et quamvis guamplurimi sint ex vetertbus in quorum, libris hujuscemodi deprehenditur adulterium, paucorum tamen sufficit adhibere testimonia, ex quibus facilius quid etiam Origenis libris acciderit, agnoscatur.”? | After which he particularly spe- cifies Clement of Alexandria, and then quotes an Epistle of Origen, in which that early father utters the same complaint, of his works having been corrupted in his life time. St. Je- rome replies in the following terms, S. Hier. ib, cap. v. p. 246. 4 Pramissa falsatione ab hereticis Apostolorum, et uériusque Clementis, atque Dionysii, yenit ad Originem,”’ The merits of this part. of the controversy between Ruffinus and St. Je- rome, are summed up by the learned P. Huet, and decided in favour. of the former 5 Origen. Lib, IL. cap. ili, § x. ( 328) works have been printed are notoriously faulty4*; and the copies of Cyprian demonstrate their own. corruption, by their disagreement among them- selves, and their agreement with different texts and revisals of Scripture‘. - It is likewise indisputable, 4 Rigalt. de Tert. Praf. [p. ii] ‘ Tanti viri scripta legentibus, etiam haud mediocriter litteratis, occurrunt difficilia non pauca, sermonis et scripture. Nam sermonis quidem Afri- cani superbia, doctrinarum ferme omnium dote prestans, lec- tores sibi poscebat ad nutum attentissime sagaces. Posteaquam vero in longe alios incidit, mutart caepit a quibus non potuit capi: et spurias dictiones pro legitimis, adultere manus inverere- cundia sparsit. Scripture autem native ruina, auctoris verbis semel interceptis, ut obtrito corpore, sensum una quoque ipsunt et mentem profligavit. Sic pessimt correctores emendatissima perdidere.—Dira natio tam feede Septimii nostri libros, adeo quoque pridem vexavit, ut jam falsi vetustas longi temporis pra- scriptionem obstruat veritati. Quod si veterum librorum ap- pelles fidem, etzam veterum librorum fide falsissime lectiones adseruntur. Nam sunt et libri veteres depravatissime correcti neque ulla spes reducende unquam veritatis, nisi tam veteres nanciscamur, ut sint omni correctorum antiquitate vetus- tiores.”’ * Fell. not. in Cypr. Lib. Testim. p.17. “ Sperabam qui- dem ex largo hoc quod in tractatu isto habetur Scripturarum spicilegio, ad Versionis Latina que Hieronymianam precessit, restitutionem, gradum aliquem prestrui potuisse. Et certe si modo szbz ubique constaret Cypriani teatus, loca illa que a lec- tione vulgata discrepare deprehenduntur, pro Antique Versio- nis reliquits non immerito haberemus. Sed cum ea sit lectionum in MSS. codicibus verietas, ut plura simul occurrant quz a vul- gatis discrepent; et in his quid a Cypriano scriptum fuerit, codicibus stbi ipsis non respondentibus, minime constet: porro cum primorum seculorum patres, in S. Scripturis laudandis, diversimode se habeant; curam hanc ceu tantum non deploratam censemus, Flam, Nobilius, aliique viri eruditi, Tertulliani, Cys ( 329 ) that these fathers not only followed each other‘, adopting the arguments*? and quotations** of one priani, Hilarii, Ambrosii, Hieronymi, et Augustini lectiones Scripturarum, ex libris impressis affatim ingerunt; parum me- mores in codicibus MSS. rem aliter atque aliter passim se habere.”” . 4 The works of Tertullian opened a channel through which the peculiar texts, that were cited by Justin Martyr and St. Trenzxus, might be transmitted to St. Cyprian and other Latin writers. Tert. adv. Valentinn. cap. v. p. 248. ‘ Mihi autem cum archetypis erit limes principalium magistrorum, non cum adfectatis ducibus passivorum discipulorum. Nec undique dicemur ipsi nobis finxisse materias, quas tot jam viri sanctitate et prestantia insignes, nec solum nostri intecessores, sed ipso- rum heresiarcharum contemporales, znstructissimis voluminibus et prodiderunt et retuderunt : ut Justinus Philosophus et Martyr, ut Miltiades Ecclesiarum sophista, ut Ireng@us omnium doctri- narum curiosissimus explorator, ut Proculus noster, virginis ‘senectz, et christiane eloquentiz dignitas: guos in omni opere JSidei, quemadmodum in isto, optaverim assequi.”” 43 Thus, Is. Ixv. 2. “ I have spread out my hands all the day,’’ is applied to our Saviour on the cross, by Just. Mart. -Apol. p. 76.a. Tertul. adv. Jud. cap. xiii. p.105. S. Cypr. adv. Jud. cap. xx. p. 44. Again, Amos viii. 9. “ I will cause the sun to go down at noon,”’ is applied to our Lord’s passion, by S.Iren. adv. Her. Lib. IV. cap. xxxiii. p. 273. Tert. adv. Mare. Lib. 1V. cap. xlii. p. 450. S. Cypr. adv. Jud. cap. xxiii. p- 46. In the same manner Is. lvii. 1. “ the righteous perish- eth, and no man layeth it to heart,” is applied to the same subject, by Just. Mart. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 234.c.d. S. Iren. adv. Her. Lib. IV. cap. xxxiv. p. 276. Tert. adv. Marc. Lib. Ii. cap. xxii. p. 398. S. Cypr. adv, Jud. cap. xiv. p. 40. 4+ Instances constantly occur of Origen following Clement, and Cyprian following Tertullian in readings, which are found in no manuscript or version; Mat.x. 26. 0%» yap ist xexaAup- péror, 3 8x cmoxaruQlncerats 5 xpumtov 0 & ywInceras Vulo. bdes MpUBToV, DS Dertpwlncerar, BOF xexarvpptvor, 0 Sx amonwhuOInoerats ( 330 ) another; but that they quoted from ‘the hetérodox as well as the orthodox’. ‘They were thus also Clem. Orig. Mati vi. 33. 9 ratte mwéore mpooreSiceras dpive Vulo. nob wavra x... giteive Ta peyera, Ta inp duty wpooreanoerai’ x, aireire ra emspavia, % Ta ewiyem mwpos~ teShoclas vuiv. Clem. Orig. Euseb. 1 Thes. v.21. wdvrw dt Soxmaele” TO xaAdY nariyere Vulg. yiveode de Soxnpxor TeameCiras Ta pty amodoxiucCovres, 7d OF nardyv xouréroveec. Clem. Dddxipcor Limngnen rylveode, 9 ty Tlavaw Ndayny panes Tavrce Sox pagers TO woAov HUTENETED Orig. Mat. vi. 13. % “nA Blogveyens nds tis werpuoudy. Vulg. ne nos inducas in tentationem, id est, ne nos patiaris induci. Tert. et ne nos patiaris induci. Cypr. Joh. iii. 6. muta ist. Vulg. spiritus est, guia Deus spiritus est et ew Deo natus est. Tert. Cypr. 1 Cor. vi. 20. dokdoure oy vov @etv ty vi capers. Vulg. Glorificate et tollite Deum in corpore vestre. Fert. Glorificate et portate Deum in corpore vestro. Cypr. The two last readings are however found in some MSS. *S Origen expressly quotes from the Hebrew Gospel, decla- ring that he referred to it not as authority, but in illustration’ in Mat. Tom. III. p.671. ‘‘ Scriptum est in Evangelio quodam, quod dicitur secundum Hebreos: si tamen jlaals alicui reci- pere illud, non ad auctoritatem, sed ad manifestationem pro- posite questionis; ‘ Dixit? inquit, ‘ ad eum alter divitum: Magister,’’ &c. He thus not only quotes, but comments on texts of that Gospel, indiscriminately with those of the Scrip- ture; Com. in Joan. Tom. IV. p. 64. a. ta» OF mgocierat tis oh xed “EBpaies Evalyéasoy, eva avros & Lwrap Quowr §€ "Apts ence Be HEA waTnp KB TO “Arytoy Tvedue by paw TOW spo MB, x) coreveyne pe els 70 Geos 7d peya OuBup.’ imuopross mas phrnp XpirS ra dv +e Aoye yeyeunprevoy Tyeduce “Aysoy eivees Ouveras’ Tarra db T2370 & xarewoy Epinvedoas. x. 7-& Another example has been already given supr. p. 273. n.*’, Hence St. Epiphanius traces the reading of 1 Thes. v. 21. or Mat. xxv. 27. quoted supr. p. 329. n.*. to the heretick Apelles; S. Epiph. Har. xliv. p. 382. b. OvTws yag, Prow, EPn ra Evalyerin. * Tires Vouimos rpameCiro? which has been cited by a long succession of writers from Clee ‘ment te Chrysostome. Conf. Orig. Tom. I. p.912.b.1.0 «" + ( 932 ) likely to transmit from one to another erroneous quotations, originally adopted from sources not more pure than heretical revisals of Scripture*®, When a few of these readings were recommended by the successive adoption of different fathers, they were easily transferred from their comments to the margins of particular manuscripts, and were therice transplanted into the text from the margin#”. New *6 The orthodox, in reasoning against the hereticks, fre- quently derived their authorities from those Scriptures which were acknowledged by their opponents. S. Iren. adv. Her. Lib. JIT. cap. xii. p. 198. “ Unde et Marcion et qui ab eo sunt, ad intercidendas conversi sunt Scripturas, guasdam quidem in totum non cognoscentes, secundum Lucam autem Evange- lium, et Epistolas Pauli decurtantes, hec sola legitima esse dicunt, que ipsi minoraverunt. Nos autem etiam ex his, que adhuc apud eos custodiuntur, arguemus eos, in altero conscrip- tione. Conf. S. Epiphan. Her. xii. p. 310.b. An example of this mode of conducting the controversies maintained against the Sie has been already given from Tertullian; supr. p. 147. n. *. 47 The following appear to be readings which have demon- strably originated in this manner; Mat. x. 23. Qedyers sig viv zarne Vulg. Qevyere eis ray Eregay ugv Ex ravTns Siwxwouw duis, pee eis THY aAAny. Orig. 1. 33. 22. al. gene tis Thy &Any, tay Oc &Y TH earn ener tas Qevyele eis Thy arrny. Cant. Qevyers cls Thy ETEQaV, HV EV TH ETE OiwKwoly, addy Qevyele cis Thy BAAny Orig. alibi, Act. iv, 25. 6 da 5ouaTos Acid 7B grasdss cx sixan Vulg, 6 dv Tveuatos ayis dia souatos An Bid gasses oa simu Didym, Syr. Copt. 6 1& aalpos nudy dia mved- palos dyis cépares AzBid mendes oa cid. Vat. Alex. Laud. Syr. ps Jb. iv. 31. Azzy ray Adyor—peta mapfncias. Vulg. Audrey tov Adyov were magéncias mart ro Sérovh mseday. Tren. Cant. Laud. Ib. 32. 4 xagdie 4 2 bux pba. Vulg. a Kapdicce x, uxn pleey am Ty diangrois ev avTOIs BdEuion Cant, napa sn Luxn pray ( 332 ) revisals of Scripture were thus farmed, which were interpolated with the peculiar readings of scholiasts — and fathers**. Nor did this systematick corruption terminate here; but when new texts were thus formed, they became the standard by which the — later copies of the early writers were in succession corrected**. From such progression in errour, itis — x Sx Fv Xweismos ev adrois tis. Laud. Th. xv. 20. améyecSar— 5e iparose Vulg. amixeTai—té ai peTOs, % dow ay “7 Sdrwow Eavdois yiveoSa1, Erdpois un moive Iren. Cant. Sahid. The variations in these readings, or the embarrassment which they create in the sense, sufficiently declare them to be interpola- tions of explanatory glosses taken from the fathers. Similar examples of interpolations of the Latin Version have been given supr. pp. 146, 147. nn. * et *. p. 127.n.45. The passage re- ferred to in the last note, and inserted in the Verceli MS. after Mat. iii. 15. is traced by St. Epiphanius to the Hebrew Gospel. S. Epiph. Her. xxx. p. 138. b. 4 2 &pxn Te wap avtois Evale wire inet, Ore xe t-8. HAIE “Inods iBamricSn—x) evsus Tegle~ Aapale rov romov Pus weya. 4° The peculiar readings which have been pointed out in the Cambridge and Verceli MSS. supr. p. 127. n. *. p- 146. nn. 88 et ©, &c. sufficiently prove them to be revisals, which have been made in this manner. 42 The number of MSS. which we retain of St. Cyprian’s works, enables us to verify this assertion, particularly in his quotations; which occasionally conform to the three species of text which were published of the Latin Version. An antient MS. of his Book of Testimonies is preserved in the British Museum, Coton. Cal. A. xv. f. 41. I collated it in one-of the longest and most remarkable passages which S. Cyprian has quoted, Mat. xxv. 31—46, and which he has repeated three times in his writings. Lib. I. adv. Jud. p. 51. Lib. HI. Testi- monn. p. 59. De Operr. et Eleemm. p. 207. But while it differs considerably from the Brescia, Verceli, and Verona RISS, it agrees verbatim with the modern Vulgate. It can he ( 233 } evident that nothing but uncertainty can be the result, when we proceed to determine the antiquity of ay reading or text, by its consent with the pre- sent copies °° of the works of the early writers. In fine, when this system is pushed to its neces- ‘sary extent, it ends in establishing such paradoxes, as subvert, by their inconsistency, the principles of the system out of which they arise. On estimating the antiquity of any text, by its coincidence with the readings of particular fathers, whose works have undergone successive corruption; it necessarily happens, that when that text is most systematically corrupted, it possesses the best claims to be ac- counted antient. Such is the virtual concession which M. Griesbach is reduced to the necessity of therefore no matter of wonder, that Tertullian and Cyprian not only differ from themselves, but that they ocaasionally conform to different texts or recensions. *° Still more uncertain must be our ground when we pretend to determine the true readings of the primitive fathers from, antient translations; for these were certainly adapted to the received text of the countries in which they were made. We thus find, that they frequently differ from the originals. A few examples will illustrate this assertion. Mat. ix. 13. zaaéoas Siveles, § aAAM Gmaprwrss cis peravolar, Vulg. Barnab. vocare justos sed peccatores. Verc. Barn. Interpr. Rom. v. 14. iat wis ayagrnoarras. Orig. in eos qui non peccarunt. Vulg. Orig. Interp. Hence also we find the translation frequently contra- dicts itself, as it is rendered conformable to different texts ; Mat. xxv. 41. qui preparatus est diabolo. Gr. Vulg. Orig. bis. quem preparavit Deus diabolo. Orig. sepe. That the genuine reading of Mat. ix. 13, xxv. 4]. is retained in the Greek Vul- gate, has been already made evident from the context of the Italick Version, supr. p. 180. n. "°, p. 183. n, 1 ( 3% ) making, in explaining his system, He very freely admits, that neither of those texts on which his sys: tem is built, is consistent in itself'*; as we might — well conjecture, from the heterogeneous materials which enter into their composition. Nay more, he is forward to confess, that the manuscripts from which those antient texts were originally formed, . Were grievously corrupted**. Reasoning from his” own concessions, of course this corruption of the sa- cred icxt must have preceded the times of Clement ** Griesb. Symbb. Critt. Tom. I. p. xxviii. “ Scimus enim, omnes Recensiones variis vicissitudinibus domesticisque casibus obnoxias, et procedente tempore, muliis modis immutatas, aut 1 cum aliis recensionibus permixtas confusasque.”’? Id. Prole- gomm. in Nov. Test. Sect. III. p. Ixxviii. “ Nulla Recensio in codice ullo jam superstite veperitur iniaminata. Eo tem- poris intervallo, quod inter Recensionum origines et codicum — hodie extantium natales intercessit, singuli codices Recensio- ; num omnium multifariam fuere corrupti. Quilibet librarius in — apographo suo exarando sphalmata quedam commisit ; erepse- } runt e margine, vel aliunde nova interpramenta, glosse, addita~ menta ; negligens et festinans scriba nonnulla passim omisit; — alterius Recensionis lectiones illate sunt in alterius familie — libros.” Id. Symbb.. Critt. Tom. I. p. exxi. “ Hine nosmet — ipsi, quamquam utramque illam Recensionem [Alex. et Occi- — dent.] magni, ut par est, faciamus, tamen in nostra Nov. Test. — editione lectiones sexcentas Alexandrinas, et millenas Occiden- talis vel prorsus damnavimus, vel improbabiles saltim esse pro- nuntiavimus ; immo haud paucas lectiones in ates 0 Recen- sionis codicibus obvias repudiavimus.”” é °* Id. Symbb. Crité. Tom. I. p. exxi. “ Ultro tamen fatemur nullam Recensionem a nevis immunem esse, aut unguam Sitisses Nam nce Alexandrina neque Occidentalis ex autographio pro- est.?* fluxit, sed nip ex apographis passim interpolatis derivate i ( Se ) and Tertullian, which are his earliest vouchers, and must be necessarily referred to the age which directly succeeded to the apostolical®! After the concession of this point, it is difficult to discover what further objections remain to be made to this system. To me it appears, that the person w ould subvert M. Griesbach’s theory to the foundation, who would prove, that this conclusion necessarily followed from the principles on which it was found- ed. That the sacred text should have been thus ‘grossly corrupted at this primitive period, and yet have so far preserved its characteristick peculiari- ties to the present day, that we should be able to recover ary just notion of it, is a paradox so mon- strous, that the man who maintains it, may, | con- ceive, be left in unmolested enjoyment of his opinion, as not worth the pains-of convincing. Thus hearing the advocate of this system out, and reasoning merely from his own concessions, it is, I trust, apparent, that no reliance can be placed on it; as it rests on the credit of vouchers, who, by bia own confession, are grossly and systematically corrupted. In fact, it requires but a slight ex- ertion of sagacity to discover, that the theory of sacred criticism must be absolutely inverted in that °3 Id. Prolegg. in Nov. Test. Sect. III. p. Ixxiv. “ Poste- riorem hune textum, quem, post Clementem et Originem, Alex- andriniac /Egyptii potissimum adhibuerunt ac disseminarunt, non incommode Alexandrinum dixeris. -Alter inde a Tertul- Hani tempore ab Afris, Italis, Gallis’ aliisque occidentalibus usurpatus haud inepta ae nomine insigniri _po- suit.’ Conf. supr. p. 326. n. ( 336}. system, which supposes the sacred text to havé been grossly corrupted in two principal branches, in the age which succeeded the apostolical. As it is im- possible to proceed a step, in inquiries like the pre- sent, without reasoning from some assumed proba- bilities; itis difficult to conceive what can be deemed probable, if the direct contradictory of what is here taken as true, be not considered morally certain. Assuming it as a fundamental principle, that the — sacred text could not have been corrupted at a pe- riod thus early; the text, of course, which merits no better character, must be referred to that early pe- riod, in subversion of the first principles, from which — all our reasoning is deducible. It is vain to hang the authority of such a text on the testimony of an-— tient manuscripts, fathers, or versions, in violation of this fundamental principle. Until we have esta- blished the integrity of those vouchers, the principle on which we build must want stability. To take the consent of those witnesses as an evidence of their integrty, is to reason against the undisputed - fact of their having been corrupted by one another, — And to refer them, in consequence of this coinci- dence, to the primitive age of the church, is to act — in forgetfulness of an equally positive fact;—that since that early period, the sacred text has under-— gone revisals, in which it was not merely liable to interpolation, but positively acquired those peculi- arities, which are now taken as evidence of its an- tiquity**. We may be indeed told, that a critick, ** Vid. supr. p. 72. n. 37. p. 100. a. °. pp. 14-~—83, ( 337 ) who is moderately skilled in his art, well knows how to clear those obstacles**. But while ten lines of proof would be worth volumes of such modest asser= tions, it seems to be ratlicr inauspicious to the suc- cess of such undertakings, that they should com- mence, and proceed, and terminate, without any attention *° to the changes which the text has posi- tively undergone, since the time of its first publi- cation. II. Such appear to be the most striking objec- tions which lie against the plan proposed by M. Griesbach for restoring the corrupted integrity of the canonical Scripture. As his fundamental rule’, with which I am not in the least disposed to quarrel, is thus unapplied and inapplicable to his theory; it now remains that we should enquire, how far it _ may be accommodated to the principles of that, on which I have ventured to believe the integrity of the same text may be defended. 'To sucha mode of defence, we may give the preference, not only be- cause it is least exposed to the exceptions of the 5° Griesb. Symbb. Critt. Tom. I. p.cxx. ‘‘ Viri critice artis beneperiti ejusmodi maculas, quibus codices singuli polluti sunt nullo negotio abstergunt, comparatis inter se pluribus ejusdem Recensionis codicibus, versionibus, et patribus, ac adhibitis regulis criticis, qu interpolationes seriores et glossemata a lectionibus genuinis ac primitivis discernere docent.’’? Conf. Prolegg: in Nov. Test. p. Ixiv. sqq- *¢ Id. Prolegomm. in Nov. Test. Sect. JII. p. Ixxiv. ‘ Origa variarum textus Novi Test. Recensionum, deficientibus docu- mentis satis vetustis ac testimoniis, historice declarari nequit, nec hujus loci est, conjecturis defectum illum sarcire.”’ * Vid. supr. p. 315. n. *, Z ( 38) objectour, but as it affords as advantageous dina as can be easily chosen, for vindicating the Greek. Vulgate. Layne it therefore down as a principle aged upon, that the best witnesses of the integrity of the . sacred text, are those which are most antient, and which deliver a separate testimony ; the main point of enquiry consequently is, where such witnesses” may be discovered. After this difficulty is sur- mounted, an appeal must be made to their joint testimony, to decide the point in dispute, respecting _the relative purity of the Palestine and eee editions. The space to which our enquiries are limited, in~ seeking those antient and separate witnesses, is Hedéledtily bounded by that tract of country, in which we are infallibly assured the Gospel wal planted, and copies of the Scripture dispersed, at the earliest period. This consideration directly fixes our attention on the Syriack Church in the Fast, and the Latin in the West; as being wit- nesses possessing, above all others, the necessary requisites, of being antient and separate. Situated at nearly equal ee eae on each side of the Greek Church, which must be considered the natural wit-— ness of the sacred text, as speaking the language of the New Testament; those churches are of the most remote antiquity, as founded by the apostles. ; The versions which they used, whether made in the apostolical age, or not, are confessedly more antient than any with which we are acquainted. The antiquity of these vouchers, is, however, == oe ( 339 ) determinable for a definitive, and an immense pe- riod. The old Syriack version cannot be brought down lower than the fourth century, the Old Italick not lower than the third; as both translations are quoted by the writers who lived at these different periods’. ‘Though both versions underwent con- siderable alterations at this period, two revisals of the Latin version having been published, by St. Eu- sebius, and St. Jerome, and probably of the Syriack version also*?, by some unknown persons: it is probable, that both retained most of the charac- teristick peculiarities which distinguished them, when they were originally published. But this point will be placed beyond mere conjecture, b the consent of those versions with the Greek Vul- gate, when it is rendered apparent, that they were neither corrected by it, at that time, nor at any sub- sequent period. For assuming this to be the case, there can be no mode of accounting for their agree- ment among themselves, but by supposing them to preserve their conformity to the common source from whence they have respectively descended. The antiquity of these versions being not less remote than the fourth century, it follows, of course, that they must be separate witnesses ; as far, at least, as they are coincident with the Greek Vulgate. For let us assume, that they have been corrected by each ether; and either the original, or one of the translations, must be con- sidered the common source of their agreement. *° Vid. supr. p. 25. n. **. pp. 70, 71. * Vid. supr. p. 49. n. °%. p. 82. n. %, z2 ( 320 ) But that the Vulgar Greek, with which we are at. present concerned, could have been corrupted from either of those versions, is a supposition so utterly improbable, as not to deserve a moment’s consi- deration. The point before us consequently admits of no alternative, but that it must be the source of the agreement of the original and these translations ; admitting that they have had an immediate influ- ence on each other. The antiquity, however, of both versions, renders it wholly impossible that they could have been new-modelled by this text. According to the principles of our opponents, the vulgar text, or Byzantine edition, had scarcely an — existence in the fourth century”, when those ver- sions were generally received. It is therefore utterly impossible, that at that period it could be _ taken as the model, by which they were corrected ; unless indeed the point be conceded, which is the main object of this inquiry to evince, that the vulgar Greek is of the most remote antiquity. The fact, however, is, that so enlightened was that age, and so intimately are we acquainted with its history, that we can give a clear and consistent account of every considerable change, which the sacred text underwent, at the same period, Chris- — tianity then assumed a new form, under the Empe- — rour Constantine, in becoming the established reli- — gion. Under the auspices of this monarch, a new revisal of the sacred writings was published by Euse- © Vid. supr. p: 126. n. 4°. Conf, Griesb. Prolegomm. in Nov. Test. Sect. III. p. Ixxv. . ( se ) bius; tothe influence of which we must impute al- most every considerable change which the text underwent in the original or in translations™. The extension of Christianity about this period, added to the list of Versions, a Gothick and Ethiopick, if not an Armenian and Arabick, translation®*. Re- visals of the Old Italick and Syriack, undertaken in the same century, produced the Latin Vulgate and Jerusalem Syriack. ‘The agreement of these ver- sions with each other, and with the Greek ma- nuscripts, imported into the West from Palestine, and divided by the sections of Eusebius®, enables us very clearly to determine his edition, which was authorised, from the reign of Constantine to that of Theodosius’. As the Syriack and Italick pro- vinces were exposed to the same casualties °5 which destroyed the sacred books as far westward as Britain®*®; the versions which were generally re- ceived in those regions, most probably underwent some change at this period. But this change pro- * Vid. supr. p. 25. sqq. p. 322. sqq. @ Vid. supr. p. 48. n. 7. p. 322. sqq- *3 Griesb. Prolegomm. in Noy. Test. Sect. III. p. Ixxiv. Hic [textus Alexandrinus] cum Evangeliorum Codicibus C, L, 33, 102, 106, et (in postremis Matthei capitibus, Marco, Luca, et Joanne) Vaticano B,' versionibus Coptica, thiopica, Armenica, Syra Philoxeniana, et allegationibus Eusebi, &c.— concinere solet.”” _ + Vid. supT. Pp» 29..n. #9.) pojh52..n. * °5 Such is Eusebius's express el adie as quoted supr. p- 295. n. **. OY cans ’Alydale, Zugizs ve Gg ta em avaTerig x xunry wexer To "TAAvesnoy HAbAGe “ Vid. supr. p. 27. n. 4%, ( 342 ) ceeded not from the Byzantine, but the Palestine text. And we consequently find, that the revisal — of Eusebius, has had some influence on the Old Ita- lick and Syriack; as both versions agree with the Palestine text, in omitting some remarkable pas- sages°’. But this consideration does not affect the main point in dispute; that those versions are — wholly free from the influence of the Byzantine — text: admitting which to be the case, it must follow, that they are separate, as we have seen, they are antient witnesses. As the influence of Eusebius’s text, and the au- thority of those Emperours who favoured the Arian heresy, render it next to impossible that the Byzan- tine text should have had any effect on the Old Italick and Syriack versions, at this early period; the history of those versions, and the state of the Latin and Syrian Churches, render it wholly impos- sible, that the vulgar Greek should have attained, at a subsequent period, such influence over the Ori- ental and Western versions, that it should be taken © as the standard by which they were corrected. The case of the Western version may be sum- marily decided. At the close of the fourth century — it was revised by St. Jerome; and the extraordi- a ae a 2 nary reputation of that learned father, renders the ‘ supposition not merely improbable, that any person © would undertake to do over again, what he had so ably accomplished; but absurd in the extreme, that such a person would complete the task, without *7 Vid. supr. p. 35. sqq- ( 843 ) availing himself of the improvements made by St. Jerome. This, however, has not been the case, with the text of the Brescia manuscript, which lam alone concerned in defending; as it contains those errours of the primitive Latin version, which were corrected in the modern Vulgate®*. ‘These charac- teristick marks, and some others, which have been already pointed out, very decisively evince, that the text of this manuscript cannot be brought lower than the close of the fourth century. The case of the Syriack version.is not involved in greater difficulty. As the Peshito, or Syriack Vul- gate, is the received text of the two great sects into which this Church is divided”; it is impossible that any general corruption of this text could have taken place since the year 451, and the meeting of the Council of Chalcedon. After this period, those re- 6§ Vid. supr. p. 166. n. 7°. sub fin. °° Vid. supr. p. 173. sqq. p. 181. sqq. 7° Walt. Prolegomm. in Bibll. Polyglott. Sect. x111. p. 89. § 3. ‘Prater hance Versionem Syriacam, quam Simplicem et Antiquam appellant Maronite, qua sola in Divinis publice utun- tur, aliam etiam habent recentiorem ex Graco expressam, tam Vet. quam Nov, Testamenti.’’ Id. ibid. p. 92.9 3. ‘ De Versione Syriaca testatur Sionita, quod ut semper in summa veneratione et auctoritate habita erat apud omnes populos, qui Chaldaiea sive Syriaca utuntur lingua, sic publice ix omnibus eorum ecclesiis antiquissimis, constitutis in Syria, Mesopotamia, -Chaldza, AEgypto, et denique in wniversis Orientis partibus, dispersis ac disseminatis, accepta et lecta fuit.” Haying speci- fied the Nestorians and Jacobites, he subjoins; ‘ ex hoc cal- cule liquet precipuas per totum Ovientem christianorum ecclesias, longe lateque propagatas, Scripturas et officia sacra lingua Sy- riaca legere et celebrare.”* (344), ligious differences, which had commenced undet Ibas, Theodorus Mopsuestenus, and Theodorit7’, and which were widened under Barsumas, Philox- enus, and Severus”, rapidly spread through the — ™* Beth-arsem. ap. Asseman. Biblioth. Orient. Tom. I. p. 203. “A Theodoreto [Nestorianum errorem] accepit Ibas, qui preter alias multas blasphemias, quibus prefatos magistros suos ad amussim jmitabatur, istam in quadam sua oratione adjecit dicens, ‘ Ego Ibas nequaquam invideo Christo, qui Deus factus est: nam Deus appellatus est, quum homo esset mei similis, et ejusdem mecum nature’? Quapropter anathematis sententia lata fuit in Ibam, et Theodoretum Cyri, unacum omnibus eorundem sociis et sectariis. Id. ibid. p. 204. ‘ Ab Iba Nes- torianum errorem accepit Mares quidam ex urbe Hardeschir ; atque inde capit Persarum regio Nestorianismo injici per Ibe epistolas, et per magistrorum ejusdem Orationes atque Commen- taria (Nestorii nimirum, Theodoreti, Theodori Mopsuesteni, ac Diodori) que in Syrorum sermonem convertebantur.’”’ Conf. Assem. Dissert. de Syris Nestoriann. § ii. Bibl. Orient. Tom. Ill. p. Ixix. 7 Asseman. Dissert. de Monophysitt. § ii. Bibl. Orient. Tom. II. p. i. ‘“ In Oriente Barsumas Archimandrita, qui Conci- liabuli Ephesini pars haud exigua fuit, Syrorum enim mona- chorum nomine ei interfuit, postquam a Concilio Chalcedo- nensi justam damnationis sententiam excepit, in Syriam regres- sus, eandem heresim popularibus suis propinavit: nec iis dum- taxat, sed et finitimis Armenis, ad quos Samuelem discipulum suum misit . Atque hec fuere Monophysismi initia in Syria, Mesopotamia, et Arabia; auctore scilicet Barsuma, ejusque discipulis, qui eandem plane cum Eutyche opinio- nem tenebant.’’ Id. ibid. p. iii. “‘ Ad Syros quod spectat, licet iis Barsume Eutychisque sententia ab initio placuerit, hanc tamen paulo post rejecerunt: quando nimirum Philoxenus Xanajas Mabugi sive Hierapoleés episcopus, et Petrus Gnapheus Antiochene sedis invasor, nec non heretici Imperatores, Zeno atque Anastasius, aliud ejusdem temperamentum per Orientem ( So ) East, from Edessa and Antioch, to Arabia, Mesopo- tamia, and Armenia. It is therefore wholly incon- ceivable, that both sects should agree in correcting the received text’?; or that one of them, having introduced any change into that text, could prevail on the other to accept it as the authorised version. During the period which intervenes between this early age, and that in which Eusebius revised the original Greek, it is equally inconceivable, that any other Greek text but the Palestine, could have had any influence on the Syriack translation. ‘The in- ternal evidence of the later Syriack version, which was made under the auspices of Philoxenus™, by ~whose exertions Kutychianism was established in Syria, clearly proves, that the influence of the Pa- lestine text had continued during the whole of this ‘period; as that version corresponds with the Pales-— tine text7°; where the vulgar Syriack corresponds with the Byzantine. During the reigns of the elder and younger Theodosius, which nearly occupy the space of time intervening between the years 400 and 450, it is not possible to conceive how the Byzantine iext could have acquired such authority in Syria, as to influence the authorised version. Previously io that period, the preponderancy of the Arian fac- disseminarunt. Severus ut eandem sectam stabiliret, plurimum oper contulit: cujus studium emutlati sunt dversarum Syria, Cilicia, Mesopotamia, et Capadocie urbium episcopi,”’ &e. 73 Vid. supr. p. 343, n. 7°. fave, Supr. p. 77. n. >. ® Vid. supy. p. 341. n. 3 ( 36) tion in this conntry7’, rendered it wholly impos- — sible, that any text should have prevailed over the edition of Eusebius, whose interests were identified with those of that heresy. . It is indeed true, that the Emperour Charlemagne undertook the correction of the Latin translation by — the Syriack and Greek’’; from whence it may be conceived, those versions have acquired a resem- blance, which cannot be deduced from their com-— mon original. But we have only to remember that the correction of the former version was undertaken in the middle of the eighth century, and that the Vul- gate of St. Jerome became the authorised text from — the middle of the sixth’*; in order to discover that 7™ At the time when the Emperour Valens published an edict against the orthodox, shortly after the death of St. Athanasius, Conf. Socrat. Hist. Eccles. Lib. IV. cap. xvii. p. 232. 1. 26. — Sozom. Hist. Eccl. Lib. VI. cap. xviii. p. 240. 1. 9. the follow- ing description is given of the state of Syria; Sozomen. ibid. — cap. xxi. p. 243. 1. 45. Zugia 38 6} ra wigs Sun, 0 pdrisa a wiv "Avrioylov worss, ev arablas 1 Tapayals Hoav, TAciorwv pty aren rev ca “Ages Qoovevrwy, x, Tas txndnocias exovrwy. Under Constantius and Valens the same historian declares, they — became thus numerous and powerful; Id. Ib. Lib, VII. cap. vi. © pP 284. 1. 8. 2s 08 Bros [ob *Ageszret | TARSOg Oleg Ex TH¢ Kaveaslis zat “OYarevlos poms ebdsés spay couvsorlesy meph Oc val gotas aire Suuooia dieréforlo In the first consulship of Gratianus and The- odosius, they are represented as having possession of every church in Syria, without the precincts of Jerusalem ; Id. Ibid. cap. ii, p. 290. 1. 17. & résw dt wrnv ‘Tepozertumy, ens sav vee ah» fo ixxAnciov of ra Apele Q;aveiles txearey, Conf. supr. p. 29. Ths 7 Vid. supr. p. 21. n. *. 78 Vid. supr. p. 33. n. *%. _——_- ( SAT ) this consideration does not affect the main point in dispute, which is confined to the primitive Latin version. It may indeed account for some resem- blances, which the old Syriack bears to the modern Vulgate, and to those manuscripts on which the latter version has had some influence’?; but it has little relevancy to the pure copies of the Old lialick, and none whatever to the Brescia manuscript, which is free from that influence. At all events, however adequate such a supposition may be deemed to ac- count for the affinity of the Latin and Syriack ver- sions; it is wholly inadequate to account for that of the Syriack translation and the original Greek; which are the witnesses whose integrity I am par- ticularly employed in defending against any charge which may affect their integr ste as forming separate witnesses to the text of Sati ipture. Regarding, therefore, the subject before us in every view, and judging of it by the light reflected on it from the history of the text and ea: of the New Testament, it as certainly appears, that the primitive Syriack and Latin versions are ancient and separate witnesses when adduced in favour of the Byzantine Greek; as that the later Western and Oriental versions, which are cited in support of the Alexandrine text, derive their common affi- nity from the immediate influence of the Palestine text, as revised by Eusebius. Here therefore we may lay the foundation of the defence of the Greek Vulgate: in asserting that the _ ® Vid. supr. p: 22, conf. p. 20, n. *. ( 348 j Latin and Syriack versions, to which an appeal is now to be made, on the verbal integrity of the text, are ancient and separate witnesses. The bond of connexion by which every part of the system, which rises upon this foundation, is held — together, is the connected testimony of tradition. Whether we consider the origmal Greek, or the . two versions, which are the witnesses of its inte+ grity, the evidence of these vouchers is held toge- ther by this connecting principle, for the immense period of fourteen centuries *°. From the very con- ccessions of our adversaries, it appears, that the vulgar text of the Greek, the Latin, and the Syriack Church, has existed for the whole of that time **. As the tradition extended far above this period, it is implied in the very nature of this species of evi- dence, that it could not have sustained any consi- derable change during the earlier part of that term ; unless from the operation of some powerful cause, and for a very limited time. It is wholly inconceiv- able, that any age would accept a text, transmitted by their immediate predecessours, having weaker evidence of its integrity, than their predecessours *° Vid. supr. p. 114. t 8 Griesb. Prolegomm. in Nov. Test. Sect. Ixxv. “ Hi omnes [Codd. A E F G H 1] in Evangeliis cum iis fere Pa- tribus (quantum ex imperfectis horum collationibus colligere licet,) gui seculo quarto exeunte quintoque et sexto in Grecia, Asia Minore, et provinciis vicinis floruere, fuitque hac Recen- sio, quam Constantinepolitanam hinc nominare licebit.” That the Latin and Syriack version are cqually antient, may be seen on referring to the authorities already cited; supr. p. 25. n. p. 70, n. — ( 349 ) had, in adopting it from those who preceded them. This reasoning is applicable to the present age, and may be applied to every age which has preceded, until we ascend from our own times to those in which the tradition commenced. The testimony of tradition is thus adequate to its own vindication; _ andadmitting its integrity to be thus unimpeachable, we must thence necessarily infer the integrity of the text which it supports. This mode of reason- ing, which is true in theory, may be easily verified in fact. By the destruction of the sacred books in the persecution of Dioclesian, and the publication cf a new text under Constantine; the course of tradi- _ tion was interrupted in the region occupied by the Greek, Latin, and Syriack texts. Yet, though these causes must have powerfully operated to turn the stream in a new direction, it speedily recovered its natural course. In forty years, the traditionary chain was re-united, and the vulgar Greek restored at Byzantium**. The Latin and Syriack texts, as existing merely in a translation, and consequently as separated from the parent source, had greater obstacles to surmount, in regaining their original tenour. The immediate authority of St. Jerome and Eusebius in the different regions where the La- tin and Syriack were received, must have also given these versions a stronger bias towards the Palestine text, than to the Byzantine. Yet against the ope- ration of these causes, the influence of tradition in- sensibly prevailed; and notwithstauding the near *" Vid. supr. pp. 123, 124. ( 336 F alliance between these versions and the former text, they possess a close affinity to the latter®*. Now, — as we have just seen, that this relationship cannot be — in the collateral degree, but in the hereditary line, — since those versions have not been corrected by the 4 vulgar text; the affinity sufficiently proclaims how — far they are supported by the authority of tradition, — as it is only through it, that they can possess an alli- — ance to the Gr a Vulgate. The foundation of the system which it is my ob- — ject to establish, is, therefore, I trust, not less securely — 1 Jaid, than the connecting principle, by which it is — held together, firmly cemented. But the same — Mienetily and consistency will, I hope, be found to — exist in the materials which are employed in the — superstructure. And in evincing this point not less than the preceding, sufficient is granted us, in the concessions of our opponents, to bear out all our deductions. With respect to the evidence of Manuscripts, on which our main dependance is rested, it is not disputed, that they are faithful to the tenour and testimony of tradition, as far as it extends. Through the fourteen centuries, for which the vulgar text has confessedly existed, they agree with one another ; and though their number is, proportionably multi- | | | 83 Griesb. ibid. p. Ixxv. ‘¢ Nulli harum recensionum [Occi- dent. Alexandr. Contantinopol.] Suriacu Versio, prout quidem typis excusa est similis est, verum nec ulli prorsus dissimilis este. In multis concinnit cum Alexandrina, in pluribus cum Occiden- tali, in nonnullis etiam cum Conmigo &c. Vide infr, p. 352. n. % ( son } plied with the progression of time, at the end of this immense period, this agreement is preserved **. Among the many concessions which are made us, this is not the least important to the establishment of the conclusion for which I contend. It is indeed true, that the Egyptian and Palestine texts are al- most wholly preserved in manuscripts which are of greater antiquity than any which preserve the By- zantine; the Alexandrine, Vatican and Cambridge manuscripts conforming to the former editions in- stead of the latter. But while it can be never in- ferred from the antiquity of these manuscripts, that the Egyptian or Palestine text is prior to the By- zantine; it may be concluded from their preserva- tion for so long a time, that the manuscripts have not been muse, and that the text which they con- tain is of course unsupported by the uninterrupted testimony of tradition. From their antiquity, in fact, we can only infer that they were written at a period and in a country wherein the Egyptian or Palestme texts respectively prevailed; and from their preservation, that they have been regarded as relicks m the monasteries, in which they have been preserved*’. Yet, waving these considerations, the testimony of two of these manuscripts, and those which are apparently the most antient, may be fairly cited in favour of the vulgar text. With this text the Vatican manuscript is found to coincide in the a Vid. supr. p. 108. n.*.p. 118. n. "Wp, M6. o.000, Cont, Griesb. Prolegomm. in Nov. Test. Sect. ILL. p. Ixxul. . &% Vid. guprsp.18..n. 7. ps 121. et ni, ( S52 9 opening chapters of St. Matthew **, and the Alex- drine in the whole of the Gospels*”: whatever be the antiquity of these manuscripts, it is consequently — subsequent to that of the Byzantine text. Such being the case with the oldest manuscripts with which we are acquainted, the Greek Vulgate has nothing to apprehend from the testimony of the — Codex Cantabrigiensis. As this manuscript is di- vided by the sections of Euthalius, it cannot be older — than the middle of the fifth century **; but that the © Byzantine text existed previously to this period, is fully allowed us**: by this concession, of course, — the testimony of the Cambridge manuscript is left little weight, when cited against the Greek Vul- gate. With regard to the testimony of Versions, our choice is principally limited to the Latin and Syriack — translations. It is however sufficient, that in their — evidence we possess the testimony of ancient and — competent witnesses; and that their testimony is — admitted, even by the concession of our adversaries, — to be virtually on our side. And however the in- 86 Vid. supr. p. 341. n. %. 87 Vid. supr. p. 123. n. *’. 88 Marsh. Michael. Vol. II. p. 715. n.™. If we argue therefore from the omission of the Ammonian sections, we may fairly conclude, that the Codex Beze is as old as the fifth cen- tury. But as the writer of this manuscript inserted sections in — the Acts of the Apostles, which imply the previous eatstence of the Euthalian sections, I would not ascribe to it greater antiquity.* — Conf. supr. p. 85.n. 89 Vid. supr. p. 348. n. 5, ®° Griesb, Profegomm. in Nov. Test. Sect. III. p. Ixv. ( 353 ) trinsick weight of this evidence may be disputed, its momentum is encreased by the comparative light- ness of the testimony by which it is counterpoised. The Coptick, and later Syriack, the Ethiopick, Ar- menian, and Gothick versions, which are the natu- ral allies of the Palestine text, cannot stand in com- petition with the old Italick, the antient Syriack and the Vulgate, which are the unbiassed witnesses of the Byzantine Greek. That the former versions should possess an affinity to the corrected text of Eusebius instead of the vulgar Greek, has been owing to circumstances which have been already © Recentior quidem Vulgata quippe que multis in locis ad juniores Codices Grecos reficta. est, quod Syriace etiam acci disse arbitror,” &c. We are here agreed on the fact, that the vulgar Latin and Syriack Versions correspond with the multi- _ tude of modern MSS. which contain the Vulgar Greek; but | completely at issue as to the cause of this agreement. M. | Griesbach supports his assumption by the argument contained in the word “ arbitror;”’ the force of which I leave to be ap- preciated by his disciples. I have already stated what appears | to me to amount to a proof, that the old Syriack Version could | not have been thus corrupted from the modern Greek: and as _ much might be advanced to prove, that the charge of ébrrup- | tion from the same source is equally without truth, when.ap- plied to the modern Vulgate. Admitting that the Latins were competent to the task of correcting their translation by the | Greek, which is a supposition that I not only question, but | shall undertake in the sequel to disprove; it is, however, an absurdity too gross for me to admit, that they would undertake not merely to correct St. Jerome’s version, but to recast it by modern copies of the Greek, while he had expressly corrected it by the antient. In this single consideration, the aires toa of M. Griesbach finds a sufficient reply. Aa ( 354 ) explained®. Their immediate connection with that edition, if not their direct descent from it, renders” the joint testimony of such witnesses entitled to very little attention ; when weighed against the con- curring evidence of witnesses like the Greek, Syri- ack, and Latin texts, which have not been yet ev presumptively proved to have had the smallest in= fluence on each other. With respect to the testimony of ancient Pothived the Greek Vulgate is not left unsupported by thei authority. Of those who preceded the Council Nice, none but Clement and Origen of the Gre Church, and Tertullian and Cyprian of the Latin, have made copious extracts from Scripture”; bu sufficient has been already advanced to prove, that implicit reliance cannot be always placed on their authority. It may be however observed in suppo of the vulgar text, that in all points of importance, their testimony saa be cited in its favour?. We 51 Vid. supr. p. 322. sqq- %* The controversies of Justin Martyr, as directed against the Jews and Pagans, are necessarily void of references to au= thorities, which the Christian Apologist’s adversaries did not acknowledge. Of St. Irenzus’s quotations, we unfortunately know no more than can be seen through the medium of a tran slation, which has. been obviously accommodated to a barbar- ous version, which prevailed in the West when his works were translated. 4 °3 In the quotations extracted from Origen, and dninitted i the Symbb. Critt. Tom. II. p. 241. sqq. M. Griesbach has a fixed to the express references the mark §. and noted the read= ings of the Vulgar Greek which deviate from them, in his lower margin. After some search. after these passages, I find, that out of the great variety of instances cited, Origen is observed | ( 355.) may, however, appeal to still earlier witnesses, among the apostolical fathers, on the integrity of the Greek Vulgate. Though those primitive wri- ‘ters are not copious in their Scripture quotations, they are often found to correspond with the Vulgar ‘Greek, in readings wherein that text differs from the Palestine. With regard to those writers who flourished in the age which succeeded the Council of Nice; our adversaries are free to claim Eusebius, Basil, Cyril, and others, who followed the latter edi- ition, as the authorised text; while they give us up | ‘their contemporaries, who favoured the text of By- zantium®, . to differ from the Vulgar Greek, not zn twenty places; of which \three only are admitted by M. Griesbach into the text of his ‘Greek Testament. I subjoin the examples; adding an asterism 'to the readings adopted by M. Griesbach. Matt. iii. 8. xapads as iov*. Orig. xagnis afizs. Vulg. ib. v. 32. poryevdivar Orig. poxcoten. Vulg. ib. xv. 34. wagalycara. Orig. uéacvoes V1 ulg. lib. xvii. 20. %Sev. Orig. ivredSer. Vulg. ib. xix. 17. tguras meet ae, Orig. reyes. Vulg. ibid. 29. morraruciova. Orig. ixatov= Tamractove. Vulg. ibid. deest. yovaixa. Orig. yovaixa. Vulg. ‘Mar. K. 46. texerasr. Orig. epxovrar Vulg. Lue. iii. 5. edSetas< (Orig. :3iav. Vulg. Joh. viii. 38. & iuboate. Orig. 0 tupanaree |Vulg. viii. 42. +8*. Orig. deest. Vulg. ib. xiii. 18. rivas. Orig. ods. Vulg. ibid. 26. Baw. Orig. Balas. Vulg. ibid. 30. 