^m 
 
 ^m^^^ 
 
 ^M  -i^rk 
 
 }-m 
 
 •y.:^ 
 
 f'k 
 
 •^^ 
 
 ■^^  >' 
 
 I 
 
♦#> 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 OF  THE 
 
 Theological   Seminary, 
 
 PRINCETON,    N.  J. 
 Case  D  i  V  i  s  I  c  n . .  X)^-  -^  -^•-*^* 
 
 Shelf  Section  ..^bi  ."i-S i- 
 
 Bool,.  NO' 
 
AN 
 
 INQUIRY 
 
 INTO   THE 
 
 INTEGRITY 
 
 Ot  tHE 
 
 GREEK    VULGATE, 
 
 OR 
 
 RECEIVED  TEXT 
 
 OF    THE 
 
 NEW  TESTAMENT: 
 
 IN    WHICH 
 
 THE   GREEK   MANUSCRIPTS   ARE    NEWLY   CLASSED,    THE    INTEGRITY    0J> 
 
 THE    AUTHORISED    TEXT    VJKDICATED,  AND    THE    VARIOUS 
 
 READINGS  TRACED    TO   THEIR    ORIGIN. 
 
 By    THE    REV. 
 
 FREDERICK  NOLAN, 
 
 A    PRESBYTER    OF    THE    UNITED    CHURCH. 
 
 Origen. 
 
 LONDON: 
 PRINTED   FOR   F.    C.    AND   J.   RIVINGTON^ 
 
 NO.  62,  ST.  Paul's  church-yard; 
 
 }iy  R.  ^  JR.  Gilbert,  St.  John's  Square,  ClerhmwelL 
 
 1815. 
 
TO   THE 
 
 REV.  H.  H.  NORRIS. 
 
 MY  DEAR  SIR3 
 
 IN  inscribing  the  Inquiry  irito 
 the  state  of  the  Hebrew  Text,  the  learned 
 authour  oiFered  a  tribute  to  friendship,  while 
 he  repaid  a  literary  obligation.  As  I  have 
 «ome  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 
 
iv  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  produce. 
 Let  me,  however,  present  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 
 undertaken,  while  it  affords  me  the  oppor- 
 
DEDICATION.  V 
 
 tunity  of  thus  publickly  avowing,  with  what 
 gratitude  and  siucerity  I  profess  myself. 
 
 My  dear  Sir, 
 Your  truly  obliged  friend. 
 
 And  devoted  servant, 
 
 FRED,  NOLAN- 
 
 Cambridge  Street, 
 July  10,  1815. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 THE  notion  of  a  literal  identity  between  thQ 
 present  copies  of  the  inspired  text^  and  the  ori- 
 g'inal  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. 
 
Viii  PREFACE. 
 
 With  a  view  to  the  distinction  which  thus  arises 
 between  verbal  and  doctrinal  errours^  it  has  been 
 usual  to  reply  to  the  objections  raised  to  the  inte- 
 grity of  the  sacred  canon^  from  the  multipHcity  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  affecting  the  sense  of  the  vary- 
 ing passages. 
 
 From  the  principles  thus  laid  down,  the  conclu- 
 sion would  legitimately  follow  in  favour  of  the  doc- 
 trinal 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.  But  this 
 is  a  concession  which,  though  founded  in  reason, 
 and  deducible  from  experiment,  the  objectour  can- 
 not feel  inclined  to  make,  who  proscribes  passages, 
 and  objects  to  chapters,  as  interpolated  in  the 
 Scripture  canon.  It  is  indeed  a  position  so  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, 
 consequently,  are  so  far  from  having  established  the 
 integrity  of  any  particular  text,  that  they  have  un- 
 settled the  foundation  on  which  the  entire  canon  is 
 rested. 
 
PREFACE.  IX 
 
 Such  are  oLjections  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 
 supported^  for  a  period  extending  from  the  apostolical 
 to  the  present  age.  One  of  the  first  positions  laid  down 
 in  his  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 
 interpolated  in  every  part  of  them  for  that  period*. 
 One  of  the  last  consequences  which  that  theoiy 
 tends  to  establish,  is,  that  the  only  remaining  Class 
 of  Text  existing"  in  the  Greek  Vulgate,  and  against 
 which  the  immense  number  of  150,000  various 
 readings  has  been  collected,  has  existed  in  its  pre- 
 sent state  of  corruption  nearly  1 400  years  ^  If  these 
 conclusions  are  unavoidable,  there  seems  to  be  no 
 reservation  by  which  the  doctrinal  integrity  of  the 
 gacred  Scriptures  can  be  saved.  If  the  apostolical 
 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 
 
 »  Vid.  infr.  pp.  334,  335.  nn.  5*  et". 
 *>  Vid  infr.  p.  348,  r^'\ 
 
X  PREFACE. 
 
 laimensc  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. 
 
 The  pernicious  consequences  to  which  those  sys- 
 tems thus  necessarily  lead,  will  at  least  justify  an 
 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  re- 
 mains to  be  proved  in  those  theories,  before  we 
 can  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,  it  is  fully  conceded  that  the 
 tradition,  however  it  might  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,  if  not 
 granted,  may  be  easily  demonstrated.  As  this  text 
 is  consequently  referred  to  an  age,  of  which  we  retain 
 the  fullest  and  most  circumstantial  accounts "" ;  we  re- 
 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.  p.  4^27.  n.  *, 
 
PREFACE.  3a 
 
 from  either  supposition^  which  requires  a  solution, 
 before  we  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- 
 sumed, 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  implied  in  the  very 
 nature  of  that  traditionary  evidence  on  which  the 
 text  is  supported  ^  that,  however  the  tradition  might 
 have  been  suspended  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,  349, 
 
Xii  PREFACE, 
 
 On  these  gTOunds  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 
 embaiTassed  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  gi'eatest  difficulty  which  arose,  from  the  vari- 
 eties in  the  copies  of  the  original  text,  and  of  the 
 translations  which  differ  from  the  Greek  Vulgate. 
 
 To  this  point,  of  consequence,  his  first  attention  is 
 turned ;  and  it  forms  the  subject  of  the  first  section 
 of  the  following  Inquiry.  He  has  thence  endea- 
 \oured  to  show,  that  the  coincidence  between  the 
 Eastern  and  Western  texts,  on  which  the  credit  of 
 the  Corrected  Edition  is  rested,  must  be  attributed 
 to  the  influence  of  Eusebius's  revisal,  which  was 
 published  under  the  auspices  of  the  Eniperour  Con- 
 slantine. 
 
PREFACE,  Xlii 
 
 Thus  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  sub- 
 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  concurring  or  relative 
 testimony  of  those  witnesses,  the  general  and  doc- 
 trinal 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  anti- 
 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  Text,  into  which  the  Greek 
 
Manuscripts  are  distributed^  have  originated,  froth 
 a  coiTuption  of  the  vulgar  edition.  The  whole  of 
 the  diversities  in  those  manuscripts  are  traced  i& 
 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  verbai 
 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 
 in  the  tradition,  by  which  the  former  text  is  sup- 
 ported, is  admitted  to  have  taken  place ;  when  the 
 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,  XV 
 
 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 
 t>f  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- 
 tmted. 
 
 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  of  the  present  age,  how- 
 ever they  reject  Christ's  divinity,  are  fully  disposed 
 to  admit  his  humanity.     But  in  the  earlier  ages  the 
 
XVI  PREFACE. 
 
 case  was  precisely  reversed ;  the  generality  of  llere* 
 ticks  having  easily  admitted  the  divinity  of  our  Lord, 
 while  they  denied  his  humanity.  Those  seets>  from 
 whose  opinions  the  notion  of  heresy  was  defined', 
 conceived^  that  Christ  descended  from  heaven  in  the 
 reign  of  Tiberius  Caesar,  and  having  merely  as- 
 sumed the  appearance  of  a  man,  entered  on  his 
 ministry  in  Judaea^.  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, 
 iR  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- 
 
 ^  Vid.  infr.  p.  466.  n.  ^\ 
 -  Vid.  infr.  p.  463.  n.  ^°. 
 
 Vid.  infr.  p.  468.  sqq.  conf.  p.  475,  n.  \  p.  495.  n.  ^^ 
 
 Vid.  infr.  d.  498.  n.  ^^ 
 
 »  Vid.  infr.  p.  498.  n. 
 
PREFACE.  Xvii 
 
 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.  Alh'x,  Rem.  on  Ant  Ch.  of  Piedmont,  ch.  i.  p.  I, 
 
 b 
 
Xviii  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  t)f  the  primitive 
 church,  that  the  celebrated  text  of  the  heavenly  wit- 
 nesses was  adopted  in  the  version  which  prevailed 
 in  the  Latin  Clmrch,  previously  to  the  introduction 
 of  the  modern  Vulgate  \ 
 
 *  Of  the  old  versions  wliich  have  been  published  in  French, 
 two  were  made  by  the  Waldenses ;  vid.  Le  Long.  Bibl.  Sacr, 
 Tom.  I.  p.  31 3.  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 ;  *'  Au 
 Lyon,  l*an  de  grace  1521."  The  following  is  the  reading  of 
 1  Jch.  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  investigated, 
 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  reads 
 *'  le  filz"  for  "  Verbum.'*  (2.)  It  agrees  in  tliis  reading  with 
 an  antient  Confession  of  Faith,  used  by  the  Waldenses.  Leger. 
 Hi3t.  Gen,  des  Eglis.  Vaudois,  P.  I.  ch.  viii.  p.  50.  ed.  Leyd. 
 1669.  *'  Eschant,  v,  de  la  Doctrine  des  Vmidois,  contenant 
 la  fideie  traduction  de  PExposition  qu'ils  ont  donne  au  Sym- 
 bole  des  Apotres — ou  ils  en  prouvent  tous  les  Articles  par 
 passages  expres  de  la  S.  Ecriture. — *  Lequel  Dieu  est  un  Tri- 
 nite,  comme  d  est  ecrit  en  la  Loy,  '  O  Israel  ecoute,'  &c. — 
 Et  iSk  Jean^  *  II  y  en  a  trois  qui  rendent  tmoignage  au  ciel. 
 
,  PREFACE*  yaSL 
 
 The  result  of  the  Inquiry,  which  has  been  prose- 
 cuted through  these  subjects,  the  authour  hoped  to 
 have  taken  an  earUer  opportunity  of  laying  before 
 
 le  Pere,  le  Fits,  et  le  S.  Esprit,  et  ces  trots  soni  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 
 considerations  seem  adequate  to  evince,  that  it  existed  in 
 the  Latin  Version  revised  by  St.  Eusebius  of  Verceli,  who 
 published  the  old  translation  which  prevailed  in  the  Italick 
 Diocese.  (1.)  In  reading  "  Filius,"  it  agrees  with  Tertul- 
 lian  and  Cyprian,  against  the  common  testimony  of  the  Mo- 
 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.  ^^  (3.)  The  French  Version 
 agrees  with  the  old  Italick  in  possessing  other  readings  derived 
 from  the  same  source :  in  the  Lord's  Prayer,  v/e  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  Aria^  evasion  of  the  passage  was  equally  obviated.  For 
 this  phrase  furnished  some  countenance  to  the  notion  of  those 
 Jiereticks  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 
 Vercellen.vis ;  but  that  the  peculiar  reading  of  this  text,  which 
 is  found  in  the  French  Version,  and  which  has  excited  M.  Per- 
 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,  M©rl.  ub. 
 supr.  p.  184. 
 
 b3 
 
XX  I»REFACE. 
 
 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  obhged  to  devote  to  the  Boyle's  Lecture, 
 which  he  has  been  appointed  to  preachy  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  filling  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  WHlCEt 
 IT   IS   SUPPORTED,    p.  1. 
 
 Number  of  various  readings,  p.  2.  Methods  proposed  for  de- 
 ciding the  genuine  and  spurious,  p.  2.  Dr.  Bentley's  scheftie, 
 for  determining  the  true  text  by  the  Latin  Vulgate,  p.  S* 
 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  Gra;co-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.  25. — of  Joh. 
 viii.  1—11.  p.  37.— 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.  4i. 
 
XxJl  CONTENTS. 
 
 SECT,  ir, 
 
 NEW  CLASSIFICATION   OF    THE   GREEK   MSS.  p.   4^, 
 
 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 
 
 .  from  those  coincidences,  p.  70.  Those  Classes  of  text  as  old 
 as  the  fourth  centuiy,  p.  70. — and  known  to  St.  Jerome,  p. 
 72.  Investigation  of  the  first  Class,  or  Egyptian  text,  p.  73. 
 •—of  the  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,  p.  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.  Matthaei  and 
 Griesbach's,  p.  107.    Conclusion,  p.  109. 
 
 SECT.  III. 
 
 ON  THE  CHOICE  OF   A   PARTICULAR   CLASS   OF   TEXT,   p.  110. 
 
 Ecclesiastical  tradition  the  proper  test  of  the  integrity  of  the 
 text,  p.  110.  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 
 
xxni 
 
 the  Eastern  Church  in  favour  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  th^  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.  14-1.— 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 
 eupported  by  his  authority,  p.  170.     Method  adopted  by  St. 
 Eusebius  in  forming  his  text,  p.  173.     Its  testimony  supports 
 •  the  Byzantine  text,  p.  176.— destroys  the  authority  of  the 
 Eg>Ttian,  p.  178.     Investigation  of  the  primitive  version  of 
 the  Italick,  p.  181.     Internal  evidence  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.  Matthaei's  and  M,   Griesbach's,  p.  188.    Conclusion, 
 p.  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  apostolical  age,  p.  193.— 
 
XXlv  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  cooi 
 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.  224.— and  the  La- 
 tin Vulgate,  p.  225.     Recapitulation  of  the  foregoing  'evi- 
 dence,  p.  227.     Integrity   of  the   text  defended,   p.  229. 
 What  books  questioned,  p.  2^0.     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.  238.     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  tenets  of  the  heresies 
 which  they  opposed;  of  the  Nicolaitans,  p.  264.— of  the  Ce- 
 rinthians,  p.  ^66.    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- 
 
duced,  p.  293.  Circumstances  strengthening  the  testimony 
 of  the  Latin  Church  in  favour  of  1  Joh*  v.  7.  p.  294.  General 
 conclusion  on  the  integrity  of  the  Greek  Vulgate^  p.  305. 
 
 SECT.  V. 
 
 ON  tHE  VERBAL  INTfiGRITY  Of  THE  RECEIVED  TEXT,  p.  309. 
 
 Integrity  of  the  Sacred  Text  not  affected  by  literal  efrours,  p. 
 309.  Instanced  in  the  Septuagint,  p»  310.  Verbal  integrity 
 of  the  Received  Text  defensible)  p.  313.— exposed  to  objec- 
 tions arising  from  M.  Griesbach's  system,  p.  314.  Principles 
 of  his  scheme,  p.  315.  His  rules  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.  321.— to  the  Versions  quoted,  p.  322.— to  the  Fa- 
 thers adduced,  p.  325.  Pernicious  consequences  to  which 
 this  system  leads,  p.  333.  New  system  proposed,  p.  337. 
 Oldest  witnesses  of  the  Verbal  Integrity,  the  primitive  Italick 
 ami  Syriack  versions,  p.  338.— not  corrupted  by  each  other, 
 p.  340»  The  Italick  not  influenced  by  the  Greek  Vulgate, 
 p.  342.— nor  the  Syriack,  p.  343.  Their  testimony  separate, 
 p,  34,7.— supported  by  tradition,  p.  348.— by  Manuscripts, 
 p.  350i— 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  pf  doctrinal  texts,  p.  371.--» 
 exemplified,  p.  372.  Summary  conclusion,  p.  377.  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  «h{vrge  «f  corruption,  p.  S9L— of  the  prknitive  Sy- 
 
XXvi  CONTENTS. 
 
 riack  from  tlic  same  charge,  p.  401.  General  deductlong 
 from  the  testimony  of  those  witnesses  in  favour  of  the  Greek 
 Vulgate,  p.  409.  Objections  urged  against  the  revisers  of 
 the  Received  Text,  p.41().~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. 
 
 SECT.  VI. 
 
 out    THE  CORRUPTION   OF    THE   EGYPTIAN   AND   PALESTINE 
 
 TpxTS,  p.  427. 
 
 Charge  of  corruption  not  established  against  the  Byzantine  Text, 
 p.  427. — but  easily  substantiated  against  the  Egyptian  and 
 Palestine,  p.  429.  The  Sacred  Text  not  generally  corrupted 
 before  Origen's  times,  p.  430. — subsequently  corrupted,  p. 
 431.  Object  of  Hesychius  and  Lucianus  in  forming  their 
 revisals,  p.  432.  Lucianus's  mode  of  revising,  p.  434.  Ac- 
 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  vrorks,  p.  466. — 
 and  thence  on  the  texts  prevalent  in  the  Egyptian,  Palestine, 
 and  Italick  dioceses,  p.  468.  Particular  texts  thus  corrupted, 
 p.  470.  Palestine  text  influenced  by  the  Marcionite  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. 
 I  Tim.  iii.  16.  1  Joh.  v.  7.  stated,  p.  511. — from  the  testi-r 
 raony  of  Manuscripts,  p.  512, — of  Versions  and  Fathers,  p. 
 
CON-TENTS.  XXVli 
 
 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.  v.  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. — from  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.  S ummary  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, 
 
COHRIGENDA. 
 
 P,  53.  1. 1.  for  nnd,  r.  or.  P.  106. 1.  29.  for  Fourth,  r.  Thirc!.  P.  ffil. 
 3.  24.  n/i^r  p.  r.  156.  P.  163.  1.  15.  for  iv.  r.  ii.  P.  170.  1.  24.  offer  p.  r, 
 152.  P.  174.  1. 17.  for  manuscripts,  r.  manuscript.  P.  212.  1.  31  for  tor, 
 y.  from.  P.  214.  1.  22,  for  riiU,  r.  -jthlct.  P.  239.  1. 31.  and  P.  241. 1.  30. 
 for  9—11.  r.  9—20.  P.  313.  1.  5.  for  dispute,  r.  assert.  P.  316.  1.  7.  for 
 T*rsion,  r.  versions.  P,  319.  J.  13.  for  renders,  r.  render.  P.  326.  I.  28. 
 after  diaboloi  r.  Tert.  P.  348.  I.  26.  for  H  I,  r.  H.  S.  P.  369.  J.  7.  for 
 are  not  found,  r.  might  not  have  existed.  P.  375. 1.  ult./or  w,  r.  Sv.  P.  467. 
 ].  1 1.  for  oh  the,  r.  on  them.  P.  499.  I.  5.  for  JiXofrsf,  r.  SiXevtsq.  P.  515- 
 1.  27.  del.  vid,    P.  521.  K  9.  for  a,  K  r,  u.  K    P.  526.  1.  24.  for  s-w^/t^nr, 
 
SECTION  I^ 
 
 .Although  the  art  of  printing  was  applied,  at  an 
 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  being  attempted,  until  a  comparatively  late 
 period.  At  nearly  a  century  subsequent  to  the  in-* 
 vention  of  printing,  the  Complutensian  Polyglot  was 
 Undertaken,  under  the  patronage  of  Cardinal  Xi- 
 menes,  which  contained  the  first  printed  copy  of 
 the  Greek  Testament.  From  the  edition  which  was 
 then  prepared  for  pubhcation,  the  subsequent  edi- 
 tours  varied  little.  Erasmus,  who  anticipated  the 
 publication  of  this  work  by  his  third  edition,  formed 
 his  fourth  on  similar  principles  ;  Stephens  and  Beza 
 adopted  his  text  with  scarcely  any  variation  ;  and 
 Elzevir,  in  whose  edition  the  Received  Text  is 
 properly  contained,  very  closely  followed  the  steps 
 of  his  learned  predecessours '. 
 
 '  Griesb.  Ptoleg.  in  Nov.  Test.  sect.  iv.  p.  xxxiii.  "  Edi- 
 tiones  recentiores  sequuntur  Elzevirianam,  haec  compilata  est  ex 
 editionibus  Bezae  et  Stephani  tertia.  Beza  itidem  expressit  Ste- 
 phanicam  tertiam,  nonnullis  tamen  pro  lubitu  fere  ac  absque 
 
(   s   ) 
 
 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  ;  having  collated  fif- 
 teen manuscripts,  besides  the  Complutensian  ^'edi- 
 tion, for  the  purpose  of  rendering  his  text  more 
 pure  and  perfect.  In  the  editioiis  of  Curcellaeus 
 and  Bishop  Fell,  tlie  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- 
 bours of  subsequent  collators  are  asserted  to  have 
 augmented  the  number  with  more  than  an  hundred- 
 thousand  ;  thougli  on  what  grounds  I  am  not  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  that  a  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  manuscripts  which 
 are  chiefly  deserving  of  credit,  in  ascertaining  the 
 
 iJonea  aiitontate  mutaLis  ;  Stepliani  tcrtfa  prusse  sequltur  Eras- 
 .inicam  quintam,  paucissimis  tamen  locis  et  Apocalypsi  excep- 
 118,  ubi  Coraplutensem  Erasmicse  prjEtulit^'* 
 
(    3    ) 
 
 genuine  text  of  the  sacred  canon.  The  moi^t 
 ing-enious  and  important  of  these  expedients  is  de- 
 cidedly that  suggested  in  the  classification  of  manu- 
 scripts which  originated  with  the  German  critlcks  ; 
 which  had  been  suggested  by  MM.  Bengel  and 
 ^.'•feler^  but  reduced  to  practice  by  the  learned  and 
 accurate  M.  Griesbach  '^. 
 
 It  is  not  to  be  conceived  that  the  original  edltours 
 of  the  Nev/  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.  Prsef.  Nov.  Test.  p.  5.  *'  Ego  vero  doctis  nonnul- 
 lis  Bengelii  observationibus  admonitus  earn  viam  quam  Sem- 
 lerus  ingredi  cceperat,  quamque  diuturno  studio  edoctus  unice 
 veram  esse  perspexeram,  longius  et  ad  metam  usque  persequi 
 me  debere  autumabam." 
 
 ^  Dr.  Bentley's  plan  is  thus  briefly  stated  in  one  of  his  let- 
 ters ;  p.  ^37.  ed.  Lend.  1807.  "  Abeut  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  a  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." 
 
 b3 
 
(  *  ) 
 
 ^lie  Vulgate,  avid  to  foiiii  a  Corrected  Text^  which 
 should  iiterally  accord  with  that  translation  as  eoY- 
 rected  by  the  hand  of  St.  Jerome, 
 
 But  these  schemes  have  been  surpassed  and  super- 
 seded by  the  more  highly  laboured  system  of  M, 
 Griesbach.  His  project  for  classing'  the  Gr^p^ 
 manuscripts,  in  order  to  form  a  more  correct  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  upon  that  of  Origen  who  flou- 
 rished in  the  thirds  Instead  of  the  existence  of 
 tv/o  species  of  textj  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  prevailed  ^. 
 According'  to  this  division,  he  has  formed  his  classi- 
 fication of  manuscripts,  which  he  consequently  dis- 
 tributes into  three  kinds.  A  choice  among  their 
 respective  texts  he  determines  by  the  authority  of 
 Origen  ^ :  whose  testiinony  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  fii- 
 ther,  in  order  to  discover  the  text  which  was  used  by  him. 
 After  describing  this  process  he  adds,  Symboll.  Critt.  Tom.  L 
 p.  Ixxvii.  "  Hoc  igitur  exemplar  nobis  instar  est  fragmenta- 
 rum  illius  ipsius  codicis  quern  Origenes  usurpavit/' 
 
 5  Griesb.  Proleg.  in  Nov.  Test.  p.  Ixxiii. 
 
 ^  Id.  Symbb.  Critt.  passim. 
 
(  5  ) 
 
 antients^  bestowed  upon  biblical  criticism.  Find- 
 ing a  striking  coincidence  to  exist  between  his  scrip- 
 ture quotations  and  the  celebrated  manuscript 
 broug'lit  from  Alexandria^  which  was  the  scene  of 
 Orig-en's  literary  labours^  he  thence  determines  the 
 manuscripts^  which  belong  to  that  class  which  he 
 d?stingaiishes  as  the  Alexandrine  ^.  Tlie  manu- 
 scriptSj  which  dilfer  from  this  class,  and  coincide, 
 in  their  characteristick  peculiarities,  with  thosfe 
 which  have  been  directly  imported  to  us  from  Con- 
 stantinople, he  distinguishes  as  the  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  authority  of  a  few  of  these 
 outweighing  in  his  estimation  that  of  a  multitude  of 
 the  Byzantine  ^.  The  peculiar  readings  which  he 
 selects  from  the  manuscripts  of  this  class,  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 
 
 ^  Id.  ibid.  p.  clxiv.  seq. 
 