227092 ev9ds. Orig. eIéws eEnadev. Vulg. 1 Cor. vii. 34. avevpors xed \copart. Orig. xed coputs nob mvevpats, Vulg. 1 Thes. ii. 6. vim. Orig. amo. Vulg. On these readings it must be how- lever observed, that three only; those, namely, which are adopted by M. Griesbach, are unequivocal. On this subjeet, however, I shall speak more at large in the sequel. | % The authorities which support this assertion will be pro- \duced in the sequel. | 95 Vid. supr. p. 348. n. & | aa ( 356 ) From the premises thus laid down, we may pro- ceed to make the necessary inferences. Instead of the rules for determining the verbal integrity of the sacred text, deduced by M. Griesbach from the tes- timony of the Alexandrine and Western recen- sions”; I would beg leave to propose the following, founded on the testimony of the Greek Vulgate and the Old Italick and Syriack Versions, viewed com- paratively with that of the Egyptian and Palestine texts, and the later Eastern and Western Ver- sions. . | 1. When the Palestine text agrees with either the Egyptian or Byzantine, the coincidence can reckon but as the testimony ofa single witness; but when the Egyptian and Byzantine texts agree, they confirm the reading which they support, by the testimony of antient ye separate witnesses: 2. When the Egyptian and Palestine texts agree, and yet dissent from the text of Byzantium; the consent of the Old Italick or Syriack Version with the Byzantine Greek outweighs the testimony of the antecedent witnesses. { 3. When the Old Italick and Syriack Versions agree with the Palestine text, and dissent from the text of Byzantium; the consent of the later Eastern and Western Versions with the Byzantine text will adequately confirm a various reading of the Greed Vulgate. The reasonableness of these rules may be easily evinced from the foregoing observations. It must * Vid. supr. p. 317. ( 357 ) be here evident at a glance, that there is scarcely any witness from which the Palestine text can receive support; scarcely any but the Palestine, from which the Byzantine text must not derive confirmation. From the fundamental! principles already laid down, it appears, that in order to entitle any witness toa voice, it must deliver a separate testimony”. But so universal has been the ascendancy of Eusebius’s text, which is identical with the Palestine edition, that not a text or version with which we are ac- quainted can be said to be free from its influence™. No other text of course, not excepting the Byzan- tine, can appeal to its testimony, or afford it sup- port, as a separate witness. But as every text and version, which we know, was originally formed in- dependent of the text of Byzantium; as none of them has subsequently possessed any influence on it, and as it has had no influence on any of them; the concurrence of any with this text must reckon as the testimony of a separate witness. A very few. observations will now enable us to determine the Ww weight of testimony which may be adduced in favour of a various reading from an application of the fore- going rules. | 1. When the Egyptian text agrees with the By- zantine, the Palestine edition must stand by itself; ‘as there is no fourth edition with which it can be Meecident. In this case, the Palestine text must ket every requisite which can give it authority as | 97 Vid, supr. p. 315. n. 8. _ * Vid. supr. p. 25. sqq. p- $22. sqqe p 340. sqq- ( 338°) an adequate witness. Ofitself, it is destitute of the support of tradition; and it wants, by supposition, the support of an antient and separate witness. But the weight of this species of testimony is, in this case, on the side of that reading which is supported b the joint evidence of the Egyptian and Byzantin editions. It possesses the authority of tradition in the testimony of the latter text; and that of consen in the concurrence of the former 2. When the Egyptian and Palestine texts agree their consent can reckon but as the testimony of single witness; as these texts have had an imm diate influence on each other. When opposed, i consent, to the Byzantine, the various readin which are avouched by the different witnesses thu opposed to each other, are supported by equal au thority. The testimony of either the old Italick or Syriack version, if adduced on the side of the Byzantine text, must of course turn the scale in i favour. And the reading which is supported by thi weight of evidence, possesses every thing requisi to prove it genuine. It possesses the authority of °° On the testimony of the Byzantine and Egyptian recen- sions, we may venture to restore the following readings of the vulgar Greek to their proper places in the sacred text; having been removed from it, in the Corrected Text, as a vised by M. Griesbach. Mat. xxvi. 60. %} &« tipo, Mar. v; 34. 6 Incts. Ib, ix. 7. aéyeca*. Ib. xii. 33. 6 Secs. Luc. Vie 7*. avror Ib. xiii, 35. epnyos.* Ib. xvii. 4. ti oz. Joh 26. aitts ts.* Ibid. 29. 6 “Iwdvns.* Ib. iii. 2. rov “Ince. Ib. vi. 43.3).* Ib. xvi. 3. dpiv.* Ibid. 16.72. Those marked [*] are supported by other witnesses than the Egyptian and Palestine texts: conf, n. 3° { 359 ) tradition in the Byzantine text; and that of consent,- in those antient and separate witnesses, the Italick and Syriack Versions'°°. 3. When: the old Italick and Syriack versions agree with the Palestine and Egyptian texts; the concurrence of these witnesses may be merely owing 7 On the testimony of the Greek Vulgate, supported by the Old Italick and Syriack versions, we may venture to restore the following readings to their proper places in the sacred text, from whence they have been removed by M. Griesbach. Mat. vi. 1. taenpocdyyy, del. dixaioodynv. Ib. xii. 35. rit napdiac t. Ib. xv. 4. cov. Ib. xix. 19. ce. Ibid. 26. iss. Ib. xx. 6. GipryRse Tb. xxi. 33. 1. Ib. xxiv. 36. wet Ib. xxv. 31. ayo. Ib. XXvVil. 64.> vex7d¢. Ib. xxviii. 20. dun. Mar. i. 2. tumgordév cat. Ib. v. 40. dvaxeiuevoy, Ib. vie 2: Ory Ib. vii 2. guéuparro. Ib. ix. 7. Aéyeou. bid. 24. xdpiey. Ibid. 38. év. Ibid. 41. peng Ib. x. 40. wet. Ib. xii. 5. wéaw. Luc. ii. 33. "Iwong, del. & warn Ib. iit. 19. Oiarinre. Ib. iv. 41. 6 Xpicos. Ib. x. 11. ip tude. Ib. xi. 29: 7% mpoparet. Ib. xiii. 35. epnpudge Ib. xvi 15. isi. Ib. xvii. 4. emt cet Ibid. xviii. 3.716. Ibid. xxii. 62. & Térgog. Ib. xxiv. 49. “Iepecoarnue Joh. i. 26. adris éerine Ibid. 29. 6 “Iwéwns. Ib. vi. 43.* 45. & Ibid. 58. 79 pana. Tid. 69. +8 Givros. Ib. vii. 26. dan9a-. Ib. vill. 53. ov. xi 41. 8 7y.* Ib. xii. 26. 9.4 Ib. xvi. 3*. piv. bid. 25. aan Ib, xxi. 25. duiv.* In the following places 6 “Incee. Matt. viii. 29. xiv. 25. Mare. xi. 15. Luc, xxiv. 36. Joh. i. 44.4 iii. 2. iv. 46. xi. 45. In the following places, airo:. s. ait&. ss avrg. S. adroic. Matt. vill. 25.¢ xii. S.4 xvit. 8. xix. 25.4 xxv. 44.+ Mar. ix. 26. Luc. vi. 7.4 viii 21. xi 28. xvii. 9. xxiii. 25. And in the following places «al, Mar. x. 14. 28.¢ Lue. vi. 28. xv.t 19. xx. 31. Joh. iv. 36. xii*, 26. Thus marked [+] want the testimony of the Primitive Italick (Briz.); but thus [{] supply its place with the revised Italick (Verc. &c.) »Thus marked [4] want the testi- mony of the Primitive Syriack (Peshit.); but thus [*] sup- ply its place with the revised Syriack (Syr. Philoxw.) All ( 360 )° to the influence of Eusebius’s edition'**; their joint evidence can then of course reckon but as the testi- mony of a single witness. The testimony of the later Versions, for instance, the Italick or Syriack, when cited on the side of the Byzantine text, will of course turn the scale in favour of the latter; and this weight of testimony will be fully adequate to support the various reading, which is of doubtful authority. In supposing the extensive influence of Eusebius’s text, we easily account for the dissent of the older versions from the vulgar Greek; for this variation has proceeded from their being mo- delled after the former edition. But the consent of the later versions with the vulgar Greek, can be only accounted for, by admitting their agreement with the primitive translation, from which the old and later versions have respectively descended : to.which also, it is presumed, they conformed. previously to the influence of Eusebius’s text, or to their having been re-cast into new translations. As the later versions have been formed on the basis of some pri- mitive translation, it is self-evident that many of the readings of the primitive version must be preserved in the derivative. It is possible of course, that the Jatter may preserve the primitive reading, while the former has undergone those changes by which it has been obliterated. And where the reading, which is thus preserved, agrees with the original Greek other readings, unless contradicted by these marks, are supposed to have the testimony of both Primitive Italick and Syriack versions. . +8 Vid, supr. p, 25. sqq. ps 322» —- a ( 361 ) text, from which all translations have been made, the very coincidence is adequate to identify it as a reading of the primitive version. ‘Though a later version is but a modern witness, it may thus deliver ‘an antient testimony. Consequently the reading which is supported by this weight of evidence, pos- sesses every thing requisite to prove it authen- tick '™. 4. With respect to the Manuscripts which may be cited in favour of this system, it remains to be observed, that the weight of their testimony does not depend on the age of the copies, but on their num- ber and coincidence, as witnesses, and the antiquity of the text, which they support by their concurring evidence. From the conspiring testimony of ma- ™® The following readings of the Greek Vulgate, which are rejected by M. Griesbach from the sacred text, though not possessed of equal authority as those cited in the last note but one, may possibly be genuine, on the testimony of the revised Italick and Syriack. Matt. v. 21-7 Toss apy asois. Ib. 3x. 13. cis peravorar.t Ib. xvi. 20. Tncé:. Ib. xxvi. 9.4 +o pugore Tb. xxiii. 8.4 6 Xpisos. Luc. iv. 8. trays oricw we Laravat Ib. xvi. 25, cv. Joh. v. 30. xarpas.} Ib. xvi. 16. iyo.f Thus marked [+] want the testimony of the revised Italick, though they possess that of the revised Syriack. Thus marked [4] want the testimony of the revised Syriack, though they possess that of the Italick. *°3 Griesb. Prolegomm. in Nov. Test. Sect. III. ‘p. Ixix. “< Zitas testium non unice nec pracipue judicanda est e membra= narum vetustate; potuit enim seculo v. c. decimo quarto e codice Jonge antiquissimo apographum fieri, quod exemplar suum exactissime representaret; sed contra etiam guinto jam seculo, quo e codicibus hodie superstitibus vix unus aut alter referti poterit, preter textum genuinum extitit alius, in quo lec- ( 362 ) nuscripts, versions, and fathers, it appears, that this text must have existed at least at the close of the fourth century. But no manuscript with which we are acquainted, possesses internal evidence which will warrant our placing it higher than this early period ‘*t, The testimony of none of course can be cited, as disproving the priority of the text which exists in the most modern of those manuscripts that conform to the vulgar edition..To establish the integrity of this text, is the main object of our en- deavours; and if it be not evinced, by the concur- rence of those innumerable witnesses who agree ina testimony, which has been perpetuated for fourteen hundred years'®’;.the labour must be unavailing, which endeavours to prove it, by the coincidence of a few manuscripts, of which we cannot certainly know the origin. + 2 Beyond these considerations, and above this pe- riod, we cannot extend our positive proofs, in favour of the integrity of the Byzantine text; but I am not aware, how they can be extended above it, in favour of the Palestine edition. After examining the tes~ tiones haud pauce juniores in primitivarum locum irrepserant. Ftaque textus ipsius potius quam librarit etas indaganda est. Hec vero judicatur e crebro consensu cum aliis testibus, (in primis cum Versionibus et Patribus,) de quorum ztate nobis constat,’’ &c. Though this remark is assigned a very different application by its learned authour, yet, as expressing a general truth, which, I trust, is fully as applicable to the system which I labour to support, as that to which it is applied, I here quote it as authority. : ~ 2% Vid. supr. nv*°%. conf. p. 71. p. 350. - 35 Vid. supr. pp. 114. 118. et nn. in locee ( 363 ) timony of versions and manuscripts as far as it ex- ‘tends, our only appeal lies to the external evidence of the fathers. And here, it must be confessed, ap- pearances seem to set strongly in favour of the text of Palestine. The early writers who have been cited in support of this text, as having followed it in their quotations*®*, may be thought to outweigh the strongest presumptive evidence which may be adduced in favour of the Byzantine. But the tes- timony of none of them but Origen reaches higher than the fourth century. After a little further in- sight into the nature of his evidence, we may be probably led to admit, that it is not so decidedly against the vulgar edition, as may be imagined. As the main object of the advocates of the Pales- tine text has been to rest the credit of this text on the authority of Origen**?; my object has been to shift it upon that of Eusebius’. Sufficient, I trust, ‘has been already advanced to prove, that the testimony of Origen rather identifies it as the text of Palestine than of Alexandria'®?: and consequently proves it the text of Eusebius, who revised the Palestine edi- tion"®. It is certain, that the works of Origen, in which it is conceived to be preserved, were written in Palestine; and that in the precipitancy with which Origen fled from the enmity of Demetrius "*, when #0 Vid. supr. p. 316. 2) Vid. supr. p. 310. n. *.\p. $16. nn. ™ et ™ s°8 Vid. supr. p. 25. sqq. p. 340. sqq. © Conf. supr. p. 8. sqq. 79. sqq. "9° Vid. supr. p. 72. n. 7. *! Origen alludes to the enmity of Demetrius,and his own flight ( 36¢ ) he sought refuge in that country, he was compelled to leave his books at Alexandria’’*. Of the remains. of his writings, which have descended to our times, only some fragments of the “ Principia‘’,” and two short books of his ‘“ Commentaries,’ were written in this city*’*. The last books of his expositions of St. John, and the whole of those of St. Matthew", from Alexandria, in the following terms, in a work which he began at Alexandria, but finished in Palestine; Comment. in Joan. Tom. IV. p. 101. c. wexer ye TS neers Tene, eh 6 wala ray “Arskavdocav xeyudy ailrgarlew dus, ra deddmevas Seorvonsicaisey” LoriTincivros Tois cvénosss 1) TOS omar THE TaAaoons ot Ine. x) ie Te O: iorimrecorros m goeAnAvsores eLernvolnusy cmd THE “Alyoxse x, 7. Conf. p. 102, a. et infr. n. mre Org. ibid. B; 102. b. icSs OF Gre aoa wOAAs waiter deurégay TavtTny eepreny Toseas exTe Tones, dia vo TH ToouTayogeu~ Séivra Hui, tv 7H “Adrckavdeeiz, dx of0’ Sxws un exnowlodas. ™3 These fragments are contained in the Philocalia, which consists of acento of passages extracted from Origen’s works by St. Basil and Gregory Nazianzen. The only passages of the Commentary on the New Testament which it preserves, are three fragments ; one from the Acts, and two from the Epistle to the Romans ; inserted by the Benedictine fathers, Tom. IV. p- 457. and p. 462. n. '. p. 580. n. f. and in Dr. Spencer’s edi- tion of the Philocalia. at pp. 32. 34. 90. ed. Cant. 1677. 4 The third and fourth books of the Commentaries on St. John, which were written by Origen previously to his departure from Alexandria, vid, supr. n. *"’. are lost ; with the exception of a few fragments. Conf. supr. n. "?. infr. n. 7%, "5 The last books of the Commentaries on St. John were undertaken by Origen after his arrival in Palestine; vid. supr. n.*. But at the time they were written, the Commentaries on Matthew were not begun, as Origen shews by his declara- tions when engaged in the former work; Orig. Comment. ‘in Joan. Tom. IV. p.192,a. 6) ratira piv ard Wrousu cis ra mop : : ( 363..) together with his treatise on Prayer‘, and his reply to Celsus"’?, were written on his settlement in Pa- lestine. These last works, however, contain the only parts of his writings which possess any Scripture references "*, from which we can discover the text that he followed in his quotations; the Philocalia, which preserves the remains of his “ Principles,” being miscellaneous in its subject, possesses no re- ferences to the New Testament, but those which have been already specified. 136 5a MarSalw Aewrécr, TB EAOMATIO“’ H Taga Tata dxgifeseps oye eduaiporegoy, Stray is ro xata MarSaiov juiv Adyew doSn. "© Patrr. Benedictt. Monit. in Orig. de Orat. Tom. I. p. 196. «De anno quo hic de Oratione libellus scriptus est—id unum ex iis que leguntur num. 23.” [conf. p.235. c.] ‘ discimus, scriptum illum esse, editis jam in Genesim Tomis. Cum autem octo solum priores in Genesim Tomi ante Annum 231. quo ex Alexandria urbe decessit Origenes, similiterque guatuor de Principiis libré post primum in Genesim Tomum conscripti sunt, merito colli« gimus librum xgi Eixis post Origenis ex Alexandria discessunt elucubratum esse, et quatuor wegi “Agxs» libris esse poste- riorem.”” "7? The date of this work is determined by Eusebius, who fixes it to the year 249, when Origen had attained his sixtieth year, and was nearly twenty years settled in Palestine; Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. VI. cap. xxxvi. p. 299. 1.10. & téte « [6 "Neryins imtg ro Ekinorra tn yerdpenos] ra wegoe Tov Emileyeaupcror nad nay Kidcs te “Eminegsis © AAWSG Adyor” éxtd tov aosduan culypapudla cvilacla *8 All the Homilies of Origen were composed in | Palestine, after he had attained his sixtieth year; of these compositions, however, those on Jeremiah only are preserved in the original ; Euseb. ibid. p. 299.1. 3. Tore Mra—iwip ta tknxovre Qacly ira me "Qeryérny “eg ate wryisny nde @vaArckauevoy ix tis paxeae muguonwys tkiv, Tas im) TS nod Acyoutvas auTS diartzas raxvyeaQers paaraBiiy imiletar & aeorepts wile tet0 yertoSas ES ( 366 ) The whole of the presumptive evidence, which arises from these preliminaries, consequently tends to prove, that the text which Origen followed, in his Commentaries, was the Palestine, not the Alex- andrine. ‘The remark is of importance, as in form- ing a running exposition, he must have followed the | text which was before him; and he has indeed pre- fixed it in several instances to the comment". It is of importance also to observe, that in composing his Commentaries, he preserved a peculiar plan in his quotations, which he neglected in delivering his Homilies:*°: having followed the corrected text of his Hexapla in the former, and that of the Greek Vulgate in the latter compositions**. These cir< *9 Vid. Comment. in Matt. Tom. III. p. 442. a. sqq- “° These Compositions are thus distinguished by St. Jerome; Hier. Proleg. in Comment. in Ezech. Orig. Tom. III. p. 354.— ** scias Origenis opuscula in omnem Scripturam esse triplicia. Primum ejus (opus) Excerpta, gue Grece Exéisa nuncupantur, én quibus ea que sibi videbantur obscura, atque habere aliquid difficultatis, swmmatim brevitergue perstrinzit. Secundum Ho- miliaticum genus, de quo et presens interpretatio est. Tertium quod ipse inscripsit Téx2;, nos Volumina possumus nuncupare, in quo opere tota ingenit sui vela spirantibus ventis dedit, et recedens a terra in medium pelagus aufugit.” m1 §. Hier. in Proem. Tradd. Hebrr. Tom. III. p. 451. «De Adamantio autem sileo ; cujus nomen, si parva licet com- ponere magnis, meo nomine invidiosius est: qui cum én Homi- iis suis, quas ad vulgum loquitur, Communem Editionem sequa- tur; in Tomis, id est in disputatione majori, Hebraica veritate atipatus, et suorum circumdatus agminibus, interdum lingue pere- grine querit auzilia.’”? The auxiliaries, whose assistance Ori- gen thus sought in his written compositions, were the Ebionite hereticks, Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, who revised eee ee (' 36% ) cumstances, being kept fully in view, a few consi- derations will enable us to appreciate the weight of the testimony which he has borne to the verbal inte- grity of the inspired writings. In the first place, the Commentaries of Origen, which are the main support of the Palestine text, abound in references to apocryphal works and here- tical revisals of Scripture***. ‘They were under- taken at the request of Ambrose‘*?, who had been a convert from heresy ***, and who gave them to the the Septuagint, for the purpose of doing away the strong ten- dency which that translation bore to the tenets of the Catho- licks. Nor was Origen ashamed of like associates in composing his Commentaries on the New Testament. In the earliest of these wotks, the Tomes on St. John, he constantly refers to Heracleon the Valentinian’s Commentary on the same Gospel, and quotes from the heretical Scriptures as well as the cano- nical: vid. Hom. in Joan. Tom. IV. p. 117. d. conf. infr. n. 72%, *® Tnstances of this kind have been already produced ; supr. p- 330. n.*°. That they occurred more frequently in the original copies of Origen’s works, than those from which our printed editions were formed, is rendered probable, from their being sometimes found in the antient Latin translation, though wanting in the Greek original; a long extract from the Hebrew Gospel, inserted in the Commentary on St. Matthew, may be eited as an example. Vid. Orig. Tom. III. p. 671. conf. Tom. IV. p. 289. n. >. Pamph. Apol. p. 18. a. ™3 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. VI. cap. xxiii. p. 287. 1. 4 BE Encive OE x) “OQpuyéves Taw tig tag Oclag Tpapas imoumuctor eylvelo épxn, “ApBoocis is ra wads Tagogudavios adrov pugios douis Sy Teoleomais, & rats Na Adywv %) TWapaxAnoeci avTo over, arAa x ~ aQdadlarais rar txilgdeluv xopnytas. Conf. Orig. Hom. in Joan. Tom. IV. pp. 3.b. 4. a. ™ Euseb. ibid. cap. xviii. p. 278. 1, 19. t» réru 19 "AuBedcios sa THs “OTarsvlive Qgovaiv aigécews, mpds wag dad Npvytves apece ( 368 J world without the consent of their authour; wlio lived to repent of the errours, which they contain- ed‘. That compositions of this equivocal cha- racter, and which have been notoriously corrupt- ed‘*°, should frequently deviate from the vulgar Greek, seems rather to convey a negative proof of its integrity. But Origen likewise affords the same. text positive support, in his ineonstant readings; occasionally agreeing with the Byzantine text, while Bvouévns arnIelas erclySelo—ra ris ixxAnorasinng GpVodokiag mposte Dar rdywr ™S5 Vid. supr. p. 10. n. ™. *© Orig. Ep. ad amicc. Alexandr. Tom. I. p. 5. b. “ Sed nihil mirum mihi videtur, st adulteretur doctrina mea ab inimicis meis, et tali adulterio corrumpatur, quali adulterio corrupta est Epistola Pauli Apostoli—Talia ergo quedam video etiam nobis accidere. Nam guidam auctor heresedés cum, sub preesentia mul- torum, habita inter nos fuisset disputatio, et descriptum accipiens. ab his qui descripserant Codicem, gue voluit, addidit, et que noluit abstulit, et quod et visum est permutavit, circumferens: tanquam ex nomine nostro, insultans et ostendens ea que ipse conscripsit. Per quibus indignantes fratres qui in Palestina sunt, miserunt ad me Athenas hominem qui acciperet a me_ épsum authenticum exemplar, quod ne relectum quidem vel re- censitum a me antea fuerat, sed ita neglectum jacebat, ut vix inveniri potuerit. Misi tamen, et sub Deo teste loquor, quo- | niam cum convenissem illum ipsum gui adulteraverat librum, gquare hoc fecisset, velut satisfaciens mihi respondit, guoniam magis ornare volui disputationem illam atque purgare. Videre quali purgatione disputationem purgavit: tali nempe quali purgatione Marcion Evangelia purgavit vel Apostolum, vel — quali successor ejus Apelles. This curious fragment is pre- — served by Ruffinus, De Adult. libror. Orig. Tom. 1V. p. 51. a. and is acknowledged by St. Jerome, Ady. Ruffin. Lib. II, cap. v. Tom. II. p, 246. ( 369 ) he deviates from the Palestine; nor can it be cer- tainly concluded from his express references, that the text which he used did not conform to the former edition’*?. When due allowance is also made for +7 Of the examples already cited, p. 355. n. 9°. as expressly referred to by Origen, there are but three, Mat. iii. 8. xix. 17. Joh. viii. 42. which are net found in the Received Text; two _ of which, Mat. iii. 8. Joh. viii. 44. properly belong to the Greek Vulgate, as existing in the greater number of MSS.: vid. Griesb. nn. in locc. In one instance only, of course, does - Origen differ in his express references from the vulgar text : | for in the remaining examples, he is obviously misrepresented, when quoted against that edition. As M.Griesbach has been unable to find sufficient authority in the Greek MSS. for these passages, to assign them a place in his Corrected Text; it would appear, that Origen in his express citation of these pas- sages, merely meant to give emphasis to the sense, without thinking of marking a variation in the reading. This is obvi- ously the case with Mat. v. 32. xv. 34. xix. 29. Mar. x. 46. Joh. viii. 38. xiii. 18. 26. 30. 1 Cor. vii. 34. 1 Thes. ii. 6: as _ will directly appear on turning to Origen; Tom. III. pp. 647. 509. 202. 735. IV. 315. 425. 441. 444. IL. 644. ILI. 662. where those passages are respectively quoted. In Mar. vi. 3. |x. 29. Luc. iii. 5. Origen’s object is wholly misrepresented, in conceiving him at variance with the Received Text. In op- posing Celsus, he declares that our Lord is no where called a | carpenter in the Gospels; nor is he called so in Mar. vi. 3: | the Evangelist merely stating, that a question on this subject | was proposed by the multitude, vid. Orig. Tom. I. p. 659. d. ‘In reasoning on Ib. x. 29, 30. he merely observes, that the | Scripture declares, that those who “left houses. brethren, sis- ' ters, father, mother, wife,—should receive an hundred fold, now in this time—houses, brethren, sisters, mothers, children ;’’ thus omitting “ wife’ in the second enumeration ; yuaixa 7s | accordingly omitted in the Greek Vulgate; vid. Orig. Tom. 1. | Bs 284. In mentioning sss as the reading of Luc. ili. & Bb ( 370 4 the influence which his peculiar readings have had on the Palestine text, as revised by Eusebius; it seems to take from his testimony its entire weight, in deciding the question at issue. When the testimony of Origen is set out of the- way, no further obstacle opposes the application of the foregoing rules, to the vindication of the vulgar edition. As the general integrity of this text is attested by vouchers, which render it absolutely un- questionable; our attention is only called towards those passages which have been impeached on evi- dence apparently credible. ‘This evidence has been’ or 5. he refers to the former verse instead of the latter; as will be made apparent from Is. xl. 3. in the sequel ; and thus clearly supports the Greek Vulgate. In one solitary instance of course Mat. xix. 17. Origen’s express references are opposed to the vulgar edition ; and this too is taken from a tract, which as lying under the bad repute of being corrupted, leaves us rather at a loss to determine, what was really Origen’s quotation. Let it be further observed, that in this express reference, Origen’s testimony is opposed to that of the Greek Vulgate on a point where this” text could not have been possibly corrupted by the orthodox ; as the vulgar reading is manifestly less accommodated to their peculiar opinions, than the reading expressly supported by Ori- gen: and in its reading of this text the Greek Vulgate is n only supported by the testimony of those antient witnesses, th primitive Italick and Syriack Versions, but the express allega tion of an antient father who lived in the next succession afte the apostles ; vid. Mat. xix. 17. ut. infr. pp. $72. 38]. While th éxpress testimonies adduced from Origen, supr. p. 355. n. “9 contain a sufficient proof that the Greek Velgate and this early” tather have not been interpolated from each other; the express testimony of Origen, when properly understood, contains an extraordinary proof of the verbal integrity of the vulgar edi-~ fLOlie ' : , \ ( 371 ) collected and embodied by M. Griesbach; and on the strength of it, he has rejected several passages from the sacred canon, as spurious. Of these pas- sages, however, a very limited number are of the smallest importance; eleven only affecting, and that in a remote degree, any point of doctrine or morals. 1 shall lay these, in the first place, without excep- tion, before the reader; adding the testimony of the Western Church in corroboration of that of the Eastern; and subjoining the express testimony of some writer, who, as living in the age which suc- ceeded the apostolical, must have written before the sacred text could have been corrupted. In deter- mining the present question, the testimony of the Syriack Church cannot be admitted as authority. Having been infected at an early period in the third century with. the heresy of Paul of Samosata‘**, it 8 Liberat. Diac. Breviar. cap. ii. p. 4. ed. Par. 1675. * Tgitur Nestoriani dogmatis author, ut multi volunt, Paulus agnoscitur Samosatenus episcopus, &c. M. Renaudot, in Pref. Liturgg. Orientt. having traced the Nestorian Heresy to the person from whom it derived its name, is thus corrected by M. Assemani, Biblioth. Orient. Tom. I. p. 204. In primis quis Renodotio dixit, Nestorianam Hzresim, in Constantinopolitana Diecesi potius quam in aliis Provinciis incrementum habuisse?”’ quum et hoc ipsum qualecumque incrementum a Syris eo pro- fectis Hzresis Nestoriana acceperit, velut a fonte rivulum. Hec enim in Syria ducentis ante annis, Paulo Samosateno Pa- triarcha Antiocheno auctore, primum eruperat, vicinas provin- ciis sua contagione afflaverat, ita ut Diodorus Tarsensis, et Theodorus Mopsuestenus, Pauli gentiles, deinde Nestorius ejusdem affinis, antiquum errorem potius quam novum pretu- lisse dicantur.’”” The origin of Eutychianism is traced to the heresy of Apollinaris, into which extreme Eutyches fell in com- Bb2 ( 372 ) whdlly lapsed into Arianism in the fourth '?; and was finally rent in the fifth into the different sects of Nestorians and Eutychians*’°. High therefore as its testimony must rank, where merely the verbal integrity of the sacred text is concerned, it can have little weight on the doctrinal. The Arabick nume- rals, annexed in the subjoined examples to the tes- timony -of the Latin church, indicate the different editions of the Italick version which support the prefixed reading: the primitive or Brescia text, the revised or Verceli, and the new or Vulgate of Je- rome, being numbered in their order. An asterism is added to the readings adopted by M. Griesbach in his Corrected Edition. Mat. xix. 17. 9 Of shrey aire, * th pe Aéyers Jesus autem dixit ei quid me. wyaSer; adels eyados, ct un eis 6 dicis bonum? nemo bonus nisi ®:0;." Byz. Deus. Jtal. 1. a ti ms ipwrds wept te ayaSé; quid me interrogas de bono? sis isw b ayaSes. “Eg. Pal*. unus est bonus. J#al. 2, 3. Just. Mart. Apol. Maj. p. 63. ny mpartAovros @UTD THOS, © simrovros Oidaoxars ayaSt, amenpiero Arywy © Bdels ayadasy eb un proves s \ aie / / © Or0s oO ToINTAS WAVThe bating the opposite errours of Nestorius: Liberat. ibid. p. 10. ‘** Quapropter apparet ex omnibus superius dictis atque pro- Jatis, a Paulo Nestorianos fuisse propagatos, et ab Apollinari unius nature predicatores, ut sunt Acephali et ; Eutychiani.”” Vid. supr. p. 344. n. 7". 2 Vid. supr. p. 169. n. *%. . *° Vid. supr. p. 344. nn. 7 et.”. ( 3 J Mar. xiii. 32. mepl OF Tig mmepas Exetns 1 THIS Spas Bdele obdev, Bde of clryeros ob ey Becca, b 2d! 6 vidc’, ef Kn é 4 * Nlarmp. Byz. £g*. ® desunt, 203 § vide. Pal. De die autem illo et hora nemo scit neque angeli in ceelo, ne- gue filius nisi pater. Ital. 1, IHS. ee eereee S. Iren. adv. Her. Lib. If. cap. xxviii. p. 158.—Dominus, ipse Filius Dei, ipsum judicii “‘ diem et horam” concessit scire solum Patrem, manifeste dicens ; ‘ de die autem illa et hora nemo scit, neque Filius, nisi pater solus.”? Luce. ii. 33. x me lwon 4 waTnp abr!’ Daupaorvtes tmt tois AnAupéross wep aire. Byz. © 6 warn ads x on patnps &g. Pal*. Et erat Joseph et mater ejus mirantes de his que diceban- tur de illo. TJ¢tal. 1, 2. pater ejus et mater. Ital. 3. S. Hier. adv. Helvid.—* Et erant pater illius et mater admi- rantes super his, que dicebantur de eo’’—Licet tu mira impu- dentia hec in Grecis codicibus falsata contendas,” &c. vid. supr. p. 169. n. *, Ib. xi. 13. > s « ~ \ a , sh zy Umels movnfos vmcpyorres ordale ayada Sopctla doves trois / « ~ , ~ « TEXVOIS VULWV, TOTW paZAAoy 0 Ta- Tp o ek apava d doe TEV u 4 ~ ~ 4 wyrov" roig aitow adrove Byz*. LEZ. Pal. a dyoss ayaSdv duo. ~ 2 / d duces TVEU MO ayadov. Si ergo vos cum sitis mali nos- tis bona data dare filiis vestris : quanto magis Pater de ceelo dabit Spiritum Sanctum petene tibus se. Ital, 1. dabit bonum datum. tal. 2. dabit Spiritum bonum. Jtal. 3. Tert. adv. Mare. Lib. IV. cap. xxvi. p.432. A quo Spiritum Sanctum postulem?-—agnosce igitur et Patrem, quem etiam ap- ( 34 ) pellas Creatorem. Ipse est qui scit quid filii postulent. Nam et panem petentibus, de ccelo dedit manna; et carnem deside- rantibus, emisit ortygometram ; non serpentem pro pisce, nec scorpium pro ovo,—Itaque et Spiritum Sanctum is dabit, &c. Ib. xxii. 43, 44. , A ~ 9 2D ~ PAROS ob avte afyeAos ar Boas > , > \ \ , > EMT KUOY AUT. x, yEvOWEVOS EV > awyuvia, Exlevésegov MPOTUY KETO. = 6, \ #yévdlo dt 6 idpas adré aoel Seope Bo aipnxTos vluBatvorles eee Thy ‘yt. Byz. /Eg.* desunt. Pai. Apparuit autem illi angelus de ccelo, confortianseum. Et factus est in agonia, et prolix- ius orabat: Et factus est sudor ilius, quasi gutte sanguinis decurrentes super terram, Ital, 2. 3. desunt. Jtal. 1. Just. Mart. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 331. d. & yap rots emropyns , ov “po ~ > "4 en | A eh ty 2 poveunaow 2 Ont vTe Tov amosohwy AUTY x, Tuy ExEbvOLs mapaxcAe~ Snodilov cuvldlaxSas, ors © as dot SpouBor xalexeiro abte ev- xopevey’ 19 Asvyorlos, § mwapendeloy et Ouvclov ro arolypsov T8t0.” Joh. v. 3, 4. ¥ ~ wo ’ —deyoueray Thy TS Vdeiles xbvn- oe &Iryeros yee nallee xatigoy XAT = ~ rd éBasev tv 7H xoruu Baroy 1% eT a= \a « 3 ~ > \ paoce To vdwpe 5 av mpaTas EuPag ~ © \ pele Thy taperny TE LdaTOG, Dying éyivdlo, @ Onmcle xalleixslo roonpucilte Byz.* desunt. g. Pal, Tert. de Baptism. cap. v. p. 221. si novum videtur, exemplum futurum precucurrit. —spectantium aque motum, Angelus autem Domini des- cendebat, et movebat aquam. Et quicumque prior descen- debat in natatoria, sanus fiebat quacumque tenebatur infirmi- tate. Ital. 2. 3, desunt. Jtal. 1. Angelum aquis intervenire Piscinam Bethsaidam “ angelus interveniens commovebat ;” observabant g qui valetudinem quzrebantur. cendere illuc” queri post lavacrum desinebat.”* Nam “ si quis preevenerat des- ~~ + » ( Sif * eer : etore Of 6 idsmaroc* eb misevers 2& oAns TS napoiac, tees. comroxpt— Dixit autem ei Philippus: si credis ex toto corde, suscepis. Respondens autem dixit : cre- Selo OF ciwe* miseda roy viv TS do in Christum Filium Dei. Ital. 2. 3. @e® ceiver tov Inosy Xpisdv, Byz. ...--desunt. Pal.* S. Tren. adv. Heer. Lib. III. cap. xii. p. 196. tirov sivas “Inodr, \ ~ \> sy \ e . Sura 4 5 %) memArnpaodat tv ato ypaPnv, ws avre sd edvixos meodelc, x) mopzu~ rine abiav BanhoSivas, trcye § mireta tov Yio TS Oc8 elves "Iycdy Xpiréve’ Ib. xv. 28. » - uke yap 7a &yiw Wvetuale x) Placuit enim Sancto Spiritui wiry pndey wAdov eriliSerIas twiy et nobis, nihil amplius imponi vobis oneris, quam hee quz amino Seer e\dwrodurw, 1p abucem necessaria. horum: abstinete f ab immolatis, et sanguine, ct suffocatis, et fornicatione, a qui- \ ~ sz t Betgos mAny Fav emavalues TeTwve FOS, TVINTE, %) Topvebac. 2E ay dscélnpiivles Eales ev mpakdles "EppwoS:. Byz. Pal.* bus observantes vos ipsos bene agetis. Valete. tal. 2. 3. eee eee ee @ fF add. nel doa ay wn Déarcle Eavdo’s. , € \ ~ yiecSas ETE poss N TWObELY. Mig. Tert. de Pudic. cap. xii. p. 563. Primam hanc regulam de auctoritate Spiritus Sancti, Apostoli emittunt ad eos, qui jam ex nationibus allegi ceeperant. “ Visum est,’ inquiunt, ‘ Spi- ritui Sancto et nobis nullum amplius vobis adjicere pondus, quam eorum a quibus necesse est abstineri, a sacrificiis, et a fornicationibus, et sanguine, a quibus observando recte agitis, vectante vos Spiritu Sancto.” Clem. Alex. Pedag. Lib. II. p- 202. antyecSas cidwrodyrar, uur xinccloc, % TVUKTOV, ner ig mogveiag’ e& w dscilnptvres lautes a mpage. 5 ’ 4 ( 376 } Col. i. 144 vw \ ? "i \ ty @ EXoED Tov amoAUTpwo® dice ~ vo ~ \ ~ 48 aivalos avTe’, thy aDeow Fav Byz. . ~ Aurel bye eevee J des. vx 8 abwellas Pal.* autre. 8, Iren. adv. Her. Lib. V. cap. ii. p. 293. In quo habemus « redemps« tionem per sanguinem ejus,’ remissionem peccatorum. Jtal. 3. .+. © des. redemptionem per sanguinem ejus. tal. 2. Sanguis enim non est nisi a venis et carnibus, et a reliqua que est secundum ho- minem substantia, qua vere factum est Verbum Dei. Sanguine suo redemit nos, quemadmodum apostolus ejus ait; “in quo habemus redemptionem per sanguinem.ejus, remissionem pec~ catorum.” ' Ib. ii. 2. is imlywwow Te pusnpis TB Oz f wal TMalpos xak +3 Xpid.” > r > i? e in SN ~ ev @ elas mevles of Snzaupol tg , ‘\ ~ ‘ > , FoPias xs TNS yrwoewS amoxpyPos. —in agnitionem mysterii f Dei Patris et Christi Jesu,” in quo sunt omnes thesauri sapi- entiz et scientie absconditi, Byz. Ital. 3. f desunt. xa! Tlalpog at 78 Xpisde Pal.* f quod est Christus. Ital. 2. Clem, Alex Strom. Lib. V. cap. x. p..683. xat maaw oiop Pirchipspsvos ExPivas thy yrdow, we mag ypadesr © veSélevles marilec avSpomov tv maior coPia, ive mapashowper weve cvSpwmov TéActon ty Xeis@’’ 2 waila awrws ky Dpworor* éoret dels dv Gy carisos* aay wie maile Tov misevovla TéAcov Ey Xeisa'—inel ors 8 wala A yreoss Sacppndnv Ewideper § cupPaBsodévles ty ayaan, nab aig wav mABTOS THs HAncoPoegias tis cuvécswc, eis imbyrwow TH pusngis Te Oss, EV Xpisdy ty & gion wales of Snzavgot sis yrdoews dmoupuPor ¥ Johv iv: 3: nod may mredpoe buy Suoroye) rev et omnis Spiritus g qui non "Tncdy & Xpisoy ty capxi zAvAv- confitetur Jesum Christum in Dorey! ix 78 OB xis. Byz. came venisse,” non est ex Dea, ital. 2. B des. Xeisav iy cagni AnAvSorae «sg Quisolvit Jesum. Ital. 3. Pal.* S. Polycarp. ad. Philipp. cap. vii. p. 188, © més yap % as Pe) duoroyn "Inc&y Xessdy ev gag) ernaylivar? ailingssds icv xah Os ae pedodkun ra Adyia TH Kugis—éros mpulloronds iss te Lalavee In the concurring testimony of the Eastern and Western Churches, thus adduced in favour of the Greek Vulgate, we have the entire weight of the - presumptive evidence which is adducible on the present question ;—that each of the readings, sup- ported by those early vouchers, existed in the sacred text, from time immemorial. This evidence is, however, rendered positive by the express testi- mony of the primitive fathers, who have appealed to the texts before us, in the age which succeeded the apostolical. In the examples which have been adduced, and which constitute the whole of those of the smallest importance which have been im- _peached by M, Griesbach; one only is destitute of the authority of some one of those primitive wit- messes. And this example is so firmly sustained by the external testimony of ihe vulgar texts of the ) Greek, Latin, and Syriack"* churches, and by the | mt Vid, SUpT: Pp. 169: n. °°: p. 359. n. — { 378 ) internal evidence of the sacred context, that not a doubt can be entertained of its being authentick. As to the remaining texts, the testimony of St. Po- lycarp, Justin Martyr, St. Ireneeus, and Tertullian, . speak so plain a language with respect to them, as_ not to leave room for a cavil on their authenticity. Two testimonies from St. Irenzeus have been indéed adduced from a Latin translation; but the least at- tention to the scope and context of this primitive writer, must convince the most sceptical inquirer, that the reading of the vulgar text must have been before him while he was writing. A little closer attention to the testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus, will, I trust, also evince, that a similar conclusion must be formed respecting his allegation: and that we must infer from his mode of quotation, that he read in his copies, as we read, at this day, in the | Greek and Latin Vulgate"*. Ido not long delay %32 From what has been already adduced from Clement, it must appear, that more existed in the text, than that early fa- ther has quoted. ‘This is more fully evinced in the tenour of his subject and reasoning. (1.) After referring to Eph. iii. 3, 4. it is observable, that he sets out with declaring there is 4 species of knowledge which is communicated only to the ini- tiated; Clem. ub. supr. p. 682. 1. 24. gow yee Ts % conctol pasnois’ meeh ie pos TBs Korooowels yeaPuv Qnoly 6 & Tavopede.” ws. & (2.) He expressly prefaces the passage before us, b declaring that z# contained knowledge not extended to every one ; Id. ibid, p. 683. 1. 10. ewe ons Tavloy yv@ois, dvappndne torfQecest © ovuBiBacdérsc? x. 7.8 (3.) If he does not her admit, that the apostle * openly sets forth? Diagsrdnv emiDepery what he proceeds to insinuate, he however adds, that there were some things committed also to the Hebrews, in unwritten Hi dition ; Id. ibid. 1. 21. i» yae twa wypuQus wapadedoneve ‘cube race ( 879 ) ‘to anticipate any objections which may be made to those testimonies, on the suspicion of their bemg interpolated from the vulgar edition. As the pas- sages involve peculiarities, not merely verbal, they could not have been altered with ease; and as they do not relate to any contested point of doctrine, and have never been quoted to decide any, there could be no object in such a sophistication. ‘They are indeed so completely interwoven with the subjects of the different writers, in whose works they are wis “EReas%s. (4.) It is observable, that the reading 4 Xpsg is found in no manuscript ; and if this be considered the read- ing of Clement’s text, it renders his quotation wholly nugatory. {5.) The phrase r& Oc, 4} Malpis 19 78 Xpr® is the reading of the Greek and Latin Vulgate, and it adds the greatest force and appositeness to Clement’s quotation. As this phrase asserts the mystical union of “the Father and Christ”? the Son, as one “ God,’ it is not only that species of knowledge, but the only species which Clement’s religion prohibited him from di- vulging to the Heathen. (6.) While, of course, he must have read something of this kind in his text; he has sufficiently indi- cated that it was the passage before us, by alluding to it under the term ‘vy Xpso. For this phrase, and the whole of this expla- nation, is thus confirmed by 8. Hilary, in referring to the pas- sage before us, de Trinit. Lib. IX. § 62. col. 1025.—* in agnitionem sacramenti (uvszgis) Det Christi, in quo sunt omnes thesauri sapientia et scientize absconsi, [Col. ii. 2, 3.] Deus Christus sacramentum est, et omnes thesauri sapientie et scien- tie in eo latent. Portioni vero, et universitati non convenit.?? Clement, of course, knowing’ that the doctrine was & Xpra, or pusnpiov ey Xeisy amixeopor, properly substituted this phrase in his works, which were published among ihe Heathen, for the true reading 7% ©:3, %) Tarpis x 18 Xpise, which his religion prohibited him from divulging. Conf, S. Hier. Tom. V. p, 375. g, ( 380 ) found, that they cannot be removed without making such arent in the context, as would directly evince their removal. Infinitely greater, and indeed insu- perable, must have been the obstacles with which — any sophisticatour would have to contend in insert- — ing such passages in the writings of these primitive — fathers. As the manner in which the early fathers have quoted even the remarkable texts already adduced — renders any dependance on their testimony wholly unsafe, where the verbal integrity merely of the text — is concerned, our only appeal lies in this case to | the testimony of the primitive versions. The pri-— mitive Italick and Syriack translations have been — already pointed out, as the hest and earliest wit- nesses: to their decision. let us now submit the determination of the question. The following eol- lection of texts constitute the whole of the passages a ‘ : N of any the smallest importance, which M. Griesbach — has rejected from the Gospels, in his Corrected Edition, / Mat. vi. 13. { -. - 8 « , ,«£ Ay ° ; ors oS isw 4 Baoirsia x) 1 dv- quoniam tuum est regnum et — paris, x) 7 dvéay cis 79s aidvac, virtus, et gloria, in sacula, enix, Vile. Ital. 1. [Zao dv uo yd.» Wat quia tuum est regnum et po- AS ie [dwenD.2Zo \lo tentia, et gloria in sxcula oa seeculorum. Syr. ( 381 ) Ib. xv. 8. ed > eee 3 ~ , Tyler wor 6 Aads Bros Ty Somat aitriy xai—Vulg. ~~... desunt. Syr. adpropinquat se mihi populus hic ore suo, et—. JTial. 1. - + desunt. Syr. Ib, xviii. 29. alg ths r6dag avrd. Vulo. Ta Tapomlaacile avriv. Vulg. aZeS_5» wi pur Abyess aryeedon ; 20615 ayates, ab wn ets 6 Seds. Vale. “bed. Joy ud A] [po Lb» Jas ~ (Hs . Ib. xx } 5 0 Banlieue $ tye Rarlilopasy | BawricSivar ..... nab 1d Ban | micua ° iyo Banligonos, Raho. Mice. Vulg. Jie bi teases fiszatastco—: optadt | » ecard bh] -oS fh}? ad pedes ejus. tal. 1. ‘ ad pedes ejus. Syr. Ibid. 35. peccata eorum. Ital. 1. errata ejus. Syr. Tb. xix. 17. quid me dicis bonum? nemo bonus nisi unus Deus. Jtai. 1. quid vocas me bonum; non est bonus nisi unus Deus. Syr. . 22, 28. aut baptisma baptizari quo ego ».e+ et baptisma quo ego bap- tizor baptizamini. Ital. 1. aut baptismate quo ego bapti- zor baptizabimini ..... baptis- mate quo ego baptizor bapti- zabimini. Syr. ( 382 ) di Ib. xxvii. 35. _ a A \ eu N ~ Fae wAnewn TO endev Oy opyre® osemesionrle Te tuaric spopnr fAep fe ~ \ \ \ « , PB EXUTOIS, ues Ems TOV bMeETICAGD pe eacAov HAT POV. Vulg. Perra 92d piofZ|? dopo [oh Qo eoulaed cinta ao) ~ fab cado5] wero Mar. iv. 24. BOL TpOOTEINCETOAS Uuiv Tors aut= avow. Vulg. aul a5 asoZiso b] Ib. vi. 11. > - 4 e “ > 4 ww Apnv Asya vpsy AVERTOTEpIY ETA Lodsnoie zat Topdpposs ey naépee n ~ ‘ Apel, % Ty WOME EXEN Ne Vi ulg. jour * a> Ii} gto} tale {gasas.Xo yoo, ry Viens o| jas? jrao + OI Ibid. 33. ot OX )o4 [xat eméyraaes | auTop cscs nab mpomaSoy adras % cuvanSov xpos adrov. Vulg. ues - a] Lodzchsfo] Bae TIAL, 0 ut impleretur quod dictum est per prophetam; diviserunt sibi vestimenta mea, et super ves- tem meam miserunt sortem. Ital. 2. ut impleretur id quod dictum — est per prophetam: _partiti sunt vestimenta mea inter se, et super vestem meam jecerunt sortem. Syr. — et adjicietur vobis credentibus., Ital. 1. et adjicietur vobis ipsis qui au- ditis. Syr. amen dico vobis, tolerabilius erit Sodomis, aut Gomoris in die judicii, quam illi civitaté.’ Ital. 1. et equidem dico vobis tranqui liorem fore Sedoum et Omouro in die judicii, civitate ile Syr et cognoverunt eos amulti .... et prevefierunt eos, et conve: nerunt ad eum. Jial.1. [et agniti sunt] illi: et ...... coram eo illuc. ( 383 ) Ib. xiii. 14. od) eASti dws Aawnr TB mpoPare. ...-. hiat. Briz. Vule. © as Lh, [parvo]? Ua quod dictum est per Daniel prophetam. Syr. - Luc. iv. 18. idcucSas tho cuvretpiuuzves tr sanare contritos corde. Jial. 1. xaptiar, Vilg. laXS Grol caxsftoS ad sanandum contritos corde. Syr. Ib. ix. 55. & yap tiss v8 aeSpowe &x 7ASe filius enim hominis non venit doxes aSparwv aarcdicat, zAAw® animas hominum perdere, sed warar. Vulg. salvare. Jtal. 1. 12] Uo = bel: pay a0 filius enim hominis non venit samt |] jada o,ce\ ad perdendum animas, sed ad : servandum. Syr. Ieee, 22- ) spaPers opes Tes padylas cies one desunt. Briz. Vulg. wot SL Za «aadio et conversus est ad discipulos - CAS pelo suos et dixit eis. Syr. Ib. xi. 2. > ty Toig Souscis .... yemnirw quiesinceelis.... fiat voluns .* : “— TO SHAnud cx, as Ev Epary nai tet tas tua sicut in ceelo, et in = vise Vulg.” ; terra. Ital, 1. a. .. Laced) quies in ceelis.... fiat volun» . 2| a m8 tas tua, sicut in ceelo et in / terra. Syr. ( 88 ) Ibid. 4. EAra float mcs ows TE worned. Vulg. baad Do 2007 |) Ibid. yecupccreis nab Dagioaios drroxpi- rat. Vulg. ofa unm as 20 [sam sed erue nosa malo. Jidi, 1. sed libera nos a malo. ‘Syre 44, Scribe et Pharasai Sppocites Ital. 1. scribe et perischai 7 Syr. Ib. xvii. 36. Boo Zoovlas ev ry ypu" 0 ths moepae anQlnotlar, nat & Erspog aPedn~ elas. Vule. Lows Con ney y4 aL eee ee ord Joh. Ss EumpooSev us yéyover. Vulg. - atlt--2 AD lomo duo in agro, unus adsumetur, et alter relinquetur. Ital. 1. duo erunt in agro, unus assu- metur et alter relinquetur. Syr. 1. 27. qui ante me factus est. Jtal. 1. et fuit ante me. Syr. - X : ' Tb. v. 16. xab enter eisey arorlervase et querebant eum interfieere. — Fule. Stal. 1. adJalcS coor S50 Ib. vi. ~ \ 2xsive ele © ivéBnoay oF padnta ature. Vulg. et studebant eum intetcemy Syr. 29. . desunt. Ital 1.2. * eam quam conscenderant dis-. cipuli. Syr. 1 ( 38 ) wd Tb. Viiie 59. DirSay ad pice adriiy, x) wag. transiens per medium eorum Siyer Gras. Vulg. et ibat. Ital. 1. « fe OM IAD s2S0 transiitque per medium eorum et abiit. Syr- In the whole of these extracts there are but three passages which are not supported by the concurring testimony of the Oriental and Western Churches ; one only which is not supported by the positive tes- timeny of either of those antient unimpeachable witnesses. For Mat. xv. 8. is destitute of the sup- port of the Syriack version; and Luk. x. 22. Joh. vi. 22. of that of the primitive Italick ; while Mat. xxvil. 35. is not only absent from the latter transla- tion, but wanting in many copies of the former, as well as in many of the Greek Vulgate"™#. But the #33 Mars. Vers. Syr. Philox. Matt. xxvii. 35. Tom. I. p. 149, ed. Oxon.1778. ‘“ Partitisunt) Hec Periocha Prophete non inventa est in duobus exemplaribus Grecis, neque in illo anti- quo Syriaco.’” The learned editour ingeniously observes; in Pref. Sect. vi. p. xxix. “ Ad Matt. xxvii. 35. monet criticus, hanc pericopen non inveniri in duobus exemplaribus Grecis, _meque in antiqua, vel Simplici, Syriaca. Nec hujus note auctor _fuit Thomas: quia si hanc pericopen in textu Polycarpi inve- : petit, et non in exemplaribus suis Grecis, quomodo non obelo iilam damnavit. Prof. Adler however observes, on the peri- ope or verse before us; Nov. Test. Syriacc. Verss. Lib. II. p- 96. “ Desunt revera hec verba in codicibus versionis _ Syriace antiquioris, et in prima editione Vienuensi, ubi tamen inter errata supplentur, e quibus deinde in sequiores editiones irrepserunt. Desunt quoque, a voce xAzew ad xArgov, in ple- risque nisi omnibus probatis codicibus Grecis, et sine dubie | sunt rejicienda, cc : : | ) { 386) dissent of those antient versions from the former pas- sages, does not in the least impeach their authenti- city. Asin these omissions the Syriack and Italick Versions accord with the Palestine text, their nega- tive testimony against the vulgar Greek must be imputed to the influence of Eusebius’s edition ;— while their positive testimony in favour of the same — text can be only accounted for by admitting their coincidence with the original Greek text, from which — all editions have descended"+,. That in Mat. xv. 8. the Brescia manuscript possesses the genuine read- _ ing, has been already rendered apparent, from a comparative view of the copies of the Italick trans- lation’, In fact the dissent of the latter copies of this version from the vulgar Greek, may be traced to the influence of Origen’s writings; to which we must impute the deviation of the Palestine text, in the instances before us, from the Greek Vulgate. And the extensive influence of Eusebius’s text ren- ders it difficult to pronounce on the authenticity of Mat. xxvii. 35. The absence of this text from the Palestine edition is easily accounted for, as I hope i in the sequel to prove ; its total absence from the pra q mitive Italick version, and partial absence from the Syriack, is of course accounted for, in the former consideration. But its partial introduction into’ Syriack, and general admission into the Greek, create a difficulty which is not so easily solved Could we admit the truth of the account which St. 4 ‘Vid. supr. p. 357. Sqqe . Vid, SUpt. Oy 16a. Mss | LL Ll —“O—OON ( 387 ) Jerome has given of Lucianus’s text’; the inter- polation of the original might be laid to his account, as it perfectly answers the description which he has given of Lucianus’s alterations "37, and as such is omitted in. the modern Vulgate. The influence of Lucianus, whose text prevailed from Byzantium to Antioch, of which latter city he was a presbyter, would fully account for the admission of this verse into the Syriack translation. But we have every reason to believe St. Jerome mistaken in his judg- ment of Lucianus’s edition "*. And in favour of this verse, it must be observed, that its introduction into the Gospel of St. Matthew is most conformable to the manner of that Evangelist, who is always so particular in his quotations from the prophetical Scriptures, that it can be scarcely conceived he could have wholly omitted this extraordinary pas- sage. The oblique manner in which it is referred to by the other Evangelists", seems to establish the same conclusion; as its explicit citation in the Gospel of St. Matthew rendered it merely necessary that they should refer to it obliquely. In making the above citations, I have confined my attention to the passages rejected by M. Gries- bach from the Gospels, not merely from choice, but necessity. Neither the primitive Italick nor Syri- ack Version extend beyond that part of the New Testament; the Acts and Epistles of the former "6 Vid. supr. p. 100. n. ™. Wid. supr. p. 157. n. 7°. ¥8 Vid. supr. pp. 137, 138. conf.p. 1514. *9 Comp. Mar. xv. 24. Luk. xxiii. 34, cc2 ( 388 ) Version being: wholly lost, and those of the latter having been considerably altered since the Gospels were rendered, if not wholly translated, at a sub- sequent 'period™*. But in this loss there is not so much to regret, as may be at first imagined; for we do not require the remaining parts of those versions to determine the matter at issue. As in the differ- ent classes of manuscripts, one species of text pre- vails through every part of the text; those copies — which are of the same class having the Gospels 4° The partial propagation of the Gospel im Armenia, Persia, Arabia, Ethiopia, and Meesia, in the fourth century, renders it probable that select parts from the New Testament at least, were translated for the use of the churches established in those re- gions: vid. supr. p. 48. n. 7. pp. 322. n. *. 323. n. **, The : state of the Gothick and Ethiopick versions, if not of the Sahi- ] dick, and the history of the Armenian version, fully confirm this — supposition. The first named version does not,extend beyond ; the Gospels; vid. Le Long. Bibl. Sacr. Tom. I. p, 371. col. 2. a» — The second contained several important omissions, which were supplied in the London Polyglot, vid. Le Long. ibid. p. 128. : col. 1..e. Great additions were made to the Armenian ver- — sion in the year 1333 by the Romish missionaries, who laboured at an early period to reduce the Armenian church to a state +s i subjection to the Roman Pontiff: Galan. Hist. Armen, p. 483, ed. Colon. 1686. In the thirteenth century it was revised — and corrected throughout by the Latin Vulgate; vid. Marsh. — Michael. chap. vii. p. 103. The Persian and Arabick have — been completed, and revised throughout by the Coptick — and Syriack; Marsh. Michael. Ibid. pp. 77. 83.105. We may thus easily account for peculiar readings, which are fre- quently retained in the modern version, which are not found in the antient; those readings existing in such parts of the tran- slation as were made.before the yersion was completed, by the last revisal. ( 389 ) agreeing with the Acts and Epistles; when we esta- blish the superiour purity of any class, in the prin- cipal part of the text, we may thence legitimately infer that of the remainder. Or to reduce this mat- ter to more certain principles; when, by the assist- ance of those auxiliaries, the Eastern and Western versions, we have ascertained what manuscripts of the original Greek will furnish the genuine text, on a comparative view of the subject; we may thence relinquish the accessories, and on the com- parative testimony of the principals, determine the authentick text of Scripture. In this undertaking considerable use may be likewise made of the ver- sions; whatever be the changes which they may have undergone, since their first formation. As we know the original text by which they have been re- touched, and the points in which they have been affected ; thePalestine text being the model by which they were shaped, and points of doctrine being those in which they have been influenced; a slight cal- culation will enable us, if not to recover the primi- tive reading of the translation, yet to appreciate its lightness when weighed against the authority of the original. In fact,a very small allowance made for _ the alterations which the Syriack Vulgate may have _ sustained, still leaves the testimony of that version as fully on the side of the vulgar Greek, in the Epistles and Acts, as in the Gospels. Taking into account, together with its testimony, the evidence of those later witnesses, to whom an appeal lies in the present subject ; we may thence deduce a per- fect defence of the Greek Vulgate, on every point of ( 390 ) the smallest importance, in which its integrity has been impeached as corrupted ‘**. ) ** The following list of texts, which constitute the whole of the passages which are of any importance, on account of their length, that M. Griesbach has wholly rejected from the Acts and Epistles, may be restored to the sacred text on the testi- mony of the annexed authorities: Act. ii. 30. 73 xala capxa avasnoew tov Xesov. Byz. ‘Eg. It. 2.3. Tb. ix: 6. oxdnpov cos meus xivlpa Ansli€ew. Teéuwv te x) SapnBadv store’ Kuper ot we SéAcic mornces; xat & Kupios opis atror Byz. Syr. 2. It. 3. Ath Are Ib. x. 6. &r0g AaAnoes cor, Th ce dei qWoreive Byz. Eg. It. 3. Copt. Ib. xv. 18. iss 1y Oro wale re tpya ars. Byz. Ag. Syr. 1. It. 2.3. Tb. xxii. 20. +n dyargion atté. Byz. Syr. 1. Ar.2. Rom. vi. 12. aivn iv rais imSvpious acs. Byz. Pal. Syr. 1.2. Tt. 3. Ibid. viii. 1. p4 xallad odpxa weguwaliow. Byz, Syr. 1, It.2.3. Ar. Ib. xi. 6. ei db & epywr, dxérs ge gechenc* toed a Epyoy Sxérs triv Epyor, Byz. Syr. 1. Ar. Ib. xv. 29. 7% sdalyerns 7%. Byz. Syr. 1. It. 3. Ar. 1 Cor. vi. 20. 5 & 7H wvevpal dpi, ara ts: rE Oc8. Byz. Syr. 1. Ar. Ib. x. 28. 78 yap Kuple 4 yn x 70 TAN pla pede QUTNS. Byz. Syr. 2. Ar. Gal. iii. 1. 7 aanSeba. ) ; wiSsSa:; Byz. Syr. 2. Zith. It. 3. Arab. Eph. iii. 9. da “Inod Xpird. Byz. Syr. 2. Arab. Phil. lil. 16. nevis +d word Qporeir. i a Byz. Syr. 1. It..8. Ar. Ibid. 21. sis 7d yevicdas wird. Byz. Syr. 1.2. Ar. Col, i. 2. 13 Kugie “Incd Xpot. Byz. Syr. 2. It. 3. Ar. ZEth. 1 Thes. ili. 2. 5 déxover—ayar. Byz. Syr. 1. Ar. 1.& Heb. ii. 7. «5 xalésnoas avtov im Ta eye THY xerpaw OB, Byz. Syr. 1.2. It. 2.3. Ar. Zth. 1 Pet. i. 23. cis adv aiaivae Byz. Syr. 1. Ft. 2.3. Ar. 1 Joh. v. 13. trois wisedecw tig 7d Brome ce TS cB @:3. Byz. Arab. » ( 397 ) ent text, if practicable, would have beer an useless attempt, and inconsistent with the high veneration in which St. Jerome’s translation was held™’. It was this veneration which must surely have directed the authours of this revisal to Palestine, where they could not be ignorant the Vulgate was framed, in search of the Greek, from whence that version was made originally. And the preface prefixed by St. Jerome to the Gospels, directed them not merely to the original, from whence it was derived, but to ex- traneous sources, which were naturally conceived to exist in the Palestine text and Syriack translation Whatever might have been the care employed in correcting the modern Vulgate, it could thus have extended to little more than restoring its original readings. And thus much is apparent from the internal evidence of the copies of the Vulgate, which sers proceeded greater lengths in restoring the text, they must have transgressed the intentions of Charlemagne: Carol. Magn. ap. P. Mabil. in Annall. Tom. I. p. 25. “ Igitur quia cure nobis est, ut Ecclesiarum nostrarum ad meliora semper profi- ciat status, obliteratam pene malorum nostrorum disidia repa¢ rare, vigilanti studio literarum satagimus officinam; et ad per- noscenda sacrorum librorum studia, nostro etiam quos possumus invitamus exemplo, inter que jampridem universos Veteris ac Novi Testamenti libros, librariorum imperitia depravatos, Deo nos in omnibus adjuvante, ad amussim correximus.’? *S Vid. supr. pp. 32, 33. nn. *” et 8° Vid. supr. p. 100. n. "7°. S. Jerome, in declaring, in that Preface, “‘ cum multarum gentium linguis Scriptura ante transe lata,” was naturally conceived to include the Syriack version. Of this translation it-is certain, his predecessour, Eusebius, if not Origen, made some -use, in revising’ the Old Testament, as will appear in the sequel. ( 398 ) were corrected by Alcuine, under Charlemagne; and which have descended to our times"’; it does not appear that these copies approximate more to the vulgar text of the Syriack and Greek, than any other copies of that translation. Nor is the integrity of the Syriack Vulgate less capable of vindication, from the charge of those who would insinuate, that it has been corrupted from the Greek Vulgate. That such a corruption could not have taken place, subsequently to the year 450, when the Philoxenian version was formed, has been already evinced, from the history of the Syrian church since the middle of the fifth century’. And the bare consideration, that this version was framed, at that period, by the Palestine text, ren- ders the conception absurd in the extreme, that the primitive version could have previously coincided with the same edition: the eviction of which agree- 187 Such is the celebrated Vallicella Bible, mentioned under — the following terms by M, Blanchini, Evangeliar. Quadrupl. P. Il. f. dciv. Descriptio insignis Cod. Vallacelani, complec- tentis Biblia Sacra utriusque Testamenti, exarata proprio manu, ab Alchuino Anglo, Sancti Bede discipulo.? This MS. is however classed by M. Blanchini, among those which are de= scribed under the following title; Id. ib. dxcix. Descriptio aliquot Codicum Tiiiietsiite Antique Itale pure pute Hiero- nymian@.’ ' The subscription of the MS. Bible of St. Germain des Prez, which has been already quoted, supr. p. 32. n. 7. contains a stronger confirmation of the above assumption; that — the integrity. of the Latin Vulgate was rather restored than violated under the revisal of Alcuine; and that its affinity to the Syriack must be sought in the Palestine text, which had some influence on this version and St. Jerome’s. 8 Vid. supr. p. 343. sqq. ( 399 ) ment is essentially necessary to the establishment of the assumption, that the latter version has been sub- sequently altered, to correspond with the text of By- zantium., As the Peshito, or Syriack Vulgate, has never sunk in the esteem of the Syrian church; the formation of a new version cannot be imputed to the circumstance of the old having become obsolete in its language, or fallen in its reputation: nor to any other cause, but the publication of a Greek text, which attained to higher repute than that from which the original version was formed... Had it been in consequence of the corruption of the primitive tran- slation, from some modern Greek text, it must be obvious, that the only plan left to those who would undertake to remedy this evil, would have been to restore the primitive readings, by a collation of the old copies of the version with those of the original. But this is a supposition which is not only refuted by the internal evidence of the version, which possesses no such corrections; but is wholly irreconcilable with the veneration in which the vulgar version is held by the Syrians*?. In fact, the whole of the *59 Gabr. Sionit. Pref. in Psalt. Syriac. p. iii. Quamvis linguz Syriac usus communis sit apud distinctas diversarum religionum nationes, sacrorum tamen voluminum integritas summa semper cum religione servata est ab omnibus, ita ut nulla vel minima discrepantia in eorum lectione deprehendatur. Viget autem ea lingua primo apud Chaldzos Mesopotamie populos, Heresi Nestoriane misere obligatos ; tum apud Syros Jacobitas, qui Dioscoridis, Eutychetis, et Jacobi falsa dogmata secuti, Monothelitarum nomine dignoscuntur; tertio apud Maronitas nostros, etiam Syros, qui ab avita fide Catholica Romana nun- quam desciverunt.’’ d ( 6) © circumstances of the case, tend as fully to prove, that the text with which the primitive version agrees was antient, as that by which the latter version was formed, was modern'®®. From which consideration the priority of the Byzantine to the Palestine text, follows of course; as it is with the former that the primitive version corresponds, while the revised cor- responds with the latter. Admitting this to be the case, which it will not be found easy to disprove, the unsupported assumption, that the Syriack Vul- gate has been corrected by the Byzantine Greek, regis no further refutation. - Such an assumption can be only maintained on the grounds of the affi- nity discoverable between the Syriack and Greek ; which affinity must be thus attributed to this obvi- ous cause; that the one was originally made from the other. d " 6° It has never been doubted, that the later version has b formed after the Palestine text, which was published by Eusee bius, and which accorded in the Old Testament with Origen’s Hexapla. . Walt. Prolegomm. in Bibll. Polyglott. Sect. xiii, § . p. 89.—versionem habent [Syri] ex Hebreo antigquissimam, quam in his Bibliis exhibemus, et illa quam postea hauserunt ex Graco, non erat ex mixta aliqua editione, sed ex ea quam in Origenis Hexaplis puram esse et genuinam, omnes veteres, imo ipse Hieronymus, uno ore affirmarunt.’? This however is ren= dered indisputable by the subscription of the Ambrosian me of the Philoxenian Version ; a specimen of which has been pub- lished by M. De Rossi. Spec. ined. Hexaplar. Biblior. Vers. Syro-Estrang. in Diatrib. § vi. [p. x.] Parm. 1778. “ Mote. ad Codicem ipsum redeamus, qui hac epigraphe explicit; * Descriptus est et effictus ex exemplurt Eusebti et Pamphili. Ad ejus scilicet normam, quod ipsi emendarunt ex dibliotheca Origenis,”? ( 401 ) - As these considerations seem adequate to vindi- ‘cate the integrity of the Syriack Vulgate; they in svolve an equally strong argument in favour of the antiquity of this Pe CRe “which is universally admitted to be the most antient of the Oriental vera sions‘. That this version existed in its present ‘mutilated form, previously to the fourth century, I cannot be easily brought to conceive. The ex- travagant antiquity ascribed to it by the native Sy- rians '* and Orientalists‘®, is clearly entitled to no 78 Walt. ut supr. § 8. p. 89. ‘ Quod ad utilitatem hujus lingue spectat—addere licet, quod in ea extat vetustissima tran« slatio, Vet. Test. ex Hebrzxo, et Nov. Test. ex Greco, que omnes post Christum factas antiquitate superat.’’ Renaudot. ap. Le Long. Biblioth. Sacr. Tom. I. p.i. cap. ii. p. 93. “ Versio Syra, qua vulgo Syri omnes utuntur, ex Hebraico facta est omniumgue versionum Orientalium est antiquissima.”? Conf. infr. n. ‘°°. 2 Walt. ibid. p. 90. § 15. ‘ —Sionita in Psalm. Syr. ex Saodedo quodam episcopo Hadethiensi, antiquo apud Syros scriptore. Fatetur tamen ibidem Sionita, quorundam Syrorum sententiam esse, totam Vet. et Nov. Test. Versionem factam fuisse tempore S. Thaddai (quem Addeum vocant) et regis db= pari; priorem vero sententiam probabiliorem judicat, que mihi improbabilior videtur.”’ **3 Abul-Pharai. Hist. Arab. p. 184. a Pocock.— siquidem exemplar—quod Simplex appellatur, quia qui illud elaborarunt de ornatu verborum soliciti non fuerunt, convenit cum exem=- plari Judzorum. At Syri Occidentales duas habent versiones, simplicem illam que e lingua Hebraica im Syriacam translata est post adventum Domini Christi tempore Add@i Apostolz, vel juxta alios, ante eum tempore Salomonis filii David et Hirami ; et alteram figuratam juxta LXX seniorum interptetationem e lingua Graca in Syriacam traductam longo post Saluatoris incarnationem.”? pa dd ( 408 j attention, ‘86 great a work as ‘thie translation ofthe whole Bible into the language of that people; have been effected by labour ‘and t time. That of the version . which contains the Old Te | has been. attributed to the Jews 104. > and the mere . circumstance. of this part of the ‘Cali having Bech | ‘the first that was translated, : seems. ‘decisive of the fact, The’ christians possessed no knowledge’ of the Hebrew, ‘from which this version Was ‘madé™®, ; and were not’even in ‘possession of the’ origi, | until the publication, of Origen’s _Hexapla™*. Ih _ ™ Author. ‘Synops. Nov. Bibll. Porjalatt. p p. 18. # ‘Sys duplex est Bibliorum versio, ex Greco una ‘facta est—ek “Hee | brxo altera—. Ebraica verba ita presse exprimit, ut @ os spotius quam ab homine Christiano profectam Suisse Saar /Suspicor illam olim in usum Judeorum, gui it in syn Ebraice et Chaldaice legebant, conditam fuisse, et : ts ob -Chaldaice et Syriace. dialectorum afipitacem, ad Syréd rani- siisse.?__Ap. Le,Long. ibid. | . 15 Vid. supr. p. 401. n. 3, &c.’ Tt is mentioned By Bild. -bius as a singular instance of the. ‘indefatigable aittgetes 2 Of Origen, who, according to the admission of" the Pagans, Was ‘the most learned person of his times, that he studied Tobi vid. supr. p. 213. n. *. 7 ‘6° Eusebius represents the possession of a copy of rma brew. Scriptures as peculiar to Origen ; Hist. ‘Ecelés. Lib. Vie -eap. Xvi. p. 275. 1.21. Tooavtn oF cist 7) “Dptyina i oe Sitar Aoywy a ede eéracss, ws % Thy EBjatla yAailay ‘peat. ras re mage trois "Iwdaiois EuQegoudvas mpaldlomes avrors “SBF soxtions Tpapds, x7iua idiov momoasSa. And St. Terome speaks of him as learning Hebrew contrary to the gd of his country ; S. Hier. Cat. Seriptt. Eccl. in Orig: Ti om. I. p, 126. “ Et quod tantum in Scripturas divinas habuerit “studi, ut etiam Hebracam linguam contra atatis gentisque sue ae abtirdn edisceret.”” (403 ) | tompiling this ‘great work, in the third: century, Origen probably, made some use of the Syriack ver: sion, having frequently referred to it. in his mars gin’7, In the fourth century, itis noticed by uses bivs, Bes, and aepene? "8 and is expressly quoted ' 6 Metc. Pralimm. in 1 Hexapl. jee cap. i. 5 vii. Pp: 18. “© Samaritani et Syri lectiones in marginibus wetustissi- morum exemplarium que Hexaplorum JSragmenta exhibent, per- sepe observantur; Syrz quidem in plerisque Scripture libris ; Samaritani vero in Pentateucho tantum:—Cum autem ille Samaritani Jectiones, nonin vetustis codicibus tantum, sed etiam, apud patres quarti, quintt, et sequentium seculorum gccurrant, probabile sane widetur ipsum Originem lectiones illas Samaritani in margine Hezaplorum posuisse. Adem porro dicen= dum de Syro, cujus interpretationes passim reperiuntur, in Genesi Exodo, ?? &c. Whatever be considered probable on this aubject, it must be inferred, that this version, which is quoted in the Hexapla, was the Peshito, from its coincidence with the Hebrew ; vid. infr. n. 7°, *8 Walt. Prolegomm. in Bibll. Polygll. p.91, * Quicguid vero sit de hoc Hieronymi testimonio” (vid. supr. p. 397. n.**°.) certum est Syriace versionis apud multos veterum Grecorum et ; Latinoram fieri mentionem. Basilius Magnus Hom. 1. in Hex. ad Gen. i i. 2. ex Syro.interprete AMn exponit, ——. Ambrosius Hex. Lib. I. cap. viii. in eundem locum citat Syrum—Procopius in Exod. xxii. memorat Syrum vertisse ‘ excutite, vacuifacite,’ . evoxsvdcal Theodoretus in cap. iii. Jone Syros codices citat, ut in Ps. civ. cxiii. cxvi. Chrysostomus in Ps. xciv.. et Heb. xi. Syri codicis etiam meminit S. Augustinus De Civitate: Dei Lib. XV... cap. xiii..—-.-. Ad hac sepissime 72 «Xie mentionem habemus in antiquissimis. Scholiis Grecis,’* * ce Montfauc. ibid. p. 19. ‘ Syri porro lectiones. adferuntur ab Eus aebio C@sariensi, a Diodoro, Tarsensi frequentius ; ab " Esssebio Enmiseno, Hieronymo, Theodoreto et aliis.;, Quodque;notandum est, iidem, maximeque Diodorus, Syrum cum Hebr@o jungunt hoc pacto;_ r Zipos % é “Efeaiac, vel, a Q “EBpatos 6% & Lupos, quando pdz ( 404 ) out of the Old and New Testament, by Ephremythe Syrian'®?.. In this century, of course; the’ transla- tion must have been completed. But the difference — of style existing between the Gospels and the Acts and Epistles, renders it not merely probable that the translation was formed at different times ; but that F the Gospels, as might naturally be conceived, “were | formed at a comparatively early period. This sup- position is not merely confirmed by the peculiar, character of the style, which is more purethan that of the Acts and Epistles, and bears internal evidence of greater antiquity ‘7°; but by the absence of Eusebius’s BectiGus, which ee be supposed to have existed in the Palestine text, when the version of the Gos- scilicet amborum interpretationes conveniunt, quod sepe contigit.® The learned authour, Ib. § ix. p. 20. raises some objections to the notion of a Syriack version, from the Hebrew having eX= isted in this early age; which he déduces from the circum- stance of this version containing some Greek terms. But no- thing‘can be concluded from hence against the existence’ of the _ Syrieck Vulgate at this period, as the Syriack language, in — which it is written, abounds in Greek terms. In the following — observation, he seems to answer his own ‘objections on this point; Id. ibid. p. 20. “ Verum non desunt exempla alia que ; huic ones adversari videntur} ut est illud ex Dilymo Ga vill. 7. 6 0 Lueos & 8x, Sows ™ aye 4 wig yee, © omésgebe,® J #6 Efeaios. 262 ‘Vid. supr. p. 25. n. “3. 79 Simon. Hist. des Vers. chap. xv. p. 187. “ Au reste” cette Version n’est pas tout-a-fait si simple dans les Epitres de St. Paul, gue dans les Evangiles. Comme le stile, de ces Epi- tres est obscur et embarrassé, l’Interprete Syrien s’y est donné plus de liberté, s’eloignant quelquefois de son original. Il ‘s’émancipe dés des premiers mots de Epitre aux Ramans,” &¢. Comp. Marsh. Michael. Vol. Il, chap. vii. § 8. p. 40. (¢ 405. pels was made.’ All these considerations taken to- gether, claim for the first part: of this version an: antiquity not less. remote than the third century. And this assumption is rendered more probable, by: many corroborating circumstances. © The establish- ment. of the Palestine school under Origen excited a spirit of literary exertion among the Syrians at this period, and directed their attention to biblical: criticism ’7". With :the declension of: the Greek power in the East, on the extension of the Roman conquests to the remotest bounds of the civilized world, the authority of the Greek language simulta- neously declined’. The Syrians now began to cul- *™ Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. VI. cap. xxx. p. 294. 1. 27. To OF 'Qesyéves emt rig Kescapeias te ony mpcarlovls, qroAAod mpoonecav, & LOvoy THY EMIX wplwy, aAAa x awd Ths aModaans pupios Poilwlat tas walgidus amorimovles—as—rns mpoligas omedis 7nd Seiay dounow allnclanrctacdas mparpérbalo. 2 The peculiar attention with which the natives of Pales- Pp tine and Syria cultivated Greek, may be collected from the writings of Justin Martyr, Tatian, Theophilus, &c. who wrote in that language. The principal writers among the Jews as well as Christians, neglecting their vernacular tongue, devoted themselves exclusively to the cultivation of that language, as is apparent from the works of Josephus and Philo, who are supe posed, particularly the latter, to have had very little knowledge of Hebrew or Chaldee. Bardesanes, in the second century, wrote in Syriack; but to obtain his works a circulation in Pa- lestine, it was found necessary by his disciples to translate them into Greek; Euseb. ibid. Lib. 1V. cap. xxx. p. 194. 1. 16.— wAnQvvecwv Tay aigicewy, emt Tg Mécnseravemolaav, Baponodvns ixavdrallos Tis civap, Ev re tH Ligwy Qwvn diarcxTincdlelosx—— Darsyus ousnodpevos, TH O1KEie Wupedwne YAwTIN TE % yeaQn, - pela x} mAsiswv Exepuv avre oulyeappcerur® 8s of yucpsmos ‘(aarcivos 8 toa ard duielas 72 Myo maprrayéw) eel rav EdAnvev dod (( 406° )) tivate their native tongue, and one of the first efforts; to give it a written existence, was employed in con=, verting the best of books, into the vérnacular lan- guage. But the peculiar character of that part of the version which. was first formed, conveys a proof, which is at once demonstrative of its antiquity, and» _ of its freedom from later corruption; a proof which — is rendered decisive, by the wide and early disper- sion of this translation, which rendered its general rE impossible”. From the as nS Eielpere ese sewn Qwvas. A like observation may ‘od made on the works of Ephrem Syrus, who wrote in the) fourth century ; S. Hier. Cat. Scriptt. Eccless. in Ephr. Tom. I. p. 131. . “ Ephraem, Edessene ecclesie diaconus, mulia Syro sermone composuit :—Legi ejus de. Spiritu Sancto volumen, quod gquidam de Syriaca lingua vententg et acumen sublimis — ingenii etiam in translatione cognovi.’? As translations are | rarely made into languages which are not more generally undere | stood, than those in which the originals are written; these authorities very sufficiently evince the continuance. of Greek in Syria, as low as the close of the fourth century. Towards the middle of the next century, matters assumed, a differer appearance ; the translation of the works of Ibas, hota Theodorus Mopsuestenus, Diodorus Tarsensis, &e. into § tiack at this period, sufficiently declare, that. this language hi already begun to. supersede the Greek: vid. supr. p. 344. n. A revisal of the Syriack Version was consequently a probably with the view of extending the Eutychian heresy iz Syria, for which purpose the original Version, which had been | so long used by Paulianists and Arians, wat little —_ vid. suprs p- 371. n. 78, p. 346, n. 7%, 3 Walt. Prolegomm. in Bibll. Polyglott. Sect. xiii, § 3. fe. 52. “Qui yero hac lingua [Syriaca] sacra sua celeb ut a doctiss. Bierewood recensentur, sunt, (1.) Maronite. (, 407, ), reement of the primitive Syriack. version and t the, Gr eck. Vulgate, we of course deduce 2 a like conelus. Monte it Ltd ‘Habent isti Maronite Pattiarcham, ag sedem Patriarchalem pleramque habet in ‘monte Libano, ‘ali=’ guando in Tripoli ; Scripturas vero et cultim) publicum lingua’ Syriaca, sive Maronitica+—lingua,, seilicet’ que olim omnibus Vulgaris et adhuc. yicis quibusdam: :et, pagis per. montem Liba- num manet.—(2.) Nestoriani a Nestorio Heresiarcha olim Gethrah megvon porters, Orientis—hodie oecupant: nam, preter regiones Babyloma, Assyrie, Mesopotamig, Parthia et. Medi, in quibus frequentes degunt, etiam longe Tateque e parte Septentrional: ad, Cathazam, et ex “Australi Indos versus. propagantur. Patriarcham habent.in Muzal ad ripas Tigridis in Mesopotamia, (3.) Jacobite dicti.a. Jacabo Syre,—cujus sectatores multi hodie conspiciuntur in Syria, Cyprum, Meso- potamiam, Babyloniam, Palestinam fisperi: _ Patriarcham ha- _cujus sedes « est in urbe Caramit, antiqua Mesopotamize metro- poli, quise Patriar cham Antiochenum vocat.—(4.) Copte vel Coptite qui (in religione, Jacobites) per Egyptum in sacris linguam Syriacam usurpant.—(5.) Indi sive S. Thoma Chrise tiani.—(6.) Hisce tandem addendi Christiani,. qui insulam Zoco- toram extra sinum Arabicum. inhabitant : utrum Jacobite sint an Nestoriani.variant autores.——Ex hoc calculo- Tiguet we: cipuas per tolum Oriente, Christianorum Ecclesias, longe lateque propagatas, Scripturas et ofiicia, sacra lingua Syriaca we et celebrare,’ &c. That a dispersion of the Syriack Vulgate thus wide must have taken place at an early period, is apparent, from the history of ‘the Syrian. Church. The commercial intercourse maintained between Arabia, and India, opened a communica- tion between. those countries,. through which numberless chris« tian settlers extended themselves along the coast of Malabar to the island of Ceylon. The banishment of the Nestorians, and the subversion of the,school of Edessa, whither the Per- sians resorted to study, under the Emperour Zeno, probably tended to increase the number of emigrants, and to-extend the Syrian heresies ay far eastward as India: vid. Beth-Arsem, Ap. ( 408 sion to that which has been already deduced from a" similar agreement between the vulgar Greek and the primitive Latin translation’’*. From hence we must infer, that the original text, which corresponds with those most antient versions, must ‘be nearly coincident with that from which these versions were at least formed in part, in the primitive ages. Assem. Biblioth. Orient. in Ib. § vii. Tom. I. p. 204. - Hence | | t | ' Cosmas Indicopleustes, who visited this country about the’ year 530, speaks of the Indian coasts, from Malabar to Ceylon or Sielediva, as possessing christian churches; a bishop at. that time residing at Calicut, who acknowledged the Arch-. bishop of Persia as his Metropolitan. Cosm. Indicopl. Lib. IIT. iv 1 TampoBdun vicy tv +H towlepe “Iie ta +d “Iudixoy mirayos isi, 19 ExwAnoia Xpipiaviv ici exel x) wAngianal x wisol, x ordw OF xy Wrpairigw® Guoiws xp eis Thy Acyouéiny Maat, fea +d wemege yiveTaI® x ip 7 Karidvx J th xadrvpévn, xab tmioxomds tsiy amd Tegoideg XéergorovSpsvog. Gyaiws x2} tv TH vnow TH xaAB~En Asoonogidus mare TO @UTO dixiv wirayos. Ap. Montf. Nov. Collect. Patrr. Tom, If. p- 179. e. Montfauc. Pref. in Cosm. Topograph. cap. iti. p. x. “ In altera India ora, quam hodie Malabaricam dicimus, he urbes et emporia celebriora erant, Sindu, Orrotha, Calliana : eadem ut videtur, quam hodie Calicutum vocamus; Sibor et Male, quinque emporia habens——-._ Ex Male haud dubie, Malabar factum est, Nam Male barr continens Male significat.” Id. ibid. § vi. “ In Male supra memorato emporio, aderat Chris- tianorum Ecclesia; similiter in Sielediva Insula Ecclesia chris- tianorum, cum presbytero et diacono in Perside ordinatis. Jtem apud Bactros, Hunnos—, reliquos Indos, Persarmenos, Medaos, Elamitas, atquein tota Persidis regione Ecclesie infinite erant, Episcopi, christianique populi magno numero, martytes — multi, monachi, hesychaste. Similiterque én insula que Dios- coridis vocabatur, nunc Zocotora vitiato nomine, in mari Indico” sita—clerici erant ex Perside missi, atque Ecclesia’ christiano- rum, qui ibidem magno numero versabantur.” 474 Vid, supr. p. 154, & { 409 ) ~ "The testimony of those antient and separate wit- nesses, the primitive Latin and Syriack Versions, now bears down the scale with accumulated weight in favour of the Greek Vulgate, which is confessedly supported by the uninterrupted testimony of tradition, for fourteen hundred years. Beholding the age of this text identified with the fourth century, by the concurring testimony of manuscripts, versions, and fathers, let us, by a single glance of thought, con- nect that period with the times of the Apostles, and those in which we live. Let us consider the uni- formity which pervades’ the Manuscripts of every age, ascending from the present period to those times, and their coincidence with the writings of those Fathers, who flourished in the intervening ages. Having this positive proof of the integrity of tradition, for the whole of that period, in which the testimony of Manuscripts can be ascertained ; let us then follow up that of the authorised Ver- sions of the oldest Churches, which we are infallibly a.sured were received in the age where the testi- mony of Manuscripts fails. Supported by these vouchers, which carry us up toa remote and inde- finite period ; let us consider the history of the ori- ginal text, for the period which remains unto the apostolical age. Let us estimate the possibility of its having been corrupted in the earliest ages; of its having been sophisticated by Lucianus, who pro- _fessed merely to transmit the vulgar text, and who possessed no authority to impose a sophisticated text upon his contemporaries. Observing that St. Jerome attests the prevalence of Lucianus’s text at the very ¢« 410 ) period to which our demonstrative proofs, of itsan- tegrity extend: 175. let us then remember by; how few. links the chain of tradition is connected from the age in which he flourished to that in which the — apostles wrote ; that the intervention of two persons connects the times of Athanasius with those of Ori. gen, and two more the times of Origen with those, of the Apostles, Finally observing, that amid the — mass of; evidence which has been adduced by. mo- dern collatours against the vulgar edition, the co. — incidences with this text are unnoticed, while the minutest deviations from it are sedulously noted — down, let it be remembered, that every attempt to impeach its general. and doctrinal integrity, even in the most trivial points, has totally failed. With- out taking a comparative view of the hollowness of the system: by which the rival text which is opposed | .| | | | to it is.sustained, I, conceive, that,to make the just — inference which flows from these premises in fayour of the integrity of the Greek Vulgate, requires not so much a.sound judgment as an honest mind. In closing the vindication of the Received Text, ‘nothing more remains for its advocate, than to, reply briefly to the charge of incompetency which has been. urged against those by whom it was formed, The pedigree of this text has been traced by a few steps to. Erasmus’?°; anda want of the most neces- — *75 Vid. supr. p. 71. &c. : _ “8 Griesb. Prolegomm. in Nov. Test. Sect. I. p. xxxili. « Liceat jam tribus verbis Recepti Textus genealogiam repe- tere. Editiones recentiores sequuntur Elsevirianam, &c. ut — appre ps 1, ne" rit 96!) 2iegde ( AI )» sary helps to correct, the text, of which it is.con- ceived. he was destitute; has been. urged. as) a suffir- cient proof. of the inefficiency of his attempt??? Of Manuscripts, it is said; he knew little; having; possessed none of those antient copies of which his successours have made so much use in amending the text'75, .Of Versions he was even more ignorant; having been wholly unacquainted with those of the Oriental and Western Church’”?. And: of Fathers he made little.use, having merely followed Athana-+ sius, Nazianzen, and Theophylact, without being conscious of the value of Clement, Origen, and Cy: ril’s testimony, in correcting the text'**.. 177 Td. ib. p. 3xxiv. «« Frasmus vero textum, ut potuit, con- Stituit e codicibus paucissimis et satis recentibus, omnibus subsi- di’s cestitutus, preter versionem Vulgatam interpolatam, et scripta fonullorum, sed paucorum nec accurate editorum Patrum.’? : >} 78 ‘Td. ibit. p. viii.“ Omnibus peene subsidiis destituti fues rwit, - Nam primo nullum habuerynt ex vetustissimig illis atque preestantissimis Codicibus, quorum excerptis nos jam gaudemus, qui innumeris in locis genuinam léctionem exhibert, e€amque contra recentiorum librorum futile testimonium: fors tissime vindicant.” M9 Td. ibid. “ cies caruerunt Nesionjbus Osentalihes omnibus, Syriaca utraque, Persicis, Arabicis, Copticis, A-thie opica, Armenica, ut Gothicam taceam et Slavonicam. Latina certe usi sunt translatione, fateor: sed partim innumeris gra- vissimisque mendis corrupta, ‘partim recentiore tantum ‘ila WVulgata, non vero longe’ J iueapiealin idk NaN que Ktala vulgo dicitur.”’ 4 * Id. ibid, ‘ Denique caruerunt libris atque ‘Cantatas tariisPatrum Grecis plerisque, quorum summa est in re cri» tica -utilitas. Erasmus in secunda editione, 'Patrum ;seripte quibus ‘usus est-enumerans, Athanasium nominat, Nazianzenum atque Theophylactum. Quanti vero momenti:sint in-crisi.sacra (¢ 412° ) ~ How far the want of those necessary helps to cor=" rect the Greek text, have occasioned the failure of: Erasmus, may, I conceive, be easily appreciated from the use which has been made of them by those who have succeeded him in that task. ‘The merit of the Vulgar edition which he published, and of the Corrected Text, which M. Griesbach has edited, must be decided by the internal evidence: and with- out extending our attention beyond the three doc- trinal texts to which M. Griesbach has limited the sum of his important improvements, there is now little reason to doubt which of ‘those candidates for praise is best entitled to our'approbation. Had the late editour established the integrity of his text, in all other points, in which he has disturbed the received reading; there can be no room to question, (until the principles of common sense become as inverted as the theory of sacred criticism), that the advan- tages which the text would have gained from his corrections, would be more than counterbalanced by the disadvantages which it has sustained from his corruptions. But in this undertaking, I am free to conclude, until what I have advanced to the con- trary is refuted, he has totally failed. His system appears to be as unsound in theory, as it is deleteri- ous in practice. Among all the passages which haye been examined, and which include the whole of those of any importance in which he has violated Clemens Alexandrinus, Origenes, Cyrillus uterque, aliique per multi, vel tironibus, notum est. Quid igitur exspectari poterat ab editoribus Novi Testamenti qui tot subsidiis plane necessas viis destituerentur ?”’ ( 413 ) the integrity of the sacred canon, he has not ad» duced a single witness whose ‘testimony is admissi- ble; while he has set aside numbers, whose credit, I scruple not to assert, he was unable to impeach. Nor let it be conceived, in disparagement of the great undertaking of Erasmus, that he was merely fortuitously right. Had he barely undertaken to perpetuate the tradition on which he received the sacred text, he would have done as much as could be required of him, and more than sufficient to put to shame the puny efforts of those who have vainly laboured to improve upon his design. His extraor- dinary success in that immortal work may be clearly traced to the wisdom of the plan on which he pro- ceeded. And little more is necessary than to follow him in his defence of that plan, in order to produce, jn his own words, a complete refutation of the ob- jections on which he has been condemned; anda full exposure of the shallowness of those principles, on which his labours would be now superseded, by a different system of critical emendation. » With respect to Manuscripts, it is indisputable “that he was acquainted with every variety which is known to us; having distributed them into two ‘principal classes, one of which corresponds with the - Complutensian edition, the other with the Vatican manuscript". And he has specified the positive * Erasm. Nov. Test. Pref. [p. xviii.j ed. Basil. 1546. _ “Hic obiter illud incidit admonendum, esse Greecorum - quos- _ dam Novi Testamenti Codices ad Latinorum exemplaria emen- _ datos.—Et nos olim in hujusmodi Codicem incidimus, et talis | adhue dicitur adservari in bibliotheca Pontificia.——Hee eo vi- ( 414 ) grounds-on which-he received the One and: rejected the other. 'The former was in possession of the Greek Church; the latter in that’ of the Eatin; judging # from the internal abc: he had as weeks sum est admonere, gait jam nune quidam jactant ce trecenta Jaca notasse ex Codice bibliothece Pontificie, in quibus ille\con- gonat cum nostra Vulgata editione Latina, cum mea dissonat. i Ruod si nos urgent autoritate Vaticanz bibliothece, Codex | em secutus est in Novo Testamento Franciscus Cardinalis quondam Toletanus, non modo fuit ejusdem bibliothece, verum ‘etiam a Leone X missus est, ut hoc veluti bone fidei exemplar — imitarent, Atque is peze per omnia consentit eum mea editione, dissentiens ab eo quem nunc quidam nobis objiciunt majusculis descriptum literis. Ab illo enim dissentiat oportet, si Cconsentit . cum Vulgata Latinorum editione.”” In those two instances we > have exemplars of the two principal Classes into which the — Greek MSS. have been divided. That the MS. of the Pope’s library, which is written in the large or uncial letter, and — which agrees with the Latin Vulgate, can be no other than 1 colseatest Vatican MS. will not admit of a doubt, after t to n. *%, supr. p. 61. This MS. was examined for Erasmus or Paulus Bombasius, and has accordingly had some influence on his edition; vid. Erasm. Apolog. ad. Jac. Stunic. Op. Tom. 1X, p. 353. a. ed 1706. Birch. Prolegomm :in Nov. Test. p. xxii. The MS. which was sent by P. Leo X. to Cardinal Ximenes, as the exemplar of the Complutensian New Testament, i is wine ta ‘to have been lost with the other MSS. used in compiling ‘edition. The character of the text of this MS. is not ascertainable from the Complutensian edition, but from a M: preserved in the Bodleian library, (Laud. 2. poted by Mo Griesbach, Cod. 51.) which harmonizes with it in an extraor- dinary tanner: vid. Mill. Prolegomm; in Nov. Test-nn. 1092. 1437. As the Vatican MS. is of the Palestine text, and ‘the -Complutensian Codex of the Byzantine ; Erasmus in being ac« ‘Quainted with those texts seems.to have possessed ample:mate- - Zials for revising the New Testament. . ( 4B ) feason to conclude the Eastern Church had fot’vor- rupted their received text, as he had grounds to sus- pect the Rhodians, from whom the Western Church derived their manuscripts, had accommodated them to the Latin Vulgate. One short insinuation Which he has thrown out, sufficiently ‘proves, that his objections to these manuscripts lay more deep ahd’ they do immortal credit to his sagacity. In the ‘age in which the Vulgate was formed, the Church, fe Was aware, was infested with Origenists and Ari- ‘ans "*?; an affinity between any manuscript and that ‘version, consequently conveyed some suspicion that its ‘text was corrupted. So little dependance was | he inclined to place upon the authority of Origen, " mies ibid. [p. xxi] * Si Grecis in animo fuisset depra- Syare Codicés suos, his potissimum locis depravassent, in quibus a nobis dissentiunt, veluti de processione Spiritus, de equalitate -trium Personarum, de. Primatu Romani Pontificis, de ritu con- »secrandi et tradendi baptismum et eucharistiam, de conjugio “sacerdotum, aut si quid aliud est ejusmodi: at in his nobis con- sentiunt. Nec wllus locus proferri valet, qui hoc nomine. sus- .pectus haber possit. Ego magis susficor, si quid mutatum ‘est in Grecorum libris, id a Latinis exemplaribus fuisse pro- fectum, posteaquam Romana Ecclesia ccepit absorbere Gre- _giam, Nec tota divulsa est a nobis Grecia: Rhodus et Creta Christum agnoscit, agnoscit Romanum Pontificem : cur horum JHibris difidimus. Et ab his potissimum nobis veniunt exem- laria.’? — nye 7 3. Id. ibid. “ Risit olim Helvidium Hieronymus, qui sibi Stultissime persuaserat,.Grecos codices esse corruptos: at dic tum hominis stultius esse putat, quam ut sit argumenitis ‘refel- Jlendum. Et tamen jam tum Oriens ferme omnis heresibus Jer- er 2 Arianorum et Origenistarum. Ab iis magis tment erat eemplaribus, quam. q schismdticis,’! ‘ Gk 9 ( 416 } who: is the pillar and ground of the. Competed edition. With regard to Versions, it is true he was unac- quainted with the antient Italick and later Oriental translations. But were the history of those versions known,..to the objectour, I trust they would be scarcely opposed to the system of one, who was aware of the necessity of avoiding the contagion, of the Arian and Origenian heresies. With the pri- ; mitive Italick and Syriack Versions he was unace quainted; but I yet remain to be informed, of what other use they could have been made, than to cone _ firm him in the plan which he had judiciously cho- sen. I have yet to hear of a single text which they could have led him to adopt, which is not found in his _ edition. His whole dependance was rested on the — Greek and Latin Vulgate; and if we may believe — himself, he used some antient copies of the latter ‘*4, ‘ Of these he made the best use: confronting their | testimony, and estimating the internal evidence of ; "8 Erasm. ibid. [pa vili.] “* Nos in prima recognitione quatuor Grecis coat ] adjuti sumus: in secunda quinque; in tertia preter alia accessit editio Asculana: in quarta, presto fuit Hispaniensis. Deinde consultis tum pervetustis tum emene datis aliquot Latine lingue voluminibus: nec hoc contenti dise cussis et exploratis probatissimis autoribus,” &c. The follow- ing declaration, while it proves that Erasmus was mot unduly influenced by the Latin Vulgate, seems to indicate that he was not unacquainted with the peculiar readings of the Old Italick version ; Id. ibid. [p. xi.] ‘* Sunt in quibus nostra Vulgata magis probatur editio, wut Ambrosiana lectio, quam Greci Co- dices. Et tamen consentientibus omnibus Grecis exemplari- bus, quoniam #la mutare non licuit Latina accomodavimus, ne non responderent, quum in hoc ipsum adderentur.’? ( 417 ) the context with the external testimony of the East- ern and Western Churches, he thence ascertained the authentick text of Scripture**’. A particular vindication of this part of his plan cannot be de- manded from me, who have advanced so much to. prove, that it affords the only rational prospect of ascertaining the primitive or genuine text of the New Testament; whatever aid may be derived from other versions and texts™°, in defending con- tested readings. 185 Td. ibid. ‘ Scio res sacras reverenter ac religiose tractan- das, et idcirco licet in infima functione versantes, tamen omni quia licuit circumspectione sumus usi. Contulimus utriusque lin- gue vetustissimos ac probatissimos Codices, nec eos sane paucos. Excusissimus veterum ac recentiorum Commentarios, tum Grz- cos tum Latinos. Observavimus quid diversi legant. Pens?- favimus ipsius loci sententiam, atque ita demum pronunciavi- mus quidem, sed Jectorem admonuimus, suum cuique judicium liberum relinquentes. 780 The want of the Syriack Version, and of pure copies of the Latin Vulgate, has been objected as essential defects to Erasmus, in revising the text of the New Testament. As both were used by Lucas Brugensis, together with the Greek, in correcting the text of the Latin Version; and his corrections are subjoined to the Bible of Sixtus V. ed. Antw. 168]: a comparison of Erasmus’s readings with the Corrections-of L. Brugensis, p. 81. will best illustrate how far the former has failed, from the want of those antient versions. I shall subjoin a short specimen of texts from the first ten chapters of St. Matthew, in which Erasmus and Lucas Brugensis agree with the Greek Syriack and old copies of the Vulgate, against the authority of the modern copies which contain the Received. Text of the Romish Churches. Matt. iii. 10. excidetur—mit- tetur. Vulg. exciditur—mittitur. Erasm. Brug. Ib. iv. 6. man- davit. Vulg. mandabit. Erasm. Brug. Ibid. 16. umbre. Puig. Ee { 418 ) In using the testimony of antient Fathers, it ap- pears never to have entered his conception, that any utility could be derived from collating them verba- iim with the text of Scripture. Before the labours of modern. criticks, the monks of Upper Egypt and Palestine, who divided their time between this pro- fitable employment, and the perusal of Origen’s speculative theology, were probably the only per- sons who ever engaged in this interesting pastime. Of the value of the works of those early writers, in ascertaining and vindicating the doctrinal integrity — of the text, no man was more conscious than Eras- — mus. With this view he read over the works of — the principal writers and commentatours’*’; be- — queathing the task of collating their quotations with — the text of Scripture, to his more dull and diligent — successours. With what effect he engaged in such an office, those who are curious to be informed, will — best ascertain, by examining the text which he has — published. The advocates of the Received Text have little to apprehend from a comparison with the — Corrected Text, by which it is now supposed to be wholly superseded. In all those passages in whieh et umbra. Erasm. Brug. Ib. v. 24. reconciliari. Vulg. recon ciliare. Erasm. Brug. Ibid. offeres. Vulg. offer. Erasm. Brug. — Ib. vi. 22. corporis tui—oculus tuus. Vulg. corporis—oculus. Evasm. Brug. Ibid. 33, querite ergo. Vulg. querite autem. — Erasm, Brug. Ib. viii. 9. constitutus. Vulg. deest. Erasm. Brug. 4 Vid. ecu nn. in li. *87 Vid. supr. p. 417. n. "5, Erasm. ibid. [p. xviii] Ilud potius spectandum quid legerint veteres Greeci, Origenes, Atha-— nasius, Basilius, Gregorius Nazianzenus, Chrysostomus, Cyril-— lus, ac T heophylactiss,” &e. | | ( 419 ) the integrity of the sacred text has been defended, the vindication of Krasmus’s text is inseparable from that of the vulgar edition **. It is not, however, my intention to assert, that I conceive the text of Erasmus absolutely faultless "9 » but with the exception of some places, in which the reading of the Greek Vulgate has not been preserv- ed’, I know not on what authority we might ven 83 Tn those passages of which a vindication has been offered, supr. p. 239.sqq. p. 251. sqq- p. 372. Sqq. p. 380. sqq. p. 358. D, pod. pn. 79 pe ao)..n.*. p. 390. nf. *", ghie Hg ined Text follows the reading of Erasmus’s edition. 89 As the MSS. which contain the Byzantine text are gene- rally coincident in their readings, vid. supr. p, 118. n. “. p. 126. n. ® it is little wonderful that Erasmus, having made choice of that text, should have published an edition, which corresponds with the text which has been since discovered to prevail in the great body of Greek manuscripts. But as every manuscript has some peculiar readings, it can be no less extra- ordinary, that some phrases should have been admitted by Etas- mus into his text, though destitute of the support of the gene- rality of manuscripts. These, however, are so few and inconside- rable, asto be scarcely deserving of notice. After some search after those which are retained in the Received Text, the fol- lowing are the only instances of interpolations, which I have been enabled to discover in the Gospels; Mat. xii. 35. ris xdeporage Mar. iv. 4. 73 dead. Ib. vi. 44. acct. Ib. xvi. 8. ray. Ib. x. 20. parr. Joh. xx. 29. Qupze! to which we may add the following instances of mere expletives; Mat. iv. 18. 3 Inc&s. Ib. viii. 5. 7% Ince. Ib. xiv. 19. %. Ib. xxv. 44. airs, Luc. iv. 8. yee. * Several readings of this kind have been admitted by M. Matthzi, into his edition of the New Testament, on the autho- rity of the Moscow MSS. They are generally prevalent in the uncial MSS. which contain the vulgar Greek, and are con- stantly supported by the pan authorities, Byz. Pal. Aig. E¢€«e » * , ( 420 } ' tive to correct it, 'The Egyptian and Palestine texts haye been so often convicted of errour, in points where the Byzantine text admits of the fullest _deferice; that their testimony, when opposed to the vulgar Greek, cannot be entitled to. the smallest attention '?