 ^  Id.  Proleg.  in  Nov.  Test.  Ixxil. 
 
 9  Id.  ib.  p.  Ixix.  Itaque  textus  ipslus  potius  quara  librarii 
 ^tas  indaganda  est.  Haec  vero  judicatur  e  crebro  consensu 
 ^um  aliis  testibus,  {in  prhuis  cum  versionibus  et  Patribus)  d^ 
 <juorum  aetata  nobis  constat,  et  e  copia  talium  lectionum,"  tire. 
 
(     <3     ) 
 
 the  authority  of  Origen  he  however  ascribes  a  para- 
 mount weighty  taking-  it  as  the  standard  by  wliich 
 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 
 <3orrected  Text  of  the  New  Testament. 
 
 The  necessary  result  of  this  process,  as  obviously 
 proving  the  existence  of  a  num.ber  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  proscribing 
 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  involved.  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 
 
(     7    ) 
 
 command  our  respect.  Such  are  concessions  which 
 1  frankly  make  to  M.  Gricsbach^  while  I  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  g-eneral  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 
 to  any  system  of  classification,  whenever  a  better 
 is  devised. 
 
 But  these  obsei*vations  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 
 luoment :  for  Origen^  like  every  divine,  in  quoting 
 
(  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  it  is  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  possibility  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  churchy 
 
 '°  jEuseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  iii.  p.  260. 1. 15.  p.  261, 
 J.  15. 
 
 "  As  Origen  was  excommunicate^  by  Demetrius,  Bishop  of 
 Alexandria,  Pamphil.  ap.  Phot.  Biblioth.  n.  cxviii.  and  wa^ 
 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? 
 jier  circumstances  which  could  be  grateful  to  his  feelings.  Mucl^ 
 of  this  sad  and  disgraceful  part  of  his  history  will  not  bear  the 
 recital ;  the  following  facts  may  be  stated  on  the  authority  of 
 
(    9    ) 
 in  which  his  principles  were   execrated,,    and  liis 
 
 Cedrenus  and  Suidas;  Cedren.  Hist.  Compend.  P.  I.  p.  254. 
 d.  ap.  Scripp.  Byzantt,   Par.  1647. — tTTEt    ^l  tSTIo   Ka.^uiJ.ohoynat 
 
 rris  iKyCkriaioLS  liooa'bin.  rY,v  AXi^xv^^eiav  ^l  Xi'ttuv  ^kx,  to  oveiooi  rriV 
 'la^cciuv  xareAa/Ssy.  Conf.  Suid.  V.  Origen.  Tom.  II.  p.  166.  1.  44. 
 ed.  Cant.  1705.  MM.  Huet  and  Du  Pin  are  consequently 
 right  in  asserting  that  he  never  returned  to  Alexandria  ;  Vid. 
 Origenian.  Lib  I.  cap.  ii.  §  xiii.  p.  l^.  b.  ed.  Rotliom.  1668. 
 Nouv.  Biblioth.  des  Aiit.  Eccles.  Tom.  II.  p.  379.  ed.  Par. 
 168S.  The  opinion  delivered  by  the  learned  M.  de  Valois,  in 
 his  notes  to  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  xxxiii.  n.  4.  p. 
 287.  ed.  Cant,  is  perfectly  reconcilable  with  this  representation. 
 He  mentions  two  sentences  as  having  be^  pronounced  against 
 Origen;  one  of  excommunication,  and  another  of  depriviition : 
 the  latter  only  he  considered  void,  which  does  not  affect  the 
 point  in  question. 
 
 The  Alexandrine  church  during  the  time  that  Origen  flou- 
 nshed,  was  governed  by  Demetrius,  Heraclas,  and  Dionysius ; 
 as  may  be  collected  from  Euseb.  ibid.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  xxxix.  p. 
 294. 1. 18.  Lib.  VIL  cap.  i.  p.  321. 1.  16.— compared  with  Lib.  V. 
 cap.  xxii.p.241.1.7.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  xxvi.  p.  292.1. 12.  cap.xxxv.p. 
 298. 1.  23.  The  first  of  those  bishops  denounced  him  excommuni- 
 cate ;  and  the  second  was  avowedly  hi.s  enemy:  Vid.  infr.  n,  **. 
 conf.  Huet.  Origenian.  ibid,  p .  1 4.  e.  M.  Huet  indeed  conceives 
 that  Dionysius  indulged  a  more  favourable  disposition  towards 
 him ;  but  on  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  a  letter  to  him  on  the  subject  of  martyrdom.  Euseb. 
 ibid.  cap.  xlvi.  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  knoAvn  severity  of 
 Dionysius  on  the  subject  of  apostacy,  seems  to  place  the  matter  out 
 jpf  dispute;  he  obstinately  refused  to  receive  persons  who  had  been 
 
(  10  ) 
 writings  condemned'" :  and  the  principal  part  of 
 his  commentaries  were  pubhshed  in  Palestine'^, 
 instead  of  Alexandria.  From  the  former  circum- 
 stance we  may  infer,  that  in  adoptmg  a  text,  the 
 Alexandrine  church  was  not  influenced  by  him; 
 from  the  latter,  that,  on  the  same  subject,    he  was 
 
 guilty  of  this  sin,  until  tiiey  were  reduced  to  the  last  agonies 
 of  death;  Euseb.  ibid.  cap.  xllv.  p.  317.  1.  9.  We  must  there^ 
 fore  conclude  with  MM.  Huet  and  Du  Pin,  that  Origen  ne- 
 ver returned  to  Alexandria,  during  the  administration  of  those 
 Bishops :  and  consequently  never  during  his  life-time. 
 
 The  penitential  letter  which  he  addressed  to  Fabianus,  (not 
 long  previously  to  the  time  of  his  death,  as  I  collect  from  Eu- 
 sebius,  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  xxxvi.  p.  299.  1.  5,  23.  Lib. 
 VIL  cap.  i.  p.  322. 1. 1. )  seems  to  evince  that  he  was  in  no  higher 
 repute  at  Rome  than  Alexandria.  S.  Hieron.  ad  Pammac.  et 
 Ocean.  Ep.  Ixv.  cap.  iv.Tom.ii.  p.  231.  ed.  Vict.  *'  IpseOrigenes 
 in  Epistola  quam  scribit  ad  Fabianum,RomanaeurbIsEpiscopum, 
 peenitcntiam  agit,  cur  talia  scrlpserit ;  et  causae  temeritatis  in  Am* 
 brosium  refert,  quod  secreta  edita  in  publicum  protulerit.'* 
 
 ^^  Epist.  Synod.  Alexandrin.  ap.  Baluz.  Nov.  Collect.  ConcilU 
 
 Tom.  I    col.  100-        Ovloq  roivvv  o  7r^oK'/\u.tvo<;    Q,^iysvv);,   tta^a.'Trsp  to 
 
 'CTDia^v'tBfo<;  x(H(iolovv}^i)q  vTTo  r^i  Kocvoiny.^.;  T£  Koci  ^Auq  x^^P°^  a^»30^v?c, 
 elvtlo  u^l(0(jLoe,  rov  7rp£<T^vlipii  •4/^^ol'  re  y.ai  (/.ovov.  KaQaTrep  xat  to 
 Tv5?  a7ro^o^'^?  E^XEV  0  KXETrir,;  xat  'mpo^olr.q  Idea?.  'A;:|a/A£i'8  yap 
 avlov  ^Xac(p-^ixii<;  'jat?.ia;  ojjaXsTv,  o  kxI'  ktTvo  ^ay.apiTv35  Hp«xA«$  o 
 ETTicy-OTTO?,  u)^  a,folr,p  v.ai  aixTTiXupyoq  (ptXaA3^S)i?  Tov  T^j  tKuXv^aiai 
 ywckS  rvyy^avav,  \k  fjLiJH  rod  kccXov  aWa  tovtov  t^inXiv,  u<;  rov  •Kov^fn 
 {i^otr>s  Ua,  a\rj^u;  kuI  ^£t'  oX'iyx  Uttbo-uv  Iv  Slo?  eTrt  inv  yh  v^ocv^Bev  uq 
 ua-rpcc7rri,y.ce,^a,7rE(i  orSTB  TcxaUp  o  ^iocBoXoiy  Sv/xoy  'SJtluv  tijoXXe  xa*  ^emov 
 xcclac  tJj?  uXn^tiac,  Itt)  tt.v  xaXsiyJvv^v  UaXxi-rmv  X&'pa"  titXivat'  xa* 
 jtaSi^a?  Iv  TJ3  Kon^a-pim  (Jt^tlpovoXei,  —  anoletvov  ri  xai  /AsAava  ^'^H  \ov 
 l^'ixiff'ctq  ly.s7<7B  lyypcc<p0(;  ccTrilvTruaa.io. 
 
 '3  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  VL  cap.  xxi.  p.  287. 1.  17.   cap, 
 xxiv.  p.  288. 1.  10,  &c. 
 
(    n    ) 
 
 tiot  influenced  by  it ;  but  followed  tbe  copies  of  the 
 country  in  which  his  writing's  were  published  and 
 dispersed.  And  this  deduction  is  confirmed  in  nu 
 extraordinary  manner  by  internal  and  collateral  evi* 
 dence.  We  are  assured^  on  the  highest  authority, 
 that  while  Palestine  adopted  the  text  of  Orig-en, 
 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  contairjs  a  complete  copy  of  the 
 version  of  the  Septuagint^  wiiich,  it  is  well  known, 
 Origen  corrected,  and  inserted  in  his  Hexapla; 
 yet  while  a  nearly  perfect  copy  of  his  revisal  is  pre- 
 served in  the  Vatican  manuscript,  it  is  found  to  be 
 diifei'ent  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  pf  the 
 Alexandrian  text.  At  an  early  period  he  settled  at 
 Cesarea  in  Palestine  '^ :  here  he  was  ordained  pres- 
 
 '*  S.Hieron.aclv.Ruffin.Lib.n.cap.viii.Tom.II.p.249.  *' Al- 
 exandria  et  JEgyptus  in  Septuaginta  suis  Hesijchium  laudnt  auc- 
 torem.  Constantinopolis  usque  ad  Antiochiam  Luciani  martyrls 
 exemplaria  probat.  mediae  inter  has  Provincias,  Palccstinos  co- 
 dices legunf,  quos  ab  Origine  elaboratos,  Eusebius  et  Pamphilus 
 vulgaverunty  totusque  orbis  inter  se  trifaria  varietate  compug- 
 nat.  Et  certe  Origenes  non  solum  exempla  coniposuit  quatuor 
 editionum,  e  regione  singula  verba  describens,  &c. 
 
 *'  Birch.  Prpleg.  in  Nov,  Test.  p.  xix.  Blanchin.  Evangel. 
 Quadr.  P.  I.  f.  cdxcvii. 
 
 '^  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  xxvi.   p.   292.    "eIoc 
 
(     12    ) 
 
 byter,  and  had  a  special  license  to  expound  the 
 scriptures  '^ :  and  here  the  principal  part  of  his 
 commentaries  were  composed  and  published'^; 
 which  were  subsequently  collected  by  Pamphilus 
 and  Eusebius  his  professed  apologists  and  imitators^ 
 and  deposited  in  the  library  of  Gesarea  '^.  By  those 
 works  the  latter  extraordinary  person^  when  bishop 
 of  tiiat  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^  Phoeniciaj  Achaia^,  and  Arabia  *^. 
 
 v^oifxsvoq  H.  T.  i.  This  event  is  fixed  by  M.  Huet  to  A.D.  231» 
 Origenian.  Lib.  I.  cap.  ii.  §  xiii.  p.  14.  b. 
 
 '^  Euseb.  ibid.  cap.  xxiii.  p.  287.  1.  23. — Tr^ia-^vTs^ia  x^K'^' 
 
 S'satav    \v   YLccia-ccpsisc   ircoc;   tuv   tjjoe    Itti crKQ'rcoJv    [^o    ^oiyiwic"^  uvx^Ufx.' 
 
 ^xvn.     Id.  ibid.  cap.  xxvii.  p.  292.  1.  25.     'O  t-^;  'ispoaoXtJ^wi/ 
 
 A);  i7ro(;  liTiiiv  'nxpoa-avB^ovrsq  ocvtco  o\a  di^cx.aaoc'hui,  [/.ova  Tct  t^?  tuv 
 ^eiuv   ypct,(puv    Ip/x^jytias    nat   tec  T^oiira.  t2  exxXviaiUfixS  X6y8  'Sifocrliw 
 
 *^  Id.  ib.  cap.  xxxii.  p.  296. 1.  4. 
 
 *^  Id.  ibid.  p.  296.  1.  15.  seq. 
 
 *^  Id.  ibid.  conf.  mi.  '"^  and  *^  ut  supr.  * 
 
 ^'  Id.  Vit.  Constantin.  Lib.  III.  cap,  xxxvi.  p.  646.  1. 13—37. 
 conf.  n.  ^  ut  supr. 
 
 "  Hieron.  ap.  llufRn.  in  Apol.  "  Damnatur  a  Demetrio 
 Episcopo.  Exceptis  Palaestinae,  et  Arabia3,  et  Phoenices,  atque 
 Achaiae  sacerdotibus,    in  damnationem   ejus    consentit    orbis. 
 
 Roma  ipsa  contra  hunc  cogit  senatum Conf.  Baluz.  Nov, 
 
 Col,  Concill.  ut.  supr.  col  99—102. 
 
(     13    ) 
 
 From  the  authority  of  Origeii,  little  support  can 
 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  w^estern  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 
 tlie  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 
 in  conception  ;  and  it  has  been  confirmed  by  Prof. 
 Michaelis  ^'^,  since  it  has  been  formed.     The  latter 
 
 *5  Simon  Hist.  Crit.  des  Vers.  chap.  xv.  p.  187.  Comme 
 cette  traduction  [la  Version  Syriaquej  est  tres-ancienne,  il 
 n'est  pas  suprenant,  qu'elle  s'accord  aussi  quelquefois  avec  le 
 manuscrit  de  Cambridge,  et  par  consequent  avec  Vllalique, 
 Mais  on  pent  dire  en  general,  qu'elle  s 'accord  plus  souvent 
 avec  les  exemplalres  Grccs  sur  lesquels  St.  Jerome  retoucha 
 I'anciennc  Vulgate,  qu'  avec  ceux  aux  quels  elle  etoit  conforme. 
 
 ^*  Introd.  to  New  Test,  by  Dr.  Marsh,  V^ol.  II.  p.  i.  ch.  vif. 
 sect.  V.  p.  27» 
 
C    14   ) 
 
 profound  orientalist  has  formed  -those  deductiongy 
 which  have  been  already  made^  from  the  confor- 
 ntity  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- 
 tem, which  is  so  broad  and  deep,  as  not  to  be  shaken 
 by  the  destruction  of  its  outworks.  If  it  is  suscep- 
 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  pubhcation  of  the  sacred 
 text,  by  the  inspired  writers. 
 
 And  on  descendins:  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  aUiance 
 of  a  recent  date.  For  this  affinity  was  not  dis- 
 coverable in  the  Itahck  version  of  St  Jerome's  days. 
 At  the  command  of  Pope  Damasus,  he  undertook 
 the  revisal  of  the  Latin  translation,  on  account  of 
 
 *^  Id.  ibid.  p.  28.  "  A  reading  therefore  supported  by  tlie 
 connected  authority  of  the  Si/riac^  the  Coptic,  and  the  Latin 
 versions,  by  a  quotation  qfOrigen,  and  the  antient  Greek  manu- 
 scripts oi  the  Alexandrine  and  Western  editionSy  is  not  only  of 
 great  importance,  but  may  in  general  be  regarded  as  genuine^* 
 
(    15    ) 
 
 its  deviation  from  the  original  *^.  This  undertaking 
 alone  would  sufficiently  declare  St.  Jerome's  opinion 
 of  this  dissimilarity,  which  he  undertook  to  remedy  ; 
 if  he  had  not  in  numerous  places  pointed  it  out  ^^. 
 And  his  declarations  are  fully  supported  by  the  tes- 
 timony of  St.  Augustine  ^^  who  was  no  friend  to 
 innovation,  and  who  to  the  last  declined  using  the 
 version  retouched  by  St.  Jerome. 
 
 *^  S.  Hier.  Marcel.  Ep.  cii,  Tom.  11.  p.  336.     «  Ne  nos 
 
 superbiae  ut  facere  solent,    arguant,    ita  responsum  habeant ; 
 
 non  adeo  me  hebetis  fuisse  cordis,   et    tarn    crassae    rusticita- 
 
 tls, — ut  aliquid  de   Dominicis  verbis  aut  corrigendum  putave- 
 
 rimiis,  aut  non  divinitus  inspiratum,   sed  Latlnorum  codiaim 
 
 t'itiositatcyn  quse  ex  diversitate  librorum  omnium  cowprobatiir^ 
 
 ad  Graecam  originem  unde  et    ipsi   translata   non   denegant, 
 
 voluisse  revocare.'*     Conf.  Damas,  Epist.  cxxiii.  Tom,  III.  p. 
 
 349.     "  Ad  versus  quara  invidiam  duplex  "causa  me  consola- 
 
 tur  r  quod  et  tu  qui  summiis  sacerdos  esy  Jieri  jubes  :    et  verum 
 
 non  esse  quod   varied    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  quasrenda  de  pluribus :  cur 
 
 cur  non  ad  Graecam  originem  revertentes,  ea  quae  vel  a  mtiosis 
 
 interpretibus  male  reddita,  vel  a  presumptoribus  imperitis  emeri' 
 
 data  perversiiis,  vel  a  librariis  dormitantibus  aut  addita  sunt  ant, 
 
 mutatay  corrigimus. — De  Novo  nunc  loquor  Testamento,  quod 
 
 Graicum  esse  non  dubium  est. — Hoc  certe  cum  in  nostra  sermone 
 
 discordatf  et  in  diversos  rivulorum  tramites  ducit,   uno  de  fonte 
 
 quaerendum  est." 
 
 ^^  Vid.  Sim.  Hist,  des  Vers.  chap.  v.  p.  40.  seq. 
 
 *^  S.  August.  S.  Hieron.  Epist.  lxxi.  Tom.  II.  c.  161.  c.  ed. 
 
 Bcned.     *'  Proinde  non  parvas  Deo  gratias  agimiis  de  opere  tuo, 
 
 quod  Evangelium  ex  Grceco  interprctatus  es:  quia  pene  in  omnibus 
 
 nulla  offensio  est,  cum  scripturara  Grascam  contulerimus.    Unde, 
 
 si  quisquam  vcterifaJsitati  contensiosus  faverit ;  prolatis  collatis- 
 
 que  codicibus  vel  docetur  facillime,  vel  refellitur. 
 
(    16    ) 
 
 To  approach,  somewhat  nearer,  to  the  source  of 
 tlie  difficulty,  we  must  look  from  the  period  which 
 produced  the  Vulg^ate  of  St.  Jerome,  to  that  which 
 brought  it  into  general  use.  About  the  middle  of 
 the  sixth  century,  this  mystery  begins  to  clear  up. 
 At  that  period,  Cassiodorus,  who  observed  the  dis^ 
 similarilij  still  existing  between  the  original  Greek 
 and  Latin  translation,  which  Pope  Damasus  had 
 in  vain  undertaken  to  remedy  by  publishing  a  more 
 correct  version,  took  a  more  effectual  mode  of  curing 
 the  evil.  Calling  in  the  aid  of  the  Greek  original,  and 
 taking  St.  Jerome's  version  as  its  best  interpreter,  he 
 undertook  the  coriection  of  the  Old  Italick  by  the  Vul- 
 gate and  Greek  '9.  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  principal  dessein 
 €'toit  de  donner  une  Bibliotheque  des  Auteurs  Latins  ou  traduits 
 en  Latin,  y  placa  pour  cette  raison  quelques  ouvrages  Grecs, 
 et  entre  autres  la  Bible  Grecque  des  septante  divisee  en  lxxv 
 livres.  Ce  qu'il  fit  comme  il  le  temoigne  lui  m^me,  pour  suivre 
 la  juaxime  de  St.  Angiistine,  qui  croyoit  qtt''on  devoit  corriger 
 les  exemplaires  Latins  tant  da  Vieux  que  du  Nouveau  Testament, 
 sur  les  exemplaires  Grecs,  *  Sed  quoniam,'  dit  Cassiodore, 
 *  Pater  Augustinus  in  Lib.  IL  de  Doctrina  Christiana  com- 
 monet  ita  dicens  :  "  Latini  codices  Veteris  Navique  Testamenti, 
 si  necesse  fuerit,  GrcEcorum  auctoritate  corrigendi  sunt,  unde  et 
 nobis  post  Hebrseuin  fontem  translatio  cuncta  pervenit,"  ideoq«e 
 vobis  et  Grsecum  Pandecten  reliqui  comprehensum  in  Ubris 
 75." 
 
(  17  ) 
 
 the  latter ;  takii\^  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 
 tolume.  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  a  smaller  ^\ 
 
 Here  therefore  I  conceive,  the  main  difficulty 
 before  us  finds  an  easy  solution.  To  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  ;  biit  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  Grseco-Latini '%  which 
 
 ^°  Cassiod.  de  Div.  Lect.  cap.  xiv.  xvi  Precor  enim  vos  qui 
 emendare  presumitis,  ut  superadjectas  literas  ita  pulcherrimas 
 facere  studeatis,  utpotius  ab  antiquariis  scriptcejuissejudicentur, 
 Ce  qu'il  etoit  difficile  de  pratiquer,  lors  qu'on  changeoit  plu- 
 sieurs  mots  a  la  fois  pour  les  rendre  conformes  dux  exemplaires 
 de  St,  Jerome,  comme  il  est  arrive  souvent  dans  les  manuscriii 
 de  Clermont  et  de  St,  Germain  des  Prez,  et  meme  dans  plusieurs 
 autres  qui  ne  sont  pas  si  anciens.     Simon,  ib.  chap.  viii.  p.  97. 
 
 ^*  Simon,  ibid,  p,  94-,  95^ 
 
 3*  Id.  lb.  p.  92.  II  y  avoit  par  exemple,  en  ce  tems-la  des 
 exemplaires  Latins  du  Nouveau  Testament  de  la  maniere  qu'ila 
 avoient  cte  retouches  j^ar  St,  Jerome.    Les  reviseurs  qui  ctoient 
 
 Q 
 
 % 
 
(     18    ) 
 are  noit  found  of  such  utility  in  correcfing  or  in 
 corrupting'  the  sacred  text.     Every  circumstance  " 
 
 persuades  qu'ils  etoient  plus  exacts  que  ies  anciens,  les  reform 
 moient  sur  cette  edition  :  ce  qu'ils  faisoient  egalemeni  dans  le 
 Grec  et  dans  le  Latin.  Car  c'etoit  alors  la  coutuiwe  de  recourir 
 a  I'Original,  &ur  lequel  on  prenoit  meme  la  liberte  de  corriger 
 Je  Latin.  Cela  a  donrie  apparemmetit  occasion  a  ces  "oieux  Exeiri" 
 plaires  dii  Noiiveau  Testament^  oil  I'on  voit  le  Grec  d*un  cote,  et 
 le  Latin  de  t' autre." 
 