*. And when the verbal integrity warely Zi,1. Syr, 1. The principal Greek MSS, in which they are found, are the Alexandrine, Cyprian, Vatican, and Moscow,” ; which. are designated by. the letters A, K, S, Mt. V: they like- ; wise occur in the MSS. marked F, G, H, Mt. B, H, in those marked B, C, D, L, and may be generally traced to the writings “a of St. Chrysostome. There can be little doubt that those read- ings possess great antiquity; but we must not necessarily infer that they are genuine. It is not ; impossible that they may have — originated in the edition of Eusebius ; ; that they may have been — thence retained i in the reyisal of St. Athanasius ; ‘and ‘have thus maintained their place in the Byzantine text, when that text @ was restored at Constantinople under Nectarius and St, Chry- sostome, who succeeded to the goyernment of the Byzantine — | Patriarchate, on the suppression of the Aria party, The in- ; fluence of St. Athanasius and St. Chrysostome will suffici- ently account for their reception in the Italick and Syriack translations, on which it isgeertain the text of Eusebius had some influence; as musi c collected from the omission | of some remarkable passages in those translations which a e. omitted in the text revised by Eusebius. Conf, supr. p. 98, n. *, p. 92.n,*°. And this notion, it may be observed by. a the way, is strengthened by conformity of the Alexandrine e MS. andthe Syriack Version. Conf. supr. p. 224. n.*, ps 850. i n. *, Whatever opinion be formed of those readings, which | generally consist in peculiarities which can be only expressed * in Greek, they are scarcely,worth contesting; as they mene . retained or rejected from the Received Text, without affecting the Authorised Version, which we are principally concerned ix defending. Vid. infr. p. 424. n. 19%”, “, > e/ A number of those texts, which are supported, almos » -s 4 ( 42 ) of the sa¢red text is concerned, no one, it is pres sumed, will set the testimony of Versions and Fa- thers in competition with that of the vulgar edition. Iam well aware, that many manus¢ripts of reputed antiquity exist, which contain the Byzantine text, and yet differ from the Received Text set forth in the printed edition **; but numberless circumstances prohibit our correcting it on their authority. Nothing can be more fallacious than the criteria by which the age of Greek manuscripts is in general determined’*®. To be written in the large or un- exclusively by the MSS. marked B, C, D, L, have been admitted by M. Griesbach into his Corrected Text; and they are among ‘Whe most exceptionable of his emendations. ** Such are the MSS. marked A, K, S, Mt. V. &¢. enume- rated in n. "°°. which sometimes differ from the great body of MSS. containing the Greek Vulgate, and at the same time co- incide with those containing the Egyptian and Palestine edi- tions. In this case, their testimony, though supported by other ‘uncial MSS. is but of little weight, when set against that of the vulgar edition, for the reasons already specified: vid. supr. ni, 3 From this sentence, the Alexandrine, Vatican, and Cam- bridge MSS. are of course’ excepted ; a8 possessing’ claims’ to a remote antiquity, whith cauriot be reasonably disputed. It has been indeed urged, as an argument against the first of those MSS. that it approximatesito the Arabick orthography in inserting the letter ~ in certain words, contrary to the idiom ‘of the Greek language. It is difficult to answer this objection “until we are acquainted with the extent to which it may bé urged. If I am not wholly deceived, it is confined to instances like the following, which are noted by Dr. Woide in his various readings : Maré xii. 40, Luc. xx. 47. ajudoila. Jolie v. 43. AiaverSes. Ib. xvi. 14, 15. dil. Ib. xvi. 24. Act. i. 8. HSS. Analecde, &c. But I apprehend we need not go beyond . J ( 422 ) cial character, without accents or spirits, is among the most decisive marks of antiquity. But I would the Greek radical to an Arabick root for a solution of this diffi- culty. That » is retained in atdslas, ambeo9e, Azporlas, I con= ceive is simply owing to its being found in AeuBdvw; which was. regularly inflected with the characteristick, »; AauBdrw, ann. oat, AéAnype. Whether this mode of inflexion was peculiar to the fourth century, or to the city of Alexandria, there is un- fortunately no person alive to inform us. It is certainly not peculiar to the Alexandrine MS, since it prevailed in the Cot- ton Genesis; as appears from the fragments of that most an- cient MS. which yields to no other in point of antiquity, when. those are excepted which have been dug out of Herculaneum. The following instances will exemplify the above assertion ; Gen. xv. 24. Arora, Ib. xvili. 4. An@durw. Ibid. 5. anu- sjouas, Ib. xix.17. cvpmapadnupdns. Ib, xxi. 30. 37. 38. 40a : ann, Vid. Walt. Bibll. Polyglott. Tom. VI. tract. xi. With respect to some other objections which have been urged against, d ‘ the antiquity of the Alexandrine MS. which are merely de- duced from its orthography, they admit of as easy an answer. The movers of these objections would do well to establish a criterion, in the first place, by which we may judge of the. orthography of the fourth century; before they proceed to condemn a MS. as modern, which does not happen to aceord, with their notions respecting it. If we may judge of the Greek a by other languages, its orthography could not haye been fixed” until a late period, and was then the work of grammarians, 4 This supposition is fully confirmed by the antient inscriptions, — which contain the only certain monuments of antient orthogra-. phy within our reach; but which vary from themselves in nums berless instances. Vid. Gruter. Thesaur. Inscriptt. Apend. cap, xix. ed. 1516, Before some standard of language is established_ 4 by the publication of a Dictionary, it is vain to look for unifor- x mity in the orthography of any nation, Among the Greeks the. 3 search must be preposterous, as the want, of a knowledge f d r printing obliged them to employ a number of young persons of both sexes as copyists, besides scribes, who took down what i ( 423 ) submit it to the profound in antiquarian research, whether more can be safely inferred from these pe- culiarities, than that the use of spectacles was not known when those manuscripts were written; a larger character being necessary for the eye, when impaired by age, as the defect admitted of no re- medy from optical assistance. And what evinces the uncertainty of such criteria, is the certainty of the fact, that the use of accents was well known in the fourth century, previously to the existence of almost every manuscript with which we are ac- quainted ; and the use of small connected characters must have been known at a much earlier period. St. Epiphanius describes the different accents which occur in the Greek, as adopted in copies of the sa- cred writings, in the age when he flourished. And the accounts which are recorded of the notaries or swift-writers, which attended Origen '’ and St, was dictated. Such was the custom in Origen’s times, of whom Eusebius declares; Hist. Eccl. Lib. VI, cap. xxiii. p. 287.1. 9. raxvypapor yag atty mrcivg 4 nla tiv apSpov ragicar Drayogevoult, yeavoss Télayytvars aAATABS areiBorles* BiBAvoyetQos re bx alas due © xopais tai 1d xadAryeaGelv aoxnuvais, To per- sons of the latter description, the transcription of the Alexan- drine has been absolutely attributed; Grab. Prolegomm. in Septuagint. cap. i. § 5. [p. xxi.] ed. Oxon. 1707. ‘* Huic ergo Thecle ejusgue in vita monastica’sociis vel soctabus Codi- eem nostrum attribuere nihil vetat,’? &c. #94 S. Epiphan. de Menss. et Pondd. Tom. II. p. 158. d. treadn Of tes xala mpoowdiay tsiZav tras Vpapas, 9 reel sav mpoowdar made? okie L]; daceia [], Ragin ig # dan [], wepion wopivn | |, x. v8 *§ Vid. supr. n. 9°. conf. p. 367.0. "8. Origen speaks in the following terms of his rax¢ypaQo1, for whom he was obliged ( 424 ) Chrysostome'®®, when delivering their Homilies, sufficiently prove, that a small and connected cha- | racter must have been in use, when they lived, simi- — lar to that which exists in the most modern manu- — scripts. The little certainty which can of course be attained, in determining the age of manuscripts by the form, or the size of the letter, consequently deprives those which are written in the uncial cha- racter, of any paramount weight in determining the genuine text of Scripture. | For some slight verbal and literal errours in the _ vulgar Greek, we must indeed compound, as the un- avoidable effect of careless transcription; but these do not in the least impeach the integrity of the Re- ceived Text or Authorised Version. In the inves- tigation or defence of the truth, they must be lighter than dust in the balance. As they rarely if ever affect the sense, and even in this case do not relate to any point of doctrine or morals, they cannot prove — the source of errour, or form the ground of contro=— versy. ‘They generally relate to verbal niceties, — which are not capable of being expressed in a tran= slation’”’; and as such, cannot be deserving of the — to. wait, on his removal from Alexandria to Palestine; Orig, — Comm. in Joan, Tom. IV. p. 101. d. x of covnders 36 raKireeQo pn magovtes t& PxcoSas Tay dmmyogevcew EXOAVOre a *° Socrat. Hist. Eccl. Lib. VI. cap. iv. p. 313. 1 36. smoit of ciow of, Te ExdoSéules mag: avrs [78 "Twéwe] Aoyosy % oF Aéyovos avis dna ray dEuyecpwv exrnPSévles, dmws vs Acwmpod x) 7d tr yuryor eyovlec, +t Dei wy Adve, ue Te Ee : *7 The nature of these deviations. from the Received. Tex may be appreciated by the following examples, taken from 2 4 first ten chapters of St. Matthew; Mat. ii, 11. cigon Rec. tidoig ? 4 ( 425 ) smallest consideration from divines, of whatever im- portance they may be regarded by criticks or gram- marians. Whatever may have been the original reading of the sacred text, there can be little doubt, that the inspired writers could find no difficulty in sanctioning the authorised reading. This inference is clearly deducible from their practice with respect to the Septuagint’®: and indeed the variations dis- eoverable in their quotations from the Old 'Testa- ment, and in their narratives of our Lord’s dis- courses, must convince us, that they considered that strict literal accuracy which is now required in their works, as far beneath their attention. In the un- certainty which must attend every attempt to reco- ver their precise words and expressions, where the Greek manuscripts differ, the only wise plan appears to lie in preserving a settled state of things, and in retaining of course that reading which is most gene- ral. That reading, however, it is not disputed, is found in the vulgar text of our printed editions. Admitting, that in choosing a text among the manu- scripts whichcontain the vulgar Greek, we have fixed K. S. &c. Ib. v. 44. tds. picdiles. Rec. rere picdow. K. S. &e. Ib. vii, 2. arlélpnSacdasr. Rec. pdpnSicilax. K. S. V.&c: Ibid. 14. om. Rec. ti. K. S. V. &c. Ib. viii. 8. adyor. Rec. Aoywe K. 8S. V.&e. Ub. ix. 17. dpgirera. Rec. auQirego. K. G. V. &e. Thid. 18. 29a». Rec. sicaaSav. K. E. V. &e. Ibid. 36. exAEAU Leb Rec. icxvryérr. K.G.S. Ib. x. 8. rewges xaSaziGere, vexed eysipclc. Rec. vexpis éyeipéle, Acapdts xaSapi€ere. K. S.V. &c. Ibid. 28. Excrccav—oixsanes. Rec. trexcrccav—vinesaxes. Ke S.V.&c. Ibid. 28. 31. cBrSare. Rec. PocicS.. K. S. Ve &c. Ib. xi. 16. zasdu- ~ gloss. Rec. wasdios. K. S. V. &ew “8 Vid. supr. p. 310. sqq- ( 426 j on the worst, any advantage which would arise from change, would be more than counterbalanced by the ‘disadvantages of innovation. But that the Greek’ Vulgate merits this character, is a point which will not be readily conceded by its defenders: and the advocates for an. improved edition have infinitely more to advance in favour of their schemes of emen- dation, than they have been hitherto able to urge, before we can assign their Corrected Text the smallest authority. It is sufficient for us, that all their attempts to invalidate the integrity of the Re- ceived Text, in any point of the smallest importance, have proved wholly abortive. The same plea will not be easily established in favour of the text which they have undertaken to advocate. If I am not greatly deceived, the corruption of this text may be not only demonstrated, but traced to the source in which it has originated. If this undertaking be practicable, as I trust it is, it must add the greatest weight to the authority of the Greek Vulgate: as it will annihilate the force of every objection which can be raised to the Received Text, from the oppo-' sition of a rival edition; and by affording an ade- quate opportunity of vindicating the tradition of the Church, from every suspicion of corruption, add the last confirmation to that system, by which the autho rity of the Received Text has been defended. | | : ry SECTION VI. THE plenary concession that the Byzantine text has preserved its integrity for fourteen hundred years, leaves the unwarrantable assumption, that it ‘was corrupted in the earliest ages, entitled to very little respect’. Were we destitute of proof on this subject, the bare probabilities of the case would be decisive of the point at issue: the task of proving the corruption of the Greek Vulgate, would at Teast devolve on those by whom the charge was urged. The avowed advocate of the Palestine text was fully aware, how necessary it was to the esta- plishment of his theory, that he should succeed in | substantiating this charge against it. Having li- mited the corruption of the vulgar text to a period, in which it is impossible it could have remained undiscovered, had it more than a visionary exist- - ence’, he believed the task was only to be attempted i a Comp..p. 348, n. 8%, pp. 334 335. DW +7 ef 23, _ 2 The origin of the Byzantine recension, which M. Gries- ch considers 2 corruption of the primitive text, is referred by him to the close of the fourth, the fifth, and the following _ gentury; conf. supr. p. 348. n. °. p. 126. n.*°. Of the whole ; Fange of ecclesiastical history, this is the period of which we i : ( 428 ) in order to be achieved. His promises on this sub= ject stand recorded by his own hand; what he has offered us in place of a performance, stands attested ” possess the most full and explicit documents; Garner. Pref. i Liberat. Diac. § ix. Scio secula duo, quintum sextumque fera- cissima fuisse scriptorum, qui res easdem; quas Liberatus, me= moriz mandarint. Historiam confecerunt preter nomina- | tissimos tres, Theodoretum Sozomenum, et Socratem, Prisc 7 Panites sub Theodosio juniore, Joannes /Egeates sub Zenoney | et Candidus Isaurus sub Zenone, Eustathius Syrus sub Anas- tasio, Theodorus lector sub Justino seniore, Joannes rhetor, Basilius Cilix, et Zacharias rhetor sub Justiniano, aliique qu rum meminerunt Evagrius Theophanes et Nicephorus priorum defioratores.”” That the writers of this period would not have } been withheld by tender scruples from publishing a fact like that under review, if it had any existence, must be evident from the statement of the Palestine monks, who brought the char. of sophisticating the writings of the fathers, against those whi engaged in the controversies of the Nestorians and Eutychi vid. supr. p. 526. n. *. We accordingly find that Liberatu whose prejudices certainly lay towards the party of Nestori and Theodorit, [vid. Garner. ibid. § iii.]. mentions a rey which was propagated, that Macedonius had corrupted celebrated text, 1 Tim. iii. 16. A more convenient opportuni will occur hereafter, to examine how far this charge is fount : in truth. Ass there is therefore no dearth of historical ce tion at the period, to which M. Griesbach has fixed ruption of Scripture ; this single instance will fully demonstrate, that there was no disposition to suppress even a report on - ¥ subject, which had the smallest»foundation in probability. 3 Griesb. Nov. Test. Praf. p: xv. ed. 1777. «Nolumus- enim Critices Sacre theoriam hic delineare id quod alio loc commodius fieri poterit.”” Id. ibid. n. *. “Primas” hojus ori lineas duxi in ‘ Curis meis in historiam "Textus Episto rum Pavlinarum Greci? quarum specimen prius” uper Je 1777. 4. prodiit, pastertus mox sequetur,”* % § - ( 429 ) by the same youcher*. His acknowledged incom- petence to substantiate his point, consequently ren- ders the defence of the Greek Vulgate complete ; since this text, which is amply supported by posi- tive proofs, is wholly unaffected by positive excep- tions. | But the matter at issue must not be suffered to rest on these grounds. However defective the ad- yocates of the Alexandrine text have found their materials, in proving the corruption of the Byzan- tine; we find no such deficiency in returning the compliment on the Egyptian and Palestine. The corruptions of these texts, if 1 am not altogether ‘deceived, may be clearly demonstrated, and traced ‘to the very, sowrce from whence they have origi- nated. In prosecuting this object, the testimony of Origen may be wholly disposed of; and his evi- ‘dence, which has been hitherto used to support the ‘Palestine text, may be effectually employed to de- siroy its credit. If this object be attainable, as I conceive it is, it will annihilate the pretensions of the Palestine text, which, we have already seen, is * Id. Symbb. Critt. Pref. [p. xiv.]. ‘ Sed ingenue fateor, deesse mihi adhuc subsidia nonnulla, quibus carere non potest, qui discrimina non solum ac indolem, sed, quod difficilius est, historiam etiam, origines ac vicissitudines Recensionum vete- tum omaium ita declarare yult, ut asserta sua peritis arbitris probaturum se esse sperare haud immerito queat.’? The de- ining confidence of ouz authour at iength falls to the ground, nd in his last declaration he states; * Origo variarum texts, Nov. Test. recensionum, ‘deficientibus documentis satis vetustis | Ae testimoniis, Aistorice declari neguit,’”? &. ub supr. Pp» 337. a. ( 430 ) | destitute of positive support from those who have affected to uphold it. i From what has been already adduced on the his? tory of the inspired text, and the connected testi- mony of tradition, it is apparent, that the received | or vulgar text, as preserved by the orthodox, could not have undergone any considerable change from the apostolical age to the times of Origen’. Som verbal errours probably arose in particular copie from the negligence of transcribers®; but the testi mony of this antient father, places it beyond all doubt, that at the period when he lived, the gencrak integrity of the text had remained uncorrupted. His silence on this subject might be construed into a proof somewhat stronger than presumptive: ‘the hice attention which he bestowed on the Septua- gint, renders it next to impossible, that any corrup-_ tion of the New Testament could have escaped his observation, if it really existed. He speaks, it 4 true, of a difference existing in the copies of hist times’. But this opinion he offers merely as a con= a $ Vid. supr. p. 123. sqq. p- 207. sqq- ad © Origen notes some variations of this kind; Comment. in Mat. Tom. IIL. p. 532. c. ds 6 piv &y MarSaios wemoinne ard tH isdov edvron Ors tHe Tov Tar avtvypapuy go° § Tore Oereivare” ayTiypaQuy Tov xara MartSaioy Exes To, § imeTinnoey.? Conf. Ib. p: 588. b. p. 597. d. But from these examples, and all others — that I have observed, I cannot see how it can be concluded, — that Origen found these variations in the received text: as he’ indiscriminately quotes, in his Commentaries, from the copies” used by the hereticks as well as the orthodox; vid. supr. p. 330. n. “5. conf. infr. p. 431. n. si 7 Orig. ibid. p. 671. c. vot dt dnrcréoy moMAn YeyoVEY te THT a ( 431 ) _ jecture, grounding it on the diversity observable iii the accounts which the different Evangelists give of the same incident*; and it occurs in a work which is of very little authority, as written while Origen’s opinions. were far from settled, or deserving of any attention®. His opmion must be taken from a different part of his writings; and in his last and greatest work he explicitly states, that he knew of no persons but the followers of Marcion and Valentinus, who had corrupted the Scriptures '°. As this is the latest opinion which he has delivered on this subject, it must be taken as his definitive sentence. To some period subsequent to the era of Origen, we must consequently fix the first change which _ took place in the received text of Scripture. And avlyexQwy SiaPoed, ite amd gadupias twa ypadiur, site amo TOAUNS Tia poy Inpas Tis Srogdwoews THY ypaPouevwy, site x) ame wiv tH Eavlois Soxtvla tv rH diogdweea meoswelay n dat . eerie. 8 Id. ibid. p. 670. a. vaovociodas Suvalas, ds dx md rB Luliipos ?lavSa MApPELAND Isc, AN imo Tivos THV axelBevar wen vonouvlos Tay , : io ~ S, A ’ \ ~ ¢ ' ~ 4. | ARYOMEVOY, MQISETEOTAL” cuveyopeuces a TN vmBovonoss Te Wpcole~ ScioSa: Hava 6° § dyamnoes thy wrncloy ox ws ceavloy,? 4 ToR | Buolwy mapa ta Maexo x) ao Axx& tdecss, av Bderepos sport Seine ~ \ \ 7" wy ~ ? ~ , > ~ e | gais nara roy tomoyv Imo 8 Inok TaparnOverocess EVTOAQIS Re To Eo _ Conf. p. 671. a. b. _ ° Vid. supr. pp. 367, 368. et nn. in loc. ?° Orig. contr, Cels. Lib. II. cap. xxvii. Tom. I. p. 411. be | pblaxaorZavles 38 7d Edalyédiov dares 8% old, 7 785 awd Map- xiwvosy %) THs amd OTareilive, obnas de x 785 amo Auxave. taro OD Aeyouevey & TE Adve esly tyxAnpa’ aad THY ToAMMoavIoy padieg- yioa ta evalyéaic. Conf. D. Bull. Defens. Fid. Nic. Sect, IT, cap. ix. § 2. p. 96, ( 432 ) of such a change we have an explicit account, ir the statement which is transmitted of the editions published by Hesychius and Lucianus"'; against — which, a charge has been preferred by St. Jerome, that they were interpolated, at least in the Gos- pels". Whatever may have been the alterations which Lucianus and Hesychius introduced into the sacred writings, they must be clearly attributed to the in- fluence of Origen’s writings. Previously to’ his — times, the inspired text had undergone no altera-— tion; and they revised it not many years subsequent — to the publication of his Hexapla. As he had la~ © ' boured to supersede the authorised version of the — Old Testament, he contributed to weaken the au- thority of the received text of the New. In the © course of his Commentaries, he cited the versions — of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, on the former part of the Canon", he appealed to the au- © thority of Valentinus and Heracleon “* on the latter. — <4 ~SePpos-.—- IR ae ™ Vid. supr. p. 72. n. *7. 2 Vid. supr. p- 100. n. **° *3 The following comparative character of these ‘versions, and the vulgar text, is given by Origen, who constantly quotes the former in his Commentaries ; Comment. in Joan, Tom, IV. p- 141. b. 7d 38 cuotoy sept te dvoncla oPahwa woraxs Te vos % Tay MeoPrildiv si Dew, ds rupiRacapen dw “EBpalov pavésles x Tols eMleypaors adrav Ta nudtepm cvyxpivatlecs paglupndeiow imdb tiv underw diasesPecay txdacewy Axvrs, % Ocodoliwvos x, 5 Zopuaxse, Conf. infr. n. *. “ Heracleon followed Valentinus ; and many of the errours’ of those writers, whose opinions are examined by Origen in his _ Commentary on St. John, were adopted from Apocryphal ( 433 ) While he thus raised the credit of those revisals, which had been made by the hereticks, he detracted from the authority of that text which had been re- ceived by the orthodox. Some difficulties which he found himself unable to solve in the Evangelists, he undertook to remove, by expressing his doubts of the integrity of the text. In some instances he ventured to: impeach the reading of the New Tes- tament on the testimony of the Old"’, and to con- vict' the copies of one Gospel on the evidence of another’: thus giving loose to his fancy, and in- dulging in many wild conjectures, he considerably books: Orig. Comment. in Joan. Tom. IV. p. 66.b: Bialos 38 oiace % xeps paplugis tov “OY aasilive Asyocevov etvccs yvaptnov “Heax= Afave Oinybuevov 7o* © wavle de aise eyévlo’ x. 7. Conf. ibid. P- 117. e. Id. ibid. p. 226. word of ésw voy magativecdas Te “Heaxdrcwvos Ta fora ano TE alg 2 Tlérpe Kngdyualos? cena ata © VsacIas meds adree tEelalorlas x) megh & aio ori epoy mole yynotoy oby a voSov, 7 2 porxlov® *8 Id. Comment. in Matt. Tom. III. p. 747. c. wld ratra Edldowpsy x) 70° 6 Neawa ro vid AaBid, evrcynutvos & Eproutvos er a ey ° - «bre dey cixeyn ERoainn * » Z, \ Atkist awe edwat doeewdr. ave adwat aout ane Bugsy a@paB = 1 9 svomale xvple, woawa av trois oxpirors cay aduvai, cite Soxer wor vo “EAAnvwy cuvexas yeaQopeva ra edalyénia pn eidorwv trv SsaAtloy cuyxexvorat év toIs xala Tov rTomov——=. i St To esis Bere padciv tas AtEews amve Axvau iaymstzaites wor 728 xupsE gicoy One w OF nugte evwowoor Me evAoynecvos é Fexonévas ty avouncels xupiete %6 Td. ibid. p. 671. b. x) si tv wr x) weet Zarwy rorrcy daPuvle’ 3) mpes GAANAG TaV ailiypaQuy, Ose re Tale ra xala MalSaiov pn cuvgdev adrnrais, Gnoiws dE % Fa roma evalyénua nay docbac Gig tOckev elves & Urovoav ada TEorEpIPIar, Bx elomuéony ind oe Lwriigds meds Ter TAuciov ty © ayawhous Tor wAucion ce ws ctayTON” SyT OAT rf . ( 4388 Jj inipaired the credit of the vulgar or common edition, as wellin the New as in the Old Testament. le . The object at which Lucianus and Hesychius aimed, in the different revisals which they published of Scripture, was obviously to remove the objections’ to which the received text was exposed by the cri-! tical labours of Origen. On this task, however, they entered with very different views: the atten- tion of Lucianus having been principally directed to the Old Testament, while that of Hiceyehiog was chiefly employed on the New. The terms in which the text of Lucianus is men- tioned, as being identical with the vulgar edition”, very clearly evince, that the received text was-re~ published by this learned father, with little altera- tion. As he is principally thentioned as a reviser of the version of the Old Testament", and as Ori- gen’s critical labours par ticularly affected that part. of the sacred canon", itis more than probable that his: emendations were confined to it alone*?, At 7 Vid. supr. p. 88. n. *°. ** Thid. 9 Orig. ibid. ps G71. ¢. thy piv bv by vols ailiyea Qos THs Takaras diaSnuns SiaPwviav, Oe didovroe, ever LEY iaododat, xprrnpiaa xpnoa= pevos THis Aowrais ixdocecw, x. T.£ This observation is immedi- ately: subjoined to that quoted supr. n. *®. on the difference of the copies of the Gospels. Origen, in continuation, explains the method which he pursued in ecorreeting the ‘Sopa Conf. supr.p. 432. nn. “et *. *° The following description of the vulgar edition of the Sep- tuagint is given by St, Jerome; Procem. in Lib. xve Comm. Is. Tom. IV. p. 185. h, “ Denique omnes Gracie tractatores” qui nobis eruditionis suze in Psalmos commentarios reliquerunt > : ( 435 ) thé early period in which he wrote, the Septuagint only lay under the imputation of being corrupted*’; and no possible reason can be assigned which could induce him to tamper with the New Testament. He must be clearly acquitted of the charge of yield- ing undue submission to the authority of Origen, as he rejected the corrected text of the Septuagint inserted in the Hexapla, and republished the com- hos versiculos [ Rom. iii. 18—18.] veru annotant atque prete- reunt: liquido confitentes, in Hebraico non habefi, nee esse in LXX interpretibus, sed zn editione Vulgata, que Grece xown dicitur, et in foto orbe diversa est.’ It appears from this re- mark, that Ps. xiv. 4. was interpolated with Rom. iii. 13—18: in order to verify St. Paul’s references in the latter place to the Old Testament; his quotations having been not easily found, as taken froin the following places, Ps. v. 10. exl. 3. x. 7. Is. lix. 7. Conf. Orig. Comm. in Rom. Tom. IV. p. 505. and S. Hier. ibid. The following observation, which must be referred to Ruffinus, rather than Origen [vid. Ruffin. Pref. in Epist. ad Romm. ap. Orig. Tom. IV. p.458.] warrants us in believing, that Lucianus’s corrections extended to removing those mani- fest corruptions; while his undertaking to republish the vulgar text, proves that they could have extended to little more. Orig. Comm. in Rom. Tom. IV. p. 504. d. <“¢ Ilfud etiam te- cessario ducimus admonendum, quod in nonnullis Latinorum ea que subsequuntur testimonia in tertio decimo Psalmo conse- quenter ex integro posita inveniuntur: in Graecis autem poene omnibus non amplius in decimo tertio Psalmo quam usque ad illum versiculum, ubi scriptum est ; ‘ Non est qui faciat bonum, non est usque ad unum.” In the terms, “ Grecis autem pene omnibus,” the Greek Vulgate is plainly intimated ; in the phrase ' inveniuntur—non amplius, &c.” the correction of that edition is as plainly implied. As the Vulgate was the text which Lu- - cianus revised, we have here a plain example of the manner ia which he formed his revisal. Seve supr. n. ™, F£2 ( 486 ) thon edition. Setting aside the authority of Origen, there seems to be no conceivable cause by whicla Lucianus could have been swayed in corrupting the, text. Nor can he be convicted on thishead, by the testimony of St. Jerome, who declares that his text was interpolated. As it appears, on the testimony of this-antient father, that Lucianus’s text prevailed. at Byzantium in the age when he wrote**, where it has demonstrably prevailed to the present day * ; we have only to compare the Byzantine text with the Latin version of St. Jerome, in order to discover the passages**, against which his censure is chiefly di- rected. ‘There is thus little difficulty im vindicating Lucianus from the charge of corrupting the Serip- tures; and little more in tracing the errour under which St. Jerome laboured. to the source from whence it arose. A slight inspection of the passages in which the Byzantine text. differs. from, the Latin, Vulgate, will convince any unprejudiced person, that they are such as the orthodox must have been led, by their principles, to exclude from a place in the authorised edition, had:they been corrections of Lucianus. They include some passages which were favourite texts employed by the Arians, in * Vid. supr. p. 72. n. 57. *3 Vid. supr. pp. 71. 88. sqq. 4 Vid. supr.pp. 151. 160. The principal passages in which the Greek and Latin Vulgate differ, may be seen at a view, on turning to the quotations in pp. 374—377.. p. $90. n-*. and on comparing the quotations pp. 380-—385. with the remarks p. 396. n. 53, In these references the Greek Vulgate is denoted, by Byz. or Vulg. the Latin Vulgate by Zt. 3. =e ( 437 ) supporting their opinions against the Catholicks*s ; it is of course ihodticeieable, that in the age subse- quent to that inwhich Lucianus published his edi- tion, the Catholicks would have allowed them to retain their place in the text, unless they undoubt- edly believed them authentick. They include some other passages relating to the mystick doctrines of revelation, which the prejudices of the age pre- vented the orthodox from divulging to those who were not regularly initiated in their sacred myste- ries**. If it is conceived, that such passages could have been invented by Lucianus, which is a notion that is exposed to many obvious objections*’; con- > _ *5 Such are Mat. xix. 17. Mar. xiii. 32. Luc. xxii. 43, 44. Joh. v. 3, 4. Act. xv. 28. supr. p. 372. sqq. besides Mar. xvi. 9—20. Joh. viii. 1—11. % Such are not only Act. xx. 28. 1 Tim. iii. 16. 1 Joh. v. 7. Col. ii. 4. supr. pp. 253. 276. but Luc. xi. 13. xxii. 43, 44. Joh. v. 3, 4. Act. viii. 37. supr. p. 377. sqq. and Mat. vi. 13. Luc. xi. 2, 4, &c. ut supr. p. 380. A more convenient opportunity will hereafter occur of speaking at large on this subject. 27 The Arians have laid claim to Lucianus, as an advocate of their peculiar opinions ; Epiph. Her. txrx. p. 730. d. But this was merely an artifice, similar to that by which they endea- voured to prove Origen and Dionysius Alexandrinus, of their party; vid. S. Athan. de Sentent. Dionys. Tom. I. p. 243. c. The orthodoxy of Lucianus has been fully vindicated by Bp. Bull, on the express testimony of the ecclesiastical historians’; vid. Def. Fid, Nic. Sect. IL. cap. xiii. § 4. p. 144. sqq. It is indeed true that Lucianus agreed with the Arians in rejecting or omitting the term syoscir, im his confession of faith; and on these grounds the hereticks founded their claims to him, as 2 partizan of their notions. But the Creed of Lucianus, which they produced in defence of their errours, contains a full vin- dication of that martyr, as it proves, that however he-rejected the ( 438 ) siderable difficulties must still attend the suppo- sition, that they would be admitted into the cano- nical text of Scripture; particularly in an age, when reproach must have been brought on the only party whom they could serve, by adversaries who were as able as they were willing to expose an attempt of that nature. The charge urged by St. Jerome against Luci- anus’s text is thereford entitled to little attention : and additional reasons compel us to set it aside, which result from the facility of accounting for the errour under which he laboured. In fact, the mis- take of St. Jerome must be imputed to that cause which has been already pointed out; his having judged of Lucianus’s text by the standard of Euse- bius’s edition*®. His objection must of course fall to the ground, if it can be shewn that the text of Eusebius was defective ; as omitting those passages _ which were retained in Lucianus’s edition. For St. Jerome having been unconscious of the defici- term, he retained the doctrine: vid. S. Athan. de Synod. Ari. — min. Tom. II. p. 693. Socrat. Hist. Eccl. Lib. II. cap. x. p, — 87.1. 36. Conf. Bull. ibid. § 7. p. 145. The fact is, that the term was rejected by Lucianus, merely because it had been per- verted by the Sabellians, to favour their peculiar doctrines; and it had been expressly rejected, in the sense which they — affixed to it, 60 years previously to the Council of Nice, by the Synod of Antioch: yid. Bull. Ib. cap.i. § 9. p. 29. sqq-. ‘From. these considerations we may certainly conclude, that Lucianus was not likely to invent any passage, like those quoted in n. *°, supr. p. 437. for the purpose of supporting the doctrine of one substance. ‘ , ® Vid. supr. PP: 151. 160, ~ = ( 439 ) ency of one text, imagined the integrity of the other was redundant. Under this view of the subject, the various read- ings of the sacred text are ultimately traced to the editions of Hesychius and Eusebius; the one, ac- cording to St. Jerome’s express declaration, having interpolated the inspired writings, the other, accord- ing to his implied testimony, having pruned them of some imaginary superfluities. To the influence of Origen; we must again look for the source of these varieties, of a totally opposite character, which were thus introduced into the text of Scrip- ture. _ Of Hesychius we know nothing more than that he was a bishop of Egypt, who perished in the per- secution in which Lucianus was martyred*. But this little seems to identify him as a disciple of Ori- gen. In the controversy respecting the Apocalypse and Millennium, which had been maintained by Dionysius and Nepes, who governed the sees of Alexandria and Egypt, about sixty years previously to the meeting of the Council of Nice, some curio- sity was excited, respecting the allegorical sense of Scripture, which Origen had supported, and relative tothe nature of the body, its organization and en- joyments, in that state which is to succeed the resur- 7° Walt. Prolegomm. Sect. IX. p. 63. § 25. “ Quarta [editio +3, 0] fuit Hesychit Episcopi Aigyptit, in eadem per- secutione decima martyrio coronati: de quo Euseb. Hist. Lib. VIII. cap. xiv. Hic veterem translationem recognoyit: que, teste Hieronymo, per gyptum et Alexandriam eae erat : movam non cudit.*’ ( 440. ) rection**. The peculiar opinions of Origen had spread so widely after this period, in Egypt, that when a council was convened at Alexandria’ by Theophilus, in which those opinions were con- demned as heretical, Dioscorus, bishop of Hermo- — polis, with the Egyptian monks, were professed converts to Origen’s notions’*. Under these. cir- cumstances, the churches of Egypt were gradually _ prepared for the reception of a revised text, accom~- modated to the principles of Origen’s criticism’. 3° Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. VII. cap. xxiv. p, 349. L 27. Em) teres macs axeiaceea, [Atovtosog taicxomos rar var’ Aaskave Oyeiav] aire ne r > > ‘ \ exe \ , f 4 p hee, aT 2 dy ca somal xitar,” nal Ta Eons. nab orpoeimauey ye Orh Bx askeow dvivyearer & MalSaios 7 woopniimer. (5-) By this de- ~ ( 447 jp an errour with respect to the meaning of Origen; as Origen’s testimony, when properly understood, not only discovers the source of the various reading in the Egyptian edition, but confirms the peculiar’ reading of the Byzantine. The same observatioii may be likewise extended to Luc. ili. 5. A repe- claration, Hesychius was deceived ; for in the application of this remark to the passage before us, Origen is entirely misrepre- sented. This passage agrees verbatim with Isaiah; while its context, to which Origen certainly alludes, differs from the exact words of the prophet: St. Matthew having there written, Ib. 9. parny SN cfBovlet hey Ndaonorles Odaruarias, sWlarwara avdpomrws, but Isaiah, Ib. 13. mpd crw2s myn ons MND tan: the former of which is properly rendered in the Authorised Ver- sion, “‘ but in vain they do worship me teaching Jor doctrines the commandments of men,” the latter somewhat more freely, “and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men.’’ (6.) What sets this matter out of dispute, is, that Origen pro- ceeds explicitly to cite the contested passage in the very words of the vulgar Greek; Orig. ib. p. 493. e. tore elev & Kiptoc, $ wow Ta somols tlyiGew tov Aacy? ruv “Iedaiwy, “7g Oewy nad ois ayelnsos Tysev ait” Pnory dios 6 napdia atrav’ de rav sic thy "Incdy amislav, © moppw isly awd Kupie:’ though by prefacing these words with rére simev & Kupioc, he was conceived, by the revisers of the Egyptian and Palestine texts, to allude to Isaiuhs while it is evident, from the context, dsa rry cig tov Inc dorisiay, he must have referred to St. Matthew. (7.) As the testimony of Origen is thus clearly in favour of the Greek Vulgate, and there can be consequently no doubt that it retains the genuine reading ; we have thus a positive proof of the corruption of the Egyptian and Palestine editions, in one of the most remarkable passages in which they differ from the Greek Vulgate. hea "Erosdoale tiv ddov Kupiz, evdeias moseire tas TpiRes auTe——— 1 Eras Ta oxoha eis evdeiav, which occurs in Luc. iii, 4, 5. is found also in Is. xl. 3, 4: but in the first clause, ed9elas satsirs, : sus teiBes, is expressed by nbpn nw, ie, eddeiay waite THs ( 448 y tition of the same word in Origen’s comment on thi passage, led to an ambiguity, which a reference to” , xeifov, and adré by winds 7é Ord ipiy. in the second. In’ all last clauses however, the Egyptian and Palestine texts read x tras ta cxoria els EUSEIAS 5 direst comtrary to the reading . of the Byzantine text, xa) tra: ta oxoma ets eUSeiay, and the prophet Isaiah, wnb apyn am. This various reading has plainly originated from a misconception of the following pas- sage of et Com. in Joan. Tom. I. 127. d. dpoiws 8 7a Magxw xab 6 Awxds +8, © Qwrn Bowslos ty TH tpn” rcrpaygront og yryeanlas ty BiBrw he "Hoale +B eepine—iryuacale Thy er Kugiz, Salas sovire ras Teibes avTe.” ss Fagg Th mpoot Sane] | & Aguas zal Te 855 ris mpoPnreias—* % tras Te conor eis evSeia fl. b9siar]—ipoiws ra Magny araypdpas 7b, § ebSttas wonits Tag eibus autre” émsleuroueros To, * ewelas rosette Tas wpibes Te Océ Syediv, alt Ob a8, © sd* teas wretvla onoria els eb Seles” i ea be opis th, Swasle? chy AEw ESnxe, pila 7B, alt ivine [eis] © eo Seva, aeroimntvar TAnSvIixer © evIeias.? ‘This last remark, that St. Luke, «instead of the singular , as we find in St.John ; but under the unusual title 6 apopnrns. Of this most remarkable part of the contested passage, there is a full acknowledgment in Origen ; iva wmgw3h ive té agoOnre being literally rendered * propheta dicente ( 451 ) between the Evangelist’s text and quotation, which was first pointed out by Ammonius’s Harmony ; the quod est impletum.” (3.) As this is a phrase that Origen could neither have discovered in the Psalmist or St. John; we have thus an express testimony for part of the contested pase sage in his words, and an implied testimony for the remainder, in: his exposition ; the prophecy being explained by him, while he is engaged in expounding Mat. xxvii. 35. II. But the cause is equally obvious which induced the reviser of the Egyptian text to adopt the shorter reading; (1.) It was not quoted ex pressly by Origen, in his Commentary. (2.) It was a canon of Origen’s criticism, that the Evangelists had abridged the quotations which they adopted from the Old Testament; vid. supr. p. 449. n.*%. (3.) When compared with Mar. xv, 24. Joh. xix. 23, 24. as set beside each other in Ammonius’s Har- mony, it introduced an apparent contradiction between St. Matthew’s text and his quotation; the one representing the garments as divided, and distributed by lot, comp. Mar. ibid. ; the other representing not the garments, but the vesture, as that on which the soldiers cast lots; comp. Joh. ibid. (4.) This apparent contradiction was avoided by the omission of the dis- puted passage ; and as it was a canon of Origen’s criticism, that one Evangelist might be corrected by the other; St. Matthew was thus most easily accommodated to St. Mark and St. Luke, by expunging what they had left out. As all these reasons must have ,equally opposed the introduction of the disputed passage into St. Matthew, as have recommended its removal from the text of that Evangelist; I trust there can be little hesitation in deciding, that there is rather an omission in the Egyptian text, than an interpolation in the Byzantine. It may not be unnecessary to. observe, that the connexion of * diviserunt vestimenta sortem mittentes,’’ with “et sedentes servabant eum,” supr. p. 450. 1. 5. contains no proof that the intermediate passage, which is at present in dispute, was absent from Origen’s copies; for similar omissions con- stantly occur in Origen’s writings, as the next quotation ad- duced from Origen will abundantly testify, vid. infr. p. 44, It age ( 452 9 dbliteration of the disputed passage removed the ¢ort-_ tradicton, though it did not solve the difficulty, for which indeed Origen appears to have found no re- — medy, as he passes it over in silence. The expe- dient which answered the immediate exigency 0 the revisers was consequently adopted ; and the pas- sage omitted accordingly. But the partial quota- tion of the words of the disputed passage, and the general reference to its sense by Origen, clearly prove that it existed in his copy: his testimony of course as fully confirms the integrity of the Byzan- tine text, as it reveals the source of the corrupti of the Egyptian. In the abridgment of the pro-_ phecy, cited in Luc. iv. 18, we discover a still et may be however observed, that the insertion of the latter clause in its present place is probably to be attributed to the transla- tor; as it forms the text which Origen has set at the head the next section, and is perfectly irrelevant in its present situa-_ tion, as not touched on in the course of the section before us: _ conf. Orig, uf supr. p. 921. ¢. | 4 "Tdéoag9as rBs correrpiyptres tay xapdiav, which is omitted in : the Egyptian and Palestine text, is retained in the ys This passage was omitted by Origen, Comment. in Joan. Tom. IV. p. 13. d. Comment. in Luc. Tom. If. p. 970.a. b. But" we cannot conclude from hence, that it was absent from Ori r gen’s copy. In the former place he omits also dmostinas te9= pavomeres ty adios xnpitas inavtoy Kuple duxtdv, Connecting at TuPAoig ava parelev® % mlvéas 7 B:Briov; im the latter, the transla~ tion tnerely of his works agrees with the received version of the | Latin church in omitting the disputed passage. But, waving this consideration, there was good reason why Origen should omit the disputed clause: according to Theodotion’s and Sym: machus’s interpretation, it did not exactly accord with the He- brew. On Is. Ixi. 1. 25 “a1 wand, St. Jerome observes Comment. in Is. Tom, IV. p. 204. a“ Sive jumta Symmachunt ( 453 ) étronger proof of the corruption of the Egyptian text, and of the integrity of the Byzantine. While the disputed passage is indispensably necessary to et Theodotionem, ‘ ad alliganda vulnera peccatorum:” we ace cordingly find, that while the Septuagint render wand izcacSas, Symmachus renders wan imdzce. Job v. 18. vid. Montfauc. Hexapl. Tom. I. p.402. As the original will however bear the sense assigned it in the Septuagint, the reading of which is adopted in St. Luke, the difference existing between the trans- Jation and the original, independent of other considerations, seem decisive of the true reading. (1.) St. Luke represents ‘the whole passage of Isaiah as read by our Lord, and there is ‘no doubt that the disputed clause exists in Isaiah; it is there- fore indispensably necessary to the fidelity of the Evangelist’s “narrative, that it should form a part of his context; as it is absurd in the extreme to conceive our Lord omitted this clause, ‘which appears so apposite to the occasion. (2.) It must for ever baffle the ingenuity of every casuist to account for so ex- traordinary a fact, as that the passage which is thus omitted should be the only one in the sentence, in which the original and the translation are apparently different. (3.) This circum- ‘stance, which is so difficult to reconcile with the notion that this passage is an interpolation, is of all others most easily re- : conciled with that of its being a suppressed text; the difference ‘between the original and translation being considered a suffi- cient proof that it was spurious. (4.) The same circumstance ‘must be eternally irreconcilable with the notion that this pas- |sage could have made its way into the sacred text after the ‘publication of Origen’s Hexapla; the difference between the Hebrew and Greek version having been there fully set forth, and its remedy suggested, in a faithful translation, the suppo- ition that this passage could have been foisted into the vulgar re contrary to his authority, is too absurd to deserve any further consideration. Whether therefore we regard the in- fluence of Origen’s Hexapla or his Commentaries, we have here another positive proof of the corruption of the sacred text, frum the authority of his writings. q i ( 454 ) the fidelity of the Evangelist’s narrative; a sl verbal difference between it and the original He | brew, which was first revealed in the Hexapl: clearly discovers the grounds of offence which occa- sioned its suppression in the Egyptian text, an¢ points out the authority on which the Vulgar Greek was corrected. In Mat. v. 4, 54%. to which we ma) 4s In the Egyptian text, vers. 4, 5. of Mat. v. are inverted, vid. supr. p. 63. The source of this various reading clearly exists in the following passage of Origen, Comment. in Matt Tom. IH. p- 740. zvvoscey Ob cB roses AapRaww tmisnoas mH Ta Tav ty TW xara Mardaiov paxapiopiir, ois ETE TO, ‘ pancp Of Wlaxol ro mevpart, rr adrav isi 4 Racirsla Taw Spavav,? Eki yeyenmlas 76, 6 waxdpios of meacis x. 7.§ But into this opini Origen was led by the endeavour to find out an artificial con nexion between the beatitudes ; or a regular gradation, in th course through which the heirs of glory pass to a state of fina Deatitude; Id. ibid. ciees yale tv reross Ore wpwror pir THY pee pSivevar 60 Bacrrsia rar Spavwr? devtspov de £ xAngovoncacs Typ Bx ass tay wavre aiave sivas tor aoring” © mapaxrndévres® yep 99 md § wemewnncves 4) Dbynivas dinasoodwns,” © nogecSivtes? adriicy © iremStvres,” xy Srdv Ody idsvaec? 19 6 duel adr xAmIévres,” mew 5 tt thy Bacirciav’ amonatisatlas § rar dgavdv.? Puerilities such as these can not have much weight in determining the genuine | reading. In another work of Origen’s, we consequently find the whole order and progress of grace inverted; and the beati-| tudes disposed in the following manner; Mat, v. 9. 8. 4 ‘$: vid. Hom. xix. in Jer. Tom. III. p. 269.d. A third attempt gives us the reading of the Vulgar Greek ; for Origen, having discovered an analogy between our pilgrimage through this vale | of tears, and the Israelites passing the river Jordan, somewhat nearer to the sense of his text, and thus gives it its proper order; Hom. v. in Jes. Nav. Tom. Il. p. 407. 2. «‘ Transeundum nobis est quod sequitur, ut in hoc mundo Juge-| amus. Cito etiam reliqua transeunda sunt, ut mansueti effici- amur, et ut pacifici maneamus, ut per hoc filii Dei vecati ( 455 j add Mat; xxiii. 1445. we plainly discover the source possimus. Festinandum quoque nobis est, ut persecutionum tempus virtute patientie transeamus. Cumque hec singula que ad virtutis gloriam spectant non segniter, nec remisse, sed cum omni: instantia et celeritate conquisierimus, hoc mihi videtur esse cum festinatione transire Jordanem.’? Nor can it be objected, that this inconstancy of Origen is to be ascribed to his translatour, for (1.) Ihe tenour of Origen’s reasoning absolutely requires that the present order should be preserved. (2.) There could be no possible object in changing it, had it been different ; as in that case it must have been altered con- trary to the testimony, not merely of Origen himself, but of the versions which have prevailed in the Latin church, since his works have been ‘translated; vid. supr. p.63. (3.) The Homilies on the book of Joshua were translated by Ruffinus, as appears from the Prologue; Orig. Ibid. p.:396; and what- ever liberties Ruffinus might have taken with his authour in other parts of his works, in translating this book he was con- fessedly accurate; Ruffin. Peror. in Ep. ad Rom. ap. Qrig, Tom. 1V. p. 689. a. “ Illa que in Jesu Nave-——scripsimus, simplietiter enpressimus ut invenimus, et non multo cum labore transtulimus.” As the Vulgar Text is thus confirmed by the authority of Origen, and is supported by all versions except the:second and third edition of the Latin ; the former of which was corrected by St. Eusebius from the Egyptian text, and has had a direct influence on the latter, as revised by St. Je- rome, there can be as little reason to doubt the corruption of the Egyptian text, as that it/has proceeded from the authority ef Origen. + In the Palestine, as well as. the Egyptian text, Mat. xxiii. 14. is wholly omitted, The source of this variation from the Vulgar Greek must be sought, not less than the preceding, in the writings of Origen. This fanciful expositour had disco-— wered.a natural connexion between vers. 13.15; vers. 14. was. consequently dismissed to effect an alliance between them; Orig. Comment. in Matt. Tom. IV. p. 839. ‘ Claudentes gutem regnum ceelorum Scribe et Phariszi duo ad semel de- ( 456 ) of the various reading of the Egyptian text; in the linquunt. Unum quidem, quod ‘ ipsi non ingredijuntur in reg- num ccelorum.’ Secundum quod * intrantes introire non si-< nunt.” Hec duo peccata naturaliter inseparabilia sunt ab invi~ cem. Qui enim alterum ex iis peccat, ab altero se non potest abstinere. Item e contrario,” &c. It is little wonderful that Origen, having got into a train of thinking of this kind, which he pursues for some length, should wholly pass by vers. 14; which, though naturally connected with its context in our Lord’s discourse, is wholly irrelevant from Origen’s explana- tion. It is little wonderful, that having become enamoured of his exposition, he should finally believe the disputed verse an interpolation; which M. Griesbach conceived was probably his opinion. It is, however, obvious from the various readings of this passage, that his opinion respecting it, has had some in- finence on such of the Greek MSS. as generally correspond with the readings of Origen; whatever be their varieties with respect to this passage, they are invariable in their correspond- ence with his observation. We consequently find, that it is retained in some of them, and is omitted in others; but in the former case, it is prefixed to vers. 13: so as to bring vers. 13. and 15. i all instances together: vid. Griesb. not. in h. 1. While these MSS. of course destroy the testimony of each other, such of them as retain the verse, add the strongest con- firmation to the reading of the Greek Vulgate. The very devi- ation of the vulgar text from the authority of Origen, conveys a - strong presumptive proof of its integrity; as it is impossible to conceive how this verse, if it were an interpolation, could be inserted in the only place which was proscribed by that critick; or how it could be generally received, contrary te his autho- rity, unless under the conviction that it was genuine. As the vulgar text is confirmed by the testimony of all versions, but those which are enumerated in the last note, and which have no separate voice on the present question, as they have been influenced by the Egyptian text ; there can be as little reason to doubt of the corruption of this edition, as that it has pra- eeeded from the influence of Origen. ——. ad b " fs - im ( 457 ) | comment of Origen: for while an inconstancy in the testimony of that early father fully confirms the reading of the Byzantine text in the former case, a variation in the Greek manuscripts in the latter, clearly proves, that they have been altered in accom- ‘modation to the comment of Origen. When to these considerations, we add that of the general conformity of the Egyptian text, to the peculiar _ veadings of Origen *’, they afford us ample grounds *7 Of the express testimonies of Origen, which have been already cited; supr. p. 354. n.°%. the following are the only examples not found in the Cambridge MS. ixatovrarAassiva. Mat.xix.29. & }xécur:, Joh. viii. 38. rivec. Ib. xiii. 1S. Pada. Ib. 26. To which we may add the following, mentioned by M. Griesbach, [Symbb. Critt. Tom. I. p. cxxvi. n. **] as a proof that the Cambridge MS. has not been interpolated from Origen ; Mar. i. 7. xtxpas. Ib. vi. 3. & téxtwy Ib. ix. 2. dy ro mpootxer das wiroye Luc. ix. 3. xapaés aZiec. When we consi- der the insuperable difficulties with which any scribe of the fourth century must have had to contend, in introducing every peculiar reading of Origen into his copy, these exceptions will be so far from weakening the conclusion for which I contend, that they may be cited in support of it. But of these few ex~- ceptions, the last four are not express testimonies; it is ad- mitted also, that Origen was mistaken in Mar. ix. 2. vid. Griesb. Symbb. Critt. Tom. II. p. 346. n.!: and, unless I am deceived, he has been misrepresented in Mar. vi. 3, and in all the present examples but Mar. i. 7. Luc. ix. 3. vid. supr. p, 369. It is likewise possible, that the interpolatour of the Egyptian text might have been of opinion that Origen, in deviating from the received text in the above instances, had merely availed ‘himself of the licence of a commentatour; and that he there- fore departed from his authority in these instances, while he generally followed it in others. I take not the least account of the argument deduced from the dissimilarity between Origen and the Cambridge MS.: Symbb. Critt. Tom. I. p. cxxiil. ( yy for concluding, that this edition hasbeen systeme- tically corrupted from his writings**. So far is this In order to form any deduction from the premisses there laid down, we must assume it as true, that the criticks or gramma- rians of the fourth century were equally minute and patient with the Wetsteins and Griesbachs of the eighteenth; which is an assumption that no person will, I hope, require me to refute. The following texts, which are found in the short compass of ten verses, will however demonstrate the influence of Origen on the Cambridge MS. Luc. ix. 20. Xgirdv 73 OcB. Vulg. Xpisov viov te Oc. Cant. Orig. tyeeVivasr. Vulg. Th. 22. arasnvas. Cant. Or. eragrnccod we Vulg. Tb. 23. aemodoSu. OI ONT Cant. Or. Ibid. « apérw roy savgoy aire ...4+ nad tytgare ; Vule. desunt. Cant. Or. Ib. 26. 0; yg tmasoyviSh we x) rig tub, Adyeg. Vulg. Oo yao imascyuSh pe % ths tuts. Cant. Or. Eb. 27. adyw 8&8 opty aanSix, cick ties ray Ode ErnxoTov, of & BH qtoorrar Savers tws ty Wuor ray Baotheiay 78 Océ. Vulg. rtyo Bi Sui Orr dAndas siot twes Td esdrav, of & un yevowvras — a x * Sardre tus dy Tuoi Tov viov TH aySpame Eoxomcvov ev rH dokm airs. Cant. Or. Ib. 29. 10 cidos sé wgocdme. Vulg. 4 idea te xeooans. Cant. Or. *8 T shall mention but one additional example; dad» de pics atta « waenyev 8tac, Joh. viii. 59. is omitted in the Egyp- tian text, though retained in the Byzantine and Palestine; vid. supr. p. 285. conf. Griesb. n.inh.1. This various reading may be clearly traced to the extraordinary notion which Origen entertained of our Lord’s personal appearance, which he be- lieved was varied according to circumstances. This notion the Origenists found difficult to reconcile with the plain state- ment of the Evangelist, that he took advantage of the crowd, and escaped their fury merely by passing through the midst of them: they corrected the passage accordingly. Orig. contr. Cels. Lib. II. cap. Ixiv. Tom. I. p. 435. f. as geph rnduiir by Pecopevos nyatls a8 "Inc, & peavoy Kate TY évdov % eemonenpupptray roig medrol Ocidtnta, BAKA x ucla To pclapmogPHEVOY OUijAc, os" EBeAclo % ois EBdrct. Conf. Tom. IIL p. 906. e. f : ( 459 )} conformity from evincing the antiquity of the Egyp- tian text, that it deprives it, when considered sepa= rately, or merely in conjunction with Origen, of-any the least authority in determining the genuine text of Scripture. Eusebius of Caesarea, who published the next edition of the sacred writings, undertook the revisal of the Greek text with different views, and under different auspices. Commanding the same advan- tages which had been possessed by his predecessour, he was directed in using them by very different prin- ciples. While he was no less biassed in favour of Origen, than Hesychius, he possessed greater faci- lities of consulting his commentaries; a complete set of Origen’s works having been deposited in the library of Cesarea*?. He possessed also, in the edition of Hesychius, a text in which many of the peculiar readings of Origen, his master and pre- ceptor in criticism, had been adopted. And in the Harmony of Ammonius, and the text of Lucianus, he possessed a standard by which the superfluities of the Egyptian edition might be discovered with ease, and removed without labour. Of these different helps towards revising the sacred text, Eusebius fully availed himself in publishing the «9 Thus much may be legitimately collected from the follow- ing declaration of Eusebius; Hist. Eccl. Lib. VI. cap. xxxii. p- 296. 1. 19.—riv wept ta Osi omvdny t apPiae iadon sis yzyéves magisivtes, tis curaySeions arta TS Te Qeuyeves 1G tar ZrAwD inwdnoiasinay cvlyeaQiay PiSdudnxns Tes Bhanas Wagedeunv 5 Gy Gry Dider wdpsw Brendsase tav Ogiyeves wovwy ta cis Teas zASovla Nay raraie ( 460 ) Palestine text; to the use which has been made of them we may indeed attribute most of the peculia- rifies discoverable in that edition. Of the Harmony of Ammonius, it is unquestionable he made consi- derable use*°, in ascertaining the passages intro- duced into the Egyptian edition; thus much may be clearly collected from the testimony of St. Je- yome*', who proposes the Eusebian canons as a standard by which the interpolations of Hesychius - might be determined. From the text of Hesychius; it is probable Eusebius derived most of the peculiar readings of Origen, which he adopted in his edi- tion **: having here found them incorporated in the 3° Euseb, Epist. ad Carpian. Nov. Test. pref. ed. Mill, "Auponas piv 6 AArckavdpeds modAnv as eixos Pidomoviay x) ooredyu saynoyus, TO Srategodeuv nuty xararérovmey svalyéAsoyv.—éix TU rovy~ patos Te isha wa avdges siAnQos A Poguas, “ad irégay peSodon eterdvas dees Tov deiSpov diayagaka cor Ths dmrorerayuives x T. E st Vid. supr. p. 172. n. *, ’* Such in particular are Mat. xv. 8. xxiii. 14. xxvii. 35, Luc. iii. 5. iv. 18. which have been already described; supr. p- 446. n. **. sqq. The peculiar readings of the Palestine text are easily known by the coincidence of the Vatican MS. and Latin Vulgate; and the evidence of these witnesses is con firmed by the testimony of Eusebius’s Canons, in the only in- stance in which their testimony applies; Matt. xxiii. 14. As this verse is omitted in the Palestine text, it is omitted also in the Eusebian Canons; whereas, it must have formed a new section, and have been designated by a particular number, if it had existed in the text of Eusebius; vid. supr. p. 161. n. ™ The same remark does not apply to Mat. v. 4, 5. as has been sometimes asserted. The Palestine and Byzantine texts agree in preserving these verses in the proper order, while the Latin Vulgate follows the text of Eusebius Vercellensis, in mverting them; vid. supr, p. 63. The Greek copies of Eusebius’s Cas ( 461 ) sacred text, while the testimony of Origen became sufficient authority for him to retain them as ge- nuine. But the edition published in Palestine by the elder Eusebius, had its peculiar readings. The most important of these have been already speci- fied ; and some account has been given of the causes which occasioned their suppression in the Palestine edition’. Of these passages, in which the Vulgar Greek and Corrected Edition differ, not a few are found in the text of Eusebius. A critical examina- tion into the source of these various readings of the Palestine edition, will; I trust, end in the further confirmation of the same conclusion which it has been hitherto my object to establish. The most remarkable of those passages in which. the Palestine and Byzantine texts differ, are Mat. xix. 17. Luc. xi. 2.4. 1354. It will not appear ex- traordinary, that the former edition should agree in these passages with the peculiar readings of Ori- gen; when it is remembered, that it was revised by. - Eusebius, the admirer and apologist of the father of sacred criticism. But it is particularly deserving of remark, that the Palestine text, in coinciding in these passages with Origen, also corresponds with nons agree with the former texts, while the Latin copies have been accommodated to the latter. 53 Vid. supr. p. 35. sqq. 5+ Of these texts, Mat.xix. 17. Luc. xi. 2. 4.13. have been already quoted among the remarkable passages which are sup- ported by the authority of the primitive Fathers, or of the Italick and Syriack versions, against the testimony of the Egyp- tian and Palestine editions; supr. p. 373. 383. ( 462 ) the peculiar readings of Valentinus and Marcion*, When we take into account the nature and. tendency of that tract, in which the extraordinary readings of those passages are preserved ; that it inculeates hete- rodox notions**, and quotes other apocryphal texts ‘7; 58 The following account of Marcion’s text is given by St. Irenezus, Adv. Her. Lib. I. cap. xxvil. p. 106. “ Et super hac, id quod est secundum Lucam Evangelium circumeidens- semetipsum esse veraciorem, quam sunt hi, qui Evange- lium tradiderunt Apostoli, suasit discipulis suis; non Evange- lium sed particulam Evangelii tradens eis. Similiter et Apos- toli Pauli Epistolas abscidit, auferens quaecumque manifeste dicta sunt de eo Deo qui mundum fecit,” &c. The peculiar readings of Marcion’s Gospel and Apostolicum are preserved by Tertullian and St. Epiphanius ; vid. Tert. adv. Mare. Lib. — IV. cap. i. p. 403. S. Epiphan. Her. xlii. p. $10. ¢. d. 5° The most exceptionable of Origen’s notions, respecting the inferiority of the Son to the Father, and the impropriety of addressing our. prayers to Christ, unless as our Mediatour with the Father, are inculcated in this tract in the ‘followae terms ; Orig. de Orat. Tom. I. p. 222. b. "Edy 38 dxdapav Ors wore iss bine wamors Bde sav yerntiiv wpoceunréos ishy, BOE aura To Meisd, dara pow 7H Oey vav srwr n} Marpl, dx) abrds 6 Dwrhp Hadi MpoonU ETO, ws wpomapeIZueay x) OAKES Nua, MpbosiyreIar antows yag SOidakar nds mpooedyscdas, & diddenxes adrw mporctxtodaty Erne Tw Tareh Adyovracs Tdrtp nud, 6 tv roig Spavois” x) Ta Ezng® ai yee ETEPOS, Ws iv GAACLG OeixvTaL, KAT SolaV % Umoxeiwevos Esty & Yios 78 Talgcs 4.7. Conf. Huet. Origeniann, Lib. II. quest. ii.-§ 1. sqq- °7 One of the first quotations in Origen’s tract on Prayer, is the following, Orig. ibid. § 2. p. 197.-f. aiveire rab weryaray 0) Tad Binge nie mpossdiostas* x) aitsite to emupdyva x) ve émbyea Opir mposelncevas Vid. supr. p. 330. n. +4. This text is joined, in the same sentence, with Matt. v.44. ix. 38. &¢.; is again repeated Ib. p. 219. d; and is quoted as the language of the Gospel, Ib. p. 224. c. Nay more, of the passages which are now be- ( 463 ) there will not be much reason to doubt, that the alteration of the text in those places must be ulti- mately referred to those hereticks, whom Origen, in his riper judgment, has accused of corrupting the text **. The peculiar doctrines of the Marcionites are summed up in a narrow compass, by St. Ireneeus and St. Epiphanius. They agreed with the fol- lowers of Cerdo in acknowledging two princi- ples 9; one of these they called the good God, ‘con- coving him to have his residence above the hea- vens; and the other they termed the just God, considering him the authour of the works of the Creation. 'The former they considered inscrutable, and wholly unknown, until the advent of Christ, who first revealed him to the world; the latter they supposed the God, who had revealed himself to the Jews, who. had delivered the Law by Moses, and had spoken by the Prophets**. Between these per- fore us, Luc. xi. 2. 4. xviii. 19. are quoted in this tract as they were read in Marcion’s Gospel: as will be made apparent in the sequel. See also p. 794. f. 53 Vid. supr. p. 368. n. ™. p. 431. n. 7° 39 §. Iren. adv. Har. Lib. I. cap. xxvii. p. 106. édiduge [Kepdwv] tov Dro TE vouE % sein mgemprlicais Oxo», fr) Elyaeb Hatépa 78 Kupie ue Inot il Toy yey yee heuine coy oF eliiara sivas x) Tov tv Ninccioy, tov St aladv dorcepyerv, Ssadesdncvos DE atrov Maegxiov 6 Tortinds, avénce Td didwoxoAcio x Tt. & . Conf. §. Epiphan. Her. xlii. p. 304. a. © §, Iren. ibid. p. 106. Jesum autem [Marcion docuit] ab eo Patre, qui est super mundi Fabricatorem Deum, veni- entem in Judeam temporibus Pontii Pilati—in hominis forma rmanifestatum his qui in Judea erant, dissolventem Prophetas et ( 464 ) sonages they conceived that there was some oppd= sition of will and nature; the one presiding over | immaterial spiritual world; the other over the ma- terial visible creation. Christ, as the Son and legate of the good God, came to abolish the power and dominion of the Creatour®. He was not however made in the flesh, but append merely in the li ness of man”; the object of his appearance on ez having been to abolish the Law and the Prophets to save the souls, not the bodies of men; for the Marcionites agreed with the Nicolaitans and other Gnosticks in denying the resurrection®. In orde to justify these notions, the founder of the sect had framed antitheses between the Law and the Gospe in which he endeavoured to show, that ibs one ¥ contrary to the other ®* These opinions, ile had been broached b Marcion, near the times of Hyginus, bishop o Tegem et omnia opera ejus Dei, qui mundum fecit, quem et cosmocratorem dicit.’” ¢* §. Epiphan. ibid. p. 305. a. Xpusde OF Atyss arwSev ama 1 dopat® xj dxataropase Tarps xataBsenxtvas, tet cwrnpia rar Yoxan, x) Ext Réyxw 78 Or® trav Iedaiwy, x5 Nowe, xal UpoQnrav xab * sowray. Conf. S. Iren. ibid. § Ze p- 106 ® Vid. S. Epiphan. ibid. p. 322. b. conf. 339. c. 340. b. = Ss Repos ibid. p. 305. c. asasacw dt, as cleron, S05 ? ext cupator adra Yoxor xal cwrngiay Tabtass dpieeras, & ae cipacs. Conf. supr. nn. © et §, © “ Tert. adv. Marc. Lib. I. cap. xix. p. 359. “ Sejare 0 | Legis et Evangelii proprium et principale opus est Marcionis, | —Nam he sunt Antitheseis Marcionis, idest centrariz opposi- tiones quz conantur discordiam Evangelii cum Lege commit- tere, ut ex diversitate sententiarum utriusque Instrumenti diver- sitatem quoque argumententur Deorum.” # i ( 465 ) Rome®, wntil those of Pope Damiasus: had maintained théir ¢round against the opposition of Justin Martyr, Iréneus, Tertullian, Rhodon, Ori- én, anid Epiphanius °°; and had produced the dif- ferent sects of Lucianists, Tatianists, and Apel- léians®’. The Valentinians were a kindred sect Which sprang from that common source of heresy, the school of Simon Magus®; agreeing in their fiindamental tenets with the Marcionites, though they differed essentially from them in their notions of celibacy, which they held in no high estima- tion, Of the important light in which they were & §, Epiphan. Her. xiit. p. 302. d. amoddpacue [Mapetur'] rng morews Ths aUTHS izeeea | % averow sis Tv Pouny wirnyy pare 70 TeAevtncas Yyivoy tov émioxomoy Pons. Codf. S. Iren. adv: Her. Lib. I. cap. xxvii. pp. 105, 106. Euseb. Hist. Eccl, Lib. IV. capp. x. xi. p. 154. 66 Conf, Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. IV. cap. xi. p. 157. 1. 5. Just. Mart. Apol. maj. p. 70. a. 92. a. Euseb. ibid. p. 155. 1.12. S.Iren. Lib. I. cap. xxvii. p. 106. Tert. adv. Marc. p- 403. sqq- Euseb. ib. Lib. V. cap. xiii. p. 225.].12. Pamph. Apol. pro Orig. cap. i. p. 20. d.sqq. Orig. de Principp. Lib. Il. capp. iv. v. Tom. I. p. vt. sqq- S. Epiphan, Her. xu. p- 302. sqq- 67 Vid. inft. n. Conf. S. Iren. ut supr. pp. 106, 107. S. Epiphan. Her. xiii. p. 378. b. Her. xuiv. p. 380. c. Her. xiv. 391. d. Vid. supr. p. 267. n. *™*. 69 §. Iren. adv. Hr, Lib. I. cap. vi. p. 30. of & x) [’OYaAe= var] Teis THs oagKes noovats xalandews Seredovies, Ta capxsncs ols CoLpHiMols, % TL WIEVULATING ToIS mvEYUMTIKOIS amOdIOoT IAs Aéyeote ual.ot piv adrav Addon ras Sidacnomevas dm” adrav SWaxnv - TauTny yuvainas SiaPdeigsow, xt. & It must be however ob- served, that this difference between the Valentinians and Mar- cionites was founded on a distinction of the former, who merely nh ( 466 ) held, we may form some idea from the Rule of — Faith, and the description of heresy, which are given © by Origen ; ; both of which are framed expressly with a view to the Valentinian and Marcionite no- — tions 7°. One great object of that indefatigable writer was to oppose the growth of these heresies, and we clearly discover the source of that unfortunate bias which his theological opinions took, in the influence ae — conceived their elect or spiritual persons as privileged to in- — -dulge in these shameless excesses: conf. S. Iren. ibid. Orig. — Comment. in Joan. Tom. IV. p. 235. a.b. §S. Epiphan. Her. xxxi. p. 189. c. Merely animal persons, of which order they considered all those who were not initiated in their mysteries, were required to perform good works as necessary to salvation; among which they numbered continence; S. Iren. ibid. P- 31. Has nares }uxsess Svonasct, x) ix xocue sivas AdyEaty x avay= xaiay Maw THv Elxpareiay x aladny wpabiv xe Te Ee Conf. ibid. p. 29. S. Epiphan. ib. p. 189. a. 7? Vid. Pamph. Apol. pro Orig. cap. i. p. 20. sqq. Orig. © Comment. in Epist. ad Tit. Tom. IV. p. 695. d. Quid vero ~ sit hereticus homo, pro viribus nostris, secundum quod sentire — possumus, describamus. Omnis qui se Christo credere confi- tetur, et tamen alium Deum Legis et Prophetarum, alium Evan- geliorum Deum dicit et Patrem Domini nostri Jesu Christi — non eum ticit esse qui a Lege et Prophetis predicatur, sed alium t <3 nescio quem ignotum omnibus atque omnibus inauditum, hujus- modi homines hereticos designamus, quamlibet variis ac diversis — et fabulosis concinnent ista figmentis, sicut sectatores Marcio- nis et Valentini, et Basilidis, et hi qui Tethianos appellant. Sed et Apelles licet non omnibus modis Dei esse deneget Le- gem vel Prophetas, tamen et ipse hereticus designatur, quoniam Dominum hunc qui mundum edidit, ad gloriam alterius ingenitt : et bont De eum construxisse pronunciat,” &¢, Conf, supr. p. 463. n. ( 467 ) which this controversy had upon his mind. As the hereticks had depressed the Creatour, representing him as inferiour to Christ, he was driven into the opposite extreme, and in asserting the transcendant glory of God, too incautiously depreciated the Son’s co-equality with the Father”. Though he very ~ successfully combated the fundamental errours of his opponents” ; their reasonings, particularly when seconded by the speculations of Plato”, seem to ™ We consequently find that these subjects are generally combined in the comments of Origen; in touching on the Com- ment. in Joan. Tom. IV. p- 139. b. oleras yag [6 “Heaxdzav} roy Anuusoysy Th xéopes ehatlova ole t& Xeisé, omee iss marrov aoeBeratoy & yee mipsbas aoTov Tarn, o Tay Covrwy Ozis, (és aires “Inc meee) —s dia tBro Kugsos t8 Spavd x) Tis iiss ors memolnxer atta, Bros x, povos ayados, 4 mciQuy 7B mEuP= ee Conf. infr. n. 7*, * One of the most pernicious opinions of the Valentinians ates the dectrine of one substance ; by which they consi- dered their elect or spiritual persons, as participating the divine nature, incapable of contracting pollution from sin. Conf. S. Tren. ibid. p. 29. The blasphemous tendency of this doctrine is set in the strongest light by Origen, by contrasting it with the conduct of Christ, who, though infinitely exalted above all created beings, asserted his inferiority to the Father ; Ones ibid. Ls 235. a. ci OF 2ézare 1d ac sage A WVVLATINN DUI, OL08= at0s boa ™m ayewnre aver % adec 5 aoeBi a&xorsdet Ta aby ro nar adres wept Ged. 80: Darracwworives auswduvdv iss &rAZAosce Readopcros to LwrHps Adyorss § 6 attaew & mweprbas pe ptilev we 2st,” ol die tro fe) evelxoves pnde chy © ayadas? mpoonyopiay Thy uugias b Andi, zal rerciay wapadédacSas aira ampooQegoutrmr, ara Saal avrny etapisws ra Tlarp) yer eeririysncews mpds tov Burda ss109 tmepdozales cov Yiov x. T. be ® Huet. Origeniann. Lib. II. cap. i. § 4. p. 105. “ Unum utem pre reliquis [Origenes] Platonem admiratus est; sic ué Hh2 ( 468 ) have had so far an influence upon his sentiments j as-to induce him to embrace some very extraordi< — nary notions relative to the constitution of Christ’s body”+, and that of the human frame, after the re- surrection , Some of these notions he adopted from Tatian’®, by whose peculiar opinions he confesse himself to have been once influenced?’> and from whom he obviously imbibed that extraordinary 3 at- tachment to a state of celibacy, which he profess in numberless places”. As the founders of those different-seets had tam- pered with the text of Scripture”, and the Mar Christiane dogmata ad Platonice doctrine leges, non ipsam Pla- tonis doctrinam ad Christi effuta accommodaret.’® Conf. cap. ii, quest. ix. § 9. p. 213. 7 Vid. supr. p. 458. n. 9 75 Vid. Huet. Origeniann. Lib, II. cap. ii. quest. ix. p. 209. — % §. Iven. adv. Her. Lib. I. cap. xxviii. p. 107. aitids roag apes ee vols ard “OYarertine, [ Teersande} pede ioiisy 71 vapor Te xal DSopav xab wopyeiay wapamAnoiws Moputwrs val Darope vive, weveryogeve cece Conf Ss. Epiphan. Her. xivr. § ii- ps 3S d. sqq- 7 Orig. de Orat. § 24. Tom. I. p. 238, e. spins *& Poker —imoprno vas Tie wapendoyer ere Pre Taree} da rip AMAT NLC, Od mapud:eaueres Tie aochy Oduonarion are, dv © Huccis Wole memeieaprcta. . an 78 Vid. Orig. Comment. in Mat. Tom. HI. p. 649. se Conf. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. VI. cap. viii. p. 264. 1. 20. 4 72 The testimony of Origen has been already produced: against the followers Bie Marcion, Lucianus, and. Valentinus, vid. supr. p. 431. n.®. A like charge has been urged against Tatian, who appears from the following account to have pub- lished an Apostolicum, as well as a Gompe) or Diatessaron: Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. IV. cap. xxix. p. 193. 1 20.—é Tats eric, CoVADaY Tie xak cvialoyhy ax oid! Ewe Tar Evelysniwn curse, ( 469 ) cionite heresy had extended itself through the Egyp- tian, Palestine, and Italick dioceses**, it cannot be deemed extraordinary that the particular texts which prevailed in those regions should have insensibly undergone some changes, from the influence of the editions revised by the hereticks. In some instances the genuine text had been wholly superseded by the spurious editions. In one diocese of the Oriental Church, the Diatessaron of Tatian had been gene- ‘ie received. to the exclusion of the vulgar edi- tion®'. As it had been customary with the dispu- tants, ae were engaged in defending the orthodox and the heretical side of the question, to reason from the concessions, and to quote from the Scrip- tures acknowledged by their adversaries**, the dis- tinctions between the pure text and the corrupted ro Ai Teccapwy TETO Wporwvouecey, 0 nal Tapa Ticw ciceTs VOY Decera, re Ot “Awosoay Quct TorAuizas ties airiv peTagpacar Qwrds, i pmidiogSsnevar airav Thy Tis Opdorws cbyrakin 8° S. Bpgier. Her, xlii, p- 302. a 2 d& abpeons [7s mportonues eens) : th % Viv tv 7H Pans nab ev od Irarig, % "Al yinle mee ev bieXensivg, & wy “ApaBiee Te nah ty 7 Login, ty Kuwpw re wad OnBaids, & 2 pny AAG nok Ev 7 n Tepsidt, uad ty GAAos TOROS evolonclats St. Epiphanius declares, that he had some conferences with those hereticks ; conf. ib. p. 343. _ * Theod. Her. Fab. xx. Op. Tom. IV. p. 208. c. Par. 1642. v Ol xaiyw aries % danocias BiBAvs toadras, [ra 7B Tariave ha ee evalytrra | é ev THis aie nyaty ExnAnoicess TETHE nme VaNS 5 Taras Poveyayey ameSiunr, x) Te Tar Tetldgwv Eialysdisay avreayayo fyzrra. ps This was confessedly the practice with the orthodox; vid. supr. p. 331. n. *. The same conclusion may be formed with respect to the heterodox. Conf. Orig. de Principp. Lib. IE, cap.v. § 4, Tom. I. p. 68. d. Tert adv. Mar. Lib, I, cap. ii. p. 351. (270) )) . revisal, were at length wholly confounded in thei writings. In a country where there was little sta bility of religious opinion’, and where great liber- ties had been taken with the sacred text**, little confidence could be reposed in any edition. Th works of approved writers furnished the only stand ard by which they could be tried; but they no afforded but a fallacious criterion, as containing qu tations which were drawn from various equivocal sources **.» A difference between these quotations and the sacred text become a sufficient evidence of the corruption of the latter; and the next obje was to amend the text by accommodating it to the quotation. On the most cursory view of those passages i which the Egyptian and Palestine texts differ fr the Greek Vulgate, it must be evident that the M: cionite and Valentinian controversies must have hai considerable influence on the former editions. Ha) ing already laid those passages before the reader 83 Vid. supr. pp. 371, 372. et n. 7, p, 344. et nm. CO supr. n. 8+ A distinction is thus made respecting the true and genuine copies by St. Epiphanius; Her. xxii. p. 373. d. wavra db 7a avliveapa ra ota x, GAIT, thy meds Pwpaies Exyor mpurnve In reasoning against Apelles, who was accused of corrupting _ the Scriptures, vid. supr. p. 330. n. 45. St. Epiphanius expressly appeals to St. Mark’s Gospel, as containing vers, 19. of cap, xvi. which was omitted in Eusebius’s edition, vid. supr. p. 35. n. 3, Id. Her. xLiv. p. 386. c. aw N abrd 7d ayiov cana oo +n Qedrnre ores Ocic—‘ naSeCouevos ev deka re Tlatecs.’ ws Eq 7b re Maoxs Edalyériov, xxl trav GArww Edalysriswre 85 Vid. supr. p. 330, n, *%, p. 367. n. *™*. Vid. supr. p. 372. sqq- p- 380. sqq- ( 471 ) I shall now proceed to point out the particular manner in which the peculiar readings of the fore- mentioned texts have apparently originated. _ At the head of those passages stands Mat. xix. 17. with which we may join Luc. xviii. 19°. which 7 In the Vulgar Greek, we read Mat. xix. 17. +i pe réysis ayaSev 23:5 alaSic, ti pn tis 3 Grts. But this text was little suited to the Valentinians, who admitted not only angels but men into their notion of God, as being of one substancé with the Father; vid. supr. p. 467. n. . The term ©:3; was of course expunged as limiting the attribute of goodness to the Supreme God. Clem. Alex. Strom. Lib. IL. p. 409. L GAAd nai “OTarsvrives, mpds twas Ewisidray adrais Azzeos yiaQes wept Tar weoraprauatan ‘eis Se Esw dyadds’ x. +. We have here evidently the source of the reading of the Egyptian and Pa- lestine texts; +i we towlgs meg: tB wy2S8, cis es 5 afaSis, vid. supr. p. 372. The Marcionites, on the other hand, find- ing the term @:i¢ too indefinite, as applying to the Creatour as _ well as the Father of Christ ; vid. supr. p. 468. n. °. limited the term to the latter, by the addition of s Mar%e; S. Epiphan. Her. xii. p. 339. d—* 2 px me Aye alates sis ine ayadis & Oxds.” agoctdero éxaivos [Mapxiav] ‘ 6 Taine.’ Both readings are found in Origen; the former in Comment. in Mat. Tom. Ill. p- 664. c. 2 vopiston ey pxytctas to © wroincoy ayaSar” pos wor “rh us tgalas megt ayad®; cis esi 5 dyads, Acdeyucvor wees Tov Wedopevoy x) simovra § Vaonare t+ 2yaSi» waew; the latter in Comment. in Joh. Tom. IV. p. 41. dimapes riv povoyert atyoure § didacxuars ayadi” [3 Earng] Quoi, 6 ri ws Adyers AlaSan5 dele ceryados cb wy tic, 6 Ods 6 TIatng’” Conf. Tom. I. p. 279. a But we cannot hence conclude that Origen found either of these readings in his copies. (1.) He quotes, in his text the et merely of the verse with < +2 ific; Ib. p. G64 a. “x 338 BY mcaczaS ay simrey autre ddzoxzre * ayatay wencw, Tyee exe luny aiano x ta ific——(Z.) The whole of Ais comment containing the reading of the Palestine text, is not only want- ing in the old Latin translation of Origen; but the reading of ( 472 ) constituted a principal text of the Marcionites; as — relating to their fundamental tenet respeeting the — the Byzantine text is set, in place of it, at the head of the sece tion; Ibid. p. 664. d. Interrogavit Jesum unus de turba — dicens, ‘ Magister bone, quid boni faciam ut habeam vitam seternam? Qui dicit ei: Quid me dicis bonum: Nemo bonus f nisi unus Deus.” And an indisputable interpolation of the i Greek of Origen occurs in the Comment on the part of Scrip- ture before us: vid. p. 670. c. et Huet. not. y (3) It is merely to ti ayaSoy moyow, Which zs Sound in the Vulgar Greek, q that Origen refers, in expressly referring to St. Matthew; Ibidy i" p- 664. c. 4 wey by MarSaios, os meet dyads tpys igwrndévros Te Lwrnpos ev Ty—* ti dyasoy woincw ;’ cavéypasperr o ds Mapxos, .) Azndis Qacs tay Lwrripa sipnnvas © oi ws Aeyers ayaders Beis ayadec i si un tis & @eoc.? In fact, the reply of our Lord was dictated — in St. Matthew, by the question +i ayaSt roinew, which is want- ing St. Mark and St, Luke ; but was dictated, in the last-named : Evangelists, by the epithet dddcxare dyad; conf. Mat. xix. — 16. Mar. x. 17. Luc. xviii. 18. thus viewed the disputed passage is not ascribed by Origen to St. Matthew. (4.) The first ex. — plicit acknowledgment, which he makes of it, is in a subsequent place, where it is considered, as if it was stated by an objec. tour; Id. ibid. p. 666. a, Aeyorro D ay dao Tivos ws apa ywdexwn ~ tr & Lwrnp vy Te muvdavonéve ees, ae time abt muSavowery? 6 me ayalky wosgcw,? TO° 6 ti we Emegulas wegt Te ayads.’ As this passage zs acknowledged by the old Latin version of Origen, — it fully vindicates the translatour from any suspicion of accom- modating his authour’s text to any particular version. The whole of the circumstances of the case compel us to conclude, that the disputed passage is a text which Origen merely quotes in the manner in which it had been corrupted by the hereticks. (1.) Itis his constant practice to quote texts, on similar autho- rity; as we have just seen in the case of the Marcionites: conf, p. 330. n.*. (2.) He has admitted, that these hereticks and the Valentinians corrupted the sacred text ; vid. supr. p. 431. n. *% and this is a passage, which, as relating to their fundamental doctrine respecting the attribute of their Good God, they were ( 43 ) nature of the Deity. An examination into the pe~ culiar opinions of those hereticks, leaves us very least likely to leave unaltered ; vid. supr. p. 463. n.%. (3.) We consequently find that the Marcionites are positively ac- eused of sophisticating this text by St. Epiphanius, vid. supr. p- 471. and a similar charge is brought against the Marco- sians, who were of the Valentinian school, by S. Irenzus; adv. Har. Lib. I. cap. XX. pe 92. Ena & % Toy ev "Edalyenbo Rerpenww sig TBTOV roy xapaxrnipee [et Mepuacror | pedocenolerty’—— ao TQ eimoves avy [to Lornpt], § ddaonare ayadt,? civ arnSag ayaSdy Cxdy wuoroynxévar ciwdvra, © th we Aéyers aya Sy; fig Essay ayaSts, § [lalnp év rois sgavois’” Savi OB viv rd “Alavas cighoSas asyeor” Here, by the addition of év rors gpavois, in the sense of zy toils aiaor, the hereticks took in the whole. of those- beings whom they included in their notion of the Divine Nature; vid, S. Iren. ibid. cap. xi. p. 77. sive, S. Epiphan. Her. xxxiv.-p. 243. d. conf. supr. p. 270. n.**. (4.) The passage before us, when compared with the vulgar reading, has all the character- istick marks of an heretical corruption. The question proposed in the Corrected Text, ci pe tpuras meg aya, or 8 dyads, and the answer, «is tcw dyads, favours the common notion of the hereticks, that Christ came to reveal a good God, who was — previously unknown; vid. supr. p. 463. n.°. (5.) As far as we have any accounts of the hereticks’ opinions, it 7s expressed im the very language used by them; ss érw dyadic, which is substituted for gd dyads ci yw» etc, being the phrase which both Valentinians and Marcosians use, in describing their doc- trine; vid. supr, And it is clear to me, that the phrase which is found in Origen, ‘xoingoy &yaSéy,’ supr. p. 471. 1. 24. was sub- stituted, by the same hands, for ripnoov vas évroad:, which occurs in St. Matthew: as the hereticks, who absolved their spiritualized followers from the necessity of observing the Law, required the practice of good from merely animal persons, such as the rich man who addressed our Saviour; vid. supr. p 465. n.. (6.) Itintroduces an antithesis, or a contradiction between the Law given by Moses, and that revealed by Christ; as the person who is represented as “having kept all the commandments ( AT ) little room to doubt that the various reading of the texts before us originated with them, and that. they from his youth is addressed, as if he were ignorant either of the nature of good, or of the one good God, whom Christ first revealed; vid. supr. p. 464. n. °% Of this distinction, the Marcionites were fully sensible; and in order to point it more forcibly, they made another alteration; S. Epiphan. ib. p. 339. ad. © els dew dyxSdc, 4 Octc.’ meoctIero Exes [6 Mapxiwe], 66 Tati.” cits tS © Tas EvroAds o1das, Aéyer, © Tag trToAds O1OR. {7.) Origen not only cites it as he does other heretical texts ; conf. supr. p. $30. n. *%. but with a direct reference to the here- ticks, (who accused God of severity, as the authour of the Law} which is perfectly beside the purpose, unless we conceive the disputed passage brought this subject before him; Orig. ibid. p- 666. ¢, Gnrhoas & mic alaSirnros adr west x) tad py vodpevce ixh tay door 29" iavsots cuxoParlerviay rev 7% Nove Oxdv, x) xan. qogniwy alg, x7. £ In which sentence Origen offers a’ suffi- cient apology, for appealing to the testimony of the passage before us. In fine, as the received reading, which has the ; whole of the internal evidence in its favour, is thus not in the least affected by the testimony of Origen; while it is amply supported by the most unimpeachable evidence, vid. supr. p. 370. n. 7: the whole weight of evidence which is cited against it must fall with the testimony of Origen. The writings of this father have unquestionably had considerable influence on the Egyptian and Palestine editions; and by these texts the Sahidick and revised Italick, the Coptick. and later Syriack have been obviously corrected: none of these witnesses can of course have the smallest weight in supporting the contested passage, against the single testimony of Justin Martyr; vid. supr. p. 372, And let it be observed, that the evidence of this primitive father derives additional weight from the explanatory gloss with which he closes his testimony, ad:is ayaSds, st pr péves 6 cts’ & womous wavic. This clause being undoubtedly added as a corrective to the glosses of the hereticks, whose object was to exclude the Creatour from the character of good- ness, clearly proves that the passage before us had been tama ( 475 ) acquired that authority in Origen’s, works, which obtained them a place in the Egyptian and Pales- tine edition. ‘The same observation nearly may be extended to Luc. ii. 38", the peculiar reading of pered with in Justin’s age, and is a sufficient Eh witac that Justin’s testimony has not been accommodated te the Greck Vulgate. As in this view of the subject, every variation of the passage before us is adequately accounted for, on consdcring the Byzantine text retains the genuine reading; whild itseems impossible to account for the corruption of the vulga} Greek, not to mention that of antient Italick and vulgar Syrtck, on conceiving the Palestine text preserves the authentick rea ing: I conceive we may as confidently pronounce on the putit} of the former text as on the corruption of the latter. 5 In place of the vulgar reading, Lue. ii. 38. “Iwan pnrnp avre, the Egyptian and Palestine texts read, & xarip\a % 4 watnp; vid. supr. p. 373. The authority for this varous reading is contained in the following observation of Origen, Hom. xvii. in Luc. Tom. III. p. 951. c. “* Lucas—qui mjni- feste nobis tradidit quoniam virginis filius Jesus est, nec\deé humano conceptus.est semine, iste patrem ejus Joseph testatus est dicens ; ‘ Erant pater ilius et méter admirantes super his que dicebantur de eo.’ Que igitur causa extitit, ut eum pater non fuit, patrem esse memoraret? Qui simplici expo- | sitione contentus est, dicit: Honoravit eum Spiritus Sanctus patris vocabulo, qui nutrierat Salvatorem. Qui autem altius aliquid inquirit, potest dicere, guia generationis ordo a David usque ad Joseph deducitur, et ne videretur frustra Joseph no- minari, qui pater non fuerat Salvatoris, wt generationis ordo haberet locum pater appellatus est Domini.” ‘There are few, I trust, who will be of Origen’s opinion, that the variols read- ing of the Palestine text removes any difficulty which may be found in the genealogy, or has any other effect, than to create a greater difficulty with respect to the immaculate conception. The reading of the vulgar Greek has been already vind|cated, from the internal evidence, and from the unvarying tesfmony wi se ' : ( 476 ) this text having originated with the Origenists, whe endeavoured to strengthen the argument, deduced of the old Italjck version, to which we may add that of the antient Syriack; vid. supr. p. 169. n. 5. conf. p. 359. n. ™. And Origen, shortly after making the above observation, lets us into the secret of the various reading of the Palestine text; plainly } timating, that it arose from the Marcionite contros versy ; having been opposed to the errours of those hereticks, who rected the genealogy, because they objected to the in- carnation; vid. S. Iren. ub. supr. p. 462. n.*%. Orig. ib. p. 952. d. « Viyeo mater est, signum est cui contradicitur. Marcionite contiadicunt huie signo, et aiunt penitus eum de muliere non esse generatum. Alii enim dicunt ewm venisse de ceelis: alii tale e nos corpus habuisse,” &c. As either the reading of the Palestine or Byzantine text must be false, there can be very little reason to doubt, that it is the former which has been corrupted. ‘That. the reading of both editions is of great anti- qaity, must be inferred from the testimony of Origen, and the ‘talick translation. And this consideration seems decisive — of the fact, that the vulgar Greek retains the genuine reading, The evidence which supports this text is not only more antient than that which supports the Palestine; but at the time when the Italick version was formed, as strong reasons opposed the introduction of the Byzantine reading as favoured that of the /Palestine ; the Marcionite controversy, on which this text bore, having been then at the summit. While it becomes therefore impossible to account for the general corruption of the vulgar Greek, Latin, and Syriack texts, that of the Egyptian and Pas lestine, of the Latin Vulgate, the Sahidick and Coptick ver« sions, &c. admits of the same explanation as in the last exams ple; suor. p. 474. n. 87; and as to the testimony of Cyril, it must fallow the fate of the Palestine text, as that of St. Jerome and St. Augustine follows the fate of the Latin Vulgate. While of course the Greek Vulgate is supported by the testimony of _ the most competent witnesses, that of the Palestine text is sus« | tained by no adequate evidence. The inference may be now left to the reader. : ( #7 ) from the genealogy in favour of our \j’s incar- nation, by deducing the line of descent least no- minally through Joseph. Nor is the » materi- ally different with respect to Luc. xi. |. relative 89 The Byzantine text reads, Luc. xi. 13, eb ete eae éyeSa Soucla Oiddras Tois Tixvors iper, wore BaMCTarhe é é 2 Sears Mice Truipa Kywov tals aitécw avror, but, Palestine text substitutes m:dua ayacer, and the EgyptiaxSis opty for wudpa yr; vid. supr. p. 373. These variousings must be plainly referred to Marcion, who stands at thel of those who had corrupted the Scriptures in the age ofsen. His reading of this verse is preserved by S. Epis, Her. RELI. p. $13. €. ci Sv dpsig woungad Gurecy obdare De aaayxe Sat wise paddor & Tarp: the final clause being expunge(ording te Marcion’s practice, vid. supr. p. 462. n. °°. Aigen pos- sessed an early bias to the opinions of the Entes, [vid. supr. p. 468. n. 7°, conf. n. *.j the first founof which sect was Marcion [vid. S. Iren. Lib. I. cap. x p. 107.} the has interpreted this text according to their ns; Orig. Comment. in Mat. Tom. HI. p. 650. d. x} ro, 08 2 ipar Tor maripa vies airnots ixSiv, po ath iygSdoe Opwiacs avr,’ ta ttc. dwoe Se ro ayasov Sopa, tm warreBeigecs ey ayayaige %G anyveig & @xds, rots 2 Sans ugiicy zai prises, nak adarsiorms ty xpauyais aiticw actor, Anothermpt at ex- planation by our critick gives us a little more ae reading which exists in the Greek Vulgate; Orig. det. Tom. L p- 213. c. twek & xpnsis Tarnp tox Carre aprov } Tos © re Bvevpa Tis viodeciag cianQoow axe tS Lerpigt xazw 6 Halas wo ayaSer deux iw» 2 Seav¥ roils airecsy aordr. Those of this inconstancy in Origen’s reading is fully explaiby himself in the tract which contains the last extract; e course of it he signs a recantation of his former opiniond abandons Tatian and the Encratites; vid. supr .p. 468. n His differ- ent. expositions are consequently perfect cats to each other; “ the good gift” in the one being “ pt purity, im edlibacy and. chastity,” * for whic Marcion cotled 5 ‘but in | (4g ) to the gof the Spirit ; Origen having originally adopteds text, as it was understood by the Mar= _ cionitesinished, by his different explanations of — it, the Pus readings of the Egyptian and Pales< ° tine edis. In Luc. xxii. 43, 44%, we discover the othe those temporal blessings which God grants as the rain frveaven,’” which Marcion abjured, as denying the goodnesd providence of the Creatour, vid. supr. p. 463. n. 5°, ' far a plain account is given of the various read- ings ofrcion and Origen. And in the testimony of the latter we as satisfactory an account of the various readings of the tian and Palestine texts ; the reviser of the former’ having wed Origen’s earlier notion in adopting dyaSi» dye, aie reviser of the Palestine having followed his later opinionadopting w:dua dyaIevr. Nor was their respective choice *ffect of accident. ‘The Egyptian monks naturally gave theference to the reading which favoured their habit re life ;the bishop of Casarea as. naturally gave a prefer- ence tat which agreed with Origen’s amended’ opinion.’ Both lile had their reasons for preferring Origen’s reading to that:e vulgar Greek ; Eusebius having been addicted to the Ariresy [vid. supr. p. 39. n. ®.] and Hesychius to the Origenivid. supr. p. 439. n. %°.] whose ‘opinions were at variance the doctrine inculcated in the received reading : vid. S. In. Pam. et Ocean. Ep. txv. cap. i. Tom. I. p. 229. Withoutsting on the authority of the antient witnesses which srt the reading of the vulgar Greek, and the diffi culty of ing how they could have been corrupted; these considers seem. fully adequate to vindicate the intent of this editi s° Thiny in the garden, described in these. verses, it is next to ca, was first suppressed in the Gospel of Marcion ; and was ce omitted in some copies of the Palestine text, and on tithority of it, in some copies of the Philoxenian and Arm versions; vid. Griesb. n. in Lue. xxii. 43. ¥. The follovreasons seem adequate to establish the antece- ( 479 ) the influence of the same hereticks’ notions; and with this text we may join Col. i. 14%. as relating dent assertion. (1.) This passage occurs in St. Luke, which- of all the Gospels was alone acknowledged by Marcion, and which was mutilated of all those passages, by him, which con- tradicted his peculiar opinions; vid. supr. p. 462. n.*°. (2) The disputed passage, as proving our Lord’s advent in the flesh, was opposed to the peculiar tenet of Marcion, who denied the incarnation and passion of eur Saviour, conceiving his body merely a phantasm; Tert. de Anim. cap. xvii. p. 271. “ Sic enim et Marcion phantasma eum maluit credere, totius corporis in illo dedignatus veritatem.”’ (3.) St. Epiphanius was well acquainted with this passage, vid. supr. p. 93. n. 3. and he expressly opposed Marcion’s opinions, on the testimony of his mutilated Gospel; appealing to several passages which were infinitely less strong than that before us, as Luc. ix. 22. vid. S. Epiphan. Her. xiut. p. 327. d. conf. p. 347.b. But he has deduced no argument from the passage before us; we must therefore conclude, that it was wanting in Marcion’s copy. On the omission of this text in some copies of the orthodox, J shall have occasion to speak hereafter; this circumstance, with which St. Epiphanius was well acquainted, prevented him from upbraiding Marcion with the suppression of this passage. As all versions retain this text, which is quoted by Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, and other antient fathers, but those al- ready specified, little more remains to be added respecting it. _ There can be as little reason to doubt the integrity of the - Vulgar Greek, as that the various reading of the Palestine text has proceeded from the corruption of Marcion. ' $* The observations made on Luc. xxii. 43, 44. in the last “note, may be applied to this passage, which asserts our redemp- tion ‘ by the blood” of Christ. (1.) The Epistle to the Co- ' lossians was equally corrupted by. Marcion with the Gospel | according to St. Luke; this Epistle having been partly re- ceived by him, and that to Philemon alone having escaped the flefalcation of the heretick; conf. Epiphan. Her. xu. p. 373. @ b. Tert. adv. Mare. Lib. V. cap. xxi. p. 479.. (2.) The | | | | ( 480 ) to the same subject: in these examples a degrée of - coincidence between the Marcionite and Origeniani — passage before us is more decidedly opposed to Marcion’s errours, than atty which exists in the text of the vulgar edi tion, and as such was peculiarly obnoxious to him; Tert. dé Carn. Christ. cap. ii. p. 298. ‘ His opimor consiliis, tof ori« ginalia instrumenta Christi delere Marcion ausus es; ”e caro ejus probaretur. (3.) St. Epiphanius reasons front Marcion’s concessions in this chapter; Ibid. p. 373. b. He was well acquainted with the disputed passage as it is expressly opposed © to the Marcionites by St. Ireneeus, adv. Har. Lib. V. cap. ii, § 2. p. 293. with whose works St. Epiphanius was thoroughly acquainted, vid. S. Epiphan. Her. xxx1. p. 173. a. But hé — has deduced no argument from this passage; it must have been consequently obliterated in Marcion’s Apostolicam. Admit- — ing that this passage was wanting in Marcion’s text, it becomes - little wonderfal that it was omitted in the Egyptian text, and on the authority of it, in the Palestine edition. The fotions of the Origenists relative to the body of Christ, differed but 2 shade from those of the followers of Valentinus and Apelles. _ They considered our Lord’s body a kind of spiritualized subs stance, which was capable of different appearances or meta- morphoses; vid. supr. p. 452. n. “. conf. infr. p. 482. n. The followmg testimony of Origen, im which the orthodox nds tion of the incarnation is tacitly censured, farnished sufficient | authority for the adoption of Marcion’s reading; Orig. Hom. in Lue. Tom. HI. p. 952. d. “ Habuit corpus humanum, éb | hoe signum est cui contradicitur. Alii enim dicunt eum ve- | nisse de ceelis; aliitale quale nos corpus habuisse, ut per simi tudinem corporis etiam nostra corporis ‘ rédimeret a pcoeaisad | et daret nobis spem resurrectionis. And in explaining 1 Cor. — vii. 23. he expressly denies that either the body or the soul of © our Lord was offered as the price of our redemption; vid. Comm. ini Mat. Tom. ITI. p. 726. c. In exact conformity with the former reference, “ redimeret a peccatis,” is the reading of the Egyptian text and revised Italick version, as preserved in the Cambridge, Clermont, and St. Germain MSS. ; which | ( 481 ) tenets, led to the adoption of the various reading of the texts of Egypt and Palestine. The catises were of an opposite character, which produced the various reading of 1 Joh. iv. 3%. Origen’s endea- differ from the Palestine text in omitting ry» Zecw, ds well as Sia t2 aizaros adr8; vid. supr. p. 376. conf. Griesb. n. in h. 1. The cause of this difference is, however, easily discovered in the peculiar opinions of the different revisers of those editions. Hesychius imbibed a deep tincture of Origen’s notions; he consequently admitted no more of the disputed text, as genuine, than the following words; i 3 tyouev tiv amordrgwow Thy anaes ziav; agreeably to Origen’s representation. The Arian ten- dency of Eusebius did not lead him quite so far as Hesychius ; he consequently adopted a little more of the genuine reading, and wrote, éy @ Eqomer Thy eeTroAUTpUTHY, Thy aQeouw way Gnceplaca & admitting the remission of sin, though he suppressed the meri- torious price of it. But St. Irenzeus, who preceded both, and whose opinions had no such tendency, has expressly quoted the disputed verse as it occurs in the Greek Vulgate, laying peculiar emphasis on 2-78 aipalos atrd. vid. supr. pp. 3760 378. With the testimony of the Egyptian text, that of the Sahidick version falls of course; as the testimony of the Sy- riack, Coptick, Ethiopick, revised Arabick and Latin Vulgate, falls with the Palestine: and the testimony of the Greek and Latin fathers, who have cited the disputed text, must follow the fate of the last mentioned texts, as they confessedly re- ceived the revised editions of Eusebius and St. Jerome. Under this view of the subject, every various reading of the disputed passage is satisfactorily accounted for. As the reading of the Greek Vulgate is supported by the testimony of antient and ‘separate witnesses, in the old Italick and Arabick versions, we must conclude, that they retain the genuine text: until at least some plausible account be given of the manner in which they could have been corrupted. * The various readings of this passage have been already pointed out supr. p. 377. p. 303. n. **?: and have obviously ori. Il ‘ ( 482 ) vour to avoid the peculiar errours of the Valenti- nians respecting the person of Christ, having pro- ginated, not less than the preceding, from the influence of the Marcionite and Valentinian heresies. The Valentinians be- lieved in the existence of two Christs, who were mystically united; §. Iren. ady. Her. Lib. III. cap. xvi. p. 204. “ Sal- vatorem quidem qui desuper descendisset, quem et ipsum recep> taculum Christi, et universe Plenitudinis esse [Valentiniani] dicunt, lingue quidem unum Christum Jesum confitentes, divisi vero sententia; etenim hee est ipsorum regula, quemadmodum prediximus, ut alterum quidem Christum fuisse dicant, qui ab Unigenito ad correetionem Plenitudinis pramissus est; alterwm vero Salvatorem esse in glorificationem Patris missum.’”