 ^^  Simon.  Hist,  des  Vers*  ib.  p.  96*  Mais  cette  regie 
 qui  etoit  bonne  d'elle  ttieme  apporta  dans  la  suite  une  grande 
 confusion  dans  les  exemplaires  de  la  Bible  qui  ont  ete  copies 
 par  les  Latins.  Ceux  qui  firent  le  metier  de  critiques  dan& 
 les  Moiiasteres,  d'oil  Pan  a  tire  presque  tout  ce  qui  noits  reste  des 
 anciens  mayiuscrits,  n*^ayant  pas  la  capacifie  que  eat  emploi 
 demandoit,  les  ont  plutot  corrompus  que  corriges  en  plusieurs 
 endroits,  Cest  a  quoi  il  fant  bien  prendre  garde  dans  les  di- 
 ■^^erses  lepons  qu'on  rapporte  de  ces  anciens  manuscrlts.  Je  ne 
 dirai  ici  du  Vieux  TestanK3nt :  mais  ceux  qui  voudront  examijier 
 les  deux  anciens  exemplaires  de  S.  Pmd,  dont  I'un  est  dans  la 
 Bibliothequc  da  Jloi^  et  I'autre  dans  celle  de  St.  Germaine  des 
 Prez,  les  irouxerent  tout  defigurh  par  les  differentes  correctio7iSf 
 fu^on  a  fakes,  iant  dans  le  Grec  que  dans  le  Latin.  On  y  a 
 suivi  la  regie  que  Cassiodore  preterit  a  ses  moines,  spavoir  qu'il 
 faut  reformer  hardiment  la  vieille  edition  sur  les  exemplaires  de- 
 Saint  Jerome*  Ce  s^avant  homrae  ne  pretendoit  pas  qu'on  les 
 dut  refondre,  coninie  Pon  a  fait.  II  vouloit  seulement  qu*ou- 
 corrjgeat  les  fantes  manifestes  qui  etoient  dans  I'orthographie,. 
 ou  dans  les  noms  propres:  ce  qu'il  appelle  verba  absurde  posita. 
 The  latter  part  of  ihh  observation  does  not  accord  with  that 
 immedjatel}'^  preceding  or  with  the  state  of  tire  marmscripts  as 
 they  now  appear  on  inspection,  lliough  orthographical  errours 
 were  those  against  which  Cassioxlorus  foimd  it  principally  ne- 
 cessary to  guard  ;  his  express  reference  to  the  Greelc  and  to  St, 
 Jerome,  which  Vere  supposed  to  coincide,  arid  his  main  object, 
 which  was  to  procure  perfect  copies,  suffieiently  evince  that  his 
 corrections  extended  to  rmrds  as  ivell  as  letters  :  vid.  supr.  n.  **. 
 The  above  remark  may  be  extended,  from  the  Clermont,  and  St^ 
 
(    19    ) 
 
 connected  with  their  history  seems  to  identify  them 
 with  that  part  of  the  Pandects  of  Cassiodorus,  which 
 contained  the  New  Testament.  Their  age  is  nearly 
 that  of  the  sixth  century^  the  places  from  whence 
 they  have  been  taken,  the  French  monasteries.  And 
 with  these  circumstances  their  general  appearance 
 comports.  The  text  is  nearly  obliterated  with  cor- 
 rections ;  the  margin  defaced  by  notes ;  the  ortho- 
 graphy abounding  with  barbarisms  ;  and  the  Greek 
 original  and  Latin  translation  aiming  at  a  literal 
 affinity,  yet  frequently  at  variance,  not  only  with 
 each  other,  but  with  themselves  ^^.  Such,  or  I 
 am  grossly  deceived,  is  the  true  pedigree  of  the 
 Cambridge,  the  Laudian,  the  Clermont,  and  St. 
 Germain  manuscripts,  &c.  which  occupy  a  principal 
 rank  in  the  new  classification.  The  first  of  these 
 manuscripts  appears  to  have  been  brought  out  of 
 Egypt,  where  it  was  seemingly  composed  for  the 
 use  of  some  convent  of  Latin  asceticks  :  this  appears 
 probable  not  only  from  some  internal  evidence  in 
 its  margin,  but  from  its  ancient  and  barbarous  or- 
 thography ;  the  former  of  which  seems  to  indicate, 
 that  it  was  not  composed  for  domestick  purposes  ; 
 the  latter,  that  it  was  not  written  in  a  country  where 
 
 Germaine,  to  the  Cambridge  MS.  Id.  Nouv.  Observ.  sur  le 
 Texte  et  les  Vers.  chap.  ii.  p.  18.  Je  lui  [M.  Arnaudj  ai  deja 
 indique  en  general  que  les  Retractations  de  Bede  sur  les  Actes 
 des  Apotres,  un  des  manuscrits  de  Robert  Etienne,  et  quelques 
 autres,  d'ou  il  pent  connoitre  que  le  manuscrit  de  Beze  n'est  pas 
 le  seul  exemplaire  du  Nouveau  Testament,  qui  ait  ete  retouch^ 
 expres,  et  d'un  si  etrange  maniere. 
 
 3+  Vid,  Mill.  Prolegom.  in  Nov.  Test.  n.  1272,  seq.  ed.  Kust* 
 
(     20     ) 
 
 Greek  or  Lntin  was  the  vernacular,  at  least  the  pri- 
 initive,  tongue. 
 
 Submitting  these  observations  to  the  consideration 
 of  my  readers,  I  now  leave  them  to  estimate  what 
 authority  they  leave  to  the  testimony  of  the  old 
 Italick  version,  quoted  in  favour  of  the  German 
 method  of  claseification.  To  me  it  appears  a  mat- 
 ter capable  of  demonstration,  that  it  can  be  entitled 
 to  none.  The  undertaking  of  Jerome  and  Cassio- 
 dorus,  had  they  been  silent  upon  this  subject,  would 
 prove  a  dissimilarity  once  existing-  between  the  old 
 Italick  and  the  Vulgate  and  Greek  of  the  Alexan- 
 drine recension.  That  dissimilarity  has  now  dis- 
 appeared, and  they  are  found  to  coincide  ^K  To 
 what  therefore,  but  the  correction  of  those  pious 
 tuthers,  is  the  affinity  now  to  be  attributed } 
 
 But  it  will  be  objected,  the  affinity  of  the  Old 
 Italick  with  the  Si/riack,  which  cannot  be  traced 
 through  the  Greek,  as  not  discoverable  in  it,  still 
 
 55  This  k  a  pdiAt  which  received  a  demonstrative  proof  from 
 the  cekbruted  Dr.  Bentley.  On  collating  the  Alexandrine  and 
 other  MSS.  of  the  same  recension  with  the  oldest  copies  of  the 
 Vulgate,  he  was  surprised  at  their  extraordinary  coincidence, 
 not  only  in  the  peculiar  readings,  bat  t1ie  order  of  the  words : 
 sec  his  Letters  p.  229.  seq.  Comp.  not.  ^^  supr.  p.  17.  and  Garbel. 
 ap.  Blanchin.  Evan'g.  Quadrupl.  Prbleg.  pp.  9,  10.  Of  some  of 
 the  principal  MSS.  of  the  old  Italick  Version,  Sabati'er  declares  ; 
 Bibl.  Sacr.  Tom.  III.  p.  xxxiv.  *'  uterque  [Cod.  Corbeiens.  et 
 Sangerm.]  antiquam  sapit  versionem,  non  seeus  ac  Colbertinus; 
 ■^-aliquando  etiam  ita  Novce  Vulgatce  similis  esty  ut  ovum  ab  ovo 
 citius  discerns.  Ex^mpla  esse  possunt  prioraMS'.  Corbeiensis 
 capita  qua'  sic  cum  Vulgata  conveniunt  lit  vix  ullam  animadverta* 
 discrepantiam,"  &c. 
 
(    21     ) 
 
 stands  in  support  of  the  original  position  ;  and 
 while  it  remainvs  otherwise  unaccounted  for,  tlie 
 evidence  of  an  affinity  derived  from  the  apostohcal 
 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  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  ^". 
 For  the  Latin  and  Syriack  translations  are  observed 
 to  have  some  literal  coincidences^  particularly  in  the 
 
 ^^  Thegan  tie  Gest.  Lud.  Pii  ap.  Duch.  p.  277»  Quatuor 
 Evangelia  quse  intitulantur  nomine  Matthaei,  Marci,  Lucse  et 
 Joannis  in  ultimo,  ante  obitus  sui  diem,  cum  Gra^cis  et  St/ris 
 O'ptime  correxerat,  Vid.  Sim.  Hist,  des  Vers.  chap.  ix.  p.  100. 
 See  Michael,  ut  supr.  ch.  yii.  §  q,  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  coiyicide  very  frequently  with  the  Latin, 
 in  cases  where  our  printed  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament,  or 
 the  MSS.  of  particular  countries  deviate  from  both. — By  the 
 I^atin  I  understand  at  present — the  common  version  as  corrected 
 by  Jerome,  ratified  by  papal  authority,  and  known  under  the- 
 ^ameof///ie  Vulgate f'* 
 
(    22    ) 
 
 GpspelSj  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  in  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  Italick, 
 while  they  differ  from  every  known  manuscript  ex- 
 tant in  Greek  ^^. 
 
 The  inferences  which  follow  from  these  (circum- 
 stances, are  sufficiently  obvious.  And  the  affinities 
 thus  tmced  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- 
 
 ^lo' 
 
 ^3  In  Matt.  vii.  25.  viii.  9.  ix.  17,  28.  xxvii.  40.  Vid.  Epist, 
 Alter,  ap.  Birch.  Prolegom.  in  Nov.  Test.  p.  Ixxxv. 
 
 3?  Mar.  iii.  20,  34.  vi.  48.  Vid.  Michael.  Intr.  to  N.  Test, 
 by  Dr.  Marsh.  Vol.  II.  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 j9n"or  to  the  age  of  Charlemagne,  It  is  therefore  at  least 
 possible,  tliat  any  coincidence  discoverable  between  the  text  of 
 
(  23  ) 
 fiities  between  those  versions,  which  the  originals 
 do  not  acknowledg-e,  ought  to  be  taken  as  definitive 
 in  estabhshing  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  tliat  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  to 
 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  latterl}^  received.  The  general  opinion  en- 
 tertained of  that  manuscript,  is,  that  it  was  written 
 in  the  interval  between  the  years  1519  and  1522, 
 for  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  knowleclge  of  the  language,  and  who  was 
 
 those  MSS.  and  the  Syriack  version  and  original  Greek,  may 
 not  be  more  anticnt  than  the  era  of  that  prince ;  of  course, 
 assigned  on  most  jiKonckisive  grounds  to  the  age  of  the  apostles^ 
 
(    24    ) 
 obliged  to  receive  instruction  in  it  from  the  foreignep 
 who  imported  it  from  the  East^  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  from 
 -every  known  Greek  manuscript,   amounting  to   a 
 number,  which  excited  the  astonishment  of  Prof. 
 Michaelis  and  Dr.  Mills  ^\     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  A^ers.  ch.  xv.  Michael.  Introd.  ibid.  ch. 
 Vii.  J.  2  p.  8. 
 >*  Michael,  ibid.  ch.  viii.  §,  6.  p.  286. 
 
(    25    ) 
 connected  with  tliem,  is  probably  very  remote.    And 
 if  this  source  be  traced  by  the  analogy  which  it  pre- 
 serves to  the  old  Italick,   it  must  be  clearly  of  the 
 very  highest  kind. 
 
 Though  the  testimony  of  the  old  Italick  version 
 cited  in  favour  of  the  German  classification  must  be 
 given  up,  still  it  may  be  contended,  that  the  con- 
 currence of  the  Si/riack  and  the  Vulgate  with  the 
 Greek  of  the  Alexandrine  recension^  is  adequate 
 to  support  the  entire  weight  of  this  system.  To  this 
 I  reply  ;  that  witli  respect  to  both  translations^  they 
 must  stand  and  fall  with  the  original  text,  and  tiiat 
 of  a  very  late  edition.  The  origin  of  the  Vulgate  is 
 well  known;  and  not  long  previous  to  the  com- 
 mencement of  the  fifth  century.  Nor  can  the  Syriack 
 claim  a  much  higher  original ;  the  oldest  proofs  of 
 its  antiquity  are  found  in  the  quotations  of  St. 
 Ephrem  ^\  who  flourished  near  the  close  of  the 
 fourth.  Near  the  beginning  of  this  century,  an 
 edition  of  the  original  Greek  was  published  by 
 Eusebius,  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. 
 
 ♦J  Vid.  Michael,  ibid.  ch.  vii.  J.  6.  p.  3.2.  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  tliat  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  t^ree 
 penturies  previous  to  that  period.** 
 
(    S5    ) 
 
 The  authority  with  which  Eusebius  was  vested, 
 to  prepare  this  edition^  was  conveyed  in  the  follow* 
 in^  terms,  as  nearly  as  the  original  can  be  literally 
 expressed  ^^.  '''  It  seemeth  good  unto  us  to  submit 
 to  your  consideration,  that  you  would  order  to  be 
 written,  on  parchment  prepared  for  the  purpose, 
 by  able  scribes,  and  accurately  skilled  in  their  artj 
 fifty  codices,  both  legible  and  portable,  so  as  to  be 
 useful ;  namely,  of  the  sacred  scriptures,  whereof 
 chiefly,  you  know,  the  preparation,  and  use  to  be 
 necessary  to  the  doctrine  of  the  church/' 
 
 If  we  now  compare  the  authority  thus  committed 
 to  Eusebius,  which  seems  to  have  vested  him  at 
 least  v/ith  a  discretionary  power,  of  selecting  chiefly 
 those  sacred  scriptures  which  he  knew  to  be  useful 
 and  necessary  to  the  doctrine  of  the  church,  with 
 the  state  of  the  sacred  X<tiii  as  it  is  now  marked  in 
 the  corrected  edition  lately  put  forth  by  M.  Gries^ 
 bach ;  we  shall  perhaps  discover  how  far  it  is  pro^ 
 bable  he  acted  to  the  full  extent  of  his  powers,  and 
 removed  those  parts  of  scripture  from  the  circulated 
 edition,  which  Ae  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  foUowing  ;  the  account  of 
 
 ♦*  Constant.  Epist.  ap.  Euseb.  Vit.  Const.  Lib.  IV.  Cap, 
 
 .XXXvi.  p.  646.  1.  13. — ^^sTroy  ya,^  xocn^oivvif  to  ^^Xuiffen  t>7  trr^ 
 ■^vvicniy  eVaj  iv  'ar£VT>?xovra  o'w/zaTja  iv  ^K^G/^aK  lyaxruiry.evoig^ 
 ivuvayvu^ai  Ti  f^  'sr^oq  rryv  ^^^Jatv  £yj!/.ETa«o/>cir<3f>  v'^o  rs^viTai? 
 iLoXKiypoLipuv  yCf  oC'APiQux;  tr,v  ri^vr.v  iTTifCifjieviJVf  yfix(pyivect  xiMvaSiaq' 
 ruv  Ssiwy  ^rjXa^r?  y^a.(pi^9,  w*  fj;,uXirat,  Tviv  r  tTt iO-KiVViV  >cj  tm  ^^ail  T^ 
 irjjj  k«A>ja»aj  Myio  Lvay^o(,'i,»y  thou  yivuctcfn;. 
 
(    27    ) 
 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.  iii.  16.  Acts  xx. 
 
 If  two  points  can  be  estabhshed  against  Eusebius, 
 that  he  wanted  neither  tlie  pozver,  nor  the  will^  to 
 suppress  these  passages,  particularly  the  latter, 
 there  will  be  fewer  objections  lying  against  the 
 charge,  with  which  1  am  adventurous  encugh  to 
 accuse  him  ;  in  asserting  that  the  probabihties  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  ^^. 
 
 ♦5  Antipat.  Bostrens.  Serm.  I.  adv.  Euseb.  Apol.  pro.  Ori'g. 
 in  Concil.  Nic.  II,  Act.  v.   '^yu  }\  on  lAv  -croXt^iv^f  o  a.vr,^j  >^  eUv 
 
 x^  OfA.o?^oyia'  ^a.a-iKi-A.ri  ya,^  irvvtpyia.  y^puf^iv'^y  0x^00^  ra,  'sreivra^ii  'mpo^ 
 ixvrov  avvoiyeiv  v)ov»ecro. 
 
 ^^  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  VIII.  cap.  ii.  p.  377.  1.  35.  ry»1/]|- 
 
 le^as"  l^affJas-  Kara.  iJ.iaccs  dr/oqas  zsv^i  zjaq^i^ofxivccs  avroTf 
 i7Fei^of/.£v  o(p^a'k(xo7s.  The  effects  of  this  destruction  of  the 
 sacred  books,  under  Dioclesian  and  Maximian  extended  even 
 
(  28  ) 
 Let  us  add  to  these  considerations,  thesfe  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  ^^ ;  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  hjEC  dira  ilia  fuit  a  Diocletiano  et  Maximiano  adversus 
 Christiani  nominis  professores  mota  persecutio  :  de  qua,  recen- 
 tior  Scotorum  historicus  Hector  Boethus,  [Scot.  Hist.  Lib.  VI.] 
 
 *  Evagata  est  rabies  ilia,  non  modo  ab  Oriente  in  Occidentein, 
 sed  etiam  per  alterum  orbem  Britanjiiam  ;*  &c. — eaque  *  fire 
 deletam  Juisse  Christianitatem  in  tota  insula,*  Galfridus  MonC" 
 muthonsis  asserit ;  non  alia  et  ipse  authoritate  quam  Gildae  ' 
 nijvus,  ex  quo  hujiis  persecutionis  historia  ad  verbum,  pene  ab 
 illo  est  transcripta.     In  ea  enim,  ut  apud   Gildam   habetur, 
 
 *  subversae  per  totum  mundum  Ecclesiae,  et  cunctce  Sacra;  Scrips 
 turcB  qu(£  iwceniri  potuerunt  in  plateis  eccustcB,*^  &c, 
 
 *^  Id.  Vit.  Constant.  Lib,  III.  pap.  i.  p.  ^^66,  1.  15.     Ol  lAv  rd 
 
 **  This  is  a  point  which  maj^  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  foremeniioned  verses,  1  John  v.  7.  1  Tim.  iii.  16.,  &c, 
 which  I  conceive  were  suppressed  in  Eusebius's  edition^ 
 Socrat.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  II.  cap.  xx.   p.   104*.   1.    23. — ««» 
 
 *ytvouivoi  foi  a»xTo^ixo»3  Iv  Tvj  <J>*Xi7rirtf  tzreXE*  tt}^  0pax:jf,  iaia^oi* 
 ipottfvTE?  ervvi^piov'  xcci  ^avipo;?  XotTrof  TO  /xev  o/xoaatov  avaS'TO/xaTtcwiJi* 
 
(  29  ) 
 reign  of  Constantine  to  that  of  Theodosius^^  held 
 an  unhmited  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  pow^erful  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  is 
 not  to  be  denied.     For  it  possesses  the  divisions '% 
 
 49  For  at  least  forty  years,  from  tlie  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.  "Ovlui/i-hhol  \  ^ciccvol  iTr)  rsaffetpxKotlx  hn  ru*  tvxl^iuv  to* 
 %uv  Kfsclyiaccvlii  t-^v  t«  0xs-i7^iui  ©lo^o^ia  OfAovotoiv    (pivyovltq,  t-TTsl^A^c* 
 
 T?<  o/*otf«ri»  'crlrsw:  t«?  £«xA>3^i«?.     Conf.  Theodorit.  Lib.  V.  capp. 
 vi.vii.p.200. 1.  lO.seq. 
 
 5°Wetsten.  Prolegora.  in  Nov.  Test.  Sect.  i.  ^  11.  Tom.  I.  p. 
 6.  "  Eosdem  [ril^a?  et  KtpuXaict  Eitsebianos^  habet  et  Vcrslo 
 Coptica,  uti  in  MSS.  vidi,  quod  editor  de  industria  supprcs- 
 fiisse  videtur,  ne  scilicet  paulum  *  dubitaremus,  versionem  N.  T. 
 
(    30    ) 
 
 which  Eiisehius  applied  to  the  scripture,  in  invent- 
 ing his  celebrated  canons,  with  the  aid  of  Amnio- 
 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,  tliose  of  the  Ethiopick,  the 
 Armenian,  tlie  Arabick,  and   Persian,    must  stand 
 
 *  in  linguam  ^'Egyptl  primis  a  Christo  seculis,  sell,  vel  secundo, 
 
 *  vel  tertii  initio  factam  esse,'  ut  ipse  in  Prsefatione  pag.  v.  as- 
 seruit ;  Eusebii  enim  tempora  nos  ad  quartum  seculum  dedu- 
 cerent."  Conf.  Simon  Hist,  des  Vers.  ch.  xvi.  p.  191.  Les 
 Ivlanuscrits  Coptes  ont  conserve,  comma  il  a  cte  deja  remarque 
 les  distinctions  dcs  Exemplaires  GrccSy  sur  lequels  la  Version 
 Copte  du  N.  T.  a  ote  fait. — lis  marquent  deux  sortes  de  Sec- 
 tions, comme  dans  les  MSS.  GrecSy  scavoir  les  grandes  qu'ils 
 nomment  Ki(^d>>ot,iu,  et  les  petites,  qui  sont  indiquees  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.  II.  P,  II, 
 p.  dlxxxiii. 
 
(    31     ) 
 
 or  fall;  In  admitting  its  influence  upon  tlie  former^ 
 we  must  admit  it  upon  the  latter^  as  made  after 
 tliem^  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,  then 
 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. If  a  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,  tiiat,  in  correcting  tiie  text,  the  edition  of 
 Eusebius  was  before  him  ;  as  it  describes  his  canons 
 which  are  consequently  represented,  as  applied  to 
 the  text  by  St.  Jerome.  We  consequently  find, 
 that  the  manuscripts  of  the  Vulgate,  of  which  seve- 
 
 '^  M.  Du  Pin  deduces  the  Ethlopick  from  the  Syriack,  vid. 
 Dissert.  Prelim,  p.  82 :  Renaudot  deduces  it  from  the  Coptick, 
 vid.  Wetsten.  Proleg.  p.  110. 
 
 ^■^  Sim.  ut  supr. 
 
 **  Vid.  S.  Hieron,  Epist.  Damas,  Tom.  IV.  in  init. 
 
(    33    ) 
 
 ral  of  the  highest  antiquity  are  still  preserved  in 
 England  and  Prance,  have  the  text  accurately  di- 
 vided by  the  Eusebian  sections  ^^. 
 
 The  influence  of  the  Vulgate  upon  the  Old  Ita- 
 lick,  which  formed  another  branch  of  the  Western 
 text,  has  been  already  noticed.  In  the  age  of  St. 
 Augustine,  it  was  makins*  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 
 
 5^  Cassiod.  de  Div.  Lect.  cap.  xii.  Meminisse  autem  debe- 
 mus,  HIeronymum  omnem  suam  translationem  in  auctoritate  di- 
 vina,  sicut  ipse  testatur,  propter  siraplicitatem  fratrum  colis  et 
 commatihiis  ordinassey  ut  qui  distinctiones  secularium  literarurn 
 comprehendere  niinime  potuerunt,  hoc  remedio  suffulti  incul- 
 pabiliter  pronunciarent  sacras  literas.  En  efFet  on  voit  toutei 
 ces  distinctions,  dans  les  plus  ajiciens  majiiiscrits  Latins  qui  nous 
 ayons  dela  Bible  de  St.  Jerome.  Simon  ib.  chap.  x.  p.  122. — • 
 Id.  ib.  p.  126.  St.  Jerome  avoit  mis  dans  son  Edition  Latine 
 une  autre  sorte  de  division  qu''il  avoit  prise  des  exemplaires  GrecSi 
 Cette  celle  qui  regarde  les  dix  Canons  d'Eusehe,  et  qui  a  ete 
 d'une  grand  utilitc  pour  oter  la  confusion  qui  etoit  avant  St. 
 Jerome  dans  les  exemplaires  Latins. 
 
 57  Simon  ibid.  p.  106.  *'  On  lit  de  plus  dans  ce  meme  ma- 
 nuscrit  [de  Saint  Germain  des  Prez]  ces  autres  paroles  a  la 
 fin  de  I'Epitre  aux  Ebreux,  ou  finit  le  Nouveau  Testament  sa- 
 lon Tancienne  disposition  des  Bibles  Latines;  *  Bibliotheca  Hi* 
 eronymi  Presbyteri  secundum  Gra^cum  ex  emendatissimis  li- 
 bris  conlatus.'  Ce  qui  montre  non  seulement  Pexactitude  du 
 Copiste,  mais  Popinion  commune  de  ces  tems  1^,  qui  etoit  que 
 St.  Jerome  avoit  retouche  tout  le  Nouveau  Testament  sur  les  ex- 
 emplaires Grecs.  On  ne  parloit  plus  alors  de  Vancienne  Version 
 appellee  Italique.     Les  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  v.  es- 
 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.  I  have  already  stated  the  reasons  which 
 have  induced  me  to  ascribe  such  influence  to  the 
 first  edition  of  the  Scriptures  pubhshed  with  the 
 royal  authority.  But  a  circumstance  which  tended 
 to  extend  this  influence,  besides  the  great  reputa- 
 tion of  the  person  by  whom  it  was  revised,  was  the 
 
 Latine  que  P Edition  de  St.  Jerome.  C'est  pourquoi  ils  les  mar- 
 quoient  ordinairement  a  la  fin  de  leurs  livres." 
 