® Mare cion agreed with Valentinus in this notion, which was adopted from the Gnosticks; Tert. adv. Marc. Lib. L. cap. xv. p. 357. s* Atgue ita tres mihi deos numera Marcionis——. His quum accedunt et sui Christi, alter qui apparuit sub Tiberio; alter qui a Creatore promittitur,” é&c. conf. supr. p. 266. There was ‘nothing in these notions which accorded with the doctrine ef the Origenists; on the contrary, the founder of this sect strenuously opposed those opinions. In the following passage we consequently discover the true source of the various read- ings of the Egyptian and Palestine editions ; Orig. Comm. in Mat. Tom. III. p. 727. b.—orpegov & Adw vov "Inoby amd 6 Koish, gare worry wAéov olda By civar "Inoby rev Xpisty, x) vie shox aires mpog ‘FOV « smguilironce mons iotws.’ GANG x) TO OWLLe ayre, os mat ab di Stas itogianal Elves By OAov réTOo, omeg © 3 xorrdusros TH Koei tv mvedue és.’ The studied purpose of — Origen to avoid the errour of the Valentinians, drove him into the opposite extreme; and led him to adopt this notion ree specting our Lord’s body, which was afterwards improved upon by the Eutychians. At how early a period the reading of Origen was adopted in some MSS. of the Egyptian text, must be apparent from the testimony of Socrates, vid. supr. p. 303. n. 7; the weight of his evidence in its favour is however an- nulled by the consideration of his having been addicted to the heresy of the Origenists, vid. supr. p. 440. ne *: as might be ( 483 ) duced that exposition from whence his followers have corrupted the reading of the vulgar edition. collected from the forecited reference to the disputed verse, which was apparently written by Socrates with a view to the passage of Origen now before us, as well as to the reading of the Italick translation, vid. supr. p. 303. The various readings of this passage may be now easily traced. The first lineaments of the reading before us occur in Irenzus; after referring to Joh. xx. 31. he observes, Id. adv. Her. Lib. III. cap. xvi. § 5. p- 206.—“ Joannes Domini discipulus confirmat—previdens has blasphemas regulas, que dividunt Dominum, quantum ex ipsis attinet, ex altera et altera substantia dicentes eum factum ‘ propter quod et ix Epistola sua sic testificatus est nobis * Quis est mendax nisi gut negat quoniam Jesus non est Christus? hie est Antichristus.? This sentiment was adopted by Origen vid. supr. and Tertullian; adv. Marc. Lib. V. cap. xvi. p. 473. But the particular reference of S. Irenzus to 1 Joh. ii. 22. in this place, as the chief tert opposed to the Valentinian and Mar- cionite heresies, and of Tertullian to the vulgar reading of thé disputed text, clearly evince that they were unacquainted with the reading of Socrates. Tert. de Carn. Christ. cap. xxiv. pe $11. ‘ Certe * qui negat Christum in carne venisse, hic Anti- christus est :’ nudam et absolutam, et simplici nomine nature sue, pronuncians ‘ carnem,? omnes disceptatores ejus ferit. Sicut et definians ipsum quoque ‘ Christum’ unum multiformis Christi argumentatores quatit, qui alium faciunt Christum, alium Jesum.’ As this direct reference to 1 Joh. iv. S$. proves that Tertullian found in his copies all that is retained in the vulgar Greek; the inference from it proves, that he did not find the various reading of Socrates; as it is perfectly nugatory, if Tertullian read ‘‘ qui solvit Jesum,” either separately or con- jointly with ‘ negat in carne venisse.’’ From Tertullian the former reading descended to Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augus¢ tine, and made its way into the Latin version, merely as a gloss on the received reading: and was finally admitted, in a long quotation from this version, into the translation of St. Irenzus; Tb. cap. xvi. p. 207. What adds the strongest confirmation to 112 os ( 484 ) "The various readings of Lue. xi. 2.4%.) are of the same character, as relating, to the fundamental this assertion, is, that St. Ireneus’s work was translated in the times of P. Leo the great, when the Roman Church took an active part against the Nestorian heresy, which was fundamen- tally overthrown by this text. as quoted by Socrates, vid. supr« p: 303. n. *"*, It could not have been therefore safe for the authour of this translation, which was most probably made with a view to oppose the rising heresies of Nestorius and: Eutyches, to depart in this instance from the authorised Latin versione Of the integrity of the received reading, there cannot be there- fore the smallest reason to doubt; as it is supported by the’ most unquestionable authority, and nothing weakened by the testimony of dissenting witnesses. (1.) It is confirmed by the internal evidence; as corresponding with St. John’s manner, who commonly makes similar antitheses, opposing an affirma-. tive and negative proposition; comp. Joh..i. 3. 1 Joh. v. 10. 12. vid. Erasm. n. in 1. (2.) It is confirmed by the external. evidence, as it is acknowledged, not only by St. Polycarp in the Eastern Church, and Tertullian in the Western, within a short period of the death of St. John, but by the invariable consent of the Greek Fathers and Manuscripts, andof the Oriental Versions. 3 ‘The extraordinary omission of the following clauses of the Lord’s prayer, in St. Luke, have been alreadyspecified ; supr. Pp: 383. nyay O Ev Tog Seavig eee e » yerndntw 7 Sianud cx, ws iv Becra x wi THs YNS+- tified in the deseription of the God who resided “ in heaven, and whose will was done on earth ;’ for, under this character, the Creatour was likewise designated; yavnSirw 7a Siranpe ow, as i epavd x ind ws yacy Was consequently rejected as incons sistent with the notion of Christ’s mission, who came te abolish the power and dominion of the Creatour; vid. Terts adv. Mare. Lib. I. cap. xvi. p. 357. conf. supr. p. 433. nm. ®. (&) The attribute of severity belonged to the latter deity, that of good+ ness having exclusively belonged to the higher principle in Marcion’s system, who did not interpose in earthly concerns; Grd pica nude amo TH movnpS was consequently omitted it Marcion’s prayer, as. unsuitable to the God whom that heres tick exclusively acknowledged as the object of worship, vids Tert. ibid. Epiphan. ibid. p. 529. b. It is. trusty unnecessary to offer another remark on this subject. There can be now little reason to doubt that the various readings: before us must be ultimately referred to the heretic: Marciom; that they were prepared for admission into the sacred text im the writings of Origen ;, and: were transferred: from his writings’into the Pales- tine text, in the library of Caesarea. Here they were found by ( 491 ) taining the doxology, Mat. vi. 13%. as connected with the same subject. The Marcionites, however, St. Jerome, and adopted in the Latin Vulgate; and thus came to the knowledge of St. Augustine: such being the only vouchers by whom they are attested. That the Byzantine text possesses the genuine reading, is not merely evinced by this negative argument arising from the palpable corruption of the Pales- tine. . The reading of the former text is not only supported by all versions, the modern Vulgate excepted; but by the implicit testimony of Origen in the Eastern church, and of Tertullian in the Western: vid. Tert. de Orat. cap. vi. p. 121. % This verse, containing the doxology of the Lord’s prayer, in St. Matthew, is found in the Greek Vulgate, and the old Italick and Syriack Versions, besides the Sahidick, Ethiopick, Arabick, Persick, and some copies of the Coptick, but is omit- ed in the Egyptian and Palestine texts, and consequently in the second and. third edition of the Italick version: vid. supr. p> 380. conf. Griesb. n.inh.l In Origen’s tract on Prayer, we discover the source of this defalcation; the text before us not having been included expressly in his exposition: vid. Griesb. ibid. But. we cannot thence conclude that it was wanting in Origen’s copies; on the contrary, we must rather conclude from his testimony, that he was aware of its exist- ence in the sacred text. (1.) That he omits if in his exposi- tion, concludes nothing; as it really forms no part of the prayer, and consequently it did not come within the compass of Orie gen’s design to expound it: after having dispatched the last petition, he observes; Orig. de Orat. Tom. I. p. 271. a. coxst Sf pas ins Tay Tomer Tis Edy fs daraPelle, irw uelawadon Tov aoyov. (2.) He plainly intimates, that something more not enly existed in his text, but that some doxology was to close the prayer which he expounded, Id. ibid. de xj tet adios, env sixny tis Jokorovyiay Dek, Nid Xpir® tv doyig Mveduars, xelamavstov. (3.) He proceeds if not to expound yet to illustrate the doxos logy, by a reference to the Psalms, which is wholly irrelevant, if we do not consider the common doxology before him; Id. Wid. da séres OS ths. rites, ds mpocimousy Oveomaputves ebpoer ( 492 ) have nothing to answer for, on the score) of ‘cans celling this verse, as they rejected the entire Gospel dy rails yoapaiss rev pty THs Sokodoyias Oiceerdrwy tv Excdlora ‘rpiris Paruar ¢ Kips 6 Orde dg Eusyartvons! oPodea——o Deysersdid thd sya? tor) thy aodanrsicev adTnt, & uarSnodlus Elsizov ala@ye TB ai@vos*® x) th wrcica OF sere 73 Parus Sokoroyiav geprerer 75 Tlaieos. As these considerations render Origen’s' testimony at least neuter; the following circumstances are fully adequate ‘to estas blish the authenticity of the disputed passage. ‘(1.) Had" the doxology been interpolated in St. Matthew, there canbe no reason apparently assigned, why it should not have been’ also inserted in St. Luke. (2.) Its uniform omission in ‘St. Luke involves as. strong an argument, evincing the probability of its partial suppression in St. Matthew, as disproving the probability of its partial interpolation in the text of that Evangelist : ‘as the former correction might have been made on the autho- rity of St. Luke, the latter must have been made against it. (3.) The introduction of this passage in St. Matthew, and its omission in St. Luke, involves the strongest presumptive proof, that it was dictated by our Saviour. As the forms of prayer contained in the different Evangelists were given previously to the abrogation of the Mosaick Law, they were accommodated to the Jewish Liturgy. And in strict consonance with the for- sularies of that Church, a doxology was subjoined by our Lord to the publick form of prayer given by him to “ the multitude,’? but omitted in that which was delivered to “ the disciple’? who asked him apart, and which was to be used in private; vids Lightf. Hor. Hebr. in Mat. vi. 13. Tom. II. p. 303. ed. Amst.— ¢ hoc potius in causa fuisse, cur secundo formulam orationis fla- gitarent, nempe quod primam istam pro publica reputarent, cum et ex adjectione Coronidis Antiphono publico in Templo adeo similis, prasertim vero ex adjectione Amen non nisi in ceetibus usitati, hoc facile argueretur: oratur ergo iterum, ut privatim eos orare doceat ; et ille eandem repetit formulam omissts vero Core- nide et Amen, que publicum usum sapuerunt.” (4.) The subject matter of the doxology is decisive of the point at issue; as it is literally adopted from the Jewish ritual, with the entire subs * SOE RRR A cre ( 493 ) in which it occurs. 'The deviation of the Palestine text from the Byzantine, is however easily account- ed for; having. originated from a misconception of Origen’s testimony, which was conceived to nega- tive a passage which it merely passed over. Of the texts next in importance to those which stance of the Prayer before us; Lightf. ib. p. 303. How it could have made its way into the sacred text, and have been append- ed to the form of Prayer, which, as delivered by Christ himself, must have been deemed absolutely perfect, must for ever baffle the ingenuity of criticks or casuists, to discover. (5.) In fours fold difficulty must such a supposition be embarrassed, when it is remembered, that all the doxologies, used by the primitive Church, were Trinitarian. We have short forms of this kind, which were used in the age of S. Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Ori- gen, Dionysius Alexandrinus, St. Athanasius, St. Basil, &c. ; but they are all addressed to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. That at the early period, when the doxology was incorporated in the text, a doxology could have been adopted from the avowed enemies of the Church, and one which favoured their Anti-trinitarian prejudices against Christianity, is a supposition whichI shall not waste a word in refuting. That it was superseded by a Trinitarian doxology in the next age to that which suc- ceeded the apostolical, is evident from the testimony of Lucian, who alludes to sucha doxology in the following terms; Lucian. Philopatr. Tom. II. p- 1Oll.e.ed.1619. gacey tEro1s Thay euyay are Tlaleis apEcmevas x THY TohuwyupLoy ony eis téAos tmsSeic. In this consideration alone I find a sufficient answer to the negative ar- gument, against its authenticity, which has been deduced from the silence of the early fathers. As it occurs in the Aposte- lical Constitutions, and is acknowledged, if not implicitly by Origen, yet expressly by St. Chrysostome, we have, in those witnesses, sufficient vouchers for its authenticity. The autho- _ rity of St. Luke, aided by that of Origen, afforded Eusebius sufficient grounds to omit it in his text; and on the authority .of his text, it has been suppressed in the versions which have descended from the Palestine edition. ( 494 ) have been specified, Joh. i. 27°. relates to the pre= _ * This passage has been already exhibited, supr. p. 384, Origen having occasionally omitted it in quoting the context, seems to have afforded Eusebius sufficient grounds for suppress= ing it; the Arian tendency of his epinions, or more probably the desire of discountenancing the notion of Origen respecting the pre-existence of the soul, having induced him to cancel it — in his edition. But Eusebius is here wholly deserted by the authority of his master; as Origen has not only repeatedly quoted this passage, but has expressly insisted on it, in proving the divinity of our Lord; Orig. Comm. in Joh. Tom. IV. p. 107. a—capics 70 +8 sipud rng aizews* © Seog Fw Oy claroy & boricw P28 Fexeusvos Eemeoarey 8 Yevaver, Sas wedrbs we Ie? UDLoxes OF Banhsns mas © Eumoostevy aura yéyovey” [nods 7H meres aire, amel € mpuroroxos maong alicews? sivas, Ice Ty OTs 6 ex TE mAngdaros sire yusig mavrec EAL Bomucy.” Oia sono yee now, * Enmpoodiv ue yiyovey,’ S71 pares us Hv. Conf. p. 80.a. 89. b. c. 106. d. 109. d. After this express allegation of the passage before us by Origen, it seems unnecessary to bestow any attention on the negative argument deduced against it, from the silence of Cyril, Nonnus, or Chrysostome. A difficulty in reconciling yéyovev, in vers. 3. and 27, afforded sufficient grounds for its emission by those antient fathers; since, if taken in the same 2 sense in both places, vers. 3. either reduced Christ into the — rank of a mere creature, or vers. 27. was incompatible with his glory as the authour of the creation. The cause of its omission im the Verona MS. may be at once seen on turning to n. ™ supr. p. 146: and as to its suppression in the Coptick and Ethi- opick versions, it is sufficiently accounted for in the circum stance of its being omitted in the Palestine text, from whence those versions descended. The negative argument against it is consequently without any force ; while the positive testimony in its favour seems more than adequate to its vindication; not only the Byzantine and Egyptian texts, but the Italick and Syriack versions, with their derivatives, attest its authenticity : until therefore it can be shown, how those texts have been cor rupted, we must necessarily conclude the contested passage is genuine. . ( 45 ) existence of Christ, and Luc. ix. 55%. to the cause of his advent. The Arian tendency of the reviser of the Palestine text, and the Origenian tendency of the reviser of the Egyptian, respectively occa- sioned the suppression of both passages. T'o some vague notions, which the hereticks held respecting the object of our Lord’s descent into hell, we pro- hably owe the suppression of Mar. vi. 1197. which %* This passage has been given at length, supr. p. $83. As it represents the salvation of the soul as having been the object of our Lord’s advent, without any mention of the body, it ap- parently favoured the notion of the Marcionites, who main- tained this doctrine exclusively: vid. supr. p. 464. 2.“ As the contrary notion was held by the Origenists, who believed in the resurrection, it was first cancelled by them in the Egyp- tian text, and thence suppressed in the Palestine: and as Euse- bius, Basil, Cyril, and Gaudentius followed the latter text, it is consequently omitted in their writings. From the opposition of those witnesses, the passage before us of course remains un- affected; while it is abundantly supported by the internal evi- dence, and the testimony of the best and earliest witnesses, ({1.) It is inconceivable that this passage could have been in- serted in the text of the orthodox, during the prevalence of the _Marcionite heresy, which continued till the close of the fourth century, vid. supr. p. 469. n. *. But as it exists in the old Italick and Syriack versions, it must haye been then intro- duced into the sacred text, or have existed in it from the beginning. (2.) As it occurs in all versions, it is so far sup- ported by the testimony of the best and most unimpeachable evidence; and the general falsification of so many witnesses being wholly inexplicable, we must receive it as genuine. (3.) As it is acknowledged by Clement of Alexandria, Dionysius the Areopagite, and Theophanes of the Eastern Church, and by Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, &c. of the Western, it seems idle in the extreme to question its authenticity. : #7 ‘This passage has been already given at large supr. p. 382, ( 496 ) may be joined with the preceding texts, as hot un- connected with them in subject: Of the remaining passages in which the Greek — Vulgate differs from the Egyptian and Palestine ; texts, Joh. v. 3,4%. refers to the angelical hierar-' r ‘ An adequate cause for its suppression in the Egyptian text may — be suggested in the apprehensions indulged by the Origenists, that it might be employed by the hereticks, to support their — notion relative to the salvation of the Sodomites; S. Iren. adv. _ - Her. Lib. I. cap. xxvii. § 3. p. 106.—* Sodomitas et ZEgyptios [Marcion docuit], et omnes omnino gentes, que in omni per= mixtione malignitatis ambulaverunt, salvatas esse a Domino, cunt descendisset ad inferos,’? &c. It is certain, that some of — the hereticks, who rivalled those nations in their diabolical — excesses, rejected all the Evangelists but St. Mark; and that the Catholicks had formed some hope that they might be led out of their errours by reading the Gospel of that Evangelist, which was better calculated to answer this end, when the dis- — puted passage was cancelled; Id. ibid. Lib. III. cap. xi. § 7, p- 190. “ Qui autem Jesum separant a Christo, et impassibi- — Jem perseverasse Christum, passum vero Jesum dicunt, id quod secundum Marcum est preferentes Evangelium; cum amore veritatis legentes illud corrigi possunt.’? As these considera~ tions account for the negative testimony of the Egyptian text, and its derivatives; they add the strongest confirmation to the reading of the Byzantine, which is supported by the primitive ~ Ttalick and Syriack versions; since the same circumstances must have created equal obstacles to prevent the interpolation — ef the latter edition, as to induce the mutilation of the former. - And it must be observed, in confirmation of the received text, that it is supported by the Verceli MS. against the Egyptian’ edition. The weight of testimony adduced on the present — question, thus clearly lies on the side of the Greek Vulgate. 8 This passage, relative to the descent of the angel in the pool of Bethesda, has been already laid before the reader, supr. p: $74. Sufficient grounds for its suppression in the Egyptian: ( 497: chy. These verses were probably omitted on this account, by the Origenists, who were professed enemies of the Valentinians; as these hereticks per- text, existed in the tenets of the Marcosians: These hereticks, representing Jesus as a separate person from Christ; conceiv- ing the latter the Spirit who descended on Jesus in the shape of a dove, distinguished between baptism for the remission of sins, and redemption to perfection, and ascribed the former to the visible Jesus, but the latter to the invisible Christ; S. Iren. adv. Her. Lib. I. cap. xxi. § 2. P- 94. 73 ply 8 Bérloua sé Qaiwontvs “Incd, dPeoews auaghay, thy OF amoAUTEWaW TE By adTe Xoisé xalerSirloc, sis veAcivcsy. The latter they termed not only RMOAUTQWCIS eis TEAEWWON, but AvTpwoss "Alyeasn, sé the angelick redemption ;” supposing that the persons who nee it, were made partakers of the Divine nature, like the angelical hierarchy ; conf. Iren. ibid. § 3. p. 95. As the Catholicks eons sidered the Angel descending in the pool of Bethesda, a type of the Holy Ghost, descending on the laver of regeneration 5 vid. Tert. ut supr. p. 374.; the Marcosians confounded the Angel Gabriel with the Divine Loges mentioned by St. John; vid. S. Iren. ibid. cap. xv. § 3. p.77. As the passage bes fore us might have been perverted, or was really quoted by the hereticks, to favour their superstitious practices; it is highly probable, that the reviset of the Egyptian text, who certainly cancelled Mat. xx. 20. on similar grounds, also obliterated Joh: y. 3, 4. vid. infr. n. % As these considerations seem ade- quate to account for the variation of the Egyptian edition, and its derivatives, from the Byzantine; and as the latter is sup= ported by the testimony of all Versions, but a few copies of the Italick and Armenian, and is confirmed by Tertullian, Chrysos- tome, Cyril, &c: there can be no reason to doubt, that it re- tains the genuine reading. The very varieties in the text which omit the disputed passage, indirectly confirm the Greek Vul- gate ; as they omit different portions of it, they destroy their common testimony by varying from each other; and as they thus partially agree with the received reading, they confirm it by their separate testimony. Kk (, 498.) verted the doctrine relative to that order of beings, to many superstitious purposes. ‘The causes whicli occasioned the suppression of Mat. xx. 23%, aré_ 8° Those passages, which have been already quoted, supr, p- 381. evidently owe their suppression in the Egyptian and Palestine texts, to the influence of the Marcionite and Marcosian heresies, seconded by the authority of Origen. The founder of © those heresies having maintained the efficacy of a second and third baptism, in washing away tlie sins contracted after the first ablution ; those passages apparently afforded some countenance to their notions. In this sense they wrested the parallel pas-— sage, in Luc. xii. 50. which occurred in the only Gospel which they acknowledged ; vid. S. Epiphan. Har. xiii. p. 304. ¢. The Marcosians, who distinguished between baptism for re=_ mission, and redemption to perfection, improved on this doc- trine; vid. supr. p. 497. n. %: and as they acknowledged the _ authority of St. Matthew, as well as St. Luke, they appealed particularly to the former, in confirmation of their opinions, citing the disputed passage, S. Iven, adv. Heer. Lib. I. cap. xxi. § 2. pe 94 % ro ev Banhopa dard “lwawe nolnfyiaSas sic pele poiceyy THY OF dmonurewaw imd “Inod uexopioSas sig TeAciwow, x TET sivas megh & Ayer ©) BAA Ramla tyw BamhoSivas, % wae Emelyouas sic wird.” GAAG % Teis viol ZiPedaie, tHs wnilgos adriy airspdns 75 xaSioas abths in debsav ny cpiregiv per adres, ets Thy Bacirelar, tavtny Meoodeivar Tay amoAUTeWaIY Tov Kuproy Ayeriry clarovlat © dwacSe 73 Bawhope BanlcSivas 6 bya werw Banl.lecSas.” As this quotation cannot be referred to St. Mark, the latter Evangelist not mentioning “ the mother of Zebedee’s children,” [comp. Mat. xx. 20. Mar. x. 35.] we have here an express tes- timony froin St. Irenzeus and the Marcosians in favour of the disputed passage; and the true source pointed out which occa- sioned its removal from the Egyptian edition. Origen, in ex- pounding the passage before us, was thoroughly aware of the use to which it had been applied by the hereticks; he conse- quently obviates the conclusion which might be deduced from it, by expounding it so as to shut out the notion of a second baptism. In-one of the two places where he has referred to it, ( 499 ) nuch more apparent; the influence of the Marci- nite tenets on Origen’s Commentaries, having ob- e supplies the present wiv, for ie Suture wérro aive, Contrary > the text of St. Matthew; Orig. Exhort. ad Martyr. Tom. I. 291. dD. avin yor pcilovos wpéyorlo tiuns of déAovles Ex dezvav x, 32 Swvipwv raSeodhvas tH “Inc& tv 7 Bacidtin aire, Qnot meos auTEes Kueiogs § NuaoSe misty ro amoligioy 0 Ey olvws’ mornpiov Aéyor +o peopiverov* St. Matthew however reads SévacSe miiv 71d aolngso¥ ty widdXw meiv. In the other, he corrects himself, fully cknowledging the vulgar reading to be genuine, while he qua- ifies it by referring to St. Mark, who had written xiw for ,EAAW orively $ Id. Comm. in Mat: Tom. III. Pp “17. @ bays IncSs] cime pera 0° 6 OvraoSe oriciv rd mornpior, 2 yw mEAA’ miciv;? % we & Madgnos vives © StvaoSe To worneiov mieiy 0 eyes tiv"? } 7 Bawlopa, 0 tya Baflioua, Ranlodivas.’ The difs erence between St. Matthew and St. Mark consequently lay, not in the one having omitted, and the other retained, 7 hia 6 fe Banliton.a: Banwhsz9nv+; but in the one having read iy) wivo, the other tya péArw mety. But this distinction having been overlooked by the reviser of the Egyptian text, the former notion was adopted, and the passage accordingly cancelled, apparently with Origen’s sanction, who was thus completely mistepresented. That the Greek Vulgate retains the genuine reading, cannot admit of a doubt. (1.) It is sup ported by the evidence of the best and oldest witnesses; the primitive Italick and the Vulgar Syriack. (2.) As it conse quently existed in the sacred text at an early period ; if it is an interpolation, it must have been a direct concession to the Marcosians, which will be scarcely deemed probable. (3.) It must have made its way into the text in opposition to the testi« mony of Origen, which supposition must be deemed fully as improbable as the last; as there could be no possible object in making such a correction. Assuming it therefore as obvious, ‘that the vulgar reading is genuine, every deviation from it is easily accounted for. Having been suppressed in the Egyp- | tian text on Origen’s authority misunderstood, it was conse- “quently omitted, on the strength of the same authority in the KRKk2 ( 500 ) viously furnished the revisers of the Egyptian and Palestine texts with sufficient authority for omitting this remarkable passage. In a word, there exists not a peculiarity in the tenets of those hereticks, or in the texts which they followed, which has not left some deep mark im=- pressed on the editions of the sacred text which were published in Egypt and Palestine. ‘To form antitheses between the Law and the Gospel, had been a leading object with Marcion, in order to illustrate the iecgcred character of the first prin- ciple, and the severe character of the second, in his religious system'’°. Many of the corrections ef the Egyptian and Palestine texts have conse- quently originated in attempts to destroy the force of those Sat henee in the sacred text, which had been pointed by Marcion'**. Some have arisen in. Palestine edition. After the example of the former text, it was’ omitted of course in the Sahidick and revised Italick versions; and after that of the latter, in the Latin Vulgate, Coptick, Ethiopick, and Persick. And as St. Epiphanius and Jerome followed the Palestine text, and St. Hilary, Ambrose, and Juvencus, used the revised Italick translation, it is of course emitted in their writings. The negative testimony of these writers can therefore have no weight when set against the con- curring testimony of the primitive Italick and Syriack, aided by the internal evidence, and the testimony of Irenzeus. m0 Vid. supr. p. 464. n. %*. #9 Immediately preceding the long passage suppressed in Luc’ ix. 56. vid. supr. p. 383. in consequence of its connexion with the Marcionite notions, vid. supr. p. 495. n. *°. the follow- ing antithesis occurs in the Vulgar Greek; Ibid. 54. 55. ives OF of padzlal atr® "laxwBo. oe "Twdwng, ebrov Kudgu, Stans arwyacy mvp x@laByvar amo Te Bpave, 5 AVANWT A aires, wg "Halas ( 501 ) ‘endeavours to amend his gross perversions", or Excince. spaQels Of imetiuncey adroit, 9 eimes* Oux oldare of wvet= pourds se Ousic. & yag vidg x. 7. Ee The opposition in this passage _ between the mild spirit of the New Covenant and the severe *eharacter of the Old, is forcibly pointed ; the passage was con- : ‘sequently taken by Marcion as an example of his antithesis ; ‘Tert. adv. Mare. Lib. IV. cap. xxiii. p. 429. Representat Creator ignium plagam, Hela postulante, in illo pseudopro- ‘pheta. Agnosce Judicis severitatem: e contrario Christi lent- : tatem increpantis eandem animadversionem,” &c. By the sup- _ pression of ws 9 HaAias mince, the antithesis, if not destroyed, _ was at least kept out of view; this phrase, though found in the - _ Byzantine and Egyptian texts, and in the old Italick and Sy- _ yiack versions, is however suppressed in the Palestine text, in the Latin Vulgate, and in the Coptick and Armenian versions. “This various reading has obviously originated im the desire to - ‘destroy the antithesis of Marcion. +2 St, Paul, referring to Deut. xxv. 4. expresses himself as follows; 1 Cor. ix. 8,9. % éxi % 5 vogeos tadta Aéyet; 2y yao aa Mwctas vpn yeypamlas OF Qipacess BEv arowrra. wn tev Boav pas ca Oa. But Marcion, not admitting the authority of the Law, corrected the passage as follows; S. Epiphan. Har. xlii. Pp. 355. d. pernraypivws arts yoo te tv ta [I]. pernAaypévus dort ges 6 ay yee ze | vOpG” Agyse [6 Maexiay | 2 Ta Matoins ropa.” Aéyss Nowed rare, ¢ al % 5 vouos tadre ¢ Aeye” thus destroying the appeal to the Law, and its testimony as cited in favour of the Apostle. The various reading of the Egyptian text has originated in a corréction made with a view to the primitive reading, and the alteration of Marcion. In the Augean and _ Beenerian MSS. we find, 4 «i zai 4 séuos radra Adve: the tes- | ‘timony of the Law is here admitted, in opposition to Marcion’s ‘correction ; but the appeal to it is less forcibly put than in St. Paul. The truth is, that the antecedent passage in the Apos- ‘tle’s text looks so like a quotation from the Old Testament, ‘though it is nothing of the kind, that the reviser of the Egyp- ‘tian text, who had no means of verifying the fact, was afraid Of the phrase 4 ics ratrx Azyes, and introduces the following ‘ { 502 ) his foul aspersions of the Law’: and some in Pak guotation, not by appealing to its testimony, but by proposing — it as a doubt; % ¢ x & vouos Tavra Afyss The same difficulty I seems to have struck Origen, but he disposes of it in a different way. Adhering more closely to the original, he preserves the ‘vhole of the words; but he alters the position of the particle 2x, after the example of Marcion, and thus leaves the point — ambiguous, of which he was doubtful; Orig. contr. Cels. Lib. — II. cap. iii. p. 388. @. 7, xal 6 vopos rare & Adyer; iy yap TH rs Macias spo yéygenlas. This reading has been adopted in the» Palestine text, and of consequence in the Latin Vulgate, and the Coptick and Armenian versions, As there can be no rea- son to doubt, from the direct object and decisive language St. Paul, that the Greek Vulgate preserves the genuine readall ing, particularly as it is confirmed by the testimony of the old Italick and Syriack versions; there can be little reason to — question that the various readings of the passage before have originated from the first disturbance of the sacred text. b Marcion. * 93 A remarkable reading, in which the Byzantine and Pa. lestine texts differ, occurs 1 Cor. x. 19. ri &y Gps; ore ei SwAoy ai isi; 2 ore eidwAaduToOY Tt ists GAA ore & Sues a evn, Jaspor yiois Sues zak 3 Oca. Byz. thus corrected by Marcion, accord. ing to St. Epiphanius, Ib. p. 320. ds vi &» Qnys ori eidwnsSvlon gl isws 4 OTs iggoduToy wh ist GAN ort & Sezer datwovioss “ah 3 Ore The cause of this disturbance of the received reading i is specie fied by St. Epiphanius, Ib. p. 359. b. od & @ Megelat, apogee Snuas ré* * iegdSvlov,’ vopicas amo Te weninedan re Ovo Gripe 6 beg? ve nar § ELOWAB,? curcnlecSas Tov avo Teorey v7y oxfcw.—— oriSavoy av cos nueioxélo 79 2S ovxoParlias Weddoc* OS, Tay or Seg Svoilov, tav 9 tole Svcavlwv ev rw iep@ “Tepocodvpwy, xab ray soi eiddAors Suivlov Spe cuvamlouevar xa Snpocsevesloy [I. Sabuoce Seley] xai 8x} ©eg. Thus sidwaoy was superseded by iegoSvlory in order to bring disrepute on the Jewish Law, which Marcion held in no estimation; ra 9, having been consequently sup> pressed, as inconsistent with this application of the passage. The reviser of the Egyptian edition having made use of here- ( 903 ) attempts to correct his false notions relative to the nature and attributes of God '*t, the person of Christ, tical texts in compiling that edition, very closely follows the reading of Marcion. Deyiating however from the principal emendation, he read, 3 ors sidwaoy ist rf, instead of 4% on jegdSvfov +4 éss; and thus removed the heretical tendency of the text, while he obviated the inference which might be drawn from the true reading ozs e:dwAov ri 2-13 as implying that idos latry was an indifferent matter. The reviser of the Palestine text having thus a choice between the Byzantine and Egyptian edi- tiotis, adopted a reading which partly agreed with both in the first clause; following the order of the latter text, but retaining the terms of the former. But in the second clause, he agreed with the Egyptian text, in following the reading of Marcion: he consequently read ri 3» Qnus; rs eidorcSvToy ri ism; H Gre LOwAov oh iss; GAN’ ors & Suvar Sutyoriois Svscr 2 Ory. Some copies however of the Palestine text omit ors cideacSvloy vi isu 5 and others, % ¢ sidorcy ti 2s; some superfluity having been conceived to exist in this text, which was interpolated by Mar- cion, it was consequently removed by each reviser, according to the bias of his judgment or principles. Thus admitting the Vulgar Greek to retain the genuine reading, every corruption of the text may be traced from the first correction of Mar- cion; the various readings obviously destroying the credit of one another, while they add some confirmation to the received reading: of its authenticity there cannot of course be any reas son to doubt. *°+ Tn the Byzantine and Palestine texts we read, Mat. xxv. Bl. mogevecde am tut ot vallngepévor tig 7a wie TO aivnoy TO HTOWLACa hevoy 7H dszBorw* but in the Egyptian text, 1d jropacuéroy is superseded by % irolnacey & Ilaije ws. Both readings are found in Origen; the former in Comm. in Rom. Tom. IV. p- 463. d: the latter in Comm. in Mat. Tom. III. p. $85. e. There can be little doubt however, that the latter reading is merely a gloss on the former; the phrase having been changed as a corrective to the notion of the Marcionites, who asserted the existence of a second God, besides the Father of Christ, ( 50% ) and the character of the legal dispensation’. ta to whem they ascribed the attributes of justice and severity ; vid. supr. p. 463, n. °°. This reading may be probably referred to Justin Martyr, who maintained a controversy against Mar- cion, and who has given to similar texts a like tendency; vid. supr. Just. Mart. supr.p. 465. n. °°. p. 474. n. *”. conf. Dial. eum Tryph. p. 301. d. From Justin Martyr, it descended to Iree neus, Tertullian, Origen, &c. and thus made its way into the- Egyptian edition; from whence it regularly passed into the revised Italick version; but under circumstances, which dis- close that it was adopted in this text by an unskilful correc- tion; vid. supr. p. 183. n. "°°. As the reading of the Greek Vul- gate is not only corroborated by the testimony of the primitive Italick and Syriack, but by all known versions but the revised Latm, which is entitled to no voice, as it was corrected by the Egyptian edition; there can be no doubt that it retains the genuine reading; particularly as it is. supported by the testi- mony of Origen in the Eastern Church, and of Tertullian in the Western; vid. Orig. ub. supr. conf. Tert. de Carn, Christ. cap. xiv. p. 306. *°5 The following examples may be offered in support of the above assertion. In the Egyptian text, the following interpo- Jation occurs, Lue. vi. 5. 74 aitn nusen Searcevds tive teyals. pevey 70 caBBdlo, slocy adres avSpwme, ciety cides +h woseicy puncpsos et” €h OF un oidus, Eminclapalog nab mapaBalne tb TE voute And the following occurs in the Palestine, Mat. xxvii. 49, Aros J: AxBav Adyxnr, Erveev ate thy wAcvgadv, nab cegAIev Bowe nab aive. The latter passage is plainly taken from Joh. xix. 34, and is here probably opposed to the Marcionites, or other Docetz, who denied the Incarnation, and rejected the testi- mony of St. John; or possibly omitted this passage in their copies of the Evangelists; vid. supr. p. 464. n. “. From what- ever source the antecedent passage is adopted, it obviously fur- nishes an authority against those hereticks, who blasphemed the Jewish Law, and conceived that Christ came to destroy it, vid. supr. p. 463. n. *° ‘The reading of the Byzantine text in Luc. xii. 38. has ~ ( 505 ) this manner it is not uncommon to find the peculiar phrases of Marcion’s text’, and the very order of 3 been already stated supr. p. 185. n.*°*. The source of the -various readings of this passage is revealed in the following de- scription of the correction of Marcion; S, Epiphan, Her. xii p- 314, b. ait 7B § devlégn 1 tpirn Quraxn,” etxev © Ecorepirny Qvaaxiy.” The grounds of this correction are thus suggested by St. Epiphanius; Ibid. p. 335, 2anacidlas 6 “davis gia es wes Dies Adyes dvontws 10S any tavls dmovoay. & yap auspwar yivovlas Quaaeat, arAra wuxlecwal, awd Eomeoas cis THY TowTny Quagnny, pocnonn ris imerlécews Pyvoas, % Se and rhs ew cis TH eomegay, as ro; anriczelas pedwepyncac, The received read- ing having been thus disturbed, the various reading of the corrected texts are formed with a view to the errours of Mar- cion. While they admit his correction into the text, they give the context such a turn as to subvert his notion that the watch ended with evening. The Egyptian text consequently reads; Lue. ib. 38. xat icy 2aSn (rn Eom EgiVN Quran, vat supaces ETWS, gromeoct’ vai tov) év rm dvlépa, nat 7H Tpitny pouxceros ciosw Exeivor? and some pies, of the Palestine; zai tay iada (rn Eoxeown Quran nal eipn Etws MWoevias panceroi Elow" Orb avaxAwel ayres % Sianovnost aurTois’ nov) é ey 7 devlégx na ey Th Tern Qvaaxn 20903 neh even Brws paxapsot sicty txetvos. Lhe parentheses in these examples clearly mark the interpolation; 27s weimce in the Egyptian text, being drawn out in the Palestine into rus mrobaylas poandpros ciow* 6tt x, 7 & Which is repeated from vers. 37. In fact, the revisers of both texts being here deserted, both by the received text and the text of Marcion, found themselves at liberty to pursue their own course in incorporating his read- ing in their revisals. Consequently, while these texts destroy the testimony of each other, they add the strongest confirma- tion to the reading of the Greek Vulgate. They mutually retain all that could be borrowed from it, o dzacs excepted, which was obviously omitted to abridge a sentence that was embarrassed by a long interpolation ; they respectively contra- -gict each other in adopting more than it contains, and thus ( 506 ) his language’’’, retained in the Egyptian and Pa- Jestine texts, though the passages adopted from his Gospel and Apostolicum are given a totally different application from that which they possess in his writmgs. Through various channels those read- ings might have crept into the edition of Eusebius. The scripture-text of Tatian, which most probably conformed in many respects to the Gospel and Apostolicum of Marcion’**; the text of Hesychius, leave their joint or separate authority, when differing from the received text, deserving of no consideration, 7 One of the longest extracts from Marcion’s Apostolicurn is taken from 1 Cor. x. 1—9. 11, transcribed by St. Epipha- nius, Her. xii. p. 320. c. and repeated, Ib. p. 357. b. With reference to the Marcionite notions, it omits the following pas- Sages ; Thid. 1. vat mailes cig tov Muony tBamlicavlo, tv ™ veQi.n xai iy vy Jardoon. Ibid. 8. pnd Wogyevapery xadus ves ebToOD Ewogueveey, val Emecov tv pra uspee etxooileers xsrvadss. It deviates however in the following passages, from the Greek Vulgate ; in which it is followed by the Palestine edition, as collated by Euthalius, and found in the Alexandrine and Vatican MSS, Ibid. 1. Saw 8. Vulg. Séru yae. Marc. Pal. Ibid. Bpipa mveve pdlinov iayov. Vulg. wvevpelimev tpayov Reipa. Marc. Pal. wip wrevealincr eoriov. Vulg. wuevpalimer corsov woue. Marc. Pal. *§ Tatian was a follower of Marcion, having adopted from him the fundamental tenets of the Encratites, whom he formed jnto a sect; vid. S. Iven. Lib. I. cap. xxviii. p. 107. To the opinions which he borrowed from Marcion, he added many of ‘the peculiar tenets of Valentinus, Iren. ibid, S.-Epiphan. Her, Lv. p. 391... Ashe thus required the authority of St. John to support his opinions; Marcion having merely adopted the Gospel of St. Luke, vid. supr. p. 462. n. **. he consequently disposed the four Gospels in the form of a Diatessaron, omit~ ing every thing which militated against his peculiar notions; Theodor, Her. Fab. xx. p: 303. érog nai [6 Tahavds] Aids (507 ) which was compiled from various apocryphal works"; and the Commentaries of Origen, which abounded in quotations drawn from heretical revisals of Scrip- ture‘’®, opened a prolifick source from which they directly passed into the Palestine edition. The facilities of correcting this text from Origen’s writ- ings, and the blind reverence in which that antient father was held in the school of Cesarea™'’, seem siooaguy varbucvey cuileSemev edalyéraov, Tas TE yevearoryins TeLte woas, ual ra Xara boca ix omégualos AxBid xale capa yeyevn~ peévov sov Kugsoy Seizvvcwv. In this undertaking he merely fol- ; lowed his master Marcion; S. Iren. ibid. p. 106.—* id quod est secundum Lucam Evangelium circumcidens, et omnia que sunt de generatione Domini conscripta auferens,” &c. As the Epistles,, not less than the Gospels, were unsuitable to the pur- poses of Tatian, until they were pruned of some obnoxious passages; it is probable he foliowed Marcion in mutilating them also; or, as 1 am rather inclined to think, adopted the Apostolicum of his master, with some additions taken from the canonical text. It is apparent from the testimony of Eusebius, that he used an Apostolicum; and that it differed from the received text, in improving the language of the Apostles, by altering the order of their words: vid. supr. p. 468. n. 7’; but in this respect it agreed with the Apostolicum of Marcion, as is evident from the last note; vid. supr. n, 1%. 199 Vid. supr. p. 444. sqq. et nn. #2 Vid. supr. p. 330. n. *. #41 The following vindication of Pamphilus and Eusebius, in evincing that such a charge was urged, furnishes us with grounds for concluding, that it was not urged withoutfoundation; Pamphil. Apol. pro Orig. Pref. p. 18. d.. * Cum ergo hee eum f[se. Originem] de se dicere audiamus, et hujusmodi mente ac voto quz dicit asserere, miramur in tantum temeritatis aliquos esse profectos, ut qui se ita humilitate judicat, adstruant quod ab aliis dicta ejus vel libri pro sermonibus Apostolicis vel dictis Pro- ( 5OBL 9 to have rendered the corruption of this text un- avoidable. Short annotations or scholia had beer inserted by Origen in the margin of his copies of Scripture; and the number of these had been con- siderably augmented by EKusebius"*, most. probably by extracts taken from Origen’s Commentaries. A comparison between the text and comment con- stantly pointed out variations in the reading; and Origen’s authority having been definitive, on sub- jects of sacred criticism, the inspired text was amend- ed by the comment. » Had we no other proof of this assertion, than the feasibility of the matter, and the internal evidence of the Greek manuscripts'’, we might thence assume the truth of the fact, without much danger of erring. But this point is placed beyond conjecture, by the most unquestionable documents. In some manuscripts contaming the Palestine text, it is recorded, that they were tran- scribed from copies, the origimals of which had been “ corrected by Eusebius"’*.” In the celebrated pheticis habeantur, aut quod ille ipse vel Prophetis vel Apostolis comparetur. 12 This is apparent from the following note, transcribed from a copy of Eusebius’s edition of the Prophet Ezekiel, contained in the Codex Marchalianus; vid. Montfaucon, Paleogr. Greec. p- 226. Prelimm. in Hexapl. p. 15. pilear@dn 2 amd athypage ci “ABBE “AmorAwagis +8 KowwoBicpys, ev @ xaSumoneilas tevres? © peleanQ3n amo trav valle reds ddcus “EEawriv, x) Siwedwin ame wav Qowyeves adt& Tilamray, & ta 9 adrd xerel Sidgdwio, EoyormuoyeaQulos & EdoeBuos sya oxoria waceSnna. Tlaupidce co EvotBios eiwpSwoario.’ Conf. supr. p. 366. n. "3 Vid. supr. pp. 318, n.°. 321. a. 27%. 322. me 8, 458, 0. 47. ut Vid. supr. n, ( 509 ) Codex Marchalianus, the whole process observed in correcting the text is openly avowed. The reviser there candidly states, that, “ having procured the explanatory Tomes of Origen, he accurately inves- tigated the sense in which he explained every word, as far as was possible, and corrected every thing ambiguous, according to his notion"’.” After this explicit acknowledgment, it seems unnecessary any further to prolong this discussion. A text which bears internal marks of having passed through this process*"®; which has been convicted, on the clear- est evidence, of having been corrected from Origen, cannot be entitled to the smallest attention. And as it has been thus corrupted from the same source with the Egyptian text, the joint testimony of such witnesses cannot be entitled to the smallest respect, when opposed in consent to the Byzantine edition. When the testimony of the Egyptian and Pales- tine texts is set aside, the number of various read- ings, which exist in these editions, or their descend- ants, necessarily lose their weight when cited against the Greek Vulgate. In the declining credit of these editions of the original, that of the Versions and Fathers which accord with them must be necessa- ) Ul ~ fe 43 Not. Cod. Marchal. ub. supr. edmognoavles tay wiyps rérus eB ipdpoilos Tige Lopwy eEnrynlixdy sis roy § Healey Opuyeves, ~ > Ys ~ e > ' axgiBas imisncarles tm ivvoiz uaS fy tEnynowlo Exasny Ack, uadas old Te Hy, % May auPiPoroy xdlé ry Excive evvoray diwp- Swodneta. mpds Tero1s ouvenpiln 7 Tar ERdounxorla txdooss x) apis Ta d7d EdccPle cis roy Hoalay eipnacva, xxi év ois reQuvay, tas eenyr- . uv ' ‘ ) ‘ ° ’ sews thy evvoiay OnInoavles, reds adTHy imsIwoaruny. #© Vid. supr. p. 334. n. *. p. $1$, n. . conf. p.458. n. 47, ( 510 ) rily implicated". We thus no longer require 4 clue to guide us through the labyrinth of those read ings, however various or numerous. The testimony of the derivative witnesses, whether existing in quo- tation or translation, directly resolves itself into that of the principals, which contain the different editions of the original Greek, published in Egypt and Pa- lestine. That the different versions which are quoted against the Received Text, agree with those editions, rather than the Greek Vulgate, is merely owing to the circumstance of their having been made in the countries where those editions were received. And that certain of the Christian Fathers conspire in testimony with those Versions, is merely owing to the circumstance of their haying written at a time when those editions were authorised. The matter before us thus reverts into the original chan- nel; and the credit of the Egyptian and Palestine texts being undermined, the only various readings for which it is necessary to render an account, are those of the Byzantine edition. But from the alles gation of friends"’*, not less than the concession of enemies’'’, it appears, that they are neither impor- tant nor numerous; falling infinitely short of what might be expected, when due allowances are made, for the errours which are inseparable from the task of transcription, for the immense peried during which the sacred text has been transmitted, and the multitude of manuscripts which have been col- Vide suprop. S16. ne. ™8 Vid. supr. p. 107. n. 87. ps 118. ne *s ™9 Vid. supr. p. 126. ne 4% C SIE} lated with the most minute and scrupulous in- dustry. Here,consequently, this discussion might be brought to a close, were it not expedient to anticipate some objections which may be urged against the conclu- sion, which it has been hitherto my object to esta- blish. Of the texts of the Greek Vulgate, which have been vindicated as genuine, Act. xx. 28. 