 ^^  Simon,  Nouv.  Observ.  sur  le  Text  et  les  Vers.  ch.  i.  p. 
 130. 
 
 ^9  Simon  Hist,  des  Vers.  ch.  x.  p.  124.  *<Les  Latins  ont 
 eu  une  si  grandeestime  pour  ce  pere  [St.  Jerome]  que  depuis 
 mille  ans  ils  ne  se  sent  servis  que  de  sa  version.  Les  copistes  lei 
 plus  exactes  ont  suivi  entierement  pour  la  disposition  des  li- 
 vres  la  methode  qu'il  prescrit  dans  ses  Prefaces/'  &c.  Vid, 
 supr.  n.  5^  conf.  Praef.  Bibl.  Clem.  VIII. 
 
(    34    ) 
 
 mode  of  dividing'  the  text,  which  was  introduced 
 with  the  sections  that  w^ere  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  in  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- 
 ber of  f(x°^,  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  aorthority,  on  this 
 subject,  ranks,  in  the  opinion  of  M.  Griesbach,  Symbb.  Critt. 
 Tom.  I.  p.  xvii.  above  all  others.  Wetsten.  Prolegom.  Sect.  i. 
 f  11.  Tom.  I.  p.  6.  *'  Omnes  etiam  xsetustissimi  Codices  habent 
 y.e(pa.>.ona  et  Tfl^y?  Eusebicmos,  a  prima  manuy  excepto  Vaticano 
 et  Cantabrigiensi.*'  These  MSS.  however  can  be  scarcely 
 termed  exceptions,  as  will  appear  in  the  sequel. 
 
 6'  Rob.  Stephan.  Praef.  in  Nov.  Test.  ed.  Lut.  1550.  «  Nee 
 tamen  omisimus  Eusebii  Caesariensis  Canones — Sed  ne  nume- 
 rif,m  quidem  r^p^^wy,  quum  is  in  nostris  prope  omnibus  codicibui 
 invmiretiiVy  in  calce  cuj usque  Evangelii  et  Epistolae, 
 
(    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  apparent  that  Eusebius  wanted  not 
 the  power,  so  it  may  be  shewn  that  he  wanted  not 
 the  will,  to  make  those  alterations  in  the  sacred 
 textj  with  which  I  have  ventured  to  accuse  him. 
 
 In  one  or  two  instances  I  am  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  absolutely  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.  ^Evuyyi-Kiov  xotla,  MxrBuTot  iypxlpyi  KUi  «»l£^A)2^»j  U 
 7UV  Iv  hfocroXvixoK;  'sraXuiuv  uvliyfuipuv,  ruv  tv  rZ  ayiu  odh  ccTroKeiU" 
 ivuv,   h  r»%oi?  /3y9r^,    xstpaXatoj?  rptaxoaioi?  -nrevJ^xolat  eVla    x.  t.  I.  ia 
 
 Cod.  Urbino-Vatican.  2.  ap.  Birch  Proleg.  in  Nov.  Test.  p. 
 xxvii. 
 
 *'^S.  Hieron.  Epist.  cl.  quaest.  iii.  Tom.  III.  p.  416.  Aut  enim 
 non  recipimus  Marci  testimonium,  quod  in  rarisfertur  EvangC" 
 liis  omnibus  Grcecice  libris  pene  hoc  capihdum  in  fine  non  haben- 
 tibus ;  praesertim  cum  diversa  atque  contraria  evangelistis  ce- 
 teris narrare  videatur. 
 
 d2 
 
(  36  ) 
 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 
 
 "*  It  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.  "E*  rtcrt  rav  a.vUyfa,<puv  tuq  u^i  'crXr.ptilat  o 
 sCccyytT^irk*  Schol.  MS.  Venet.  ap.  Birch.  Proleg.  p.  xxi.  'Ej. 
 Ttcrt  yAv  u^iypcicpuv  'iue;  uh  Cir^wgtfJai  0  'EvccyyiMfh'^.f  iw;  if  xj  'l.vai^Ki^ 
 0  na/x^»^8  Izc^micnvt 
 
(  37  ) 
 copies,  but  as  unsuitable  to  his  harmonical  tables : 
 for  while  theij  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,  it  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- 
 sao^e  of  St.  Mai^  in  the  sabred  text,  as  he  has  omit- 
 
 o 
 
 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  aduUery.  That  this  narrative 
 constituted  a  part  of  the  original  text  of  St.  Jolni, 
 there  can  be  little  reason  to  doubt.  The  subject  of 
 the  story  forms  as  convincing  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^^ ;  St.  Augustine  having  specified  the 
 
 ^^  Vid.  Croii  Observv.  in  Nov.  Test.  cap.  xvH.pp.  130,  131. 
 I  shall  subjoin  the  testimony  of  St.  Jerome,  as  in  point;  S. 
 ^ierpn.  ady.  Pelag.  Lib.  II.  cap.  vi.  Tom.  II.  p.  286.    «'In 
 
C    38    ) 
 
 reasons  of  its  having  been  withdraAvn  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  Greeks  nor  in 
 those  of  the  Vulgate.  And  in  his  ''  Ecclesiastical 
 History  "^'^  he  has  obhquely  branded  it  with  some 
 other  marks  of  disapprobation;  apparently  con- 
 founding it  with  a  different  story.  From  these  cir- 
 cumstanceSj  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  w^hich 
 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 
 
 Evangllo  secundum  Joannem,  in  multis  et  Greeds  et  Laiinis 
 codicibus  hivenitur  de  adultera  muliere,  quae  accusata  est  apud 
 Dorainum." 
 
 66  S.  August,  de  Adultt.  Conjugg.  Lib.  II.  cap.  vii.  Tom.  VI, 
 c.  299.  "  nonnulli  modicae  fidei,  vel  potius  inimici  verae  fidei, 
 credo,  metuentes,  peccati  impunitatem  dari  mulieribus  suis,  illud 
 quod  de  adulter ce  indulgentia  Dominus  fecit,  aiiferrent  de  codi- 
 cibus  suis.'* 
 
 ^  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.   III.  cap.  xxxix.  p.  138.  I.  5, 
 
(    39    ) 
 
 tliem  ;  though  most  particularly  in  St.  John's  Epis 
 de.  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 
 Caesarea^  in  which  he  explained  away  his  former 
 compliance,  and  retracted  what  he  had  asserted  ^^. 
 On  a  person  of  such  versatilit}^  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   Wjas  at  heart  an  Arian.     The 
 
 ^  Socrat.  Hist.  Ecel.  Lib.  I.  cap.  vili.  p.  22.  I.  34.     ToIb  ^l 
 h   TTj   a-vvo^co,     'Evai^ios    o    rriv    Ra/x^/Xa    zs^oaoJW[xUv   '^%^^, 
 
 liti'i'nna.s,  >c^  ^iaaxs'^ci^evoq  si  os7  z^jpoa^i^ua^ca  tov  ofov  t^?  -zs-ir^^y?, 
 
 odorit.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  L  cap.  yii.  p.  30. 1.  22,      K«t   rilTo   eylr- 
 
 au)ilg^i%ojv  rr^  Apsiocvri  oupi'iH  vrt^ov  ^\  v7ioy^<i^oi.s  rip  Iv  Nixa/a 
 cvvo^o,  Conf.  Theodorit.  ib.  p.  28. 1.  2 — 7,.  Socrat.  ib,  p.,  23. 
 1.3.  ' 
 
 ^9  Euseb.  Epist.  ap.  Socrat.  ib.  p.  24. 1.  29,     Kat  ^^  ratJIjj?  tJJ? 
 
 y^a^jjs  l"jtciyo'^iv^t\ari<if  o-TTuq  E^p'/jlat  uvioTq  to  Ik  t??  ua-iaq   t5  oralco 
 
 o?> 
 
 x^  TO  ToJ  ZJoclpi  o//,OH!jjov,  «>t  uvs^hoifoy  ctvlo7(;  xctluXijx'TravoiJLSv. — x^ 
 $ri  >^  TO  l)j  T^?  tfcria;  U(JLo7\6y'^o  crpc?  uvTuy^  ^riT^eJlmov  ilvon  rS  \y.  [ji.h  tS 
 ^otl^cx;  iivxif  a  pAv  w$  fA£f05  VTra^x^^  "^^  crolpoy ?  TaDra  ^e  xj  r/^rv  £^- 
 «x«  xaAw5  £%«v  (ryyjtalatli'&EcrSflU  Tvj  ^*«»o»a  T??  ipcrt^S^  ^i^ucrxaXlaqf 
 p7rocyQfi£V8cr7)(;  ly.  tS  -srolgoj  £ii»a>  Toy  i*ov,  e  jtASi*  jiai^o;  t^?  tio-ixq  uvlov 
 rvy^oiveiv,   ^iOTre^  t^  ^tavoia  )^    a^7oi     awli^ifjit^ac.  ti^l  rhv  ^utviv   T« 
 
 o/xo«(Ti«  t7a§!%i7«pL£voi  X.  T.  E.  Conf.  Sozom.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  II, 
 cap.  xviii.  p.  6S.  1.  20—30. 
 
 7**  This  accusation  which  Dr.  Cave,   Hist.  Litter.  Tom.  L  p. 
 J  77,  has  endeavoured  to  set  aside,  is  founded  on  the  above 
 
(     40    ) 
 
 truth  is^  as  indeed  he  has  himself  placed  beyond  a 
 doubt, — he  erred  from  a  hatred  to  the  peculiar  no- 
 tions of  Sabellius  ^*^  who,  in  maintaining  that  Christ 
 was  the  First  Person  incarnate,,  had  confounded 
 the  Persons  ^%  as  it  was  conceived  he  divided  the 
 substance.  Into  this  extreme  he  must  have  clearly 
 seen  that  the  Catholicks  were  inclined  to  falP^  in 
 
 cited  expssition  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  i  vid.  Epi? 
 phan.  Haer.  Ixix.  p.  732.  d.  In  this  light  the  epistle  of  Euse- 
 bius was  regarded  by  the  best  judges  of  antiquity.  Phot,  ad 
 Constant.  Patr.  Epist.  cxliv.  p.  201.  ed.  Lond.  1651.  'Evae/Jto? 
 o  t5  IlajtA^pi^y,  s'trs  ^oi;Ao?,  sire  avvyi^ioq  or^  /aev  Ap«ayicr//,w  laAw, 
 ^oua-i  [/Av  avrov  roc  |3t|3Aia*    x^  uvToq  ^l  /Asla/zeXAo/xsvo?  ^JjSey,   k^  ukuv, 
 
 la.u.i'knlov,  'Ov  yao  laJlov  tKT^vai  T>i?  CtrpoTEfa?,  ot  uv  toq^i  aTroAo- 
 yiTp-^uif  a'vvi<rvia'\,y'  «^£  t^  a,y\a,  iCj  otx»jW.£i/iK'^  av^^ovno'av  avvoou'  a.'K'Koc 
 T»?  Toy  Qu.oiia\ii  -nrpscr^sJIas  avrov  cvvs^.Bii'v  ru  (p^ovii^cili,  t^  o-yyoialtS^- 
 vsci  Tfl  yviyfAvj,  repctlsvflcti*  x^  t5to  a(X.<^cus  uXXec,  rs  luXBiovac  zsapiq* 
 tuaiy  tL  ri  rois  Kaua^suaiv  ocvrco  'ypa,(^uaec  li:i<iO'>.n, 
 
 '*  Sozpm.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  II.  cap.  xviii.  p.  68.  1.  31.  Ku) 
 '£t>ra^»o?  /*«"  i'TTjilietlo  rov  'Eva-£$iov,  eU  '^oc  h  NtJiaia  oo^ocvlac,  -Trsp)  tcv 
 ^oy^aioS   KCtiVoloiJLOvyloc'   o  ^\,   rotvrct,  yiXv    iitociViTv    (P'/iaU'      Evra^iof   ^a 
 
 *rviv  Sa/JsAAia  o>«^t^e<v  ^o^ocv,  Conf.  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  I.  cap, 
 xxiii.  p.58.1.  2—7. 
 
 7^  Damas.  Epist.  ap.  Theodorit.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  V.  cap.  xi. 
 p.  209.  1.  17. — rhq  TM  Za/oeAAia  axoAa^oDvJa?  'm\a,rp,  rov  etvlqv 
 >,iyo?ia,%  xai  Wxri^ot.  eT»a»  xa<  'Y»ov.  Conf.  Epiphan.  Haer.  LXII. 
 Tom.L  p.  513,  Haer.  Ixxii.  p.  834.  b. 
 
 73  Sozom.  ibid.  p.  68. 1.  20.  'e»  ^e  tw  tote,  Ts-aAtv  <cr§o?  Iavts; 
 \soLG\a.tp^  ol  E'ff'KJKOTroiy  axpl3oAo78]X£yok  wsql  to  o[xoh(71ov  ovofxat,  ot 
 fJLivyuf,  TS?  t2to  'Cr§ocr^E;)(^o^£y»?,  ^Aacrfprj/AErv  a/'oi'lo,  uq  virup^euq  ittloq 
 rov  viov  ^o|a^ovT«?;  «a«  Ta,  Moy^a^oy  J^  Sa/SsXX/a  (p^owvJxs. — Ka7- 
 arpi^ovlo  5s  [xxXi^x  'mtfi  rco  roiavriXf,  'Kvai^ns  TS  o  Ila/xCpiXS;} 
 xa*  'Etra'^tos  5  'Avlto;^£ys,    Vid.  supr.  nn.  '^^  et  ''\ 
 
(  ^l  ) 
 
 combating  the  opposite  errour  in  Arlus  ;  and  on  this 
 very  point  he  consequently  maintained  a  contro- 
 versy 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, 
 by  cancelling  one  of  those  passages^  1  Joh.  v.  7; 
 and  altering  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- 
 speutj  as  it  has  been  traced  from  the  edition  of  Eu- 
 f-ebius.  Let  him  compare  the  alterations  which 
 bave  beep  recenjtly  made  on  their  authority  in  the 
 
 ^*  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  II.  cap.  xx.  p.  105.  1.  16.    'ovx 
 
 tcyvo-^ioy  [Asvlot  on  to  Ma^xsKXa  ^i^hiov  o  Fla/xtpiAtf  *Evai[3tot;  ufiirxEVm 
 a<7iv  Iv  oMn  TfKT-l  /3i^Ato»5  -ergo?  uvlov  ^ia\£y6iMvo<;y    a.    m^oq    MapxjXXo* 
 
 yiavXoi;  0  TocfAoaccltix;,   T«  Ma^yjT^he  tlaccyovloi;, 
 
 '^  S.  Epiphan.  Hser.  lxxii.  p.  837.  b, 
 7^  Socrat,  Lib.  II.  cap.  xx.  p.  105. 1.  9. 
 
(    43    ) 
 
 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  xleviations  from 
 the  Received  Text,  by  any  which  have  not  beeu 
 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  srround,  than  the  hollo wness  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  probabiHty.  The  only 
 positive  argument  on  which  it  is  impeached  has  been 
 indeed  disposed  of;  and  a  negative  consequently 
 estabhshed^  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  II. 
 
 .IjY  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 
 
(    45    ) 
 
 the  coincidences  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  is  an  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  entitled  to  attention,  as 
 their  testimony  has  been  collected  by  M.  Matthsei, 
 in  the  notes  of  his  Greek  Testament  ^     The  fact 
 
 '  Vid.Croii  Observ.  in  Nov.  Test.  cap.  xvili. — xxviii.  p.  134, 
 seq.  Blanchin.  Vind.  Can.  Script.  Tom.  I.  p.  xxvii.  Sabat.  Prjcf. 
 Bibl.  Ital.  Tom.  I.  p.  xxviii.  §  64-,  &c. 
 
 *  Vid.  Mill.  Proleg.  Nov.  Test.  n.  368.  seq.  ed.  Kust. 
 
 ^  Mattha-i  Nov.  Test.  Tom.  I.  p.  43,  ed.  Rig.  In  his  locis 
 G^go  prceferatur  aiictorUas  Codicum  Gnvcorim  Novi  Testament! 
 
(  46  ) 
 is,  they  were  so  constantly  exercised  in  the  Scrip- 
 tures^ which  they  had  nearly  committed  to  memory, 
 that  they  quote^  not  by  reference^  but  from  recollec- 
 tiouc  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 
 
 lectionihus  Sanctoriun  Patrum.  Eadem  est  ratio  variantium  lec- 
 tionum,  qua;  in  07'igine,  Chrysostomo,  et  aliis  reperiuntur.  Nee 
 enim  isti  Patres  ita  diligentes  erant  in  laudandis  et  explicandis 
 litteris  sacris,  ut  nunc  sunt  critici,  ac  facilius  etiam  quam  nos, 
 cum  Grseci  essent,  vocabida  similia  inter  se  jpermutabant,  Haud 
 raro  etiam  Graecitatem  secuti,  neghxerunt  verba  contextus  sacri. 
 Conf.  not.  in  Matt.  xvi.  13.  p.  328,  &c.  Garbellius  delivers 
 himself  in  similar  terms  respecting  the  Latin  Fathers  and  the 
 eld  Italick  version,  speaking  of  the  Codex  Brixianus ;  Garb, 
 ap.  Blanchin.  Proleg.  in  Evang.  Quadrupl.  P.  I.  p.  37.  "  Ego 
 sane  cum  Argentei  Codicis  nostri  coUationem  cum  Tertulliano, 
 ac  Cypriano  instituissem  ;  quod  inter  Latinos  scriptores  ad  ea 
 Ecclesiae  tempera  proprius  accederent,  quibus  puriora  veterum 
 interpretum  exemplaria  esse  debuerant,  locis  omnibus,  quos  illi 
 €x  Evangeliis  eduxerant,  mature  perpensis,  fundum  mihi  ali- 
 quem  parasse  putabam,  unde  lectiones  dicti  Codicis  iilorum 
 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  observatura 
 est)  haud  iisdem  verbis,  et  nunc  phiribus,  modo  paucioribus  effe- 
 runt, — Sed  jiihil  certiusy  quam  sacrorum  librorum  Novi  prcBser- 
 tim  Fcederls  locos  plerumque  e  memorice  penu,  aliquando  etiam 
 tumultuariOf  ut  resipsa,  aut  tempus  Jerrent  Ecclesice  Patres  ad* 
 tulisse.  Nisi  si  forte  ad  assertum  aliquod  probandum  praecisa 
 sacri  textus  authoritate  opus  foret.  Tunc  enim  exacte,  ac  per 
 partes  efferebant;  quod*  in  laudatis  aliquibus  Tertulliani  locis- 
 observabamus." 
 
(  47  ) 
 of  Scripture,  which  do  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  integrity. 
 
 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- 
 
 **  See  Croius  and  Matthaei,  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.  Prtef,  in  Com.  ad  Gal.  Tom.  VL  p. 
 134-.  c.  Unum  est  quod  inferimus—- Galatas,  excepto  Sermone 
 Grceco,  quo  omnis  Oriens  loquitur,  propriam  linguam  eandeiA 
 pene  habere,  quam  Treviros,  &c.     Hence,  P.  Simon,  reason- 
 
(  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 
 to  a  remote  antiquity.  The  Ethiopick  possesses  the 
 fairest  claims ;  but  if  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  Ethiopian     With  respect  to  the  Syriack 
 
 ing  on  the  foregoing  passage  from  the  Maccabees,  hi  answer  to 
 Vosrius,  declares;  Hist.  Crit.  du  Nouv.  Test.  chap.  vi.  p.  60. — • 
 **  Ce  qui  prouve  manifestement  que  le  Grec  etolt  la  langue  vul' 
 gaire  du  paz/s,  et  que  les  Juifs  outre  le  Grec  avoielit  conservef 
 la  langue  Calda'ique  qu'ils  avoient  rapportee  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  domuiion  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- 
 click,  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,  w^hich, 
 tiiough  visited  by  the  apostles,  did  not  fully  embrace  the  faith 
 until  the  times  of  the  first  Christian  Emperour,  when  they  wiere 
 Tisited  by  ^Edesius  and  Frumentius,     Socrat.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib. 
 
(  49  ) 
 and  Coptick^  which  have  those  strong  presump- 
 tions against  their  antiquity^  that  have  been  ah'eady 
 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,  that  the  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.     In  support  of  the  remote  antiquity  of 
 
 I,  cap.  xix.  p.  49.  1.  31.  *'AvBiq  Zv  fji,vy>fAonvriov  kx)  maq  Itt*  ru» 
 Kon^uv  tS  0x(7i}\icoq  0  X^tfixvio-^oq  I'^rKctTvvsTo'  ryiVntoiVTX  yot^  'iv^aJv  TS 
 Tuv  Iv^QTs^ii^Ka)  'l^yj^cJv  rec  e^J-rj,  "Sr^o?  to  ^pirtcuv'i^itv  i>.a,[/,^c6ti£  t>j»  ap- 
 ^9}t'  Tii'os  ^e  ivsKtv  Tri  'crpoS^xj}  ruv  iv^ore^u  l)(^^^<yu[/.riVf  ha  ^fcc^sav  ifu, 
 XviKU,  ol  A<ff6ro>.oi  K\ri^u  T»!v  et?  Ta  hS*»}  -nropsiav  E^otSvlo,  Quixoiq  fx,\v  ru» 
 Tlao^uv  uTTOToT^riv  viri^iy(tTo*  MarSarog  ^e  tjj»  Awto9r»a**  Bap.&o^o- 
 fji,a7oq  ^e  tx^ijpSro  rviv  <7vvvi[jt.i/,ev/)v  rotvTVi  Ivoteiv'  TdV  fjLivTot  IvaoTsfv  hS'ixv 
 ^  ifffoffQiKii  Bag/3apwK  i^vn  'CsoT^Koif  ^ja^o^ot?  y^^u^ivx  yX^yo-o-at?,  ici  ttw 
 <Brfo  rut  YLuvrxytUs  ^povuv  b  tk  Xp>rtai't^|M'»  Aoyo?  tfuTi^e,  rU  oz  n 
 ahix  t5  xoii  ayra?  ;^p»r»«>»o"a»  vvy  e^^o^ut  xccTcc^^e^tJv*  Conf.  p.  50. 
 1.  11.  seq. 
 
 8  Vid.  supr.  p.  29,  n.  5°. 
 
 9  Simon,  Hist,  des  Vers,  chap.xv.  p.  lS7o 
 
(    50    ) 
 
 ill  Is  Version,  which  is  written  in  that  peciihar  dialect 
 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 centurij,  necessarily  supports  its  pretensions 
 to  at  least  an  equal  antiquity  '°. 
 
 To  the  species  of  evidence  on  which  this  work  is 
 thus  recommended  to  us  as  antient,  I  have  much  to 
 object ".     The  foundation  on  which  the  conclusion 
 
 *°  Version.  Saliid.  Fragmentt.  a  Woid.  et  Ford.  Oxon.  1799, 
 Prolegg.  pp.  136,  139.  "  Sed  uiterius  progredior,  et  vetustatem 
 Versionis  Saliidicas  factis  probabo,  Valentinum  j^gyptium 
 anno  circiter  vegesimo  secundo  vel  vigesimo  tertio  seculi  se- 
 cundi  floruisse,  et  librum  "  Sopliiae"  scripsisse  novimus. — Ex 
 his  colligo  "  SojyJiiam^*  esse  librum  Gnosticorum  antiquissimum 
 qui  seculo  secundo  jatn  extiterit,  Et  cum  Tertullianus  "  So- 
 phiam*^*  Valentino  adscribat,  nullam  video  rationem  cur  non 
 potius  Valentino,     quam  alii  Gnosticorum  attribuam  quorum 
 
 voces  familiarissimas    7r^>j^a;ja.a,     oduv,     iJi.vrr,ftoVy     yvua-ic,   ^apBviT^a), 
 
 icx.Xooc(3au^,  Sec.  saepissime  exhibet.  Cum  vero  plures  Psalmi 
 Davidici,  et  quaedam  Veteris  Testamenti  ac  plura  iV  ovi  Testa" 
 menti  loca  m  hoc  MS^'^.  Codice  recitentur,  quae  cum  reliquiis 
 Versionis  Bibliorum  ^gyptiacac,  exceptis  quibusdam  varieta- 
 tibusconveniunt;  recte  inde  milii  videor  conjicere  :  Literpreta* 
 tionem  Bibliorum  Sahidicam  secido  secundo  jam  extitisse, 
 
 "  I  take  no  account  of  the  argument  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  scriptures, 
 and  to  have  heard  them  read  in  the  church ;  from  whence  it  i* 
 concluded,  he  must  have  heard  and  read  them  in  a  Coptick 
 translation.  Let  us  however  suppose  him  able  to  understand 
 and  to  read  Greek,  though  not  able  to  speak  or  write  it,  and  we 
 *hall  see  that  the  authority  which  supports  this  argument  con- 
 cludes nothing. 
 
(  51  ) 
 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  TertuUian  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  ia 
 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 
 
 "  iMassuet.  Dissert.  Praev.  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  Tertulhani  verbis  adv. 
 Valent.  cap.  11.  *Docet  ipsa  Sophia  non  quidem  Valentini  sed 
 Salomonis.'  Sed  haec  perperam  explicant.  Alludit  enim  Ter- 
 tuUianus,  no7i  adaUquem  Valentini  librum^  sed  ad  Sophiam  no- 
 vissimum  eorum  quos  excogitavit  iEonum ;  ut  legenti  patebit." 
 Conf.  §  12.  15.  48. 
 
 "  Id.  ibid.  §  9.  "  Discipulos  quidem  Valentini  *  exsistentes 
 extra  omnem  timorem,  suas  conscriptiones  proferentes,  plura 
 habere  gloriari,  quam  sint  ipsa  Evangelia^  narrat  Irenaeus  Lib. 
 III.  cap.  xi.  n.  8.  '  In  tantum  siquidem  processerant  audaciae, 
 ut  Novum  Evangelium,  quod  *' Veritatis*'  nuncupabant,  con- 
 finxissent.*  At  ipsi  Valentino  nihil  simile  usquam  adscribitf" 
 &c. 
 
 **  Id.  ibid.  p.  xiii.  *'  Alexandriam  profectus  Valentinus,  ibi 
 Grcecorum  artibus  non  mediocriter  instiiutus  est.  doctissimum 
 enimfuisse  scribit  Hieronymus  in  Ose.  cap.  x.  et  Dialog,  contr. 
 Marcionitas,  qui  Origeni  vulgo  adscribitur,  ovk  £vTg^r!?  uy^, 
 vir  minime  vtdgaris  dicitur.  Quin  saltern  ingenio  peracri,  et 
 inlectioneveterum  Philosopkorum  non  parum  versatus  esset  non 
 
(   5;?   ) 
 
 of  Greek,  wliieliwas  in  his  age  the  learned  language 
 of  Egypt,  as  he  adopted  most  of  his  pecuhar  tenets 
 fyom  the  mythology  of  Hesiod  and  the  philosophy 
 of  Plato  *^  It  is  in  the  last  degree  improbable, 
 that  Tertiillian  could  have  understood  him,  had  he 
 \yritten  in  any  other  language  ;  and  wholly  incon- 
 ceivable, that  he  should  omit  all  mention  of  so  ex- 
 traordinary a  circumstance  as  his  having  read  Valen- 
 ti'nus  ill!  his  vernacular  tongue.  Admitting  all  that 
 can  be  claimed  for  this  work,  that  it  was  really  com- 
 posed by  the  early  heretiek  to  whom  it  is  ascribed, 
 it  is  thus  only  probable  that  it  is  but  a  translation 
 from  the  Greek,  and  of  course,  for  any  thing  we  caa 
 decide,  one  of  a  very  recent  period.  In  this  form  it 
 is  as  probable,,  as  the  contrary,  that  it  incorporates 
 in  its  text  a  version  of  the  New  Testament  w-hicli 
 has  been  made  in  the  fourth  ceniwy  instead  of  the 
 second.  The  fact,  however,  is,  that  thie  internal 
 evidence  of  the  work  before  us,  seems  very  sufficient 
 to  refute  the  notion  of  its  having  been  written  by 
 the  heretiek  Valentinus ;    if  we  are  to  beheve  the 
 
 iwgabit  quisquis  ad  ejus  systema — attenderit.  In  2^rimis  Phi- 
 losopfii(c  PlntoniccE,  ad  quam  potissimum  mentem  appellabant 
 Gnostici  omnes,  opei-am  dedisse,  testis  est  Tertullianus  [De 
 Praescr.  cap.  7.  30.]  pluraque  ab  ea  accepta  dogmata  demon- 
 strant.  Cum  in  ^^gypto,  et  prsesertim  Alexamlriae^  plurimi 
 Judaeorum  eo  tempore  vixerint,  hinc  verosomile  putat  Joan^r 
 Francisc.  Budda^us,  in  Dissertat.  de  Haeresi  Valentin. — ^^Valen- 
 tinura  eorinn  Philosopkice,  qualis  eo- tempore  eratyj^iusse  imhutum. 
 ^^  Id,  ibid.  §,  25.  "  Id  ipsum  ante  Tertullianum  [De 
 PrcTescr.  cap.  vii.  De  An.  cap.  xvii.]  monuerat  Iren«;us  [Adv. 
 Haer.  lib.  ii.  cap.  14.]  Valentinianos  ex  Ethnicis  Poetis  systematic 
 fovmam,  e  Fhilosophis  materiam  eruisse.  vid.  supr.  n.  ^\ 
 
(    53    ) 
 
 testimony  of  TertuUian,  on  whose  antliority  it  is 
 assigned  to  him.  The  passag'es  of  scripture,  intro- 
 duced into  this  work  are  often  misquoted  in  order 
 to  favour  the  Gnostick  tenets  ;  but  we  are  assured 
 that  those  contained  in  the  w^orks  of  Valentinus, 
 were  faithfully  cited,  though  perversely  interpreted 
 to  support  his  heretical  doctrines  '^.  We  must 
 therefore  conclude^  not  merely  from  the  external 
 evidence,  which  is  at  best  equivocal,  but  from  the 
 internal,  which  seems  to  estabhsh  all  that  I  labour 
 to  prove,  that  the  work  imputed  to  Valentinus,  has 
 been  ascjibed  to  him  on  inconclusive  grounds. 
 
 The  Sahidick  version  quoted  in  the  book  of 
 ''  Wisdom,"  may,  consequently,  for  any  thing 
 which  this  argument  concludes,  be  as  well  ascribed 
 to  the  fourth  century  as  to  the  second  And  many 
 -weighty  reasons  may  be,  I  conceive,  urged  to 
 prove,  that  the  former  was  the  period  which  pro- 
 iluced  this  translation  ;  several  learned  and  pious 
 persons    having-   been   at  that  time  exiled  in  the 
 
 '*  Fragmentt.  Vers.  Saliid.  ub.  supr.  p.  135.  *'  Version  era 
 autem  Sahidicam,  seu  Superioris  iEgypti,  jam  primis  post 
 Christum  natum  seculis  incuria  Scribarum  et  levitate  cic  Ucentia 
 Gnostlcorum  Jiiisse  depravatam,  e  pluribus  locis  CocUcis  Asketvani 
 ^vanifestissime  adparet,  praecipue  Matt.  vi.  21.  xviii.  21.  xx.  16. 
 Xuc.  xiii.  25—28.  xxii.  30.  Rom.  xiii.  7."  Massuet.  Dissert, 
 ubi  supr.  sect.  iv.  §.  9.  p.  xvi.  *'  Certe  ne  longiiis  a  proposito 
 ^eflectam,  genuinus  Tertullianus  hujus  libri  [De  Prtrscrip.] 
 cap.  xxxviii.  Valentinum  a  crimiiie  suppositionis  novi  Evangelii 
 palam  absolvit. — *  Valentinus  integro  instrumento  uti  videtnr. — 
 Marcion  enim  exerte  et  palam  machacra,  non  stylo  usus  est : 
 quonlam  ad  materiam  suam  caedem  Scripturarum  confeeit :  Vo/- 
 Icntiniis  autem  pcpercit^''  &c. 
 
(    3*    ) 
 
 Thebais  '^  who  could  have  found  no  better  mode  of 
 employing  their  leisure,  than  in  procuring  the  Scrip* 
 tures  to  be  translated  for  the  purpose  of  enabhng 
 them  to  diffuse  Christianity  more  generally  among 
 the  natives;  with  whose  vulgar  tongue  they  were  unr 
 acquainted.  And  this  supposition  is  not  a  little 
 strengthened  by  the  consideration^  that  they  were  ap- 
 parently the  persons  '^^  who  brought  into  Europe  the 
 
 '^  S.  Hilary,  Eusebius  Vercellensis,  and  Lucifer  Calaritanus; 
 Theodorit.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  HL  cap.  iv.  p.  125. 1.  23.--xa<  rhq 
 vTio  }Lcov<)(X-yliii  Tojv  BuyiKriaicuy  e^£>ca^ev7aj  l9ri(Tx6^8S"  xxl  raj 
 icrx^Tiocq   Tw?    olx.iif/,BV7i<;   oixavra?,    iU  Tcci  ol)i£laq  iT^cC'ViXBf.Tv  lx.x?\.via-ioc<; 
 
 Z5^os  "Alyy-TTTOV  ^irjyov.  1x67  7a§  ocvrss  o  Kwvi'avrtos  s^^co^qdmasv, 
 Conf.  Socrat,  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  HL  cap.  v.  p.  177. 1. 2.  Sozom. 
 Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  V.  cap.  xii.  p.  197.  1.  39.  seq. 
 
 *^  The  rarity  of  these  manuscripts  in  Europe,  and  the  care 
 with  which  they  have  been  preserved,  enable  us  to  refer  them  to 
 their  respective  owners  with  little  comparative  difficulty. 
 Eusebius's  manuscript  is  supposed  to  be  still  preserved  at  his 
 church  in  Verceli,  vid.  infr.  n.  *^:  and  the  coincidence  between 
 it  and  the  Cambridge  manuscript  enables  us  to  assign  the  latter 
 to  a  similar  source  with  it.  Hilary's  text  may  be  ascertained 
 from  the  Colbert  manuscript ;  vid.  Sabatier.  Vers.  Ital.  SS. 
 Bibll.  Tom.  III.  p.  XXXV.  and  the  Laudian  manuscript,  which, 
 it  is  next  to  certain  belonged  to  the  venerable  Bede,  vid.  Woid. 
 Praef.  Cod.  Alexandr.  }.  78.  as  brought  out  of  Sardinia,  may 
 be  thence  traced  to  Lucifer ;  vid.  Wetsten.  Proleg.  in  Nov, 
 Test.  Tom.  H.  p.  449.  These  deductions  are  not  only  con- 
 firmed by  the  history  of  those  christian  Fathers,  who  were  versed 
 in  Greek,  and  had  been  exiled  in  the  Thebais,  from  whence 
 thege  MSS.  were  brought  j   but  by  this  known  circumstance 
 
(  55  ) 
 Cambridg-e,  and  other  manuscripts  of  the  same  de- 
 scription, which  resemble  the  oldest  manuscripts  '^  of 
 the  Sahidick  version,  not  merely  in  their  form,  as 
 attended  with  a  translation  ;  but  in  their  peculiar 
 readings  ^°,  and  the  character  in  which  they  are 
 written  *'.     The  general  prevalence  of  the  Greek 
 
 —that  a  knowledge  of  that  language,  if  not  confined  to  them, 
 was  a  rarity  in  Europe  :  vid.  infr.  n.  ^^, 
 
 ''  Such  is  the  fragment  of  St.  Jolw's  Gospel  which  contains 
 the  Greek  text  opposed  to  a  Sahidick  translation,  in  the  same 
 manner  as  the  Cambridge  and  Clermont  MSS.  contain  the 
 Greek  opposed  to  a  Latm  translation.  It  has  been  published 
 under  the  following  title  :  Fragmentum  Evangeiii  S.  Johannis 
 Graeco-Copto-thebaicum  sasculi  iv.  Opera  et  studio  F.  Augustini 
 Antonii  Georgii  Eremitae  Augustiniani  Rom.  1789. 
 
 '^^  Kipling.  Praef.  Cod.  Cantab,  p.  vi.  Cognitum  nunc  ha* 
 bemus  Codicis  Bezce  Grreca  non  tantum  cum  versionibiis  turn 
 Syriacis  turn  Latina,  verum  etiam  cum  versionibus  Hierosoly- 
 mitana,  Sahidica,  Copticay  &c.  minim  in  modum  convenire.  Conf, 
 Fragmentt  Vers.  Sahid.  a  Woid.  ut  supr.  p.  131 — 135.  where  a 
 variety  of  examples  are  collected,  in  which  the  Sahidick  Version 
 is  proved  to  coincide  with  the  Vulgate  and  the  Cambridge  and 
 Clermont  manuscripts. 
 
 "  Kipling.  Praef.  Cod.  Cantab,  p.  xv.  Observarunt  eru- 
 diti  quidam  aherrationes  [Cod.  Bezae]  a  sueta  Grascorum 
 orthographia  jjronuntiationi  JEgyptiacce  admodum  congruere, 
 et  in  omnibus  fere  occurrere  ex  i^gypto  allatis  codicibus.  Quas 
 ob  causas  consuerunt  Wetstenius,  Woidius,  et  Spohn,  Codicem 
 Alexandrinum,  cui  nimirum  aherrationes  istee  cum  Bezae  ex- 
 emplari  communes  sunt  in  JEgi/ptofuisse  scriptum — Quid  igitur 
 obstat,  cur  non  credamus  eum  qui  Bezae  exscripsit  exemplar 
 JEgijptium  fiiisse?  Talem  esse  video  quidem  Antonii  Georgii 
 sententiam,  quo  uberius  nemo,  quod  sciam,  doctiu&ve  lianc  rem 
 tractavit.  Cujus  argumentis  meum  hoc  qualecunque  subjungere 
 liceat,  Quod  Graeca  nostri  codicis  non  tantum  A'lgyptiaco  scripia 
 sunt  morCf  sed  lectionibus  praeterea  scatent,  quas  in  iEgyptiacis 
 
(    56    ) 
 
 language,  I  again  repeat,  renders  It  highly  impro- 
 bable, that  this  version  should  be  ascribed  to  a  much 
 higher  period.  And  the  version  itself,  as  abound- 
 ing with  Greek  terms,  contains  a  demonstrative 
 proof  of  the  fact,  by  proving  the  general  prevalence 
 of  that  language  in  the  Thebais.  It  was  the  former 
 circumstance  which  seemingly  determined  the  in- 
 spired writers  in  the  choice  which  they  made  of 
 that  language,  as  the  medium  through  which  the 
 sacred  canon  was  to  be  published.  To  this  circum- 
 stance we  are  to  attribute  the  republication  of  the 
 Jewish  Scriptures  in  Greek,  under  the  Ptolemies ; 
 and  we  consequently  find,  in  the  apostoHcal  age, 
 that  the  Greek  translation  had  nearly  superseded 
 the  oriental  original. 
 
 The  matter  under  discussion  is  thus  reduced 
 within  a  narrow  compass.  Deprived  of  the  assist- 
 ance of  the  primitive  divines,  and  of  the  oriental 
 versions,  in  ascertaining  the  original  text  of  Scrip- 
 ture, our  last  dependence  is  rested  on  the  old  Italick 
 translation.  Here,  however,  it  may  be  as  securely 
 as  naturally  placed.     The  Scripture  was  not   less 
 
 quibusdam,  nee  in  ullis  aliis  librls  compertas  Iiabemus.  Quibus 
 argumentis,  quibusque  gravissimis  auctoribus,  ad  credendurn 
 tandem  adducor,  JLgyptum  esse  Bezce  exemplaris  patriam,''* 
 Woide,  Prsef.  Cod.  Ales^andr.  Sect.  vi.  J.  76,  "  Rationes 
 autem,  cur  in  Oriente  potius  scriptus  esse  videatur  Codex  Lau- 
 dianus  hpe  sunt.  Eadern  est  orthographia  in  eo  ac  in  Alexandri- 
 no,  £t  pro  V,  et  £  pro  at  ponit,  &c.  easdem  habet  breviationes : 
 frequentissime  ny  j^a^jtyrtJto* ;  eandem  interpunctionem  :  voces 
 antiquo  scriptas,  ivecrviv  pro  hvocTriv,  £^»/>tv]/£v  pro  Ihn-^tv :  et  quod 
 pra^cipuum,  eosdem  ductus Uteraruin jSed pinguiores, et festinanter, 
 jiec  intra  lin.eas  scriptos," 
 
(  57  ) 
 committed  to  the  keeping*  of  the  Latin  than  of  the 
 Greek  churchy  as  the  witnesses  of  its  autlienticity, 
 and  the  guardians  of  its  purity  ;  and  the  knowledge 
 of  the  languages  spoken  by  those  churches,  w^as 
 nearly  commensurate  with  the  Roman  and  Macedo- 
 nian conquests.  The  former  cliurch  possessed  a 
 translation^  which^  as  generally  quoted  by  the  Latin 
 fathers  previously  to  the  council  of  Nice_,  was  con- 
 sequently made  previously  to  any  alterations  which 
 the  original  might  have  undergone  under  Constan- 
 tine.  This  translation  has  been  celebrated  for  its 
 literal  fidelity  "^  and  we  have  this  security  of  its 
 having  long  continued  unaltered  "-^  that  the  Latins 
 were  not  sufficiently  instructed  in  the  language  of 
 the  original,  to  undertake  the  correction  of  the  tran- 
 slation. So  very  rare  was  the  humble  qualification 
 of  reading  Greeks  that  we  have  every  reason  to 
 believe^  it  was  possessed  by  few  of  the  Latins,  Ter- 
 tullian  excepted  '^,  until  the  age  of  Constantine ; 
 when  the  councils  convened  against  the  Arians, 
 opened  that  intercourse  between  the  eastern  and 
 western  churches,  which  familiarized  the  latter  with 
 the  origmal  language  of  the  sacred  canon  ^^     After 
 
 "  Vid.  S.  August.  De  Doctrin.  Christ.  Lib.  II.  cap.  xv.  Torn. 
 III.  p.  27.  g.  ed.  Bened.  "  In  ipsis  autem  interpretationibus 
 Itala  caeteris  praeferatur ;  nam  est  'verborum  tenacior  cum  ^Jers* 
 jpicuitate  sententia;,^^ 
 
 *^  Hilar.  Diac.  Com.  in  Rom.  v.  **  Constat  autem  quosdam 
 Latinos  porro  olim  de  veteribus  Greeds  translatos  codicibus  quos 
 incorruptos  simplicitas  temporum  sernavit,  et  probat,'^  Sec. 
 
 "■'  Vid.  Pamel.  Vit.  Tertul.  ad  An.  Chr.  197.  ed.  Franc. 
 1597. 
 
 *^  Twenty  years  after  this  intercourse  had  commenced,  the 
 Latin  fathers  made  this  avowal  of  their  ignorance  of  the  Greek, 
 
(     ^8     ) 
 
 that  period,  Hilary,  Lucifer,  and  Eusebius  of  Verceli 
 arose,  who  are  represented  as  possessed  of  learning 
 sufficient  to  revise  the  old  Italick  translation^^. 
 St.  Jerome  was  of  a  later  period,  who  undertook 
 that  thorough  revision  of  the  text  which  has  produced 
 the  present  Vulgate :  yet  even  in  the  same  age,  St. 
 Augustine  appears  to  have  been  but  moderately 
 versed  in  the  Greek  language. 
 
 In  proceeding  to  estimate  the  testimony  which  the 
 Latin  translation  bears  to  the  state  of  the  Greek 
 
 in  declining  to  subscribe  to  the  confession  proposed  to  them  hy 
 the  Orientalists ;  Socr.  Hist.  Ecci.  Lib.  II.  cap.  xx.  p.  103. 1.  3, 
 
 TavToc  ot  y.ccToe.  ra  lairifia,  ijt,epvi  £9ri(7xo7rot,  ^ta  to  ocXT^oyXa/a-aovq  iivca, 
 XOii  01(4  TO  (xri  avvicvaciy  a  Tr^ocr^e^ovrop  upniTv  rn^  \v  Ntxaia  "Trifty 
 y^iyovrtc, 
 
 **  This  must  be  inferred  from  the  part  which  Eusebius  Ver- 
 cellensis,  Hilary,  and  Lucifer  took  in  the  affairs  of  the  Greek 
 church  ;  the  return  of  those  bishops  to  their  dioceses,  after  the 
 council  held  at  Alexandria,  under  St.  Athanasius,  is  recorded 
 by  the  ecclesiastick  historians ;  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  Ill, 
 cap.  ix.  p.  184s  1.  33.  cap.  x.  p.  185.  1.  8. — x-kku,  A^xzcpe^ 
 tri»   osyY,v  uvo'jrh'n^ucrcci    -dK   Xcr-^jaiv  e^s^eto  ya^  'va^c,  eauTS  «9ro^o7^«^?J 
 
 KA^vTrea-VBTo.  ^ioTrifi  ocuros  posv  rris  BKK7^7iaiciS  (p^ovwv,  els"  T':^v  2a^- 
 Savt'av  Itti  tov  oIxeTov  S"§ovov  dTTS^uf^si.  ol  h  'sj^ots^ov  a-vXXvTrr,'- 
 ^BvTsq  uvra,  'iri  xat  vvv  t^j  iKyJ^riy^xq  ^u^i^ovrai.  sLuai^iOS  fxsvroi 
 ^i)iY,v  uyciBS  lare^  xara  rriv  uvaToXriV  rccq  iiTopiiocq  'CTOt««,£vo?,  laq 
 ria-^iVYiKorocq  tAyipi  T'/jf  'UjW^v  oc,vs?\ei,[JL^oi.i£f  fOi^siuv  nxl  oioocaKUv  rex,  Ijj- 
 y.^^ytaiccTf'iCC  Kri^vyyi.ctrcc'  fXiTa^cci  ^e  IxsTBtVf  i'rri  n  'lAAv^i«?  'urci-^ctyUtroct, 
 xai  'IraXicts  swiloecSy  ra.  avra,  ^lETTqccrlcTO.  'E<p^ay.e*  ^s  Kotl 
 'IXdpios,  0  YlvA-ra,^ iu)v  gTricrjtoTro?,  tetoXi?  ^e  atlrvj  ^fyrt'^ag  AxvTavta<r, 
 «Z3-poxaTa^E|SAv3^£yo$  roi  t5j?  q^o^o^h  'crirEWS  ^oy^ocrocj  tok  Te  !»  IrocXiot 
 xat  TaKhia.  im^y.o'noiq''  xaci  ya^  zj^ors^os  rris  s^o^iccs  \7iccMuVy 
 xocrsiXYi<pn   Tiig   totthc.      a[JL(pc>}  yt.iv  dv   ytvvxiuq  t55  "Crirei  crvnTtyuvlaxvro* 
 
 (:onf.  Sozom.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  V.  cap.  xiii.  p.  119. 1.  11. 
 
{    59    ) 
 text,  it  is  necessary  to  premise,  that  this  transkriom 
 exhibits  three  varieties  :— As  corrected  by  St.  Jerome 
 at  the  desire  of  Pope  Damasus  *^  and  preseiTcd  in 
 the  Vuigate ;    as  corrected  by  Eusebius  of  Verceli. 
 at  the  desire  of  Pope  Juhus,  and  preserved  in  the 
 Codex  Vercellensis  ''  ;   and  as  existing  previously 
 to  the  corrections  of  both,  and  preserved  as  I  con- 
 ceive, in  the  Codex  Brixianus  '^.     The  first  of  these 
 three  editions  of  the  Itahck  translation  is  too  well 
 known  to  need  any  description  ;  both  the  last  are  con- 
 tained in  beautiful  manuscripts,  preserved  at  Ver- 
 celi,  and  at  Brescia,  in  Italy.     The  curious  and  ex- 
 pensive manner  in  which  at  least  the  latter  of  these 
 jnanuscripts  is  executed,  as  written  on  purple  veiluna 
 
 *■  Vid.  supr.  p.  15.  n.^^. 
 