1 Tim. iii. 16. 1 Joh. v. 7. have been exposed to formidable objections. The Palestine edition in its reading of those passages, has obtained a strenuous advocate in M. Griesbach. Having already laid the various readings of that edition before the reader’™°, and specified some objections, deduced from the internal evidence, which preclude our considering them ge- nuine; I shall now proceed, in tie first place, to state the testimony on which their authenticity is supported, and tlien to offer some of the objections by which it appears to be invalidated. 1. Of Manuscripts, ten '** only are cited in favour m0 Vid. supr. p. 254, &c. 1 Prof. Birch having inserted +# Seé among the readings of the Vatican MS. in the Acts of the Apostles, in an after thought, expressed in his Preface to the various readings of the Apocalypse, adds the following remark ; Pref. ad Apoc. p- xxxix. ‘ Cum schedas meas collationem hujus codicis com- plectentes, iterum intente examinarem, nihil de lectione txxrnoiay +e 028, nec alia lectione hoc loco adnotatum invenio, ita ut pro certo pronunciare non ausim, quid in codice nostro scriptum reperiatur. Vix tandem dubitare licet, si hic in codice nostro obtinuisset varictas lectionis, hanc intentionem meam fugisse, cum locum hune notabilem in omnibus codd.: qui mihi obvenerint, pre ceteris examinandum sumserim.” Had we been deficient in otmer evidence, we might construe this omis- ( 512 ) of Kvgios in Act. xx. 28; not half that number™ in sion into a proof, somewhat stronger than presumptive, that- the true reading of the mianuscript was @:3. As this was the reading of the copy which the Professor collated, and no various reading has been marked, such must have been the reading of the manuscript. But this matter has been already put out of dispute: vid. supr. p. 283. n. 2**. *2° Vid. Griesb. n. in h.J. The testimony of the Alexan- drine MS. has been challenged, in favour of the Palestine text, by M. Wetstein; I have already opposed to his testimony the charge brought against it by Dr. Berriman; who openly ac- cused him of having admitted to a common friend, that he saw the Byzantine reading in this MS. vid. supr. ps 285. n. **°. To this charge M. Wetstein thought prudent to reply, by ex- plaining away his concession of the point, and stating, that in admitting the fact, he was deceived by the transverse line of an E on the back of the page, which appeared through the vellum. This prevarication requires no refutation but what the MS. itself, on the most careless inspection, will furnish; the transverse lines are so fine as to be frequently not discernible om the right side of the vellum; and the E on the back of the page, to which M. Wetstein appeals, as lying out of the line of the ©, could never have produced the appearance which he asserted. We must therefore acquiesce in the conclusion of Dr. Woide, Praef. Cod. Alex. § vii. p. xxxi. ‘ Nolens igitur Wetstenius veri- tatem hujus lineolz diametralis a Millio assert confirmat, nec facile e confesstone eorum que viderat, poterit elabi. Qua cum impossibilis sit, credendum erit testimonio eorum, quorum: auctoritatem sequi unice nunc licet,; Junii, Felli, Waltoni, Grabii, Millii, Berrimani, et aliorum.? M. Griesbach however undertakes the defence of O£, as the genuine reading, which he opens with the following curious concession; Griesb- Symbol. Critt. Tom. I. p. ix. ‘ Disputatum etiam fuit, utrum Alex. Cod. h. 1. @eds legat an %;; id (quod cum lJibrum hunc versaremus) admodum doluimus, manibus hominum inepte curi- osorum ea folii pars que dictum controversum continet, adee detrita est, ut nemo mortalium hodie certi quidguam discernere possit. Conf. p. xiii, Respondeo evanescere tenuissima linea, \ é Sia, j favour of ¢s in 1 Tim. iii. 16: all that are extant presertim in codice tam vetusto eodemque rescripto, omnino potuit ut similis lineola in voce proxime sequente EOANEPQOH (E®ANEPQOH) aliisque in locis non paucis evanuit2? He still however supports his opinion, and with sufficient confiderice, on the following considerations: Id. ib. p.x. ‘ At nihilo tamen minus confidenter quidem pronuntiare audeo, vera esse; quee ii tradiderunt, qui % in codice hoc a prima manu extitisse affir- marunt. Nam non solum Alexandrinus et Regius ille rescrip- tus, qui in Epistolis eanidem prorsus recehsioneni exhibent, sese. mutuo confirmant: verum etiam quod majus est, et omnem dé utriusque lectione dubitandi locum precludit; % certissime fuit Alexandrine recensionis, que in duobus istis Codicibus extat lectio. Patet ex consensu Cod. 17, versionum Copte, /Ethi- opice, Armenice, et Syriace posterioris, atque Cyrilli Alex- andrini: immo e sélentie omnium Alexandrinorum scriptorum, gui ad locum hune nungiam provocarunt in litibus de Christi divinitate agitatis.’” This however, with the sophist’s leave, is not to tell us what the MS. reads, nor even what it ought to read, but simply what he thinks it should have read. It would be sufficient to state, in answer to this silly and groundless con- fidence, that these examples are wholly beside the purpose of the present dispute; as the Codex Alexandrinus is a MS. sué generis, having a mixed text, the Gospels following a different recension fiom the Epistles. It becomes of course idle in the extreme to judge of it by any other MS. or Version; as M: Griesbach could have been scarcely unconscious ; in admitting Ibid. p. cxxxviii.—* Codici A. admistas esse lectiones haud paucas non Alexandrinas.” And it is curious to observe; among the readings of this kind, which exist in the Alexandrine MS. we have positive authority for concluding, that 620; 1 Tim. iii. 16. was included. The readings of Euthalius, it is notorious, cottespond with this MS. vid. supr. p. 87. n. **: but Euthalius * certainly read @cos ePavegd9n, if any respect be due to the testi- mony of his editour ; vid. Zaccagn. ub. supr. p. 290. n. 776. who collated his work with the readings of the Alexandrine MS. conf. p. 86. n. *. LI ( 514 j and known, with the exception of two™?, in fa- vour of the reading of M. Griesbach’s corrected edition. 2. Of Versions, the Sahidick, Coptick, Armenian, and margin of the later Syriack, support Kugios in Act. xx. 28; the same versions, with the Ethiopick and Erpenian Arabick, support 2: in ] Tim. iii. 16: and all that are extant, except the Latin Vulgate — and Armenian, the corrected reading of 1 Joh. Ww 0%, ! 3. Of the Fathers who have been cited in favour of the Palestine text, the following is a brief state- ment. (1.) On Act. xx. 28. St. Ignatius, St. Irenzus, Eusebius, Didymus, S. Chrysostome, and Theophy- — Jact; S. Jerome, Lucifer, and Augustine; Theo- dorus Studites, Maximus, Antonius, Ibas, Sedulius, and Alcimus; the Apostolical Constitutions, the Council of Nice, and the second Council of Car- thage ; a catena quoting Ammonius, and a manu- script containing the Epistles of S. Athanasius ‘75, (2.) On 1 Tim. iii. 16. Cyril Alexandrinus, S. Je- rome, Theodorus Mopsuestenus, Epiphanius, Gela- sius Cyzicenus, and, on his authority, Macarius of Jerusalem™®. (3.) On I Joh. v. 7. it has been deemed sufficient to state, that the fathers are wholly silent respecting it in the Trinitarian contro- versy; while some of them even quote the subjoined verse, and strain that doctrine from it by an allego- 23 Vid. Griesb. n. in h. 1. 24 Vid. Griesb. n. in h. 1. 5 Vid. Bengel. et Griesb. not. in loc. #20 Vid. Griesb. not. in loc. { “S95 *) tical interpretation, which is plainly asserted in the contested passage **’. Such is the external testimony which is offered in favour of those verses; as they are inserted in the Corrected Text. And yet, however formidable it may appear, it seems exposed to no less formidable objections. In reply to the testimony of Manuscripts quoted on this subject, it seems sufficient to state, that they are collectively descended from the edition of Euse- bius'**, and are consequently disqualified from ap- pearing in evidence, on account of his peculiar opi- nions. With respect to the few manuscripts which support the reading of Acts xx. 28. 1 Tim. iii. 16. they particularly approximate to his edition, as con- taining the Palestine text'®, and are consequently on that account, not entitled to the least degree of credit. ) The same observation may be made in reply to the testimony of Versions which has been adduced in evidence on this subject. None of them can lay claim to a degree of antiquity prior to the fourth century. In that age the principal of the antient versions were made; chiefly under the auspices of *7 Vid. Porson Let. to Travis, p. 373. "8 As the Gospels were divided by Eusebitis, the Catholick Epistles were divided by Euthalius, vid. conf. p. 34. n. ©. p. 86. n. *°. The latter were however corrected by Eusebius’s text, vid. supr. p. 86. n. *‘: hence, as the Euthalian sections are generally prevalent in the Greek MSS. they sufficiently prove the descent of those MSS. from Eusebius’s edition, vid. supr. p- 130. n. %. *29 Vid. Griesb. not. in loc. L12 ( 516 3} Constantine the Great, who employed Eusebius to revise the text of Scripture. The only proba- bility consequently is,. that they were accommodated to the Palestine edition; and the principal versions cited on the present question bear internal evidence of the fact, as they coincide with the Palestine text, and are divided by Eusebius’s sections. Such is particularly the case with the Sahidick and Cop- tick, the later Syriack and Latin translations", They cannot, of course, be allowed any separate voice from the Palestine text, in deciding the matter at issue. This consideration seems to leave very little weight to the authority of the Fathers, who are adduced in evidence on this subject. With a few exceptions, which are of no account, they also suc- ceeded the age of Eusebius; in referrmg cursorily to those verses, they may be conceived to have quoted from his edition, as containing the received text of the age in which they flourished. I here except, as preceding his time, S. Ignatius, S. Ire- nzeus, and the compilers of the Apostolical Consti- tutions, who have been quoted in support of Act. xx. 28. but their testimony is not entitled to the smallest respect, as derived to us through the most suspicious channels. The first and last of these witnesses are quoted from editions which have been notorionaly corrupted '**, as it is conceived, by the *5° Vid. supr. p. 26. n. **. * Vid supr. p. 322..n. °°. conf. p. 81. n. ™ p. 316. n. ™. *2 Usser. Dissert. de Ignat. Epist. cap. vi. ap. Patr. Apostol. p. 211. Ed. Cleric. Rot. 1724. * Quantum igitur ex hisce pos- (w ey, J Arians; and we consequently find, that the genuine works of Ignatius, read with the Byzantine Text instead of the Palestine **. And with regard to St. Irenzus’s evidence, it is quoted merely from 4 tran- slation which has been made by some barbarous writer, who, in rendering the scriptural quotations of his original'*, has followed the Latin version, which agrees with -St. Irenzeus in possessing the Palestine reading**’. sum colligere, sexto post Christum seculo prodtit amplior hec qu@ in nostris codicibus hodie fertur, Ignatianarum Epistolarum Sylloge: et quidem (nisi me fallo) ex eadem officina, unde Apostolorum qui dicuntur Canones, novorum capitulorum xxxy. adjectione habemus auctos, et Constitutiones ita immutatas, ut pristinam quam obtinuerant speciem, non (ut Epistolz nostre) amiserint modo, sed plane perdiderint, Conf. Pears. Vind. Ignat. Procm. cap. vi. p. 273. Bevereg. Cod. Can. Eccl. Prim. Illus- trat. P.I. cap. iii. § 1. p. 12. cap. xvil. § 4. p. 73. 33 ‘Vid. supr. p. 275. n. ™. "3+ Mill. Proleg. in Nov. Test. n. 368. ‘ Sed cum Greca (S. Irenzi) maxima ex parte interciderint, tum et in his que supersunt, Epiphanius aliique quibus ea debemus, haud semper citarint loca N. T. ad textum Ireneanum, sed nonnunquam ad codices suos posteriores, seu etiam ex memoria. Jn Latinis autem, Interpreti id unum cure erat, ut Scripture testimomia, que in hoc opere occurrent, exprimerentur verbis Interpretationis, que Celtis suis, totique Occidenti, jam in usu erat, Italice, sive vulgate.’’? Conf. Sabatier. Preef. in Bibl. Ital. Tom, I. p. xl. *S As so much pains have been used to shew that Cyril Alexandrinus read with the Palestine text in 1 Tim. iii. 16. vid. infr. p. 521. n. 8. I may be pardoned in offering a few words to prove that S. Irenzus read with the Byzantine in Act. xx. 28. (1.) St. Irenzus is expressly engaged on the subject of the traditionary mysteries’ of the Church; Iren. adv. Her. Lib. III. cap. xiv. p. 201. ad init. * Si que occultiora mysteria pre aliis scivisset Paulus, ea Lucas assiduus illius comes, labo= ( 518 ) We might give up the remaining authorities with- out any detriment to our cause. With respect to the evidence of St. Athanasius ‘**, St. Chrysos- rumque consors ac particeps; ignorare non potuisset, &c. conf, ibid. § 1. sub. fin. (2.) The contested passage is quoted with a view to prove, that St. Paul explicitly taught all mysteries to the Church; Id. ibid. § 2, ‘“ Quoniam autem Paulus simpli- citer que sciebat, hac et docuit, non solum eos qui cum eo erant, verum omnes audientes se, ipse facit manifestum. In Mileto enzm, convocatis Episcopis et Presbyteris, qui erant ab Epheso—multa testificans eis—adjecit: ‘ Scio quoniam jam non videbitis faciem meam—mundus sum a sanguine omnium. Non enim subtraxi, uti non annuntiarem vobis omnem sententiam Dei. Attendite igitur vobis—regere Ecclestam Domini [f. Dei] quam sibi constituit per sanguinem suum.’ Sic Apostoli, simpliciter, et nemini invidentes, que didicerant ipsi a Domino, hec omnibus tradebant,” &c. Now, as there was no mystery in our Lord’s purchasing the Church with his blood, but a great mystery in ‘ God’s purchasing it with his own blood,’ St, Ire- nzus’s allegation of this passage appears to me to be perfectly irrelevant, unless that primitive father read, with St. Ignatius and the Vulgar Greek, ry» ixxanciay 18 Och, iv mepremosnoalo 3a 7 ide aialos. Nor is this supposition invalidated by the consideration, that ‘“ Ecclesiam Domini,” is the reading found in the old translation of St. Irenzus. (1.) This is the reading of the old Italick version, which the translatour has followed in quoting the disputed passage with its context; vid. supr. n. **, (3.) The work of St. Irenzeus was translated when the Nesto- rian controversy was agitated by the Western Church; in fa- vour of which, the vulgar reading might be adduced, to prove that @s was used catachretically by the inspired writers, as ‘ the very blood of God’ was a phrase, which could not be ap- plied in any other manner; vid, Sabat. ib. - 36 It has been ebjected to the passages quoted from St, Athanasius, supr. p. 286. n. >. p, 289, n, *™. that the former, instead. of @<3, reads Kueia in. one MS. and Xpis# in others ; aod that the latter passage is wanting insome MSS. and merely ( 519 ) supplied in the margin of others; vid. Griesb. nn. in Act. xx. 28. 1 Tim. iii. 16. conf. Athan. Tom. II. p. 653. n. ™. p. 706. n.4, As these passages follow the same class of text, the defence of one will cover the other. There can be however very little doubt, that the latter passage was written by St. Athanasius. (1.) It relates to a subject which, until the age of St. Chrysostome, was preserved undivulged, by those who were initiated in the Christian mysteries. As strong reasons, of course, must have operated to cause its suppression in some MSS. as to prevent its interpolation in any, St. Chrysostome having cited the verse before us, observes; Comm. in 1 Tim. Tom. XI. p. 606. a. pusneiov roivuy iste un Tolvwy Exmoumedwpey To pusrprov, 4n Tavlaxs adTo meolistcey. (2.) No conceivable end could have been attained by inserting it in St. Athana- sius’s context. It could not have been intended to furnish an authority fer the contested reading in 1 Tim. iii. 16. as it is literally offered as a palliation for the sin of those who denied the doctrine which that reading tends to establish. (3.) In this view it is identified, as a part of that antient father’s text, by his context. St. Athanasius is expressly engaged ’in palli- ating the guilt of those who denied the Divinity of Christ; in order to induce them to repent of their errours. His apology consists of two parts ; he pleads on the one side their weakness, Zyorles mpaPasw rH» 73 copaloe aovévesay: on the other the depth of the mystery, XBT yap % TOY aMosorov oufyranv aUTOIS veorlary ——its «) pbya ist To Tg evoeBeias pvsnprov, Osos EPavepodn év capi. The latter part of the argument, which is found in the. contested passage, is not only necessary to complete St. Atha- nasius’s reasoning, but the reading ©; necessary to justify the appeal to St. Paul’s authority. (4.) As an interpolation of this kind must have been far above the skill of any sophistica- tour, it possesses a turn of phrase, which, to an accurate ob- server, must be definitive in evincing, that the same hand which indited the context must have produced the contested passage, St, Athanasius having observed respecting our Lord in the former place ; Ib. p. 706. a. tiv OF dvSgwaivny exleivoy sxeipa, meme tay mevsepdy Tétpe; he carries on the phrase in the latter, and applies the same terms nearly to the Apostle; Ibid. c¢. ( 520 ) tome"’, Theophylact, and Cyril of Alexandria™*, Eyeos yap. Tov amororoy oioreh XElg@ @vToIs éy Tg Aeysw Ex tsivovla x7. It will not be surely deemed possible that so many internal marks of authenticity could be discoverable in any passage which was merely an interpolation. 137 Tt has been objected that St. Chrysostome reads Kuelz, Act. xx. 28.in his commentary on Eph. 2v. 12: and therefore, that we should read Kvg'z in his comment on Act. xz. 28. as cited supr. p. 287. n.75°. But we can account for this variety in his testimony without weakening its conclusiyeness, or having recourse to a conjectural emendation. As Kupis is the reading of the Palestine text, and ©<8 of the Byzantine; St. Chrysostome adopts the for- mer in a Homily delivered while he was a Presbyter in Syria. S. Chrys. Op. Tom. XI. Pref. p. i. “ Jam queritur pro more Antiochiz-ne an Constantinopoli habite fuerint Conciones ad Ephesios. Optimum Cl. V. Tillemontius profert argumentum ad probandum hasce Homilias Antiochie dictas fuisse ; quia nempe in Homilia undecima acerrime invyehitur in eos, qui ecclesiam in qua ille tunc concionabatur scindebant.— Aliud etiam nec leve indicium est guo probetur Antiochie habitas Homilias fuisse, quod videlicet monachos in montibus asperam sanctamque vi- tam agentes passim laudet,’? &c. He uses the latter, while he was Bishop of Constantinople. Id. Op. Tom. IX. Preef. p-v. ‘ Nibilominus stat illud, quod supra dictum est, Con- ciones nempe in Acta, que Constantinopolt dicte fuere, inter jejuniores humilioresque quoad magnam sui partem cempu- tandas esse,” &c. As this isa coincidence which cannot be considered accidental, the variety in St. Chrysostome’s testi- mony consequently proves, that in his age Kupis was the read- ing of the Palestine text, and @:3 of the Byzantine; not that. his text is corrupt in one place, and that we should read Kupis in the passages before us. Under this view the testimony of St. Chrysostome, as far as respects the Byzantine text, is wholly unaffected by the objections of M. Griesbach ; as it proves all that it is cited to prove—that in the age of that Father, O:& was the reading of the Greek Vulgate. It must be however observed in support of the Vulgate, that it was restored at By- ( 521 ) it is most unfairly wrested in support of the Cor- rected Text, as it is decidedly in favour of the Re- zantium not long previously to the elevation of St. Chrysos- tome to the see of Constantinople; vid. supr. p. 152. n. *™ and that its peculiar readings are generally adopted by this learned antient, in opposition to those of the Palestine edition ; vid. Griesb. Nov. Test. Mat. vi. 14. n. e. Joh. vii. 59. n. &% Act. viii. 1. n. p. Ib. xi. 6. n. 1. Rom. vi. 12. n.y. Ib. xv. 29. n. % 1 Cor. vi. 20. n. *. Ib. x. 28. n. °.. Eph. iii. 9. n. &, *38 The testimony of this Father, as cited supr. p. 290. n. 27% has been opposed by M. Griesbach, who contends that it is mis- printed ; St. Cyril having read in 1 Tim. iii. 16. %, instead of cog. Symbb. Critt. Tom. I. p. lii. But when the true object of dispute in the Nestorian controvery is known, his objections will come to nothing. Liberat. Breviar. cap. ii. p. 5.—** Nes- torius confitens existentiam Divinitatis Filii Dei Christum purum hominem credidit conceptum atque formatum, et postea in Deum provectum, hoc est, hominem deificatum, et non VERBUM carne facium, et habitasse in nobis, quod predicat Evangelium, et Catholica confitetur Ecclesia.’ As the Divinity of Christ was thus admitted by the disputants, who merely divided on the question, whether he pre-existed, and was born Ged; or was born Man and made God; ©:4 in 1 Tim. iii. 16. has no weight in the question: and the verse before us cannot be brought even to bear upon it, unless by interpretation ; as both orthodox and heterodox admitted that Christ was “‘ God manifested in the flesh.”’ On turning to Cyril’s testimony, supr. p. 290. n. 7% the futility of M. Griesbach’s objections may be now easily de- monstrated. (1.) He objects, that Cyril, after reierring to 1 Tim. iii. 16. omits the term ©::;, putting this question, Griesb. ib. “ ris 6 iv coepus QarvegwSets absque 205 2”? which, in his opinion, must have been nugatory, if Cyril read, Ozs 2QavepoSny but most pertinent if he read, ds iQzvzpudn. But this objection is made, without any knowledge of the Nestorian controversy. The Catholicks had positive objections to using such a phrase as tis @cdc, as it pointed the objection of the zespondent, who declared that it supposed a plurality in the di- ( 522 ) ceived Text, where it is fully and explicitly deli- vered. As to that of Eusebius, a word need not be vine nature; Facund. Defens. Tri. Capitt. Lib. I. cap. iii. p. 6. d. “ Si enim dicamus, inquit, ‘ unum de Trinitate pro nobis crucifixum,’ si quis interrogat, quid unum dicamus, non possu- mus respondere Deum, aut Filium ; guia non tres sunt in Trini- tate Dz, vel Filti, &c. (2.) He objects, that Cyril’s ‘proof is not deduced from the term @:0s, but gusapicy érs ueya; which is equally inexplicable, if he read otherwise than 2 iPavepiOy ; Griesb. ibid. ‘ Non e vocabulo Gc, sed per consequentiam e verbis pusipiov wéya ductam probat tov Pavepudévlee ev capxl esse tiv Aoyor, Si legisset Gcés plane non dubitasset, roy PavepwSevlee esse tov ix Te O:8 Aoyoy, supersedisset ista argumentatione, qua tantum non inepta est, si lectio @ccs ponatur.’”’? But this ob- jection is wholly beside the question. The meaning of the phrase @:ds iParepan ev caupxt was contested; the manner of Christ’s manifestation as God, being disputed. An argument drawn from @:3-, must have been therefore not merely “ tans tum non inepta,” but ‘‘ omnino inepta.” On the other hand, an argument drawn from péya iss pusapioy came home to the question, as referring to the Incarnation; which was the point at issue between the Catholicks and Nestorians, In the phrase, « great is the mystery,” something more was obviously inti- mated, than a mere human birth, which Nestorius asserted; 4 mystick union of the Divine and Human nature was obviously intimated, as Cyril endeavours to show, by insisting on this part of the sentence. And thus Cyril explains himself in referring to.the disputed verse, on a different occasion; evincing such to have been his notion of “ the Mystery of Godliness ;” Cyril, ub. supr. p. 153. ei ‘ @cd.? av & Adyor, EuavQuwmhions AZyorro, % & On we psdels tO sivas @edct ZAM Ev ois inyy Geet Deere rear? pabryoe oh Tore, x duoroysnéwws piya To THs eUcePEias pnenprove ci Ob G@vOpwaros vorrrcr xowos & Xpirdcy ws ula povny th» icdtnre thg ablacy nyse addeliag Op cvrnpplroct mePpovinacr yao ra Tarde tks TOY Gwar Sesepovr wis © tv cagul meParépoilas,’ uairos mig By, aomrcucw Eooepyecy re ais Kv pworog ty cages TE Erk; Ke Te Ee The object of this de- claration is consequently misconceived altogether by M. Gries~ ( 5% ) advanced to invalidate its credit, With respect to Didymus, Jerome, Lucifer, Augustine, and Sedu- lius, it was as natural that they should quote the received text of their times, or follow the original Greek, as that we should follow our authorised ver- sion in preference to the Greek of Erasmus, or any of the translations of the early reformers*??. A few bach, who thence deduces that Cyril could not have found ©:%; in the disputed passage; ibid. pp. xlvili. xlix. The intention of Cyril could not have been to prove either the Divinity or humanity of Christ, which was not disputed ; but to prove from a just appreciation of “ the Great Mystery of Godliness,” that “‘ the Manifestation which was said to be-in the flesh,” indicated more than the appearance of “a common man, united with God in equality of glory and power ;” zowos &vSpwros—xeilla udvny tHe ictryra rns alias, nyev avSeiliac Ora cUrnpepnevos 5 as it implied the incarnation of the Divine Logos, who was “ God and with God in the beginning,” si Osds By 5 Adyos x. 7. & Ut supr. The obe- jections of M. Griesbach ‘being now set out of the question; the following observations are sufficient to establish the received reading of Cyril’s printed text. (1.) Oxts iGavegaSn was cer- tainly the reading of the editour’s MSS. as he has adopted it in opposition to that of the Latin Vulgate, which he follows in his translation: in the passage before us, cds 2ParepuSn, is rens dered “* guod manifestatum est.’”? Cyr. ib. p.124.¢. (2.), This . reading is supported by the external testimony of Eythymius, who quotes Cyril Alexandrinus against the Nestorians; Matth, Preef. in Epistt. Paulinn. Tom. XI. p. xli. ‘‘ His addo Euthy- mium Zigabenum in Panoplia, Tit. xv. contra Nestorianos, qui fol. pxy. pag. 2. col, 1. hunc locum ex Cyrillo hoc modo repetiit ; 1) Sporoyentves meya ers 7a Tis edoeRelas pusnprov" Oczos iPavepady zy caput x. Te 433 This appears from the following sentiment of St. Augus- tine, De Doctr. Christ. Lib. IJ. cap. xiv. Tom. III. p. 27. f, “‘ Nam Codicibus emendandis primitus debet invigilare solertia gorum, qui Scripturas Divinas nosse desiderant, ut emendates ( 54 ) words would serve in reply to the authority of the Councils cited on this subject; that of Nice has been however most falsely and imperfectly report- ed'°, and that of Carthage, as reported in Greek, supports the received text, while in Latin it sup- ports the corrected"*". . If, after these observations, the testimony of the remaining writers cited on this subject be alledged**, throwing Ammonius and Macarius into the same scale, as entitled to equal respect, from the questionable shape in which they approach us ‘#, we think the advocates of the Cor- non emendati cedant, ex uno dumtaxat interpretationis genere venientes.—Libris autem Novi Testamenti, si quod in Latinis varietatibus titubat, Greecis cedere oportere non dubium est.” Conf. S. Ambros. Tom. II. p. 722. § 82. © Vid. Lab. et Cossart. Concil. Tom. II. col. 103. d. Ber rim. Dissert. ut supr. p. 173, &c. _4* Vid. Griesb. not. in Act. xx. 28, , 42 The testimony of Ibas and Theodorus Mopsuestenus is wholly inadmissible, as they were the avowed partizans of Nes- torianism, which they contributed to propagate in the East; vid. supr. p. 344. n. “. conf. Liberat. Breviar. cap. x. pp. 48. 50. Evagr. Hist. Eccl. Lib. IV. cap. Xxxvill. p. 418. 1. 22. p. 419. 1. 12. sqq. 43 Ammonius, of whom we know nothing more than his name, is quoted from a catena, ii a MS. preserved at New Col. Oxf. vid. Bengel. et Mill. not. in Act. xx, 28. Macarius, from Gelasius Cyzicenus, on whom see n. “°. and ‘Berrim. ut supr. p- 178, 180. On the dependance which may be placed on these quotations at second hand, see S. Epiphanius and S. Ire- neus, ut supr. p. 517. n. 4. The following example, taken from the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. as preserved in the genuine and interpolated Epistles, and in the antient version of St. Igna- tius, will demonstrate the instability of their ground who build, in. verbal quotations, either upon original or secondary autho. ( 525 ) rected Text, who must receive this testimony sub- ject to the mistakes of the original authours, and the errours of subsequent transcribers, fully entitled te the benefit of their authority. We have thus only to. deplore the peculiar state of those who are reduced to the desperate situation of sustaining a cause which rests on so unsolid a foundation. In reply to the argument which is deduced in fa- vour of the corrected reading of 1 John v. 7. from the silence of the fathers, who have neglected to appeal to this text in the Trinitarian controversy, it may be, in the first place, observed, that no such controversy existed. ‘In the first age of the Church, the subjects de- bated by the catholicks and hereticks turned upon the divinity and the humanity of Christ; on the rity- Ss. Ignat. ad Ephes. Cap. i. Ed. Genuin. asalamruproartes zy aiats Och, ro culyennor Epyor terciws aanpricase: Ed. Interpol. avalwmupncarres bv aiuats Xpiot8, vo crlyenxty, x 1.2. Vers. Antig. reaccendentes in sanguine Christi Det, cognatum opus integre perfecistis. In Act. xx. 28. St. Athanasius is quoted as reading Oc&, Xpis®, et Kupix. Vid. Bengel. not. in loc. Ori- gen, Theodoret, and Fulgentius read X,s;#, in opposition to all known manuscripts; and Theophylact agrees with many in reading Kuple xa) @:% Griesb. ibid. In 1 Tim. iil. 16. S, Hi- lary, S. Augustine, S. Hilary the Deacon, Pelagius, Julian Pe- lag. Fulgentius, Idacius, Leo Magn. Victorinus, Cassianus, Gregorius Magn. Vigilius Taps. Bede, Martin I. are quoted as having read, in opposition to every known MS. but the Cler- mont, °, for 2 or zo; Vid. Sabatier. et Griesb. not. in loe. And Clemens Alexandrinus, in opposition to all known manu- scripts, thus refers to this verse, puorpioy weS nov eidoy of dyytro-tov Xeiclav. Vid. Griesb.not.inloc. Origen reads Inc: Tom. I. p. 467. Barnab. via; @:8. cap. v. p. 16. ( 526 ) doctrine of the Trinity there was fo room for main- taining a coniest'*. Not only the hereticks, but the sects from which they sprang, would to a man have subscribed to the letter of this text; as they admitted the existence of “ three” powers, or prin- ciples, in the “ one” Divinity. Such was the doc- trie of the two great sects into which they may be divided, consisting of Gnosticks and Ebionités; for such was the doctrine of the Jews and Magians, from whom those sects respectively descended “5: and such, consequently, is the doctrine which is ex- pressly ascribed to Simon Magus™°, Cerinthus’*’, “# As the winding up of this controversy is to be found in the full and final definition of the Council of Constantinople, held on the restoration of orthodoxy under Theodosius ; from the following list of the heresies opposed in that Council, we may collect what were the controversies in which the disputed text was most likely to be quoted. Theodorit. Hist. Eccl. Lib. V. cap. ix. p.207.1,25. Tatra nalare rng “Agele uat “Ache nar "Evvoute poviag® nak pitlos nat uald Labearie nat Dwtewe xat Mapséaav, Tatas te T& Expocaléws ual Manedovis yeveePucive aoadtug OF nal thy “AmorAwagis xowwcloutav mpoPavag cemennevear sipnxores, * val wov rhs EvaevSewmnoews ze, Kupie Aoyov adiaspopor séCousy,? xt & Conf. n. 153. infr. p. 528. et Epist. Damas. ap. Theodorit. ut supr. cap. xi. p. 209. 1. 17. seq. Aetius and Eunomius followed Arius, and adopted his errours; Socrat. Hist. Eccles. Lib. II. cap. xxxv. p. 133. lL. 1. p. 134 12 Both the Apollinaris’ were orthodox on the subject of the Trinity ; Id. ib. cap. xlvi. p. 164. 1. 14—17. Marcellus, Pho- tinus, and Paul of Samosata, followed Sabellius, vid. infr. p. Sota 45 Vid. supr. p. 268. n. 72", 3746 Vid. ibid. _*7 The following testimony will sufficiently prove, that Ce- rinthus acknowledged the doctrine of the Trinity, which was « 527 j Ebion™*, Valentinus™?, Marcion 5°, and their fol- lowers. To the Gnosticks the Sabellians succeeded, whose opinions had been previously held by Noetus, and subsequently maintained by Paul of Samosata'**. not denied by Simon Magus, vid. supr. p. 268. n.**. §. Epis phan. Her. XXViil. p- 110. d. S705 [é Kipwrdos | exgputler—arwdep Of in 7S ayw Océ pela x0 cdpur Diver Tov Inody, tov Ex omépnoeros "Iaon 6 Mapias Yeyevvnntvov, HaTEANAUD Eva TOV Xeisov £lg AUTOY, saréss TO veda TO Grylov ev ede EDIT EDGG éy i) “Topdccvie 48 Conf. supr. ps 272. mh. 226 et 2*7, ™ Though the Valentinians multiplied their first principles, they acknowledged a Trinity as paramount to the subordinate beings whom they admitted into their notion of the divine na- ture; S, Iren. adv. Her. Lib. I. cap. ii. § 6. p. 12. Bean psa gy yioun To may TlAngwpa tov Aiwwy, cvvevdoxdilog TE Kossb, 9) 7H Tlevuatos, 72 OF Tlaigos. avTaY cuvemia@pxyiConére: 4 Emmsrag racarras meohurtodas mpoBrinora [l. mpoBrnuce rs |—z2Arctov negrary rov Inotiv, ov x) Lwriee mpooayopevvivas, x) Xpisery x) Adyary x. Te Ee Vid. Euseb. ae Eccl. Lib. IV. cap. xi. p. 156. 1. 15. conf. supr. p. 272. n. *8° The affinity hence the Catholick and Marcionite no- tions is admitted by St. Cyprian, Ep. Ixxiii. ad Jubaian. p. 200. « At ne longum sit per hereses universas decurrere——de Marcione sclo examinemus, an possit baptzsmatis ejus ratio constare. Dominus enim post resurrectionem, discipulos suos mittens, quemadmodum baptizare deberent, instituit et docuit dicens—‘ docete gentes omnes, baptizantes eos in nomine Pa- tris et Filit et Spiritus sancti.” Insinuat Trinitatem . Nun- quid anc Trinitatem Marcion tenet: Nunquid ewndem asserit quem et nos Patrem creatorem? Nunquid eundem unum Filium Christum, de Maria virgine natum; qui Sermo caro factus est, &c. Conf.§. Athan. contr. Apolin. Lib. I. § 12. p. 932. a. c. +8! S. Epiphan. Heer. yxv. p. 608. a. @aones dF Srog [Tadrog ~ ~ \ \ ~ > ~ & Depooareds | tv Oy cel Ovte tov avTs Adyoy, xes TO [lvedpa avr, Gorse & cevIewme xapdia 6 tog Aoyors mn sivas Oe Tov Tiov se Ose ( 528 ) But I yet remain to be informed how this text could have been opposed to the errours of those hereticks: As they followed the Ebionites***, and I Joh. w 7. had been quoted by the Evangelist as a concession of those hereticks, this text, in the strictness of the letter, decided rather in their favour, car in that of the orthodox. Marcellus of Ancyra, and Photinus his disciple’ iat are referred to the Sabellian school **. The con- tests maintained with them seem to lie most within the range of the disputed text, and to have assumed most the appearance of a Trinitarian controversy. But a very slight acquaintance with the subject of this controversy will clearly evince, that this text was wholly unsuitable to the purpose of those who Fvemosarov, &AN by ures Orn. oomrep aneres nas EaPerrrosy al 6 Navitoc, wal a Nénrocy uech wAAOb. we Te Ee 57 Euseb. de Eccl. Theol. Lib. I. cap. xiv. p. 75. "Esorws S raire xngitleca 7 exxAncla—rnv dpynow TB Vie 7B O28, Da BéAror amdoxinace, nalros Ozov Eva eidzvat, nab wAny jan ervees Magxiarw wegamrAnolas Aeyovra’ xai avts de +B Lwrnpos nuwv, ob mpwroxnpunes "EBiwvales avomalor, ERpzixn Quy, wraxes. Conf. Lib. II. contr. Marcel. cap. ii. p. 42. b. ¢. cap. iv. p. 62. d. S. Epiphan. Her. Lxv. p. 609. b. 83 Socrat. Hist. Eccl. Lib. IT. cap. xviii. p. 98. “Adia@ops roiwuy ers Tuyxaveons Tis wElaéD Taw OWhnay Te nad avcloAmov Lowwwviac, amePUn tv Liguiwy worss oe ai’rm twv TAdvprayy aipeoss ETepe, Dalewvos yap Tov ene ExxAnoiay Tpoesws, yévos THs pusxpas TaAaliacc, Mapxerre Te TS xadnONWes padnins, cKnoABIaY TH Sidacxchy, Piddv cevDpar~ xov, Tov Yiov tdoynatice. Id. ib. cap. xix. p. 100.1. 29. Tostros H siow of dd Magnéare nat Dales, rav “Agnxvpoyaralav ob Thy pow saveoy Um ccpeby re xat Ocornla rs Xpisé, nah Thy aTeAcu= nov auTe BassaAsiay O(LOLS "Tedaios &Jé]so1ve— ** Vid. supr. See ( 529 ) were engaged in sustaining it. Eusebius and Mar- cellus, by whom it was carried on, were professedly agreed on the existence of “three” persons or sub- sistences in the Divine Nature's: one of which they likewise believed to be “ the Word,” or Lo- gos "5°, and asserted to be “ one” with God'‘s’: it is consequently inconceivable that the text should be quoted ‘to settle any point which was contested be- tween them. “The whole stress of the controversy rested on the force of the term Son, as opposed to the term “ Word,” or Logos’; for the latter be ing equivocal, afforded the hereticks an opportunity - 455 Euseb. de Eccl. Theol. Lib. III. cap. vi. p. 175. b: Id. contr. Marcel. Lib. I. cap. ii. p. $7. d. * 38° Euseb. contr. Matcel. Lib. I: ae i. p. 4. c. Lib. II. cap. fi. p. 36: .c. &c. ; . 57 Euseb. ibid. cap. iv. p. 54. a “Ta. de Eccl. Theolog. Lib. I. cap. is ps 61. a. b. cap. xvii. ps 79. c. d. conf. Lib. IL: cap. ivs p. 107. a. cap. xi. p. 119. a. ' 158 The oriental bishops, expressly anathematizing the errours of Marcellus and Photinus, deliver themselves in the following terms; Socrat. ibid. p. 100. 1. 17. Boeavocoueda J: mpg teToIS tal dsaSenarifousr, eat res Aoyov ptév Lovey aotdv [roy ie as Ord, stead Kab cvimaperoy imvmrarws uadirras i Erigu Td eivee syovra’ wy pir, as Tov TeoPogindy Agyouevor ind tivwy® yoy de ws Tov EydiaSeloy* Conf. Euseb. contr. Marcel. Lib. I: cap. i. p. 4. da Lib. I. cap. itv ps $6. ¢. Eccl. Theol. Lib. I. cap. i. p. 61. a. b., On Photinus’s opinion, vid. Epiphan. adv. Her. n: Lxxt. p- 830. c. 881. d. &c. One sentence on this subject will illus- trate the state of the contreversy between Eusebius and Mar- eellus. Euseb. de Eccl. Theol. Lib. I. cap. xvi. ps 78. b. fo oF Emapeinaos] roy “Yiov ciorciy eapeernenyett, dive nero-Toy Aoysy peu, nos TaPerris pr xarayeiets Tor Vid a aprepine cauris 2h mpatluy excinw, oncmmerib: Faby 7 xT BUTE DaBorn thr Tic naxcde gias i Lordvosey EXXAI#EEE oo .8 7054 Mm ( 530 ) of explaining away its force, so as to. confound the persons, after the errour of Sabellius*s?, while the former, as implying its correlative Father, effectu- ally refuted this errour, by establishing a personal diversity between the subsistences; since it involved an absurdity to consider a Father the same as his Son, or represent him as begetting himself **°. As the text before us uses the term ** Word” instead of Son’*', it must be directly apparent that it was wholly unqualified to settle the point at issue: it can be therefore no matter of surprise that no ap- peal is made to it in the whole of the controversy. Eusebius and Marcellus had, however, other reasons for declining to cite its authority. As the ardour of — controversy drove them into extremes, the one lean-— ing towards the errour of Arius*®*, and the other towards that of Sabellius'®*, the text in dispute, as containing the orthodox doctrine, must have been as unsuitable to the purpose of the one as of the other: the term % making as much against Eusebins*®, *59 Euseb. de Eccl. Theolog. Lib. II. cap. ix. p. 115. d. 116, @, cap. xiii. p. 120, b. 7° Euseb. ibid. cap. xiis p. 119. d. ** Vid. supr. p. 292. n. **%. conf. Barret. Collat. Cort Montfort. p. 28. Cod. Reseript Dublin; subnex. Porson, Let, XII. p. 377. 7 §. Epiphan. Her, txviit. p. 723. d. "Bubnaupe # CKeoear ni] “Qinalew EvotBiov tov Kascapeias, nat GAAwS tHe. Hoey dP TOIKEXAYALIOD BOL wows MaArW TH THY Ageavay xudAOATVIZ « Vid. supr. p. 39.n.. Conf, Montfauc. Nov. Collec. Scriptt. Tom. Il.-Przl. p. xxviii. ; : "3 Vid. supr. p. 528. n. °°, 4 Marcel. Ancyr. contr. Ariann. . “Ocie 28 imicxime igurte ( 531 ) who divided the substance, as the term zg:is against Mareellus*®*, who confounded the persons. From this circumstance we are consequently enabled to account for more than their silence: for thus we clearly discover the cause which induced the one to expunge this text from his edition, and the other to acquiesce in its suppression. We may pass over the opinions of Theedotié and Artemon, as well as over those of Montanus and the Encratites. The controversies with the former never extended to the consideration of the Trinity **, or were conducted on the same princi- ples as against the Sabellians'®’: the notions of the latter on the subject of that doctrine were perfectly orthodox **. In these contests, of course, we must look in vain for a Trinitarian controversy, or for a suitable occasion to cite the verse in question. To the Sabellians the Arians may be opposed, as falling into the opposite extreme; the former con- catles wirey [Nepuiczoy], si womee “EvotBios & ris Tlaacsivisy No boing ctvar Qnolyy Srw wal avlds Aly “Eywwy adriv, aad trav yeaPévlar, reels Elva Wisevery Solas, aroxewouevore Ap. Eusebs contr. Marcel. Lib. I. cap. iv. p. 25. c. conf, Lib. III. cap. iv. p- 169. d. *§ Euseb. contr. Marcel. de Eccl. Theol. Lib. II. cap. ivs p- 107. Et o: &y 2y nai radroy av 6 @eds xal 6 év aUTG KOYOSs as Somer Magxérrw, é iy ™ ayia rapSévw yeveopeevog—xok amolavev imp Tov epacrion Har, artes Ay & tw wavtwy Qsoc, Conf. Mont- fauc. ib, Tom. II. Preel. p. lv. § vi. *6° Vid. supr. p.209.n.*7. *7 Vid. supr. p. 527. n. "5's 8 S. Epiphan. Her. xtvitt. p. 402. ds eg? 8 Marete, 9 YsE, x) “Ayia [lveiearos, Snows Qeordics tr aye Katersnn “2x nAnghae mM m2 ( 532 ) founding the Persons, as-the latter divided the sub- stance. But the contests maintained with: thesé hereticks, as not extended beyond the consideration of the second Person'®, did not assume the form of a Trinitarian controversy. The whole of the matter in debate the catholicks conceived capable of being decided by a few texts, some of which had the high authority of our Lord; and on such they rested the whole weight of the contest’”’. As they were accused, by their opponents, of falling into the _ "8 Socrat. Eccl. Hist. Lib, HI. cap. vie p. 17% L 8. GANG Tore piv 7 tv Nixie tervycropiom covodog segh tae sete [70 wept Scias xal dmosacews] Canc Ed Adyou wElwoen. tml OS paldlavre swks mgt ware Epecyersiy B9er0%, Svatero iv rabrn rh cuvddy [iv Adsterdpeia] wigh éciag te xal iwoordcws rats awipivarre. S. Hieron. Pamach. et Ocean. Ep. Lxv. cap. i. Tom. I. p. 229. Quidam constantius, ‘ Quomodo,’ inquit, ‘ damnabimus quos Synodus Nicena non tetigit ?—Et idcirco Spiritus Sancti ne- ganda majestas est, quia in illa synodo super substantia ejus silentium fuit De Ario tunc, non de Origene questio fuit ; dé Filio, non de Spiritu Sancto. Vid. Socrat. ib. Lib. I. cap. ix. p. 9.1. 1—5. Sozom. Lib, VI. cap. xxii. p. 245.1, 10—15. 26—31. Conf. Theodorit. Hist. Eccl. Lib. I. cap. iv. p. 12. I. 1. seq. Lab. et Cossart. Concil. Tom. II. col. 103. e. "37°. §, Athan. de Synodd. Tom. II. p. 759. d.—xoeras a2. «3 we thy megh Avordoror wapadsiypwata, the wnlny a sav weed TE Suspols amoroyiar, Wee dE TUTwY Tov TE Lwrvigos Evo Pawmy® 6 eyo x. & Tlarnp t szper,” mais © 6 Ewcands tut, swpaxe tov Torépa.? Phebad. contr. Ariann. p. 302. f—“ Patrem Deum, et Filium Deum dicimus: illad ante omnta sciatur, nec unum nos cum prejudicio, nec duos dicere, quia unum dicimus in duobus, tpso Domino suggerente: .‘ Ego et Pater unum sumus,” &c. conf. Alex. Alexandrin. ap. Theodorit. Hist. Eccl. Lib. I. cap. iv p16. 116. p. 18.1. 26, | € 533 ) opposite extreme of the Sabellians‘’*, the contested passage must have been wholly unsuitable to their purpose; as embarrassing the question with greater difficulties than those which they undertook to re- move.’ It is therefore little wonderful that they did not appeal ‘to it in their contests with these here- ticks. » The same reasons which prevented the orthodan from citing this passage in their contests with the Arians, prevented them from citing it in their dis- putes with the Macedonians. In the latter case there was no question agitated respecting the second Person of the Trinity ; as in the former no question respecting the third’”*. In neither, of course, did the contests maintained with those hereticks assume. the form of a Trinitarian controversy, or admit of support from the contested passage. We may subjoin the followers of Nestorius and Eutyches, to those of Macedonius. But neither of the former sects denied the doctrine of the Tri- nity; their disputes with the catholicks being pro- — perly confined to the question, whether the Son possessed one subsistence or two persons, instead of 378 Vid. supr. p. 40. n. 7*. 2 Phot. ad. Mich. Bulg. Ep. i. p. 6. “Os yee “Agews Kove 7 VS, Ste xaiadros [Max:Xno:] xara ri wavayis wagatar= qouevos LTvevjearos, sig Stas xal imngitas Tar dkoworixyy ad imepesmivay avte curtrarss xugernta, Kai ros eaor av, aimep iBeAsto, Te Sry, quvogdy, Ors xadameg of tov “Yity eis xlicua rarlovies, wiv vBpw adiy nth» mpocamlecs te Tali, rw xal of 1o wardyece aire Muito vols moinpacw tvapSpivric, hv ion xai Spoiay BracQnuiay dQizos xat’ ads. Conf. Socrat, Hist. Eccl. Lib. i cape xly. : 4 . ( 534) two subsistences and one person?”’. In these cone troversies, of course, there was no greater neces- sity'”+ for an appeal to the disputed passage, than in any of the preceding. After the period which produced these controver- sies, all enquiry must be fruitless which is directed in search of a Trinitarian controversy, That with the Pelagians engaged the attention of the Church for a long time subsequent to this period, and agi- tated the eastern and western world's. But it was of a different character from those which preceded, The disputants, having at length agreed on the éx- istence of the third person’”*, now began to dispute 73 The doctrine of Nestorius has been already described, supr. p- 521. n, ***. that of Eutyches ran into the opposite ex. treme; and as the former divided the person, the latter con- founded the natures; Facund. Defens. Trium. Capitt. Lib. ¥, cap. v.p. 10. e. Et ideo jam illud—Eutychianis contrarium rectum esse monstremus, quod Dominum nostrum Jesum Chris. — tum confitemur in duabis naturis, id est in Divinitate atque iumanitate perfectum.—Nec dici patimur uwnam ejus ex Divi- nitate et humanitate composiiam naturam, ne Patri, cujus sim- plex natura est, consubstantialis non sit,’? &c. *74 The Eutychians, it is evident, could not object to the doctrine inculcated in 1 Joh. v. 7: however they might have claimed that verse, as on their side of the question. Nor was the case materially different with the Nestorians; Garner. not, in Liberat. Brev. cap. x. p. 55.— neque enim Nestorius ipsé — negavit unquam, Verbum, aut esse unam de tribus Personis Divinis, aut esse incarnatum; neque vero fuit ‘unquam agitata questio an una de tribus Personis sit incarnata; sed an nut de Trinitate sit passus, ac crucifixus,” &c. 78 Vid. Usser. Antiq. Brit. Eccles. cap. ix. p. 112. seq. 27 St, Jerome, who was alive at the close of the Arian con- troversy, makes the following boast; S. Hier, adv. Ruffin. Lib. ( 535 ) on his mode of operation ; a discussion which, con- sequently, admitted of no appeal to the text of the heavenly witnesses. It will, however, be doubtless objected, that al- though the controversies maintained by the Church, as not embracing the doctrine of the Trinity, did not admit of reference to 1 John v. 7. yet, as turn- ing on the divinity and the humanity of Christ, they necessarily suggested the expediency of an appeal to Acts xx. 28. 1 Tim. iii. 16. But this objection will have little force, when it is remembered that the passage was not considered decisive, as not using the term Christ; and that the hereticks, who ex- cepted against the doctrine inculcated in those texts, rejected also that part of the canon in which they are contained. Of the hereticks who took the lead in this controversy, the Ebionites wholly renounced the authority of St. Paul'’7; and the Gnosticks, Marcionites, Valentinians*”*, and their followers, Il. cap. i. Tom. II. p.241. ‘* Nolo cures que sana sunt vul- nera medicare. Trinitatem dicis esse unius Deitatis. Hoc toto credente jam mundo, puto quod et demones confiteantur, Filium Dei natum de Maria Virgine, et carnem nature humanz atque animam suscepisse.”” 7 Orig. contr. Cels. Lib. V. cap. Ixv. p. 628. ¢. tici ya&e wives Gigéscis tas 7B Tlavas tmiscdas TH amosche UA eitocdinemt, Goweg *"EBiwyeios qe Gomsga x) ob serait Bgeraa ts ax dy Br ot LA Xpwwevor TH EosorAw ws poancrgicn ciwi' x. 7.8 Conf. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. II. cap. xxvii. p. 121, 1. 37. S. Hieron. Procem. in Ep. ad Tit. Tom. VI. p. 196. d. 178 Vid. supr. p. 431, n. '°. 462. n, 55. S. Hier. ibid. p. 196. b. « Licet non sint digni fide, qui fidem primam irritam fecerunt, Marcionem loquor et Basilidem, et omnes hzreticos, qui Vetus laniant Testamentum, &cm_——Ut enim de ‘ceteris Epistoli; ( 536-4 corrupted or rejected the Acts and Epistles to!Ti-+ mothy.: The orthodox were :consequently reduced to the necessity of deducing their scriptural proofs from that part of the canon, on the authority. of which they and their adversaries were mutually agreed '7?, and were thus prevented. from making those -frequent appeals to the verses in) dispute, which the roptroversy may he: cnnnelen to. nee suggested. It is thus apparent from. the state of the aula controversies maintained by the catholicks, that there was no point contested which rendered -an appeal to the text of the heavenly witnesses abso- lutely necessary. It may be now shewn, from the distinctions introduced in those controversies, that the orthodox were so far from having any induce- ment to appeal to. this text, that they had every reason to avoid an. allusion to it, as it apparently favoured the tenets of their opponents. From the brief sketch which has been given of the progress of controversy in the primitive church, it must be apparent, that the Sabellian’ controversy presented the most. suitable occasion for an appeal to the contested passage. The peculiar tenets of . the different sects which may be classed under this name, had-‘originated with the Jews**; and had been adopted from them in the Egyptian Gos- taceam, de quibus quicquid cantrarium.suo dogmati viderant, eraserunt: nonnullas infegras répudiandas crediderunt; a@ Timotheum videlicet ubramgque,”? &c. 79 Vid. supr. p. 331. n. 4°. a Vid. _ Supr. P 528. nn. go “et "53, (°° Sat.) pel'*’, from whence they descended to Noetus, Praxeas, Sabellius'**, and their followers. Under Paul of Samosata, they.attained that influence in the Syriack Church, which occasioned the meeting of the Council of Antioch“. In the following cen- tury, they were revived by Marcellus, Photinus, and - Apollinarius **; and were expressly condemned by the Council of Sirmium, which was convened = the Photinians***. Of the tenets of these different sects, we have an explicit account not only in the writings of those polemicks, who opposed their errours**®; but in ? 7S Epiphan. Her, Lx. p. 514. a. rw 3 xacay airs wAginy, 5 Thy THs mALINS auTay Odra sy [os Eekerrmares | Eyecw = ic Five, parice amo se xaduuivs “Alyvalis Evalysrin, & Px} qwes To Gromer iweSevlo TBTO. 8 Conf. S. Epiphan. ibid. p. 513.a, Tert. adv. Prax. __ 83 Eyseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib, VIF. cap. xxix. p. 358. 1. 