 *^  F.  H.  Rugger.  Cod.  Vercel.  Descrip.  ap.  Blancliin.  Evang. 
 Quadr.  Proleg.  p.  57. — "  exstant  et  docuraenta  plurima  certs 
 fidoi,  monumentisque  publicis  conslgnata,  ex  quibus  ediscimus, 
 librum  quatnor  Evangdwrum  a  magno  saiicto  Patre  nostro 
 Episcopo  et  Martyre  Eusebio  ex  Gr^Bcanicis  litteris  ante  Divum 
 Hieronymum  esse  redditum,  Hac  ipsa  igitur  facultate  Graecarum 
 litterarum  iectionis  ea  perfectione  llomaj  potiebatur,  ut  Jtdras 
 Poidifex  Maxirnus  Marci  successor,  qui  Eusebium  sacro  pres- 
 byterali  charactere  insignivit,  existimavit  ilium  non  sibi  soli 
 vacare,  sed  etiam  ChnsLiana^  Reipubiicas  prodesse  debere  ;  ut 
 Jiabetur  ex  antiquissimis  tabulis,  in  quibus  eundem  Eusebium 
 interpretem  scicrorum  volumiiium  designatum  a  Summo  Pontifxe 
 fuisse  traditur.  Grsecas  enim  literas  non  alio  proposito  sibi  fine 
 *  didicerat,  quam  ut  perfectius  Sacrarum  Literarum  arcana  dig- 
 
 nosceret." 
 
 *^  The  description  of  this  MS.  which  may,  as  I  conceive,  be 
 
 referred  to  Phiiastrius  Brixiensis,  as  I  shall  endeavour  to  shew 
 
 hereafter,  is  given  in  Blanchin.  Evang.  Quadrupl.  Proleg.  Tom. 
 
 Lp.5, 
 
(     60     ) 
 
 in  silver  characters  '°^  would  of  itself  contain  no 
 inconclusive  proof  of  its  great  antiquity ;  such  having 
 been  the  form  in  which  the  most  esteemed  works 
 were  executed  in  the  times  of  Eusebius^  Chrysostome^ 
 and  Jerome  ^\  The  former  is  ascribed^  by  im- 
 memorial tradition^  to  Eusebius  Vercellensis^  the 
 friend  of  Pope  Julius  and  St.  Athanasius^  and^  as 
 supposed  to  have  been  written  with  his  own  hand, 
 is  deposited  among  the  relicks,  which  are  preserved 
 with  a  deg-ree  of  superstitious  reverence,  in  the 
 authour's  church  at  Verceli  in  Piedmont  ^\  By  these 
 
 3°  P.  Garbel.  Descr.  Cod.  Brix.  ap.  Blanchin.  ibid.  p.  10. 
 *'  Forma  Codicis  [Brixiani]  oblonga  est  ita,  ut  latitudinem 
 ferme  quadrante  superet.  Ejus  membran£e,  licet  purjmra  tinctce 
 fuerint^  plurimae   tamen,  vetustate  teraporis,  cserulei  speciera 
 
 praese-ferunt.     Caracteres, argenteo    qiiodam  figmcnto  sunt 
 
 liti :  cujus  tamen  color,  multis  in  locis  evanidus,  aureitm  si' 
 mulaty  fallitque,  nisi  intente  inspiciatur.  Unde  et  nos  olim  Co' 
 dicem  Aureiim  vocabamus." 
 
 2'  Barret.  Cod.  Rescript.  Dublinens.  Proleg.  p.  9.  "  Mem- 
 branas,  super  quas  describitur  [Cod.  Dublinens.]  videntur  pri- 
 mitus  piirpurei  fidsse  colons  :  quod  indicium  est  magna;  vetus- 
 iaiis.     Sic   Chrysost.   in  Job.   Horn,   xxxii.  kccI  v)  'oroicra.  ctvro^i 
 
 ffTtaort  'UJi^k  Tnv  Tccv  v^ivuv  AsWToTijra,    xa*  to  t^-'v  ypotjj.y.cx.rav  y.aAAoq—— 
 
 cTi  x^'^To^^  £xei  y^a^^ccarj.  Tom.  II.  ed.  Savil.  p.  6S6.  Testatur 
 vero  Capitolinus  in  Vit.  Maximini ;  ominis  imperii  in  loco  illi 
 fuisse,  quod  omnes  libri  Homerici,  qui  illi  puero  porrigerentur, 
 fuerunt  jmrpure/y  Uteris  mireis  inscripti.^* 
 
 ^^  Rugger.  Cod.  Vercel.  Descrip.  ubi  supr.  "  De  vero  pos- 
 sessore hujus  sacri  voluminis  prscter  antiquam  constantissiraara 
 venerationem,  quam  seniper  erga  illud,  Capitulum  et  Ecclesia 
 professa  est,  illud  asserxnndo  in  ipsomet  sacra  Reliquiarum  depositor 
 ubi  sanctorum,  prophctarum,  apostolorum,  plurimorumque 
 martyrum  ossa  cUstodiuntur,  exstant  et  docuraenta  plurima 
 certCE  iidtfij  dx.  vid.  supr.  n,  ^^« 
 
(    61     ) 
 
 three  editions  of  the  translation^  we  might  naturally 
 expect  to  acquire  some  insight  into  the  varieties  of 
 the  original.  And  this  expectation  is  fully  justified 
 on  experiment.  The  latter,  not  less  than  the 
 former,  is  capable  of  being  distributed  into  three 
 kinds ;  each  of  which  possesses  an  extraordinary 
 coincidence  with  one  of  a  correspondent  kind,  in 
 the  translation.  In  a  word,  the  Greek  manuscripts 
 are  capable  of  being  divided  into  three  principal 
 classes,  one  of  which  agrees  with  the  Italick  transla- 
 tion contained  in  the  Brescia  manuscript ;  another 
 with  that  contained  in  the  Verceli  manuscript ;  and 
 a  third  with  that  contained  in  the  Vulgate. 
 
 In  ascertaining  the  particular  Greek  manuscripts 
 which,  as  possessing  this  coincidence  with  the  Latin, 
 may  be  taken  as  the  exemplars  of  each  class,  we 
 have  few  difficulties  to  encounter.  The  affinity 
 existing  between  the  Vatican  manuscript  and  the 
 Vulgate  is  so  striking,  as  to  have  induced  Dr.  Bent- 
 ley,  and  M.  Wetstein  to  class  them  together  ^\     And 
 
 51  Wetsten.  Proleg.  in  Nov.  Test.  Tom.  I.  p.  26.  Neque 
 vei'O  cur  eorum  testimonium  in  dubium  vocari  debet ;  cum  co7z- 
 Jirmetur  et  -per  R.  Beyitleium,  qui  saepe  inter  amicos  narrare 
 solebat,  Vaticanum  Codicem  in  omnibus  fere  cum  Alexandrino, 
 adeoqne  etiam.,  ut  supra  demonstravimus,  cum  'versioiie  Itala, 
 convenire :  et  re  ipsa,  nam  Mat.  v.  22.  non  habet  sIk^,  1  John 
 iv.  3.  non  habet  x^^^^*  ''^  <'"«?x*  iM^^v^ora, ;  ut  alia  passim  iji  var. 
 led.  nostris  annotata  taceam.^*  The  collation  of  the  Vatican 
 MS.  made  for  Dr.  Bentley  is  published  by  Dr.  Ford  at  the  end 
 of  his  Fragmentt.  Vers.  Sahidic.  Oxon.  1799.  by  its  assistance, 
 the  affinity  between  the  Vulgate  and  Vatican  manuscript  may 
 be  directly  discovered  on  comparison. 
 
(  62  ) 
 1  proceed  to  ofTer  some  proofs  that  the  affinity  of 
 the  Harleian  and  Moscow  manuscript  ^^  with  the 
 Brescia  manuscript ;  and  tliat  of  the  Codex  Can- 
 tabrigiensis  with  the  Verceh  manuscript^  is  not 
 kss  striking  and  extraordinary.  So  that  the  Har- 
 leian and  Moscow  manuscript,  the  Cambridge  ma- 
 nuscript, and  the  Vatican  m^anuscript,  (as  re- 
 spectively coinciding  with  the  Brescia  manuscript, 
 tliQ  YerccH  manuscript,  and  the  Vulgate)  may  be 
 taken  as  exemplars  of  the  three  principal  classes 
 into  which  the  Greek  manuscripts  may  be  distri* 
 buted. 
 
 The  subjoined  specimen,  taken  from  the  first 
 chapter  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  will  furnish  a 
 tolerably  just  idea  of  the  nature  and  closeness  of  this 
 coincidence.  I  shall  prefix  the  readings  of  the 
 Received  Text,  and  authorized  English  version,  in 
 order  to  evince  their  coincidence  with  that  text,  to 
 which  the  preference  appears  to  be  due,  on  account 
 of  its  conformity  to  the  Italick  translation  contained 
 in  the  Brescia  manuscript. 
 
 2^^  These  MSS.  are  designated  by  M.  Griesbach,  "  G,  and 
 Mt.  V."  The  former  is  preserved  in  the  British  Museum,  where 
 it  is  marked  Harl.  5684' :  it  is  assigned  to  the  tenth  century,  and 
 is  described  by  M.  Griesbach  Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  I.  p.  Ixiv. — 
 The  latter  is  a  manuscript  of  the  S.  Synod  at  Moscow,  which 
 has  been  described  by  M.  Mattha^i  Nov.  Test.  Tom.  IX.  p.  265^ 
 and  is  conceived  by  him  to  be  of  the  eighth  century.  It 
 remains  to  be  observed,  that  the  various  readings  of  this  MS. 
 in  the  annexed  collation  are  taken  from  M.  Mattha^i's  text  and 
 notes.  The  Harleian  MS.  wants  the  five  first  chapters  of  St* 
 Matthew ;  its  various  readings  have  been  consequently  omitted 
 in  the  annexed  collation  of  texts. 
 
(     e3     ) 
 
 —  blessed  are  they  that  mourn,  &c.     AtdL 
 fA«xa§joi  ol  ixr^xBTq  x.  r.  I.    Cant,  ■  beati  mites,  &c.      Vera, 
 f/.oty.a.^ioi  ot  'EJsv^Svreq.  x.  t.  I.  Vat,     beati  miteSf  &c.     Vulg. 
 /xajtagtot   oi   crs^SSvTej    k.   t.    t,      beati  qui  lugenty  &c.     JSrix* 
 
 MOSG. 
 
 5.   f/.ocy.a.^iOi  o»  i^^aErg  x.  T.  I.       ii^C. 
 
 —  blessed  are  the  meek,  <&rc.     Aitth. 
 
 ^a.y.a,^ioi  ot  'SiTBvBiivTei;,    x,  T.    1.  beati  qui  lugenf,  &c,      Verc* 
 
 Cant. 
 
 fAXKo-oioi  ol  -nr^ae?;  x.  r.  I.    Vat,  beati  5'z«  lugenty  &c,     Vulg* 
 
 f/.aKccfm  ol  ^m^xiic,,  x,  r.  I.  Mosc.  beati  mansueii,     Brix, 
 
 11.  xa^'  y^M-wy  v^sr'^o/XSVOl  svExey  e/xh.      ^^C. 
 
 —  against  you  falsely  for  .my  sake.     ^wif^. 
 
 xa$'    t-jiAwy     'inxiv     Jixatofft/vajs-.  adversum  vos  propter /zw^/i/aw* 
 
 Crt72f.  Fere. 
 
 xaS'  t-jwwv  Nj'ef^o/xcvot  my.o  I/laS.  adversum  vos  mcntientes  prop- 
 
 ^a#,  ter  me,      Vulg, 
 
 xaS'  ^^^y  >j/eyoopt£voi  mxty  sptS.  adversum  vos  mentientes  prop- 
 
 j\fo^c.  ^^^  ^^^«     Brix. 
 
 12.  Iv  Tor?  «|«i/orf,    Rec, 
 
 —  in  heaven,     Auth, 
 
 |y  Tw  i^uva.     Cant.  in  coelo.      F^rc. 
 
 tj*  TO??  «^a>or?.      Vat,  in  ccelis.      Fzi/o-. 
 
 •»  T6K  tfgaxor?.    iVfo^c.  in  coslis,     Brix. 
 
 13.  6»s  «o£v  t<r;)(^yEt  %ri.     JRec. 
 
 —  it  is  thenceforth  good  for  nothing.     Atith, 
 
 tlq  H^\v  Icr^iti.     Cant.  ad  nihilum  valet.     Verc, 
 
 «i?  hTiv  \a^i%  6TI,      Vai,  ad  nihilum  valet  ultra,     Vulg, 
 
 »»?  tfJi»  »Vx^gt  £Ti.     Mosc,  ati  nihilum  valebit  w/^rn.  ^nV- 
 
(     64     ) 
 
 —  angry  with  his  brother  tviihoid  a  cause,     AutJt, 
 o^yi^ofXBvoq  rZ  a,oiX(()Z  avr^  shij^        qui  irascitur  fratri  suo  sine  cau* 
 
 Cant,  sa .      Vera, 
 
 a^yt^ofA,Evo<;  rco  uh\(pZ  ayra.    Vaf,      qui  irascitur  fratri  suo.     Vulg. 
 agyit,o!Xivo(;  ru  uoi?i(pu  avTH  ilan.      qui  irascitur  fratri  SUO  5zwe  ctfM- 
 
 Mosc,  sa,     Brix, 
 
 27.    Ipcs^r)  roT^  oc^yccioiq,       ReC, 
 
 —  it  has  been  said  b^  them  of  old  time,     AutTi^ 
 
 Canf,  dictum  est.      Vera, 
 
 Vat,     Mosc  dictum  est.     Brix, 
 
 dictum  est  antiquis,      Corh* 
 
 Vuk. 
 
 i^^sBn  To7<;  u.^'^ou\o\c, 
 
 30.  ^j>~.f^'A  £K  yhnOLV,      Rec. 
 —  be  cast  into  hell.     Auth, 
 
 a-Tlik^rn  £i;  yiinav,  Canf, 
 tU  yhv'jav  a-TiiX^^,  Vat, 
 ^,'K'fi^'Q  sU  yiivvcci,      MoSC. 
 
 eat  in  gehennam.  Vera, 
 eat  in  gehennam.  Vulg, 
 mittatur  in  gehennam.     B7ix, 
 
 S2.  >-eyu}  viA.h  on.      Rec, 
 
 —  I  say  unto  you  that.     Auth. 
 
 r^iyoi  v^fAv.     Cant.  dico  vobis.      Verc, 
 
 7,iyu  lyAv  on.      Vat,  dico  vobis  quia,      Vulg, 
 
 >,iyu  l^uv  on,     Mosc,  dico  vobis  quia,     Brix. 
 
 32.    oq  loiv  u'jToT^t'KvfXivriV  ycc(A.Y)c-yj  [j.oi^eiroci,       ReC, 
 
 —  whosoever  shall  marry  her  that  is  divorced,   com- 
 mitteth  adultery.     Azith, 
 
 desunt.     Canf, .  desunt.     Vercel, 
 
 o  i.itQX\>.vifAvr,y  yxiAr.ffx^  /xot;)(;aTat  qui  dimissam  duxerit  adidteraU 
 
 Vat,  Vulg, 
 
 05  la,i  uTro%i\vy.ivnv  yxfA^c-rt  p.oi-  qui  dimissam  duxerit  mcecha* 
 
 XUT6H,     Mo^c.  tur,    Brix. 
 
(    66    ) 
 
 — .  and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth.    Auth, 
 
 i^oyret  uvr)  o^o»to?.     Cant, 
 HCU  o^ovra  am  oJo'vto?,       Vat, 
 
 dentem  pro  dentem.  Verc, 
 et  dentem  pro  dente.  Vulg, 
 et  dentem  pro  dente.    Brix, 
 
 41.  vvaye  /xet*  avrn  ^vo,     R6C» 
 
 —  go  with  him  twain.    Auth, 
 
 vTrotyt  y^tr   avrS  tn  aXK»  ^V9.      vade  cum  illo  adhuc  alia  duo. 
 
 Cant,  Verc. 
 
 Zvaye  /aet*  ayrS  ^vo.     Vat,  vade    cum    illo  et  alia  duo. 
 
 Vulg, 
 vfr«7i  f«ET  avrS  ^vo.    Mosc»  vade  cum  illo  duo.    Brix, 
 
 —  bless  them  that  curse  you.    Auth, 
 ii}^(iyt7rt  T8?  xaI«gw/Ae»tf?  »/*«? dcsunt.     Ki^ri?. 
 
 desunt.     Vat.  desunt.     Vulg, 
 
 »v\oyt7ri  t«5  ««]«pft;/Afy»$  y/^«j.         benedicite  maledicentibus  vos» 
 Mosc.  ^rix, 
 
 xat  ^iUMvruv  v^ioiq,     Rec, 
 — pray  for  them  who  despitefuUy  use  you 
 and  persecute  you.     Auth. 
 
 xa*  ^tUKOVTuv  vfAoiq,      Cant, 
 
 ^^offtvp(^tff^e  i/Vi^  ruv  oiuKovruv  v* 
 f*Ss.     Vat, 
 
 MOSG. 
 
 orate   pro  calumniantlbus   et 
 persequentibus  vos.     Verc* 
 
 orate  pro   persequentibus  et 
 calumniantlbus  vos      Vulg* 
 
 orate  pro  calumniantibus  vobis 
 et  persequentibus  vos.  Brix» 
 
(    66    ) 
 
 This  short  specimen  ^^  will  sufficiently  evince  the 
 affinity  which  the  Greek  and  Latin  manuscripts 
 bear  to  each  other^  throughout  the  different  classes, 
 into  which  they  may  be  divided.  It  will  also 
 illustrate  the  dissimilarity  which  those  classes  ex- 
 hibit among  themselves^  in  either  language^  re- 
 garded separately.  In  order  to  evince  the  affinity 
 which  in  other  respects  they  possess  among  them- 
 selves^ it  will  be  necessary  to  view  a  connected  por- 
 tion of  the  sacred  text,,  in  the  original  and  the 
 translation.  For  this  purpose  I  shall  subjoin  the 
 opening  of  the  same  chapter  from  whence  the  fore- 
 cited  various  readings  have  been  extracted ;  inclu- 
 ding that  part  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  which 
 contains  the  beatitudes. 
 
 35  These  examples  may  be  augmented  to  any  required  extent^ 
 with  very  little  trouble  to  the  undertaker.  The  principal 
 coincidences  of  the  Received  Text  and  Brescia  MS.  in  readings 
 which  differ  from  the  Vulgate,  have  been  collected  by  M* 
 Blanchini,  and  may  be  seen  in  his  Evangel.  Quadr.  P.  I.  fol, 
 cdlxxxv.  seq.  P.  II.  cdlxix.  seq.  On  comparing  the  list  of 
 texts  there  collected  from  the  Vulgate,  with  the  collation  of 
 the  Vatican  MS.  made  for  Dr.  Bentley,  see  n.  *^ ;  the  striking 
 coincidence  of  their  respective  texts  will  be  directly  apparent* 
 For  a  proof  of  the  coincidence  of  the  Cambridge  and  Verceli 
 MSS.  the  reader  may  be  referred  to  the  lower  margin  of  M* 
 Blanchini's  Evangeliarium  Quadruples  who  has  noted  the  co- 
 incident readings  with  much  pains. 
 
 It  may  be  necessary  to  observe,  that  in  the  above  list  of  textsr, 
 those  selected  from  the  Vatican  MS.  are  taken  from  the  various 
 readings  published  by  Dr.  Ford,  as  already  referred  to  n.  ^\ 
 The  Moscow  MS.  is  defective  in  Mat.  v.  44.  but  the  reading 
 of  this  text  may  be  taken  from  the  other  MSS.  of  M.  Matthaei; 
 as  they  harmonize  with  thiis  MS.  in  an  extraordinary  manner. 
 
(    67    ) 
 
 Class  J. 
 
 Cocl^  Cant 
 
 t?5  TO  egoj*  xat  xaSicrayl^-ayTtf, 
 
 «yT8' 
 
 2.  Ka<  avot|a?  to  HfAXOiVTu^ 
 
 5.  M«x«f»ot   o»   cr76;%ot    To; 
 
 9FVeviA,0cli'     OT*      UV7UU       tfiV      7t 
 
 ^«<rtAefa  tw»  a^civuv, 
 
 B*  M«x«ptot  o»  wpae??*  eV* 
 <tvTot  xX»jpoi'OjK,^crayt  t^v  y?v% 
 
 4.  M«xa§»ot  oi  WEV^oyvles* 
 fT»  ftWTOi  ^a^axXij^^croj^ai. 
 
 6.  M«xap»o»  ot  vreivfjvle^  iiott 
 cj-vI/wvIes    t^»    ^xato<ry»»3v'    or* 
 
 7»  Maxapio*  o»  sAE^/iAoy£$*  or» 
 tit'To)  lA£»}Si<rc»T«». 
 
 xap^'ta*  o7»  avloi  rov  Qbovq-^ovIoci* 
 
 9.  MaxatfMfc  of  tl^vivoTroioi* 
 2t»  t'to*  0hS  xXijGjjaovJaj, 
 
 10.  Maxapio*  of  ^i^itiyiA,h<n 
 f»sx£»  5ixato<rt;yi75  •     oTt    ctvTuf 
 
 11.  Maxapioi  lr£>  oVav  3li- 
 tif^uaif  xj  ov«^ta"(yi7i>  xa*  £;7r«^» 
 •nrai/  woy»)pov  p?/A«  x«6*  v^uvy 
 ifExa  S'ixatoo'VJ'^?. 
 
 12.  Xaipels  xa*  a'y«^^»a5•6s• 
 «T»  0  /u.Kr9o?  t-jLtwv  'croX^?  |v  t« 
 «q)«»<w*«Tft;?  yap  £^i4;|«i'  T»iTErpo- 
 
 1.  Videns  autem  Jesus  turbam, 
 ascendit  in  montem,  et  cum  se- 
 disset,  accesserunt  ad  eum  disci- 
 puli  ejus ; 
 
 2.  Et  aperult  os  suumj  et  doce* 
 bat  eos  dicens : 
 
 3.  Beati  pauperesspiritu:  quo- 
 niam  ipsorum  est  regnum  cce« 
 lorum. 
 
 5.  Beati  mites :  quoniam  ipsi 
 hereditate  possidebunt  terram. 
 
 4.  Beati  qui  lugent :  quoniam 
 ipsi  consolabuntur. 
 
 6.  Beati  qui  esuriunt  et  sitiunt 
 justitiam :  quoniam  ipsi  satura- 
 buntur. 
 
 7.  Beati  misericordes ;  quia 
 ipsis  miserebitur  Deus. 
 
 8.  Beati  mundo  corde:  quoniam 
 ipsi  Deum  videbunt. 
 
 9.  Beati  pacifici :  quoniam  filii 
 Dei  vocabuntur. 
 
 10.  Beati  qui  persecutlonem 
 patiuntur  propter  justitiam :  quo- 
 niam ipsorum  est  regnum  coelorum. 
 
 11.  Beati  estis,  cum  vos  ma- 
 ledicent,  et  persequentur,  etdicent 
 omne  malum  adversum  vos  propter 
 Justitiam. 
 
 12.  Gaudete  et  exultate :  quo- 
 niam merces  vestra  copiosa  est  in 
 coelo.     Sic  enim  persecuti  sunt 
 
 f  ^T«c,  T»j  wpo  v^mvTroi^^Qvlei^,     prophetas  qui  erant  ante  vqs« 
 
 f3 
 
(    68    ) 
 
 Class  IL 
 
 Cod,  Vat,  Vers,  Vulg. 
 
 1,  lluv  ^\  T»5  ox^'H^i  eitie^n  !•  Videns  autem  turbas  ascendit 
 ft? TO  opoi'  KuiKocQ'ta-ccvl^  otvToVf  in  montem,  et  cum  sedisset  acces- 
 •crpocr^AGoy  [ayrw]  of  ^aG^jlat  scrunt  ad  euin  discipuli  ejus : 
 
 tlVTOV* 
 
 2.  Ka»  a,vQi^at<;  to  ro/AaayTtf,         2.  Et  aperiens  OS  suum,  docebat 
 
 f3"t(Sa<rx£v  avrhi  >,iyuv,  COS  dicens  : 
 
 S.  Maxagjot  of  <Eri6;;)5jot  T«  3.  Beati  pauperes  spiritu :  quo- 
 vTviviAoSii'  oT*  ctvlwv  lr»»  h  /3a-  niam  ipsorum  est  regnum  cceIo- 
 cO\.i\»  ruv  ^^ecvuv,  rum, 
 
 4.  Mazapm  of  «r£vGowv7e{'  5.  Beati  mites :  quoniam  ipsi 
 »li  ccwlo)  -ETapaxXyjG^o-oylat,  possidebunt  terram. 
 
 4.  Beati  qui  lugent :  quoniam 
 ipsi  consolabuntur. 
 
 6.  Beati  qui  esuriunt  et  sitiunt 
 justitiam:  quoniam  ipsi  satura- 
 buntur. 
 
 7.  Beati  raisericordes :  quia  ipsi 
 misericordiam  consequcntur. 
 
 8.  Beati  mundo   corde:    quo- 
 xuf^ia.*  oTiavTolrovQeove^ovlon.     niam  ipsi  Deum  videbunt. 
 
 9.  Maxapto*  of   e^privovo^oi^         9,  Beati  pacifici :  quoniam  ipsi 
 filii  Dei  vocabuntur. 
 
 10.  Beati  qui  persecutionem  pa- 
 tiuntur  propter  justitiam:  quoniam 
 ipsorum  est  regnum  ccelorum. 
 
 11.  Beati  estis,  cum  maledix- 
 erint  vobis  et  persecuti  vos  fuerint, 
 et  dixerint  omne  malum  adversura 
 vos,  mentientes  propter  me. 
 
 12.  Gaudete  et  exultate:  quo- 
 niam merces  vestra  copiosa  est  in 
 coelis.  Sic  enim  persecuti  sunt 
 prophetas,  qui  fuerunt  ante  vos. 
 
 5.  Majta^toi  of  /BTpettTf"  ot» 
 a^Tot  xXjjpovo/xwcTtfa*  T^*  yrjy, 
 
 6.  MotKoipioii  of  'metvuvle^  Kut 
 
 7.  Maxapiot    of    IXe^^ove?* 
 «T»  ayToi  aX£>j6^croj/7a». 
 
 8.  Maxagjoi  of  xsiQct^o)  rii 
 
 eTt  avro)  v^o)  ©eov  xAfjO^croylat. 
 
 10.  MocKoifioi  of  h^tuyjAsvoi 
 fVEKX  hutnoavvviq'  on  avruv  ln» 
 i  ^Affi^iiK  Tuv  efotvuv, 
 
 11.  MciKoi^ioi    ifSf     oTay 
 
 C(V     Ka-a        VfJLUV     'BTXV       IffDWiDOV 
 
 12.  Xaip/Iix^  ayaX^iao-Of, 
 •T»  •  jiAicrOo?  y/ittoj'  <cro?vy5  si/ 
 TO*?  tipcivoX';'   ovru  yocp  lyiu^av 
 
(    69    ) 
 
 Class  IIL 
 
 Cod.  Mosc. 
 
 Cod.  Brh. 
 
 •'?  TO  ogo?*  xat  y.u^iffocv\oq  ayrS, 
 
 2.  Kat  avoi^aq  to  rofACC 
 «vt5j  lot^ao-HEJ  otvraq  >>iyuv' 
 
 3.  MUftoifiOl    of    'Cjlwp^OJ     TW 
 
 W£Vfjf.u]t*   oTt  atnuv  i<-iv  h  ^a- 
 rAEitt  Toiv  apoivuv, 
 
 4.  Maxapo*  ot  'ZzrsySSv/ES*  oTt 
 •tyroi  •arapaxXyjfi^o'ovIat. 
 
 5*  M.xx.sifioi  ot  <icr^£eEr^*  on 
 •tyTo*  KXiipovo/x^o-ao-j  tJjv  7>j>. 
 
 6.  Maxapot  ot  >meivuvlt(;  xoct 
 ot-vj/wwe?  T'/jv  o;xat3c7yv'/3»*  «r», 
 avTot  ;^opTacr6i7cro»I«j. 
 
 7.  MuKoc^iOi  01  eXs^^ovES*  ot» 
 
 8.  Maxaptot  o»  xadcepot  t>) 
 xac^»a*  0T»  ayloi  Toi'0£O>o4'Oj'1aj» 
 
 9.  May.ocfiOi  oi  elprji/OTroioi* 
 «Tt  ayToi  ytot  0Ea  xXy]9)2C7oy]a(. 
 
 10.  Mxx.cifioi  o»  ofd(6;7u£»oi 
 JyExii'  3'txa»o<ryvvjs*  on  uvruv  Ifiv 
 i  |3a<r»AE»a  t2»  ifuvuv, 
 
 11.  Maxapio*  Ef  E  oVa:/ oy«Ji- 
 erft;(7(v  xat  ^iu^ua%  not.)  i'l'TFuo'i 
 tarav   -arovvj^ov   ^^ji^a   x«9    vfAuvj 
 
 12.  Xaipslfi  xat  ayaXXtacrOe 
 oTf  0  pjcr6o{  y^wv   Tiroy     ev  Tor? 
 
 1.  Videns  autem  turbas  ascen* 
 dit  in  montem,  et  cum  sedisset 
 accesserunt  ad  eum  discipuli  ejus ; 
 
 2.  Et  aperiens  os  suum,  docebat 
 eos  dicens : 
 
 3.  Beati  pauperes  spiritu :  quo- 
 niam  ipsorum  est  regnum  ccelo- 
 rum. 
 
 4.  Beati  qui  lugent :  quoniam 
 ipsi  consolabuntur. 
 
 5.  Beati  raansueti:  quoniam 
 ipsi  hereditabunt  terram. 
 
 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 ipsorum  est  regnum  ccelorum. 
 
 11.  Beati  eritis  cum  exprobra- 
 verint  vos,  et  persequentur,  et  dix- 
 erint  omne  malum  adversum  yos^ 
 mentientes  propter  me. 
 
 12.  Gaudete  et  exultate :  quo- 
 niam merces  vestra  copiosa  est  in 
 coelis.  Sic  enim  persecuti  sunt 
 prophetas  qui  fuerunt  ante  vos. 
 
(    70    ) 
 
 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. 
 
 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  original  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  fourteenti* 
 year  of  the  emperor  Theodosius  ;  A.  D.  393.  S.  Hieron.  Ca- 
 
(    71    ) 
 
 ence  of  course  the  correspondent  antiquity  of  the 
 Greek  text  with  which  it  agrees,  is  directly  esta- 
 bhshed.  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,  at  a  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  highest  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.  Eccleslass.  sub.  fin.  Tom.  I.  p.  132.     "  Usque 
 in  praesentem  annum,  id  est,   Theodosii  decimum  quartum  haec 
 
 scrips! No'cum  Testamejitwn  Grcvccujidel  reddidit  Vetus  jux- 
 
 la  Hebraicam  transtuU.'* 
 
(  73  ) 
 cred  text,  in  his  own  age^  which  he  refers  to 
 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,  I  am 
 fond  enough  to  hope,  prove  beyond  all  reasonable 
 ground  of  objection,  that  the  three  classes  of  texty 
 which  are  discoverable  in  the  Greek  manuscripts, 
 are  nearly  identical  with  the  three  editions,  which 
 
 37  S.  Hier.  Praef.  in  Parallpomm.  Tom.  III.  p.  ^43.  "  Si 
 Septuaginta  interpretum  pura,  et  ut  ab  eis  in  Graecum  versa 
 est,  permaneret;  superflue  me,  Chromati,  Episcoporum  sanc- 
 tissime,  atque  doctissime,  impelleres,  ut  Hebraea  volumina 
 Latino  sermone  transferrem. — Nunc  vero,  cum  pro  varietate  rC' 
 gionumy  diver sa  ferantut  exemplaria;  et  gerraana  ilia  anti- 
 xjuaque  translatio  corrupta  sit  atque  violata :  nostri  arbitrii  pu- 
 tas,  2M.t  e  pluiibus  IwAiQWce  quid  verum  sit ;  aut  novum  opus 
 in  veteri  opere  cudere,  illudentib  usque  Judaeis,  cornicum,  ut  di- 
 citur,  oculos  confingere.  Alexandria  et  Mgyptus  in  septuaginta 
 guis  HesycJiium  laudat  auctorem,  Constantinojjolis  usque  ad  Anti- 
 ochiam  Luciani  martyris  ejcemplaria  prohat.  Mediae  inter  has 
 provinciae  Palcestinos  codices  legimt,  quos  ab  Origine  elaboratos 
 Eusebius  et  Pamphilus  vidgaverunf,  Totusque  orbis  hac  inter 
 $e  trifaria  varietate  compugnat."     Conf.  p.  11.  u.  ^* 
 
 i^  Vid.  supr.  pp.  4,  5. 
 
(    73    ) 
 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  J. 
 
 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  sumciently  estabhshed  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 ^9.  It  also  possesses  the  lessons  of  the  Egyp- 
 tian church  noted  in  its  margin.  In  proof  of  which 
 those  passages  may  be  specified,  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 
 
 35  Vid.  supr.  p.  55.  ti.  *'. 
 
 "^  Kipling.  Pnef.  in  Cod.  Cantab,  p.  xvi.      "  Denique  anag- 
 nostae  solebant  vEgyptiacij  instante  annua  Nili  exundatione. 
 
(  74  ) 
 to  this  representation,  we  find  this  manuscript  re- 
 ferred to  Egypt,  by  the  genemlity  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- 
 traordinary 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  ^K     As  Greek  was  ma- 
 
 Sabbatis  apud  populum  legere,  quae  Joannes  tradldit  Evange- 
 lista  de  midiere  Smnaritana,  diebusque  simul  Dominicis,  quae 
 scriptis  idem  mandavit  de  Jesu  Christo  supra  mare  ambulante* 
 Roperies  autem,  in  nostro  codice,  cum  banc  turn  illam  seo 
 tionem,  verbo  ANAFNOXMA  insignitam." 
 
 *^  Vid.  supr.  p.  55,  n.  **. 
 
 **  Vid.  supr.  p.  55,  n.  ^°. 
 
 45  The  affinity  between  the  Cambridge  manuscript  and  the 
 Sahidick  version  is  pointed  out  by  Miinter,  Dissert,  de  Indol. 
 Vers.  Sahldic.  pp.  10 — 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.  Ivoq  rZv  ij.iK^u»  reluv  Bee.  Mosc.  unum  ex  hispusillis.  Brixi 
 but  this  clause  is  thus  enlargedy  hU  ruv  (jny.^uv  rulav  CTis'6fov7wv 
 £ij  epis,  Cajzt,  Sahid.  unum  ex  his  pusillis  qui  credunl  in  me. 
 
(  75  ) 
 tiifestly  the  current  language  of  Egypt  **,  and  ma* 
 nuscripts  in  that  language  were  as  obviously  preva- 
 lent in  Egypt  "^5 ;  w^e  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.  In  the  extraordinary  coincidence  of  the  Cam- 
 bridge manuscript  with  the  old  Italic!:  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'^7,  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,  Ibid.  29.  'stut^v  yv  e'r  rns  zjo^oc^  aiflS,  Rec,  Mosc.  Pro- 
 cidens  ad  pedes  ejus,  Brix :  but  this  clause  is  thus  contracted^ 
 vxiouv  Hv  Cant.  Sahid,  Procidens.  Verc.  lb.  35.  ra  i!TXf)a'n:l0[jicitl(z 
 uvruv  is  omitted  in  Cant,  SaJtid,  Verc.  though  retained  in  Rec, 
 Mosc.  Brix.  Ibid  17.  uaTrtf  h  i^ny^oquui  0  TsAiwvyj?,  Rec.  Mosc.  si» 
 cut  ethnicus  et  pubKcanus,  Brix :  but  this  clause  is  thus  altered, 
 ar;  0  E^vtxo;  xcc)  us  o  rthm^q.  Cant.  Sahid* 
 
 ^  Vid.  supr.  p.  48.  n.  5, 
 
 *^  Woid.  Prsef.  in  Cod.  Alexandrin.  sect.  II.  §  S3,  p.  vi.— 
 «<  In  JEgypto  circa  Alexandriam  pluriini  erant  librarii  et  calligra- 
 phi,  et  Eusebius  quinquaginta  codices  Constantino  magno,  et 
 Athanasius  totidern  Constantino  curaverat  adferri.*' 
 
 ^^  Vid.  supr,  p,  5S.  seq. 
 
 ♦'  Vid.  supr.  p.  59.  n.  ""K 
 
t    76    ) 
 
 Arians  '^^  The  active  life  of  St.  Eusebius  will  scarce- 
 ly admit  of  our  conceivings  that  he  performed  this 
 task,  at  any  other  period,  than  during  the  time  of 
 bis  exile.  And  the  attachment  of  those  hereticks 
 whom  he  unremittingly  opposed,  to  the  edition  of 
 Eusebius  ^'^,  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 
 
 ♦^  Vid.  supr.  p.  B4!.  n.  '7. 
 ^*  Vid.  supr.  p.  28.  n.  *^ 
 
(  77  ) 
 found  in  a  monastery  in  Egypt,  and  has  noted  their 
 Tarious  readings  in  the  margin  of  his  edition  ^°.  So 
 extraordinary  is  the  coincidence  of  these  readings, 
 with  the  peculiar  readings  of  the  Cambridge  manu* 
 script  5',  that  some  criticks  have  been  induced  to 
 believe  it  was  the  identical  copy  used  in  the  colla- 
 tion 5\     This  notion  is  however  refuted,  by  the  in- 
 
 '*  Adler.  de  Versionn.  Syriacc.  Nov.  Test.  Lib.  II.  p.  49.  ed. 
 Hafn.  1789.  **  Postseculum  elapsum  Thomas  Hetaclensis  no- 
 vam  hujus  versionis  [Syr.  Philoxen*]  editionem  ciiravit  Alex^ 
 undrice,  ad  duo  vel  tria  exempla  Gra;ca  castigatam,  nimirum  an- 
 no Graecorum  Dccccxxvir,  h.  e.  Christi  dcxvi. — Cum  nonnul- 
 lis  Codicihus  Greeds  earn  contidit ;  quorum  prcecipuas  mrietateSf 
 et  passim  etiam  versionis  siraplicis  consensum  vel  dissensum,  in 
 margine  editionis  suce  adnotavit,  simulque  ubi  versio  ambigua  vel 
 intellectu  difficilior  videbatur,  verba  Grceca  appossuif  Tliis 
 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  hie  liber  quatuor  Evangelistarum  Sancto- 
 rum e  lingua  Greeca  in  Syriacam  cum  accuratione  multa  et  la- 
 bore  magno,  primo  quidem  in  urbe  Mabug,  in  diebus  Sancti 
 Domini  Philoxeni  confessoris  [et  j  episcopi  ejus  urbis.  Cotlatiis 
 autem postea,  multa  cum  diligentia,  a  me  Thoraa  paupere,  cum 
 tribus  exe^nplis  Greeds,  valde  prohatis  et  correctis  in  Anton ia 
 Alexandrice,  urbis  maguee,  in  monasterio  sancto  Antoniano." 
 — e  Cod.  Biblioth.  Angelic.  S.  August,  de  Urb.  f.  139. 
 
 ^*  Adler.  ibid.  p.  133.  *'  Quicquidsit,  illudtamen  extra  om- 
 nem  dubitationem  ponitur,  Codices  Thovice  simiUimos  fuisse 
 C'antabrigiejisi.^* 
 
 5*  This  notion  is  espoused  by  M.  Wetsten.  Prole gg.  in  Nov. 
 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.  Praef.  in  Cod.  Cant.  pp.  xvi,  xvli.  Adler.  Verss.  Syri* 
 acc*  Nov.  Test.  Lib.  II.  p.  132.  and  other  criticks. 
 
(  78  ) 
 ternal  evidence  of  the  manuscript  compared  With 
 the  reading's  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  pecuUar  to  itself  ^\ 
 we  must  infer  its  conformity  to  the  text^  which  even 
 to  a  late  period  was  current  in  Egypt. 
 
 Now  as  it  is  absurd  to  conceive  that  the  peculiar 
 readings  alluded  to  in  the  last  three  instances  can 
 have  proceeded  from  the  one  manuscript  named  in 
 the  first ;  or  that  they  have  been  corrupted  from 
 each  other  ^^ :  as  St.  Jerome  has  ascribed  a  peculiar 
 
 'J  VId.  infr.  n.  ^K 
 
 54  Adler.  ibid.  p.  132.  "  Itaque,  inter  180  circiter  varietateff, 
 130*'"  fere  consentiunt  Codices,  B.  C.  D.  L.  1.  33.  69.  Urb.  2. 
 Vind.  31.  al.  et  19'"  solus  D.'»  Id.  ibid.  p.  130.  "  In  reliquis  igi- 
 tur  consentit  criticus  noster  cum  solo  Cantabrigiensi  ( Wetst.  cod. 
 D.)  imdevigesies ;  nimirum,  Matt.  i.  7.  viii.  28.  ix.  15.  xv.  6. 
 XX.  28.  Marc.  i.  3.  iv.9.  vii.  13.  Luc.  vii.  1,  41.  xii.  1,  2. 
 xviii.  30,  34.  xx.  36.  xxii.  34.  Job.  vi.  1.  vii.  40.  ix.  37.  et 
 accede7ite  codice  Vaticano  sexies.  Mat.  i.  22.  xvi.  8.  xxiv.  37. 
 Luc.  viii.  26.  x.  17.  Job.  xii.  34."  One  or  two  examples  taken 
 from  St.  Luke,  cbap.  xx.  will  evince,  tliat  tbese  coincidences 
 cannot  be  accidental.  We  read  in  Luke  xx.  13.  t«7ov  'i^6v%s 
 ivI^ocTriio-ovlcct  Mosc.  Harl.  *  cum  hu?ic  viderint  verebuntur,*  &c. 
 Brix:  but  J^ovJe?  is  omitted  in  Cant.  Verc.  and  the  margin  of  Char- 
 kel.  On  the  other  hand,  we  read  in  Luke  ib.  34.  yawScrt  >^  Uyxfjt* 
 iaaovlxt  Mosc,  HarL  *■  nubunt  et  traduntur  ad  nuptias.'  Brix, 
 Vidg :  but  this  phrase  is  interjjolated  with  ysvvojylai  ^  ysvvaJffi 
 ya/x2cr*  y.tzl  yxfxcviloti,  Cant.  '  generayit  et  generantur^  nubunt 
 et  nubuntur.'  Verc.  on  which  Charkel  observes,  "  in  priori  ex- 
 emplo  [Vers.  Syr.  Vet.]  'gignunt  et  gignmitur'  sed  in  Grseco 
 non  est,''  Marg.  Philox. 
 
 55  The  latter  of  the  two  examples  quoted  from  Luke  xx.  3  k 
 supr.  n,  5+.  is  supposed  to  contain  a  proof  that  the  Cambridge 
 
(  "^9  ) 
 text  to  Hesychius,  which  is  nowhere  to  be  found,  un- 
 less it  can  be  identified  in  some  one  of  the  foremen- 
 tioned  sources  :  and  as  in  speaking  of  this  text^  he 
 deUvers  himself  in  terms^  which  accurately  agree 
 with  the  text  of  the  Cambridge  manuscript  ^^ :  w^e 
 must  from  these  premises  infer^  that  the  text  of 
 this  manuscript  is  virtually  the  same  w  ith  that  which 
 St.  Jerome  refers  to  Egypt  and  ascribes  to  Hesy-. 
 chius. 
 
 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  Thoma^HeracIensis  in  forming  his  collation. 
 It  contains  a  reading,  which  though  found  in  the  Cambridge 
 MS.  that  critick  declares  was  not  in  the  copies  of  the  Greek 
 which  he  collated,  Vid.  Ridl.  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  little 
 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.  IL  aYiuiToc  ^£7«A«  Bs-oiiy  Cant.  Mosc.  Vat.:  signa 
 •  magna  erunt,'  Cant.  Brix.  Vulg :  but  we  read  "  et  hiemes** 
 Marg,  Philox :  and  «  signa  magna  erunt  et  hiemes"  Verc. 
 These  instances  will  sufficiently  exemplify  the  assertion  made 
 above,  that  the  texts  before  us  cannot  be  corrupted  from  the 
 Cambridge  MS. 
 *^  S.  Hier.  Pr«f,  in  iv  Evang.  Tom,  VL  p^I, 
 
(  so  ) 
 
 to  Eusebius,  seems  to  be  clearly  established  by  th^ 
 following  circumstances  t 
 
 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.  2^^^  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  mar- 
 gin ^9.     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  onini  diligentia  et  intentione  contuli.  Ubi  enim  a  Recepto 
 Evangeliorum  textu  recedit,  plerumque  codicibus  Vaticano 
 1 209,  Szc.  se  adjungit, 
 
 53  Id.  ibid.  Ad  antiqulssima  exemplaria  exaratum  esse  fCod^ 
 Urb.2.]testantursubscriptiones  ad  calcem  Evangeliorum.  E^aP 
 
 uvliyf»^ci}Vf  ruv  \v  tu  ocyiu  o^et  ocTroKeifjisvuvy  Iv  rix^^^  ^v-jr^,  X£<paX- 
 atotg  TNZ.  'Eva.fys>^iov  Kxr(^Mu^y.ov  £y^a,(P'^  Ik  run  sffTra^xtrfxivuPf  h 
 ri%OK  a(p|  xs(poc7^um^  2AA.  Eyayyj%ov  xara  AskoLv  lyfa,(pyi  ttaX 
 avTE^^^fiij  0[/.oiui;  Ik  Tuv  uvtuv  uyliy^oi^av  Iv  r*%oK  /S'vUj  y.f(px>,Of.\oK 
 TMB.  'Evuyyi'Kiov  xxra,  laxivvviv  lyfci(pii}  xj  uv%<^^^Qr}  o^om  ex  twm 
 etvruv  uvliy^oc(puv,  sv  r'^ot?  (jfl^y   xsipaXatojj  ZAM. 
 
 ^9  Id.  ibid.  p.  xxvii.    '*  Codex  [Urb,  2.]   est  oetavae  forma?. 
 
(  81  ) 
 htiscript,  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  pubUshed  in  Pales- 
 tine. 
 
 2.  This  deduction  receives  a  direct  confirmation 
 from  the  vulgar  translations  which  were  current  ia 
 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  twice  carefully  collated  ^°.  That  existing 
 between  the  celebrated  Vatican  manuscript  and  the 
 Jerusalem-Syriack  is  even  more  striking^' ;  and  it  is 
 observed  to  extend  to  the  Philoxenian  version  like- 
 wise ^"^^  and^  by  the  intervention  of  the   Vulgate, 
 
 membranaceus,  foliorum  325,  et  Quatuor  complectitur  Evan* 
 gelia,  quibus  pnEfiguniur  Canones  Eusebii.  Nitide  et  eleganter 
 exaratus  est.  Prima  cujiisque  Evangelii  pagina,  littercB  majores 
 in  sectionum  initiiSf  interpungendi  signa,  ut  et  ti'tAo*  Eusebiani 
 in  margine  Evangeliorum  obvii, 
 
 '°  Id.  ibid.  p.  xxix.  "  His  adde  consonantiam  nostri  [Cod. 
 tJrb.  2.]  cum  Versione  Syra  Philoxenisy  Syra  Veteri,  Hieroso* 
 lymitana,**  &c. 
 
 ^*  Adler.  ut  supr.  p.  201.  **  Generatim  igitur  ad  eandem  Co- 
 dicum  Grsecorum  familiam  referenda  est  [  Vers^  ^yra  Hiero'^ 
 solym.']  cui  libros  Graecos,  quibus  in  castiganda  Versione  Phi- 
 loxeniana  usus  est  Thomas,  supra  vindicavimus.  Sed  tameii 
 lit  exempla  Thomas  affinitate  proximo  accedent  ad  Cod.  Can- 
 tab, et  ut  nostra  Versio  cum  Vaticano,  omnium  forte  quos  cetas 
 tulit  prcestantissimo,  propinqua  sit  cognaiione  conjtindaJ^ 
 
 ^*  Birch,  ut  supr.  p.  xix.  *'lnsignem  Codicis  nostri  [Vat. 
 1209.]  praestantiam,  ipsa  varietatum  coliectio  huic  operi  in- 
 eerta  satis  superque  demonstrabit. — Mira  in  kctionibus  quoque 
 
 Q 
 
(  82  y 
 
 fnay  be  ultimately  traced  to  the  old  Syrlack  or  Pe- 
 sliito  ^^  On  its  affinity  to  the  Philoxenian  and  Je- 
 rusalem versions^  I  rather  insist^  as  the  former  i* 
 divided  into  sections  ^"^j  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  i* 
 more  than  merely  probable^  that  the  vulgar  trans- 
 lation was  formed  from  the  current  edition  of  the 
 
 ungularihcs  convenientia  cum — -Ula  antiqua  Versione  Syra,  quaft 
 Seculo  post  C.  N.  sex tO,  suh  aiispiclis  Philoxenis  facta,  iuse- 
 quenti  seculo,  cura  et  studio  Thomse  Heraclensis  ad  Graecofr 
 codices  correcta  et  perfecta  fuit." 
 