27. xa oe rsdsvlaias ovyxpdleStions Brisav oowv emicxdmrar ovrede, [Mlavacs 6 Eapooaleds } Pupavels x) wees awailay Ady saves xalafiwce Stis eregodokiny & oO TS xala Arlo: ziay aipécsws canny, TS uno tte Spavev waSorinnns ixxAnciag amoungurlilas. 88 Conf. S. Epiphan. Her. txxt. p. 828. d. Her. uxxir. p- 834; a. Her. ixxvit. p. 998. b. c. "5 Soerat. Hist. Eccl. Lib. II. cap. xxix. p. 123. 1. 5. wor8 On %) Odlesvds 6 vais exe [ey Ty Lsgusai| ixwAncias meoernxas 2 oP) srapeupedty avre doype Qaveporegoy eZeSpurrcse die Tapa x7s iz rate yevoptyns 6 Bucireds LRaneietoal es imoxomuy ev TT! ay yuicdas ixfaevoe. ovyirSov Sv Exei x. T. E. ' 86 The clearest description of the tenets of those sects which followed the errours of Sabellius, are given in the account of that heretick, and of the most celebrated of his followers, Paul of Samosata. The tenets of the former are thus described by St. Fame, Her. Lxil. p. 513. b. doypatli€es Eras c geigoeet, 5 oi aw @ute LakeMuavol, Tor avtoy elvas Tlarige, Toy @UTCP “Tid3, ( 538 ) the confessions of faith which were drawn up by the councils, that were summoned against them 77, But in whatever form Sabellianism presents itself, we are compelled to acknowledge, that it absolutely derives support from the text of the heavenly wit- nesses. ‘These hereticks, adhering to the very letter of the text, asserted that the “ Word” and * Spirit” were in God, as the reason and soul are in man’; a stronger testimony in their favour war aUTey Elves Gryiov TIveDma® as tives ev see Smrosaoss eptls dromaciagy 3 os fy avSpome cape, x) oxn, x) miedo. x clras pov To cdpetey Gs simcity Tov Talépae, Pony Jt ag eimetv tov “Ysov, 70 mvdua & ws GiIpuws, Bras 9 7a ayov vcdue ty TH Ocorgl. 4 we tay 7 ty HAiw Gi piv v pia Omosaces, Teele OE Eyorls rag evegysing, x Te Ee The tenets of Paul of Samosata have been already described supr. p. 527. n. "5". 181 The account which Eusebius gives of the Synod of An- tioch, Hist. Eccl. Lib. VII. capp. xxvii. xxix. is defective and unsatisfactory: the Epistle of the Synod being garbelled in his History ; conf. Ib. cap. xxx. p. 359. |. 17. p. 362. 1. 9-—15. ps $63. 1. 13—20. The deficiencies of his account may be how- ever supplied in some measure from St. ARPS Epist. de Synodd. § 45. &c. Tom, II. P- 759. sqq- A fuller account of the Council of Sirmium, is given by Socrates, Hist. Eccl. Lib, II. cap. xxix. &c. p. 123, sqq- whose account may be compared with Athan. ibid. § 27. p. 741. e, S, Hilar, de Synodd. § 37. col. 1174. d. 88 S, Epiphan. Her. xv. p. 608. a. ph clvas OF ae *Vidv 33 Qed Ewmasaloy GAN ey add Ocd [Pdones é Madros Lapooaleds.] wom apirss x 3 LaPsarsos, x9 & Noviroc, x 6 Nérlos, x) &AAos ax Fous OF ixtlvois Bros, GAA BArws map exelvas. eASUvle OY toy AOTON, 9 baxtozle dv "Inod dvSpumw wh. xalb Bros Pues sis icy 6 Osds, xal wx Llalip 5 Tlatp, wai “Yds 5 “YIOE, vad Zyion Wvedwe 7d eyioy Tvevpa* dara cis Oeds & Tlaime, x “YIOE atts zy adt@, ws AOTOE év dvSpwaw. Conf, p. 609. b. ( 539 ) than that of the heavenly witnesses, could not be easily fabricated". It seems to be therefore just 9 As the Sabellians held that the Father, Word, and Holy Spirit were three energies in the Divinity, sects tvpyeias & 3H ©:ér7, vid. supr. p. 538. n. "8°: they held that these three €Mergies were one Person; S. Epiphan. ibid. p. 609. b. dd wire Mpocwmoy sy tov Ordy pace ro Aoyn Qacly, ds &vSewmos Era wad ou abTs Adyov. div wAtov Tav “Tedaiwry w¢ ZQyv DoecLovrec. These distinctions were precisely reversed in the description which the Catholicks gave of their doctrine; who held that there were three Persons, who were one, not merely in energy, but in substance; S. Athan. de Synodd. § 48. p. 762. d. 6 3: Tubs ix Ths Bolas dv yérnua, Soig Ev Esiv adras 6 6 yernoas adzdv Tlalng, Let us now apply these distinctions to 1 Joh. v.7. and we must acknowledge, that whether the ellipsis was supplied or not, the passage was decidedly in favour of the hereticks. In the former Case, TpEis tiow of paflugeylecy & Tlanp, xat 6 Adyos, aa a aye Tvedpa, xa} of rocis ev eles, fully explained their doctrine; as in this phrase the term Acyos was supplied for “Yicc, and the personal diversity consequently unmarked, if not subverted, in the sens ° tence. In the latter case, the terms which the hereticks used, to distinguish their peculiar notions, admitted of a direct asso- ciation with the disputed passage; on inserting them in the context, their tenets were thus fully and accurately described, apers Lévegyeias cicw tv rq Ordre] & Talyp, xai & Adyoy xab 7d Ryiov Tyee, xalb at tpeis ev [apcowrev] cice In fact, as Euse- bius and St. Epiphanius were partly aware this seemingly ex- traordinary circumstance was the necessary result of St. John having adopted the disputed passage from the Jews; from whom the Sabellians also borrowed their notions on the subject of the Trinity. Of consequence, the passage before us, how- ever reconcilable to the doctrine of the Catholicks, was wholly unfit to oppose to the errours of their opponents. Had they “quoted it without supplying the ellipsis, it expressed in a manner even worse than inadequate the difference between their tenets and those of the hereticks; as in using Aéyss for ‘Yué-, their distinctions were wholly overlooked, while those of their oppo- ( 540 > as reasonable to expect, that the catholicks would appeal to this text, in vindicating the doctrine of the Trinity against those hereticks, as that they would cite the Shema of the Jews, for the same purpose ; “ Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.” This is so palpably the case, that in the council of Antioch the word ézo¥e10» was wholl rejected, though in this term the whole strength of the atolicks? cause was rested'®; and in that of Sirmium it was passed over in silence’: the here- nents were forcibly marked. Had they filled up the ellipsis me inserting the peculiar terms, by which they expressed their own meaning, every word in the sentence but two must have been altered, and the whole contexture of the passage destroy ed; ra tpia capadee }t irs ra paplptila, 6 Malhp wal § “Yids xed od dy Tvedpa, nai ra tela ple [ecia] iss. Will thei impugners of } Joh, v. 7. now persist in requiring an expres appeal to this text in the Trinitarian controversy? 199 §. Athan.de Synodd. § 45. p. 759. b. of uty yep Tov Lapoe ceria xadsrovlegmmeixdras ebraRnSiiles 7d eéQiope se Eapooalias, sipjuact, 127 Elves Tov Xeisov ouosciov. Canf. S, Hilar, de Sy- nodd. § 86. col. 1200, b. The peculiar force of the term spodeuwy is asserted in the following terms by St. Athanasius, Ibid. p- 760. b, rerz xepw ob ty Nixaia cuverddsles, Stoghoasles Tie wavpliav Ta ire Peoveitwn [éxépay doiay re “NS clues cmd cB Talos} x) ovvalaryérles ix var TeaQav nv dhavoiar, Aeyworecon ypdPorlecs glonnact Td Sposotov.——maila yer Suvdyaros copi ( 545) dency of Eusebius’s religious opinions, and the ver- satility of principle which he exhibited in the Coun- cil of Nice, on the subject of the doctrine incul~ cated. in the disputed passage*”. Let us keep in view the confession of St. Epiphanius, who flou- rished when the Greek Vulgate was restored; that in the sacred text, as revised by the orthodox, some. remarkable passages were omitted, of which the orthodox were apprehensive*?. Let us further con- sider, that this charge is brought home to the Epis- tle which contains the disputed verse, if not to the passage in question, by Socrates, who declares that the former was mutilated by those who wished to sever the humanity of Christ from his Divinity*°*. Let us next remember the confession of St. Chry- sostome, under whom the vulgar Greek, which had been restored under Nectarius, was fully reinstated at Constantinople, That the disputed text was most likely to be included among the omitted pas- sages*®. Let us finally call to mind how closely the Nestorian and the Eutychian heresy followed after those times**°; and that the former was not 202 Vid. supr. p. 39. nn. ™. sqq. 203 ‘Vid. supr. p. 93. n. 7% 20¢ Vid. supr. p. 303. n. *". 205 S, Chrysost. Hom. in i Cor. xv. 19. Tom. X. p. 379. a. pila yep Ta wAAa Wale THTO SRE aatae Q WY O Hietiag Aéyete 9 Barocas pay caus AUTO elmrelyy 8 TOA d8 dua TEs apaunras® Cyril. Hieros. Cateches. vi. § xv. p. 97. 1. 17. ed. Oxon. 1703. radra pusnpe viv n exxrnole dmycizas to tx xalnxeutrov pclae Boraropere® &« tsw #906 ESvinoic Sinyetr Saute 8 yae Eduing Te meas TIaleds 16 “V5 2} aeyis Tedpalos dunysueta wusnpia. 29 Vid. supr. p. 343. sqq. Nh ( 546 ) affected by the disputed passage™’, while the latter was to all appearances established by its authority **.’ When we consider all these circumstances, which must have severally contributed to render the ortho- dox cautious in making the most remote allusion to a text, which militated against them, and which was at best of suspicious authority, as removed from the authorised edition ; so far shall we be from requir- — ing express allegations of it in every controversy *°? 237 Vid. supr. p. 534, hh. *74. 2°8 Vid. supr. p. 539, n. ™®. conf. inf. p, 552. n. 27. *9 The question has been carried by this most unfounded assumption ; on which, as an indisputable principle, the reas sonings of its impugners are founded, Pors. Lett. to Trav. Lett. xii. p. 402. “ But from the facts stated in this historical deduction, zt is evident, that if the text of the heavenly witnesses had been known from the beginning’ of Christianity, the ans tients would have eagerly seized it, inserted it in their creeds, quoted it expressly against the hereticks, and have selected a for the brightest ornament of every book that they wrote upon the subject of the Trinity.’ That the critick, who brought his discussion on 1 John v. 7. to a close, having this view of his subject, should rise with the conviction that the passage was spurious, and that those who doubted it were equally stupid — and obstinate, can excite very little surprize. Of “ every book” that the antients wrote on “ the subject of the Tri- nity,’ for the first four centuries, when that subject was dis- cussed, the following may be taken as a full and faithful ac- count, at least.as far as my reading extends: ‘ Novatianus de Trinitate,? ‘ Hilarius de Trinitate.? I am however inclined to believe that both these titles‘are erroneous; the latter is unques- tionably so. §. Hilary’s work is entitled in some MSS. “ De Fide contra Arianos;”? this is the title under which the authour alludes to: his own work; S. Hilar. Ibid. col. '785.c. and that under which it is mentioned by the antients ; -vid. 5, Hier. Cat, ( 54% ) which was agitated during the period of nearly two, centuries, in which the doctrine of the Trinity was canvassed, and which was gradually settled by the first four general councils, that we shall be at a loss to discover in what shape it could have been pro- duced. by the catholicks, had it even retained its place in the authorised edition, from which it was removed in the earlier part-of the term. When these considerations are duly estimated, the declining strength of the negative argument against 1 Joh. v.’7. may be easily disposed of. It has been often objected, that the context of the Evangelist, both preceding and following the dis-_ Scriptt. Eccless. Tom. I. p. 130. conf. Patrr. Benedd. Pref. in Lib. de Trin. § ii. p.’753. And so little dependance can be placed on the title of Novatian’s work, that it is generally as- cribed to Tertullian ; merely in consequence of a declaration of Ruffinus, Apol. pro Orig. p. 53. a. and that it takes the title ' “ de Trinitate’’ from a declaration of St. Jerome, Ibid. p. 128. “ Scripsit [Novatianus] de Trinitate grande volumen, quasi imilouny operis Tertulliani faciens.”” It is however observable, that no work under this title occurs in the catalogue of Tertul+ lian’s writings ; and that St. Hilary’s work, “ De Fide,” is en- titled in some MSS. “ De Fide contra omnes Hereses,? which comes nearer to the title of some of Tertullian’s works; vid. _Patrr. Benedd. Preef. Ibid. § v. p. 754. But waving this objec- tion to the title of those works, the subject of them precludes our considering them treatises on the Trinity. Conformably to the state of controversy in the age when they were written, they are principally dedicated to the consideration of the Father and the Son; the Holy Ghost not being considered in either treatise, according to the rank which he occupies as a Person of the Trinity: vid. Novat. ibid. cap. xxiv. p. 640. S. Hilar. Lib. II. § 1. col. 788. a. Conf. Rigalt. Argum. in Noyat. p. “05. Patrr. Benedd. Preef. in Hilar. § xii. xiv. p. 756. : nn2 ( 548 ) puted verse, has been quoted, while the disputed verse.is wholly omitted**°; and that the doctrine of the Trinity has been proved by an allegorical in» terpretation of vers. 8. which is expressly asserted in vers. 7**. The former assertion is principally founded on the testimony of an anonymous writer in St. Cyprian** and P. Leo the great*?; the latter’ 19 Pors. ibid. p. 378. “ But the strongest proof that this verse is spurious, may be drawn from the Epistle of Leo the Great. to Flavianus, upon the Incarnation. This. epistle has been translated into Greek, read in churches, sent round to the Councils both in the East and West, defended by several authours in set treatises, and ‘consequently more generally known-than most of the writings of the Fathers. In this epis- tle, he quotes part of the fifth chapter, from the fourth to the eighth verse, and omits the three heavenly witnesses.? 7% This is one of those bold and unfounded assumptions by which the question has been carried, against the plain state- ments of the fathers of the first four centuries, who engaged in the Sabellian controversy; Pors. ibid. Let. x1. p. 311—* Ido re-assert, that xo writer in his perfect mind could possibly adopt this allegorical exposition of the eighth verse, if the seventh were éxtant in his copy. Even a madman would have method in his madness.—I appeal to any orthodex reader, whether he would force an indirect confession of his favourite doctrine, from one‘text by torture, when he might have a clear, full, and voluntary evidence from its next neighbour.” ' 22 Auct. ‘de Baptism. p.21. ‘ Ait enim Joannes de Do- mino nostro ‘in Epistola nos docens; ‘ Hic est qui venit per aquam et sanguinem, Jesus Christus. Non in aqua tantum, sed in aqua et sanguine. Et spiritus est qui testimonium per- hibet, quia spiritus est veritas. Quza tres testimonium perhibenty ‘spiritus, et agua, et sanguis, Et isti tres in unum sunt.’ Ut ex illis colligamus, et ‘ aquam’ prestare solitum,. et ‘ sangui- nem’ proprium -prestare solitum, et ipsum quoque ‘ spiritum’ > ( 549 5) on the testimony of St. Augustine*** and Facundus -Hermionensis*’. But these objections admit of a very simple solution. However paradoxical the assertion may in the first instance appear, it is notwithstanding the fact, that a stronger argument was deducible from the testimony of the earthly witnesses in favour of the catholick doctrine, than from that of the heavenly prestare spiritum solitum.” Int. opuscc. S. Cypr. adscriptt. p- 21. 2'5 Leo Magn. Epist. ad Flavian. ‘ Et spiritus est qui tes- tificatur quoniam spiritus est veritas. ‘ Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant; spiritus aqua et sanguis: et hi tres unum Sunt ;’ ‘ spiritus’ utique sanctificationis, et ‘ sanguis’ redemp- tionis, et ‘ aqua’ baptismatis, que tria unum sunt, et individua manent, nihilgue eorum a sui connexione segungitur.” Ap. Auctar. Bibl. Patrr. Tom. I. p. 492. a. Par. 1624. 24 S. August. contr. Maxim. cap. xxii. Tom. VIII. col. 726. b. « Si ea que his [Spiritu, aqua, et sanguine] s¢gnificata sunt, velimus inquirere, non absurde occurret ipsa Trinitas, que unus —Deus est, Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus, de quibus veris- sime dici potuit: ‘ tres sunt testes, et tres unum sunt:’ ut nomine ‘ Spiritus’ accipiamus Patrem, nomine autem ‘ sangui- nis’ Filium, et nomine £ aque’ Spiritum.’’ 5 Facund. Defens. Tri. Capitt. Lib. I. cap. iii. p. 6. g. * Aut si forsitan ii qui de yerbo contendunt, in eo quod dixit ; ‘ Tres sunt qui testificantur in terra, spiritus, aqua, et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt,’ Trinitatem que unus Deus est, nolunt intelligi, secundum ipsa yerba que posuit, pro Apostolo Joanne respondeant. Numquid ‘hi tres’ qui ‘ in terra testificari’_ et qui ‘unum esse’ dicuntur, possunt spiritus, aut aque, aut san- guines dici? Quod tamen Joannis Apostoli testimonium B. Cyprianus Carthaginiensis, antistes et martyr, in Epistola sive Libro, quem de Trinitate scripsit, de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto dictum intelligit. Ait enim, ‘ Dicit Dominus,” &c. Ut, supr. p. 291. n. **, ( 650 ) witnesses. The point on which the orthodox and heterodox divided, was the diversity of the Persons ; on the unity of the substance there was no differ- ence of opinion between the Catholicks on the one side, and the Sabellians, the Apollinarists, and the - Kutychians, on the other*®. The whole of the distinctions on which the orthodox founded their proofs of the former point, were wanting in the dis- puted verse: hut those on which the heterodox founded their proofs of the latter, were forcibly marked in the same passage. The Sabellians con- tended, that the Father, and his Word, and Spirit, © were one Person, while the Catholicks maintained that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, must be threé Persons*?, And the Apollinarists and Eutychians held, that “ the three which bore record in heaven were one” substance, the humanity of Christ being absorbed in his Divinity***; while the Catholicks, asserting the existence of two natures in the samé Divine Person, believed that Christ was of one sub- stance with God in the former, but of a like sub- stance with Man in the latter. We thus easily discover the causes which induced the orthodox to rest their cause on the testimony of the earthly wit- 246 Vid. supr. p. 534.n. 7%. infr, n. 7, 27 Vid. supr. p, 538. n. 7. 78 On the Eutychian notions, vid. supr. p. 534. n."%. The Apollinarian tenets may be briefly described in the words of S. Athanasius ; Contr. Apolin. Lib. I. § 12. Tom. IL. p. 932. a. —ti ett Hues peuQerde, ws rélpada. avl Tesedocy 6 cuovles Ouoroydylecy Adyovies, Sovoiay iver 7 Tgiads rny capa Conf. Ib. p. 932. ae - { 651 ). nesses instead of the heavenly. The specifick men- ion of “ the blood” in vers. 8. not only designated Christ as a separate Person from the Father, against the Sabellians; but as a Person, in whom the human nature was united with the divine, with- out any confusion of substance, against the Euty- chians*"?. Under this view, the preference shewn by the orthodox to the text of the earthly witnesses, over that of the heavenly, needs no palliation from the circumstance of the one text being unquestioned, and the other of doubtful authority, in the age when those points were debated. From the negative testimony of Pseudo-Cyprian, St. Augustine, P. Leo, and Facundus Hermionensis, we can consequently deduce nothing more, than that the text of the heavenly witnesses was absent from the current copies of the Vulgate of St. Je- rome, which was in general use when they wrote; and that it best answered the purpose of those writers to pass it over in silence. St. Augustine’s testimony 1s thus easily disposed of: he wrote while the heresy of Apollinarius prevailed, and with a 29 The least objectionable evidence on this subject is Fa. cundus, who has effected more in undermining the authenticity of 1 Joh. v. 7. than the whole of the fathers taken together, who have been cited on this subject. Facund. ibid. p. 6. e. ** Nam et Joannes Apostolus in Epistola sua, de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu sancto sic dicit; ‘ Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, spiritus, aqua, et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt;’ in ‘ spiritw’ significans Patrem - In ‘aqua’ vero Spiritum sanctum significans, . In ‘ sanguine’ vero Filium signi- ficans, quoniam ipse, ex sancta Trinitate, communicavit carni et sanguine.” Conf. supr. p. 549. n. 7”. (, Sa 3 peculiar respect for the corrected translation of St! Jerome*’’, in which the disputed verse was omitted. The testimony of P. Leo and Facundus presents - still fewer difficulties; as it is adduced from their controversy with the Eutychians, it is not entitled to the smallest respect. "The disputed text embar- rassed their cause with difficulties, which they were | unable to solve***; it is therefore unteasonable to 22° Vid. supr. p. 15. n. *8.p. 532. n. %. The following dis- tinctions, made by St. Augustine in the same chapter in which he interprets 1 Joh. v. 8. ut supr. p. 549. n. 7", will sufficiently disclose the grounds of his preference for the corrected reading of the Latin version. S. August. ubi supr. cap. xxii. col. 726. e, “‘ Si quo autem modo tanti sacramenti profunditas que in Epistola Johannis legitur, exponi et intelligi potest, secundum catholicam fidem, que nec confundit nee separat TRINITATEM, nec abnuit tres personas, nec diversas credit esse substantias; nulla ratione respuendum est. Quod enim ad exercendas mentes fidelium in scripturis sanctis obscure ponitur gratulan- dum est, si multis modis non tamen insipienter, exponitur.”” To the person who deemed it necessary to distinguish thus accurately between the Sabellian and Arian notions, 1 John v. 7. must have been an encumbrance not easily disposed of ; vid. supr. p. 539. n. *®°. p. 549. n. "4. St; Augustine had been a convert from Manicheism; by which sect the Apolinarian and Eutychian notions relative to Christ’s body being of ong substance with the Trinity, were adopted; vid. S. Athanas, contr. Apolinar. Lib. I. § 12. Tom. II. p. 932. c. 934. d. *4* The first object of Facundus in undertaking his celebrated work ‘ Pro Defensione Trium Capitulorum,” was to oppose the Acephali, or Eutychians; in which controversy he was im- plicated by P. Leo; Vid. Facund. Preef. in init. p.4..a. He ‘however subsequently enlarged his plan, and directed his attack against the Nestorians and Eutychians; Id, ibid. Lib. I. cap. i, p- 4. d. “ Nam cum due nunc ferveant hereses ab eoderm oe ( 553.) expect in their works, any thing in the shape of an appeal to its authority. In fact, it must be appa- concilio [Calchedonensi] refutate—mysterium divine Incarna- éionis oppugnant, Nestortanorum dico, et Eutychianorum,” &e. As both these sects subscribed to the doctrine inculcated in -1 Joh. v. 7. it seems impossible to conceive how it could be employed against them; vid. supr. p. 534. n.*7*. But as it lid not fully take in the distinctions of the orthodox, it is not impossible to shew how it could have been effectively employed against them by the hereticks. The term ‘‘ Word’’ in the dis- -puted verse, afforded some countenance to the Nestorians, in keeping the divine nature of the Logos, in the Trinity, apart ‘from the person of Christ; the term “ one substance” afforded the Eutychians still greater countenance in asserting, that the fleshly or human nature of Christ was wholly absorbed in the ‘spiritual and divine. The distinctions which Facundus is obliged to make, in order to explain the catholick doctrine, clearly evince, how much he really apprehended either conse- -quence being deduced from the disputed passage. Facund. ib. cap. v. p. 10. f. “. Christum igitur Frtrum Dei, quemad- modum dictum est, zz duabus predicamus esse naturis. Nec dici patimut unam ejus ex Divinitate et humanitate compositam ‘esse naturam, ne Patri, cujus simplex natura est, consubstantialis non sit: et sicut alterius est persone, quam Pater, ita etiam alterius, id- est, diverse dicatur esse nature. Verum neque nobis erit consubstantialis nisi ejus due nature sint: ut scilicet altera sit, in qua consubstantialis est Patri, altera vero in qua consubstantialis est nobis. At huic evidentissme rationi brata -Eutychianorum contentio refragatur, adfirmans, Dei VERBI uni- tatem incommutabiliter simplicem cum suscepta humanitate, -in unam componi potuisse naturam.’’ Conf. S. Athan. contr. Apo- linay. Lib. I. § 2. p. $23. a: § 12. p. 932. a. Epis. ad Epictet. § 9. Ib.p. 907. e. Let the reader now weigh the force of “Fizius Dei in duabus naturis,’’ in the former part of this pas- sage, with ‘ VERBUM in wna simplict natura,” in the latter; Jet him then apply this distinction of Facundus to the disputed yeyse, “ tres sunt qui testificantur in celo, Pater, VERBUM, et ( 5b4 ) ‘rent to the most superficial observer, that Facundus has absolutely laboured to destroy its authority ***, by Spiritus; et hi tres wnum sunt :’? let him then pronounce how far Facundus and P. Leo’s testimony is admissible, on the au- thenticity of this verse, which embarrassed their cause with the greatest difficulties, and was wanting both in the authorised text of the Greek and Latin Church, with which these fathers were well acquainted; vid. Facund. in Pref. p. 4.b.c. Leo. ub supr. p. 492. b. 72 As 1 John v. 7. taken in the strict literal sense, fully agreed with the doctrine of the Eutychians; and 1 Joh. v. 8. admitted of a plausible interpretation, in the sense of the three baptisms, vid. supr. p. 548. n.*"*: the only plan left P. Leo and Facundus in opposing these hereticks, was to take advan- tage of the absence of the seventh verse from the original Greek, and corrected Latin version, and to pass it over in silence. Facundus, however, who was P. Leo’s interpreter, goes somewhat farther, and finding the seventh verse supported by St. Cyprian’s testimony, as Fulgentius, his contemporary, places out of dispute, vid. supr. p. 292. n. 7; he endeavours to transfer the support of that antient father to the next verse, and to turn it against his adversaries, who ascribed it a different meaning, vid. supr. pp. 548, 549. nn. ** et #5: most probably conceiving the disputed passage spurious. With the assistance of St. Cyprian’s explanation, 1 John v. 8. afforded him as much proof as he required. That explanation gave the whole passage a reference to the Trinity, instead of the three Baptisms; and it supplied the term “ Filius,”” which Facundus opposed to the Verbum of his opponents, vid. supr. p. 549. n. >>: while the text itself furnished, in the term “ sanguis,’? grounds for that deduction, which Facundus makes in direct oppesition to the tenets of the Eutychians; Ibid. “ In ‘ sanguine’ vero Filium significans, guoniam ipse ex sancta Trinitate, communicavit carne et sanguine”? ut supr. p. 549. n,**5. That Facundus alludes to the interpretation of the eighth verse, in ‘the sense of the three baptisms, of water, blood or martyrdom, and the spirit, supr. p. 549. n.*%, is I conceive apparent, from the objection — eee 5 = —_ { @o5 ) depriving it of the support of St. Cyprian. But with so much skill has he effected his purpose, that in retaining the phrase “in earth,” in order to strengthen the verse which he has quoted, he has evinced, beyond the possibility of dispute, that the phrase “in heaven,” with its context, was extant in the text which was before him***. which he states; Ibid: ‘* Numquid ‘ hi tres qui in terra testi- ficari,’ et qui ‘ wnum esse’ dicuntur, possunt ‘ spiritus, aut aque, aut sanguines’ dici:” which, I conceive, was an adequate objec- tion to the interpretation of his opponents. Such is the whole scope and object of Facundus’s reasoning. 223 Mr. Porson indeed objects, that the words “in terra,’’ are interpolated in the text of Facundus, Lett. to Trav. xii. p. 386. as they are “ inconsistent with the interpretation which Facun dus is labouring to establish.’’ But the very reverse of this assumption is certainly the fact, as will be made apparent in the sequel. And M. Griesbach further objects, Append. ad 1. 1 Joh. v. 7. p. 14. n. *. “ probabiliter e Vulgata recentiore a librario aut ab editore Facundi intrusa fuerunt.’”’ But this unsupported conjecture has not the shadow of probability, as Facundus is not accommodated to the Vulgate, in the passage before us; he reads both in the text, and in his comment, “‘ tres sunt qui ¢estificantur in terra,”’? while the Latin Vulgate reads, “ tres sunt qui ¢estimonium dant ;?? and in some MSS. without sin terra.’ On the other hand, that Facundus wrote “in terra,”’ is apparent, for the following reasons. (1.) There could be no object in adopting these words from theVulgate, more espe- cially if they are inconsistent with his interpretation. (2.) They are six times repeated in his observations, as is admitted by the objectour, vid. Pors. ibid. (3,) They certainly existed in the text of the African Church when he wrote, as appears from the testimony of his contemporary and compatriot Fulgentius, vid. Pors. ib. p, 400. Griesb, ib, p.15. (4) They are delivered with that variation in the testimony of Facundus, and yet with that conformity to the decuments which were before him, which ( 556 ) This consideration will enable us to appreciate the testimony of the anonymous writer in St. Cy- proves, that Facundus quoted by reference to his authorities, and that his quotation has been preserved unaltered. The first place in which he cites 1 John v. 8. as taken from his own text, naturally follows the Vulgate; he there reads, “ tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra;”’ vid. supr. p. 549, n. 7%, conf. p. 253. The subsequent place in which he cites the ‘same passage, as quoted by his opponent, follows a different reading; he there uses, “ tres sunt qui testificantur in terra :** vid. supr. p. 549. n. 25. conf. p. 182. n. ™%. (5.) The words «in terra” were peculiarly important in the Nestorian contro- versy, in which Facundus was engaged; as is apparent from the testimony of the Oriental Church; in which that controversy particularly prevailed: Asseman. Bibl. Orient. in Xenaij. Tom. Ti. p. 28. ‘* Summam hujus‘Controversie que Orientalem Ee~ clesiam diu multumque devexavit, accipe. Scripserat Kenajas ad Monachos quosdam Syros prolixam de Incarnationis mysterio Epistolam, in qua propositionem hance frequenter usurpabat, * Unus e Trinitate descendit de ceelo incarnatus est, passus, est ‘crucifixus, mortuus, resurrexit, ascendit in caelum? et similia: notare volens tum Nestorianos, qui humanitatem Christi a Divi- ‘nitate ac persona Verbi separabant, tum Eutychianos qui corpus phantasticum ab eodem Verbo assumptum opinabantur. Exce- pit illum cum risu Anonymus Nestorianus, reprehendens maxime illam dictionem, ‘ Unuse Trinitate,’ quasi due non tres divine Personze remanserint in calo, si ‘ Unus e Trinitate’ dicatur ‘ in terram descendisse,’ quz sunt ipsius Anonymi verba a Xenaja initio Disputationis relata: aliaque subjungit absurda, que ex ea propositione sequi affirmat, sed maximum ait esse, ‘ vocis illius novitatem.’ Ad hec Xenajas e Scriptura et Patri- ‘hus demonstrat vocem illam nec novam esse nec veteribus incog- nitam, &c. Conf. Zenon. Epist. ap. Evagr. Hist. Eccl. Lib. III. cap. xiv. p. 347. 1. 10—25. (6.) As no person was more profoundly versed in’ this controversy than Facundus, it is ob- iservable, that in appealing to the disputed passage, he keeps this subject fully in view. He opens the chapter in which he ( bby +) prian, and to give some account of the origin of that work, which is written on the baptism of here- ticks. And when we consider that the controversy on this subject was soon terminated; and that some works were ascribed to St. Cyprian, by the Mace- donians, for the purpose of supporting points of controversy like that before us**; we may at least quotes 1 Joh. v. 8. with the following remark; Facund. ib. cap. iii. p. 6. c. ‘¢ Sed tacendum non arbitror, quod sint etiam Catholici, qui sicut credimus nescientes hoc ante memorata Synodo confirmatum, superflue contra de verbo contendant: quia videtur eis, quod dici non debeat, Unum de Trinitate pro nobis crucificum, sed potius unam de Trinitate personam.”? (7.) With the phrase “ in terra,’? Facundus’s application of 1 Joh. v. 8. was complete; as striking at both the heresies against which he reasoned; but without it, directly the reverse. The terms “in terra,”? were opposed to the Nestorians, ‘* qui huma- nitatem Christi a persona Verbi separabant ;” the term “ san- guis” was opposed to the Eutychians, “ qui corpus phantas- ticum ab eodem Verbo assumptum opinabantur.’? In every ether respect those hereticks would have subscribed to Facun- dus’s text and exposition; as they did not deny the doctrine of the Trinity; but strenuously asserted, that “ there were three that bore witness 2” heaven, the Father, Word, and Holy Ghost,’? -&c. So far therefore is the phrase “ in terra’’ from being in- consistent with Facundus’s reasoning, that it is necessary to it, in order to give it the requisite effect. But from this phrase, it must be collected, as M. M. Porson and Griesbach were fully conscious, that the correspondent words “ in ccelo,” exe isted in the text from whence 1 Joh. v. 8. has been quoted; and consequently, that Facundus could be no stranger to the context, 1 Joh. v. 7. “ tres sunt qui testificantur 7n celo,”’ &c. 224 Ruffin. de Adult. Librorr. Orig. p. 53. a. ‘ Sancti Cy- priani martyris solet omne Epistolarum corpus in uno codice scribi. Huic corpori heretici quidam qui in Sptritum sanctum blasphemant, Tertulliani dibellum de Trinitate reprehensibiliter C S38.) admit the possibility, that this anonymous tract might have been fabricated for the express purpose of exhibiting the context of St. John, without the disputed passage. This passage was thus deprived, at a stroke, of the testimony of St. Cyprian, and of the text which existed in his times**s; and this, as we have seen, in the peculiar case of P. Leo and Facundus, was no inconsiderable object with the polemicks who engaged in those days. Until at least some better account is given of this anonymous tract, we need not regard, with much apprehension, any appeal to its testimony on the subject at present contested. Nor do the objections which have been adduced against the testimony of Eucherius, from the diver- sity of the copies which contain that writer’s works, {quantum ad veritatem fidei nostrz pertinet) seriptum inserentes, et quamplurimos codices de talibus exemplariis conseribentes, per totam Constantinopolim urbem maximam distrahi pretio viliori fecerunt,” &c. ’ 225 Jt is a curious circumstance, that a remark is made in the tract under consideration, which must have been intended to bring disrepute on the edition of the Latin version published by Eusebius Vercellensis. A remarkable passage which he admitted into the sacred text, in Mat. iii, 15. vid. supr. p. 197. n. **. is said, in this tract, which is aseribed to the times of St. Cyprian, to exist m no Gospel; vid. supr. p. 445.mn. %. With whatever object this tract has been ascribed to St. Cyprian, it is at least possible, that this remark might have been made with a view to depress the credit of the revised text of Eusebius Vercellensis; and that 1 John v. 6. 8. was quoted without vers. 7. in order to deprive this verse of St. Cyprian’s support; by rendering it probable, that it no more existed in the sacred text, in his days, than Mat, ili, 15. ut supr, a ee ee eee ee ee ee ee ( 559 ) and which sometimes omit the contested passage, at all affect the point in dispute*®. Eucherius pre- ceded the gra which produced the Eutychian con- troversy ; and in quoting the disputed text, he fur- nished an authority in favour of that heresy**7. As #6 Vid. Griesb. Append. in loc. 1 Joh. v. 7, 8. p. 16. 227. This observation will appear more probable when Euche- rius’s testimony, as read in two MSS. at Vienna, Codd. theol. lat. 64. 109. is compared with the remark on Facundus’s testi- mony, supr. p. 554. n. ***%. “ TIT, Sanctam et individuam designat Trinitatem, ut Joannes apostolus: ‘ tres sunt qui tes+ timonium dant in celo, Pater, Verbum et Spiritus sanctus’ [cod. 109. addit ‘ et tres unum sunt:’] Et Baptismum, ut ipse (idem) Apostolus ait: ‘ et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, spiritus, aqua et sanguis, et (hi) tres unum sunt.” As this testimony is decidedly contrary to the orthodox interpreta- tion of Facundus, who suppresses vers. 7. in order to deprive the Eutychians of the testimony of St. John ; and interprets vers. 8. of the Trinity, in order to deprive vers. 7. of the tes- timony of St. Cyprian: the reader may determine, whether it is more probable the catholicks suppressed, or the hereticks inserted 1 Joh. v. 7. “ tres sunt,” &c. with “ et Baptismum,” in the text of Eucherius. Nor is the authenticity of the above passage of the Vienna MSS. in the least affected, by the quo- tations adduced from Eucherius’s “‘ Questiones in Vet. et Nov. Testament.” p. 88. ed. Sichard. ap. Griesb. ub. supr. p. 17. One of those quotations convicts the other of a palpable omis- sion. In the first it is declared that 1 Joh. v. 8. was interpreted of the Trinity ; and in the second, that the Trinity was proved merely from Gen. i. 1,2. Ps. xxxii. 6. Matt. xxviii. 19. Rom. xi. $6. From the latter passage of course, something has been removed. M. Griesbach would probably say 1 Joh. v. 8: but jt is just as easy to say 1 Joh. v.7, 8. And im support of the latter assumption, we may appeal to the testimony of Cerealis __ im the subjoined note; and quote the first of the passages ad- duced in the present note from Eucherius. ( 566 )j the removal of an obnoxious passage from his works was merely an accommodation of his quotations to’ the sacred text, as corrected by the Greek, it is only’ wonderful that the text of the heavenly witnesses should have retained its place in any copy of his writings. For the testimony of Cerealis** fully evinces, that this text has disappeared from some tracts, in which it was originally mserted. - ‘The variations of the disputed passage, as read in the modern Latin Vulgate, present no greater diffi- _ culty.. Insome copies it is wholly omitted, in some it is annexed in the margin, though in most it is in« serted in the text. But that it has been thus added, as a gloss on the eighth verse, isan assumption which may be very easily refuted. In the first place, it was a custom unknown to the primitive 228 Bengel. Appar. Crit. var. in 1 Joh. v. 7. § xvi. py 463. « €erealis Afer—librum scripsit contra Maximianum Arianum, in quo negant dictum Johanneum extare: quod tamen penitus — negari non debebat. Solent Afri, ut vidimus, duo illa dicta, « Ego et Pater unum sumus,’ et ‘ tres unum sunt’ conjunctim laudare: et sic Cerealis cap. i. ubi dictum illud prius pro Patris Filiique unitate citavit, subjungit: ‘ Quia vero non solum unum sunt Pater et Filius, (sed) addito Spiritu sancto subter hades. demonstratum:? quibus verbis Cerealis dictum alterum, ‘ hi tres unum sunt,’ ad caput de unitate Spiritus Sancti cum Patre et Filio, (quod in ejus libro est cap. av.) distulisse videtur, et « subter’ vel ipse pre copia aliorum argumentorum e memoria dimisisse, vel per alios postea mutilatus esse.” Had the truly learned authour of this remark considered the sense in which the hereticks understood * Verbum,’ and ‘ tres unum sunt,’ in explaining their tenets, he. would have doubtless rested in the latter supposition, as that alone which is founded in proba- bility. ( 561 ) church, to allude to the mystery of the Trinity, un- less in oblique terms, before those who had not been initiated in the Christian covenant**?. In the next place, the seventh verse is really no explana- tory gloss of the eighth, unless we suppose it framed by the hereticks**. From the times of Tertullian and Cyprian, in whose interpretations the disputed verse is supposed to have originated, to those: of Fulgentius and Eugenius, in whose times it was confessedly incorporated in the sacred canon, an orthodox exposition of the doctrine extracted from the eighth verse, could have been only expressed in the terms the “ Father and the Son,’ instead of «the Father and the Word**',’ &c. By the latter ‘reading, of course, the supposition that the seventh verse is a marginal gloss on the eighth, is so com- pletely overthrown, that it furnishes a very decisive confirmation of the contrary assumption; that the disputed verse was originally suppressed; not gra- dually introduced into the Latin translation. In fact, as the explanation offered by the im- pugners of the text of the heavenly witnesses, to account for the varieties in this translation, thus 29 S. Chrysost. Hom. in 1 Cor. xv. 19. Tom. X. p- 379. a. Bros yap. [ob apunror] duoxorwlégay. tipiv Tosct Thy 2Enyncw, avalnalores % wn Abyew caddis, m cis abrhs ExQéepsw ra anogpmia. Cyril. Hieros. Cateches. vi. § xv. p. 97. 1. 21. 862 ta mepi rar posnpioy eri xalnxeudioy Aeundis Aadoucv, GAG TOKAG WohAans KEYOMEY EMIMERAAYJAME VES, iva ELOOTES THISOS VorIOwGL x) ob uh EMDETEC, pn BraRacss Conf. supr. p. 545. n. *. 28° Vid. supr. p. 539. n. *. p. 552. n. 7". 23" Vid. supr. p. 300, n. *°7. conf: p. 292. nn. * et **. 00 ( 562 ) wholly fails of its end; a very satisfactory solution of the difficulty which thus arises, may be suggested in the consideration, that St. Jerome put forth two editions of the Catholick Epistles, in one of which the contested verse was omitted, though it was re- tained in the other. And this conjecture may he maintained on the strength of many corroborating circumstances. It is indisputable, that two editions of some books of Scripture had been not only pub- lished by that early father***; but that one edition had been in some instances dedicated to Eustochium**, to whom the Catholick Epistles are inscribed, in the Prologue*+. Now as St. Jerome likewise under- took the revisal of the Italick translation, at the re- quest of P. Damasus, we have thus authority for believing, that two editions had been published of the part of Scripture in question. And admitting this to have been the case, every difficulty in the - matter before us admits of the clearest solution. Agreeably to the prejudices of the age in which the 232 Separate editions of St. Matthew had been inscribed, with separate Prologues, to P. Damasus, and Eusebius Cremo- nensis ; Conf. S. Hier. Tom. VI. p. iii. xi. and separate editions of parts of Isaiah, to Amabilis and Eustochium, Conf. Tom, IV. p- 44. a. b. p. 62: a. 233 Of the twelve minor Prophets, Nahum, Michea, Zepha- niah, and Haggai, were inscribed to Paula and Eustochium; vid. S. Hier. Tom. V. p. 115. f. 234 §, Hier. Prol. in Cann. Epp. Tom. I. col. 1667. ed. Bened. ‘ Sed tu virgo Christi, Eustochium, dum a me impen- sius scripture veritatem inguiris, meam quodammodo senectutem invidorum dentibus corrodendam. exponis, qui me falsarium, corruptoremque sacrarum scripturarum, pronynciant.” é ' ‘ ( 563 ) Latin Vulgate was published**’, St. Jerome inserted the contested verse in the text which was designed for private use, omitting it in that which was in- tended for general circulation**. And in thus act- ing, he adhered to the peculiar plan which he had prescribed to himself in revising the Latin transla+ tion; having omitted the disputed verse, in the authorised version, on the authority of the Greek, from whence it had been removed by Eusebius*?7: but having availed himself of the variations of the Latin translation, in chusing that reading of the disputed verse, which was calculated to support the ecclesiastical doctrine of one substance, as under- stood by the initiated in the christian mysteries***. 235 Vid. supr. p. 545. n. 7°. 236 The strongest distinction is drawn, by St. Jerome, be- tween the copies which were intended for piivate use, and those which were intended for general circulation ; supr. p. 101. h. "5, That the edition of the Catholick Epistles inscribed to Eustochium, was of the former kind, is evident from the cau- tion expressed in the Prologue, supr. n. 734. “ meam senec+ tutem invidorum dentibus corrodendam exponis, qui me falsa+ rium, et corruptorem sacrarum scripturarum, pronunciant.”” *37 Vid. supr. p. 158. n. *™*. p. 161. n. *. 238 §. Hieron. ibid. Prol. in Epp. Cann. ut supr. ‘* Sed Sicut Evangelistas dudum ad veritatis lineam correximus, ita has, proprio ordini, Deo nos juvante, reddidimus. Est enim, ptima earum, Jacobi, una; Petri, duz ; Johamnis, tres; et Juda una: que si ut ab eis digesta sunt, ita quoque ab interpretibus fideliter in Latinum verterentur eloquium, nec ambiguitatem legentibus facerent, nec sermonum sese varietas impugnaret ; allo precipue loco ubi de unitate Trinitatis in prima Johannis Epistola positum legimus. In qua, etiam ab infidelibus [f. fide- libus] translatoribus multum erratum esse ab fidei veritate 002 ( 564 ) . ‘ On summing up the arguments which have beet urged against the text of the heavenly witnesses, I cannot therefore discover any thing which materially affects the authenticity of this verse, either in the omis- sions of the Greek manuscripts, or the silence of the Greek fathers; in the variations of the Latin version, or the allegorical explanations of the Latin pole- micks. The objections hence, raised against. that text, are perfectly consistent with that strong evi- dence in its favour, which is deducible from the in- ternal evidence, and the external testimony of the African Church; which testimony remains to be disposed of, before we can consider it spurious. Nor is there any objection to which the text of the Vulgar Greek is exposed, in other pene which at all detacts from its credit. It has been stated against 1 Joh. v. 7, 8. as read — in the Greek Vulgate, that the objection raised to the grammatical structure of the Palestine text 739, is removed but a step back by the insertion of 1 Joh. lod y. 7: as the same false concord occurs in the con-— text 1 Joh. v. 8. as read in the Byzantine edition : reels ob PapTUeRYTES being there made to agree with | 70 mvevpa, % 70 Uwe. But this objection has been made without any attention to the force of the figure attraction. ‘The only difficulty which embar- somperimus ; trium tantum vocabula, hoc est, ‘ aque, sanguinis et spiritus,’ in sua a@litione ponentes, et Patris, Verbi, ac Spi- ritus’ testimonium omittentes in quo maxime et’ fides catholica_ roboratur, et Patris, ac Filii, ac Spiritus sancti una divinitatis substantia comprobatur.” 3) Vid. supr. p. 257. ~ ( 565 ) rasses the construction lies in. furnishing the first adjectives retis 0: pagrupavtes with substantives ; which is effectually done, by the insertion of ¢ Nari % 6 Aéyos, in the disputed passage. ‘The subse- ‘quent of rests paprugzvres are thence ailracted to the foregoing adjectives, instead of being go~ verned by the subsequent +2 mveipa, x 1d Udwp, In the strictest consistency with the style of St. John and the genius of the Greek language **°, It has ibe further objected to ‘the “By zantine text, that ixxAnciay te @ee Act. xx. 28. has been substi- tuted for ixxanciav 72 Kugiz, in order to accommo- date the phrase to the style of St. Paul; and that parallel examples to 05 tpaveesSn 1 Tim. iii. 16. used in the definitive sense of “ Ae who was manifested,” 2 On the figure attraction, see Mess. de Port Royal Gr. Gram. B. VII. ch. i. p. 319. ed. Lond. 1797. Examples of this figure are not unfrequent in St. J ohn; vid. Joh. xiv. 26. xv. 26. xvi. 13. In the last instance we read, ¢ray 2: EASq fxeivos +3 Theta tis aanSeias: but éxstvoc is here attracted to x 2S2v 2ysivos.. vers. 8. which is governed by 6 TlapaxAnilos EAEUTET Ohh vers. 7. In fact this structure was preferred by the Evange- list, as asserting the Personality of the Holy Spirit, by applying to him, an adjective in the masculine. But without this prepa- ration of the phrase, 1 Joh. v. 7. &c. no grammatical figure will reconcile the false concord of Ibid. 8. as read in the Corrected Text of M. Griesbach, to the genius of the Greek language. A Syllepsis, which is properly a poetical licence, at least a rhetorical figure, and of course wholly beside our present pur- pose, will not answer this end; as the Apestle has spoiled the effect of this figure, in determining the gender of Tv:d42 to be neuter, by prefixing to it the article +2, and. coupling it with. <3 paplupsy In his context: he has thus wholly unfitted it for qualifying the subjoined os poaeglugerles He Te be ( 566 ) occur in Mar. iv. 25. Luc. viii. 18. Rom) viii: 32, But the former observation appears to me to remove one difficulty by the happy expedient of creating a greater; for thus a double inconsistency is substan- tiated—against the Apostle in the first instance, and against the Evangelist in the second, which is no less happily conceived to be corrected by the blun- der of a transcriber***. And the latter observation unfortunately finds not the least support from the adduced examples, as they are essentially different from the passages which they are taken to illus- trate***. 74" Vid. supr, p. 255. n. *, +42 In Mar. iv. 25. Lue- viii. 18. 2% signifies he who, on no other account, than because he who is synonymous with whoever, in English; the latter being the proper meaning of the term in Greek, and a meaning which reduces 1 Tim. iii. 16. to non- sense. In Rom. viii. 32. % is the subjunctive article, and, as such, tied by the particle y: to its antecedent @:i;; as is dix rectly apparent on viewing the text independent of its artificial division into verses, . Tren, Lue. iv. 18.1. Zren. Ib. vi. 26. *. Iren. Ib..ix. 62. ". Iren. Tert. Rom, vy. 14. & Tren. vid. Griesb. nn. in locc. ; (*375 ) influence of the Marcionite and Valentinian here- sies: which, as merely affecting a text essentially different from the Vulgar Greek, leaves the evi- dence, arising in favour of this text from the imme- morial tradition of the Church, unaffected by any objection. In the single instance of the text of the heavenly witnesses, a difficulty arises; as it cannot be denied that this verse has been wholly lost in the Greek Vulgate. But I cannot admit that the integrity of the sacred text is at all affected by this considera- tion. Were the Greek Church the only witness of its integrity, or guardian of its purity, the ob- jection would be of vitalimportance. But in de- ciding the present question, the African Church is entitled toa voice not less than the Byzantine; and on its testimony, we receive the disputed passage. In fact, as the proper witnesses of the inspired Word, are the Greek and Latin Churches; they are adequate witnesses of its integrity. The general corruption of the text received in these Churches, in the vast tract of country, which extends from Armenia to Africa, was utterly impossible. A com- parative view of their testimony, enables us to de- termine the genuine text, in every point of the smallest importance *5*. And after the progressive labour of ages, in which every thing that could in- validate their evidence from the testimony of dis- senting witnesses, has been accumulated, nothing st Vid. eupr- p, 306. , ( 576 ) has been advanced by which it is materially affected. To the mind which is not operated on by these ‘con- siderations, nothing further need be advanced in the shape of argument. THE END. R. and R, Gilbert, Printers, St. John’s Square, London, ms Pee | “i an Oa “eee Date Due wo ios) co Liu o wo N a ta uw 3 Demco 38-297 ae ~ ee ee ee