 *3  Comp.p.  61.  n.  '\  p.  13.  n.  *'.  p.  21.  n.  ^\ 
 
 ^4  Adler.  ut  supr.  p.  50.  '*  Idem  Thomas  Evangelia  In  capi* 
 tula  Tel  secbiones  destribuit,  et  pericopas  dtebus  festis  recitan- 
 das  conbtituit.'* 
 
 ^^  Adler.  ut  supr.  p.  52.  "  PrasmittuntuT  Codici  [Medicea 
 Florent.  Vers.  Philoxen.]  index  pericoparum  diebus  dominicis 
 et  festis  in  coetu  sacro  recitandarum,  Epistola  Eusehii  ad  Car^ 
 fiamimy  ct  talmlce  decern  Canonnm  harmonicorum  Eusebii  et  Arti" 
 inonii. — Margini  Evaageliorum  prcetcr  tit ulos pericoparum  do7m-> 
 nicalium,  minio  scriptos,  et  argumenta  capitum  vel  Kt(paXai6)v 
 •atramento  exarata,  adscripti  quoque  sunt  minio  mmieri  Ammo" 
 niani  pericoparum,  et  suh  szngtdis  indicatur  tabula  ad  quam  illud 
 capitulum  referendum  sitP 
 
 *^  Id.  ibid.  p.  201.  "  Sed  tamen,  cum  eandem  dialectum  re*' 
 periemus  in  Hierosolymitano,  qui  ex  plurimorum,  ni  fallimur^ 
 eruditorum  consensu,  circa  succidum  quartum  absolutus  fuit, 
 (libris  enim  Cabbalisticis  Baher  et  Zohar  immerito  tarn  reniota 
 sintiquitas  a  Juda^is  tribuitur  :)  non  impedit,  quo  minus  inter' 
 'pretationem  iiodram  eodemi  circiter  tempore^  vel  saltern  i?itra, 
 fuartum  et  sextum  sceculum  Hierosolymis  editam  fidsse  staiue^e: 
 kndeamus,-' 
 
(    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  ^\ 
 
 8.  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- 
 bable that  the  Greek  copies,,  after  which  he  mo- 
 delled it,  were  those,  which  from  being  current 
 in  Palestine,  were  used  in  the  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 
 
 ^7  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.  ". 
 
 ^'^  Vid.  S.  Hier.  ad  Lucin.  Ep.  xxvlii.  Tom.  I.  pp.  82,  83.  Id, 
 adv.  Ruffin.  Lib.  III.  cap.  vii.  Tom.  II.  p.  257. 
 
 7°  Vid.  supr.  p.  72.  n.  '\ 
 
 ''S.Hieron.  Scriptt.  Eccless.  Catal.  Tom.  I.  p.  131.  "  Gre- 
 gorius,  primum  Sasimorum  deinde  Nazianzenus  Episcopus,  vir 
 cloquentissimus  prceceptor  meus^  quo  Scripiuras  explanante  di* 
 dkV* 
 
 ^2 
 
(■  84  ) 
 ii  Caesarea  in  Palestine  ^^  with  Euzoius,  wlio  had 
 been  at  considerable  pains  with  Acacius^  to  restore 
 the  decayed  library  of  Pamphilus  and  Eusebius  in 
 that  city  ^'.  With  this  hbrary  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  ^^^  which^  as  he  informs  us^  was  incor- 
 
 7*  Id.  ibid.  p.  131.  "  Euzokis  apud  Thespesium  rhetorera,  cimi 
 Gregorio  Nazianzeno  episcopo,  adolescens  Ccesarece  eruditus 
 est :  et  ejusdem  postea  urbis  episcopus,  plurimo  labore  corrup- 
 tam  bibliothecam  Origenis  et  Pmnphili  in  memhranis  instaurare 
 conatus  est,""  &c. 
 
 73  Id.  ad.  Marcel.  Ep.  cxli.  Tom.  III.  p.  398.  "  Beatus 
 Pamphilus — cum  Demetrium  Phalareum  et  Pisistratum  in  sa- 
 crae  bibliothecam  studio  vellet  sequare — Origenis  libfos  impetislus 
 persecutus,  Caesariensi  Ecclesiae  dedicavit :  quam  ex  parte  cor- 
 ruptam,  Acacius  dehinc  et  Euzoius,  ejusdem  Ecclesiae  sacer- 
 dotes,  in  membl'anis  instaurare  conati  simt." 
 
 ^+  Zaccagn.  Col.  Monumm.  Vet.  Eccl.  Praef.  p.  Ixv.  §  54. 
 ed.  Rom.  1(398.  *'  Etenim  magno  in  pretio  semper  fuere  Cae- 
 sariensis  Bibliothecae  codices,  utpote  ab  Origine  primum,  deinde 
 a  Pamphilo  Martyre,  ac  demum  ab  Eusebio  Cacsariensi,  viris 
 doctissimis  congesti  fuerant.  Sanctum  enim  Hierony^num  iis- 
 deni  codicibus  tcsmn  Jliisse  argumento  est,  quod  Nazarenorum 
 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. 
 
 ^5  S.  Hier.  Sun.  et  Fretel.  Ep.  cxxxv.  Tom.  III.  p.  377.— 
 *'  Septuaginta  interpretum  [editio]  guee  in  E^a<n7^ois  codicibus^ 
 roperitu.r. — a  nobis  in  Latiuum  sermon  em  Jidelitcr  versa  est,  eft 
 Hierosolynicc  atque  in  Orientis  ecclesiis  decantatur,'*  &c. 
 
(  85  ) 
 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  ^^^  fully  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  "^9^  which  decisively  establishes  the  same  con- 
 clusion. Euthalius,  who  at  that  period  divided  the 
 Acts  and  Catholick  Epistles  into  sections,  as  Euse- 
 
 f^  Id.  ibid.  conf.  ut  supr.  p.  72.  n. ". 
 
 ^'  Id.  Praef.  in  iv.  Evangell.  Tom.  VI.  p.  i.  ''  Canones  quoque, 
 quos  Eusebius  Ccesariensis  Episcopus,  Alexandrinum  secutus 
 Ammonium,  in  decern  numeros  ordinavit,  sicut  in  Grceco  haben- 
 tur,  expressimus.'"     Vid.  supr.  p.  32.  n.  ^^, 
 
 78  Id.  Apol.  adv.  Ruffin.  Lib.  I.  cap.  ii.  Tom.  II.  p.  234<.  Prajf. 
 in  Jos.  Tom.  III.  p.  3il.  Epist.  ad  Sun.  et  Fretel.  Tom.  III.  p. 
 377. 
 
 7"  Zaccagn.  ubi  supr.  p.  402.  Floruit  enim  Euthalius — An- 
 no ccccLviii  quo  Pauli  Epistolas  versibus  distinxit,  vixitque 
 ultra  annum  ccccxc,  cum  lucubrationes  suas  Athanasio  juniori, 
 Alexandrino  Episcopo  dicaverit,  qui  eo  anno  sacris  infulis  die- 
 coratus  fuit.'* 
 
(  86  ) 
 bius  iad  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  i^eadings  of  this  edition  an  accurate 
 list  has  been  published,  from  a  collation  of  manu- 
 scripts preserv^ed  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  Prooem.  p.  409.  ed.  Zaccagn. 
 8'  Id.  Ed.  Catholl.  Epistt.  p.  513.  ed.  Zaccagn.    'A.laCx^S*?   ^s 
 
 Vuv  U^oc^ecjv  )^  Kcc^oT^iy.ay  'ETriroAwf  iStCxiei/  i!7po<;  rex,  om^nQy)  uvliypa^oi 
 *2?    iv    Kcnaccpzix    /SiC^to&ijx*;?    'EvcrsQia    t5    na/zip'i^tf.      Id.    SubsCf. 
 
 Epistt.  Paul,  e  Cod.  Coisl.  202.  ailaf^A^Oo,  ^l  h  jStC^o?  -cr^ro;  to  t» 
 y^oncratpiia,  oi.vliy(x(pov  rij?  ^iCAtoGijjtijg  tS  ayts  ria/xtpi^a*  %«p*  yeypa/x- 
 l^evov  avre. 
 
 **  Zaccagn.  ubi  supr.  pp.  402,  403.  n, 
 
 *^  This  affinity  is  pointed  out  by  Zaccagni,  ubi  supr.  p.  443. 
 6eq.  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.  33.  Zaccagn.  Adm.  ad 
 Varr.  Lectt.  Euthal.  p.  441.  "Deinde  varias  Regio-Alexandrini 
 Codicis  lectiones  contulimus  cum  aliis  modo  memorati  Alexari' 
 drini  Codicis  variis  lectionibus,  quae  in  Anglicanis  Bibliis  Poly- 
 glottis  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  l  ext :  taken 
 from  the  two  first  chapters  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  Acts  i. 
 14.  xj  lAapix  Rec.  >..»)  Mapia/A.  Euth.  Vat,  ib.  19.  A)ieh^u[jt,u  Rec, 
 Ay.i'h^a.^A.ax*  Euth.  Vat.  Alex.  ib.  24-.  arvu^ei^oy  reluv  raiv  ^vo  hoc 
 9V  i^eXs^o}  XcchtTv.    Rec,  oivd^et^ov  ov  i^iAi^u  in  -[iilm    tuv    Ko    tya   ha,-' 
 
 Cerv.  Euth.  Vat.  Alex.  ii.  6.  on  ny.-dty  Rec.  on  '-ny.aaiv   Euth.   Vat* 
 
(  ST  ) 
 scrupled  to  assert,  that  this  manuscript  has  been  in- 
 terpolated with  the  pecuhar  readings  of  Euthahus's 
 copies  ^t  The  coincidences  existing  between  them 
 admit  of  a  more  simple  and  certain  solution,  by 
 considering-  Eusebius's  text,  to  which  they  are  re- 
 spect^rely  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  Csssarea  in  Palestine. 
 
 Now  as  it  is  wholly  inconceivable,  that  the  coin- 
 cidences observable  between  those  diiTerent  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  tlie  opinion  of  no 
 ordinary  judge,  is  of  that  kind  which  renders  it  par- 
 
 ib.  13.  ;>cXHt;^^..l£?.  Rec,  ^,o^x>^svA^oP,s;  Eiitli.  Vat.  Alex.  ib.  14. 
 II/Tpoj.  Rec.  0  uhpog  Euth.  Alex.  ib.   17.    hiTrr.u,  Rec.  hv^rAo^i 
 
 Euth.  Vat.  Alex.  ib.  22.  ^a^^.  y,o<.)  avro\.  Rec.    xa^^,  airo\  Euth 
 
 Vat.  Alex.ib.  27.  p.  Rec.  pr>u  EutL  Vat.  ib.  38.  uf^ccpn^yRec, 
 rm  ui^ufl,:;,  ^Ci^uv  Euth.  Vat.  Alex.  ib.  40.  axpo.K^Xei  },iym  Rec. 
 «rpo£K«,\«  airh^  ■KiymEuth,  Vat.  Alex.  ib.  43.  lyivd,,  ri  'maar,  -i^vx^ 
 <poQo^.  Rec.  iyiydo  h  hfecraX-^i^-  (piQo<;  T£  h  ^iyoi,<;  Itt)  'Ofui^u;   cclrii 
 
 Euth.  Alex. 
 
 '*  Wetsten.  Prolegg.  in  Nov.  Test.  p.  11.  <^  3.  «  lUud  etiam 
 observe,  verosimile  videri  Codicis  nostri  [Alexandr.]  scripto- 
 rem  opera  Eiithalii  usum  fuisse— quin  et  lectiones  Euthalii  (qua- 
 les  L.  A.  Zaccagnius  edidit)  scrpissime  seaituin  fuisse.*'  Conf.  p. 
 26.  utsupr.  p.  61.n.  ''\ 
 
(   ss   ) 
 
 ticularly  worthy  of  Eusebius  ^^ :  we  may  hence 
 certainly  conclude  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 
 
 25  Vid.  Dr.  Bentl.  Lett.  p.  233. 
 
 «<5  S.  Hier.  Sun.  ct  Fretel.  Ep.  cxxxv.  Tom.  III.  p.  377.— 
 "  breviter  illud  admoneo,  ut  sciatis,  aliam  esse  editionem  quam 
 Origines  et  Csesariensis  Eusebius  omnesque  Graeciae  tractatores 
 Kon'^v  id  est  communem  appellant  atque  Vulgatam^  et  a  pierisque 
 
(  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  liahck  version^^ ;  the  circum- 
 stance of  this  text  bein^  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  assig-ns  to  Lu- 
 cianus. 
 
 2.  The  text  of  the  manuscripts  which  contain  the 
 Byzantine  edition,  is  observed  to  differ  materially 
 from  the  oriental  versions  ^9 ;  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  jn  St.  Jerome's 
 age  were  reducible  to  three  9°.  Two  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  Aaxiavo?  dicitiir ;  aliam  Septaaglnta  Interpretum,  quae  et 
 in  lix-TrXoTq  codicibus  reperitur,  et  a  nobis  in  Latinum  sarmonejii 
 fideliter  versa  est,  et  Hierosolymae  atcjue  in  Orientis  ecclesiis 
 decantatur." 
 
 87  Vid.  supr.  p.  72.  n.  ^\ 
 
 »2  Vid.  supr.  p.  70. 
 
 ^'  Adler.  de  Verss.  Syrr.  p.  132,  **Itaque  inter  ISO  circiter 
 varietates,  130  •'-'^  fere  consentiunt  codices  B.  C.  D.  L.  1.  33. 
 69.  Urb.  2.  Vind.  31.  al.  et  undevigesies  so^us  D.  E  quo  nrani- 
 festepatet  Codices  Tlioma?  [Heraciensis]  a  recsnsioiie  Constan- 
 iinopoUtana,  quam  exhibent  plarimi  Codices  Mosqueiises^  longis- 
 shne  abesscy"  &c.  Conf.  ut  supr.  p.  55.  n.  ".  p.  74.  n.'^^  p.  Si. 
 
 90  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  alternative  but  to  ascribe  it  to  Constantino- 
 ple, which  directly  identiiies  it  with  tlie  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  pr^  cseteris  B  pro  V,  et  vice 
 
 versa  usurpatis.     Aliquando  etiam  Y  pro  Y,    et  e   contra   sed 
 
 parce  usurpatum  inveni." 
 
 '■'^  Cassiod.  de  Inst.  Div.  Lit.  cap.  xv.  "  Nunc  dicimus  in 
 quibus  litteris  sunt  librariorum  vitia  corrigenda. — B.  pro  V,  V 
 pro  B,  O  pro  V,  N  pro  M,  contra  orthographiae  pr^cepta  vi- 
 tiose  positas  non  relinquas. — Sed  in  his  emendatorum  codicum 
 servetur  exemplura. — Quod  pronomen  est,  per  D  litteram  naw 
 per  T  scribenduin  est*" 
 
(  91  ) 
 and  it  differs  in  its  peculiar  reading's  from  the  Vul- 
 gate ^^  which,  from  the  same  age,  wholly  superseded 
 the  old  Italick  translation  ^+.  The  strongfest  ne^rative 
 argument  may  be  im^ed,  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 ^^  wliich,  we  are  as- 
 sured, was  characteristick  of  the  old  Italick  trans- 
 lation 97.  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.  Iii 
 the  period  intervening  between  his  times  and  those 
 of  St.  Jerome,  the  western  world  seems  not  to  have 
 possessed  a  person  wlio  was  capable  of  formin*'- 
 such  a  translation  ^^  It  is  unnecessary  to  except 
 here  those  learned  persons  who  have  been  specified 
 on  a  former  occasion  95;  as  they  ^vere  attached  to  a 
 
 ^^  Vid.  supr.  p.  63,  seq. 
 
 5*  Vid.  supr.  p.  16.  n.  =9.  p.  33.  n.  ^9, 
 
 ^5  Conf.  supr.  pp.  68,  69,  70. 
 
 9^  Vid.  supr.  pp.  63,  64,  65, 
 
 97  Vid.  supr.  p.  57.  n.  ". 
 
 9^  Vid.  supr.  p.  57.  n.  ""'. 
 
 99  Vid.  supr.  p.  54-.  n.  ''^ 
 
(    «2    ) 
 different  text  from  that  contained  in  the  common 
 edition  '°'.     li'  the  text '°'  of  the  Brescia  niaiiuscript 
 has  been  altered,    it  must  have  been  consequently 
 corrected  previously  to  t!ie  a<^-e    of    Eusebius '°\ 
 
 *°^  Vid.  sapr.  p.  54.  n.  ''^ 
 
 '°'  This  expression  xiaust  be  strictly  taken,  as  applied  to  the 
 whole  body  oi"  the  text;  for  the  Brescia  manuscript  has  suffered 
 some  mutilations.  It  thus  wants  Lulie  xxii.  4<3,  44.  Joh.  v.  4. 
 viii.  i— 11.  vid.  Garbel.  ap.  Blanchin.  Prolegg.  pp.  19,  22,  23. 
 "NVe  must  evidently  ascribe  these  corrections  to  the  influence  ot 
 *•  the  rectified  copies"  which  are  mentioned  by  St.  Epiphanius, 
 vid.  infr.  p,  93.  n.  ^^\  and  which  prevailed  towards  the  close  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  v/orld  possessed  no  person  who  was  ade- 
 quate to  make  so  faithful  a  translation.  Hence  the  conclusion 
 ofGarbelius,  who  antedates  the  text  of  this  yiS.  at  least  to 
 the  age  of  St.  Jerome,  seems  to  be  undeniable ;  Discr.  Cod. 
 Brix.  ubi  supr.  p.  10.  *'  Exemplar  autem  hoc  nostrum  ex  an- 
 tigraphis  illis  maniisse,  quae  non  solum  Hieronymi  tempora,  sed 
 Hilarii  Pictaviensis  praecesserant,  cum  facies  ipsa,  turn  loci  ali- 
 quot quos  postea  excutiemus,  manifestissime  eviucunt."  Yid^ 
 infr.  p.  93.  n.  ''\  supr.  p.  37.  n.  ^5. 
 
 "^"  I  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  dilferent  Ijc^uid  in  which  they  are  cxs* 
 
(  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  reasonings 
 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  in  question  '°^ 
 
 cutcd  ;  the  former  being  written  in  ink,  the  latter  executed  in 
 a  silver  pigment.  Garbel.  ibid.p.  10.  "  Quod  vero  Codicibus 
 dim  accidere  solebat,  nempe  ab  iraperitis  criticis  ut  perperam 
 corrigerentur,  huic  quoque  nostro  in  pluribus  contigit.  Kon 
 equldem  qtiod  corrector  ille,  quicumqiie  is  demum  fuerit,  aut 
 adjecerit  aliquid,  aut  immutaverit.  Sed  abrasij,  qusc  vltiosa 
 censebat,  ut  recta  non  semel  pervertit,  sic  mendosa  supinus 
 praeteriit.  Suj^ersunt  enim  iibiqiie  Utterarimi  vestigia,  unde  na- 
 troam  scripturam  deprehendamus," 
 
 *°^  S.  Epiphan.  Ancor.  §  xxxi.  Tom.  II.  p.  SG.  b.   'AXXa   yaX. 
 
 K-^BlKovIo  TO  pv!^io!/y  (pQ^'ijhE'Pizqf  ««i  lU'/y  vor^caile^  airn  to  r/Xc?,  y.cn  to 
 tCTYi-'polaloK,)  "  }ia.i  ysiCfJi.Bvo^  Iv  ayuv'ia  Id^cca,  y.at  i/Uf'tO  o  ^o^i-j^  avrS 
 wq   ^^ouQoi  u'i[A.ctlc^   yiai  u(pBri"AfyB?>oS  hi<^yym    uvIop.''        These    last 
 
 words  are  quoted  from  Luke  xxji.  43,  44.  Conf.  S.  Hilar,  de 
 Trinit.  Lib.  X.  J  4L  p.  1062.  a..  Non  sane  ignorandum  a  nobi» 
 
(     51    ) 
 
 Of  the  two  species  of  text  which  were  published  at 
 Constantinople^  by  Liicianus  and  Eusebius  '°*^  that 
 revised  by  the  latter  certainly  retained  the  passage  : 
 for  it  is  expressly  referred  to  in  his  canons  '"^^  and  is 
 retained  in  tlie  Vulgate^  which  was  formed  after  the 
 text  of  his  revisal  '°^.  The  edition  of  Eusebius  con- 
 sequently differed  from  the  corrected  copies  of 
 the  ortiiodox,  published  in  the  days  of  St.  Je- 
 rome and  St.  Epiphanius.  But  this  passag-e  is 
 wanting  in  the  Alexandrine  manuscript^  as  well  as 
 in  the  Latin  translation,  which  accords  with  it,  and 
 v/hich  is  preserved  in  tlie  Brescia  manuscript.  The 
 text  of  these  manuscripts  is  thus  clearly  identified 
 with  that  which  isad  received  the  corrections  of  the 
 orthodox  revisers ;  and  as  they  possess  the  Byzan- 
 tine text,  their  joint  testimony  consequently  proves 
 
 est,  et  ill  Gnccis  et  in  Latinis  codiclhus  complurimisy  vel  de  ad- 
 veiHcnte  angelo,  vel  de  sudore  saiigulneo,  nil  scriptum  reperiri. 
 
 ^"^  Vid.  supr.  p.  72.  n.  37.  p.  26.  n.  '^^ 
 
 ^°'  It  is  thus  marked  in  the  margin  of  the  Harleian  MS. 
 jjnd  in  that  of  the  Cambridge  MS.  'LUT  ;  and  in  the  margin 
 of  the  Verona  MS.  ccLxxxiii  X  :  tliis  being  the  proper  refe- 
 rence to  Eusebius's  Canon  x,  which  consequently  contain^ 
 ISo.  2S3,  referring  to  Luke  xxii.  4-3,  41, 
 
 *^^  It  is  consequently  marked  in  the  margin  of  the  manuscript 
 and  printed  copies  of  tiie  Vulgate,  283  X:  and  set  against  the 
 follo'.ving  words:  "  Apparuit  auteni  illi  Angelas  de  ccelo,  con- 
 fortians  earn,  l^t  factus  in  agonia  prolixius  orabat.  Et  factus 
 est  sudor  ejus  sicut  guttse  sanguinis  decurrentis  in  terram.'* 
 These  words  are  also  found  in  the  Verceli  and  Verona  MSS., 
 winch  contain  the  old  Italick  version :  both,  however,  read 
 *'  sudor  iliius  quasi  guttae  ;"  the  former  also  reads  "  decurren- 
 tis super  terram,"  while  tlie  latter  read*  *'  decurrente^  in 
 terra*" 
 
(  95  J 
 jthe  antiquity  of  that  text  to  be  as  remote  as  the  times 
 of  St.  Epiphanius  '"^ ;  and  of  consequence  evinces  its 
 identity  with  tliat  text,  which  St.  Jerome,  who  lived 
 in  the  same  age,  assigns  to  Constantinople,  and 
 ascribes  to  Lucianus. 
 
 Now,  as  the  text  preserved  in  the  Harleian  and 
 Moscow  manuscripts  is  that  which  exists  in  the  ma- 
 nuscripts, which  are  brought  from  Constantinople  ; 
 Gs  it  differs  from  the  text  of  the  Oriental  transla* 
 tions,  and  therefore  cannot  bjg  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. 
 
 If  the  proofs  which  have  be6n  thus  adduced   at 
 length  are  not  deemed  adequate  to  evince  the  iden- 
 
 *°^  It  is  necessary  to  explain  here,  tW  St.  Epiphanius  was 
 the  acquaintance  of  St.  Jerome,  amd  bishop  of  a  see  under  the 
 Patriarch  of  Conslantinojile.  As  he  hved  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.  Hair.  li.  p.  435.  a. 
 He  quotes  h  ^s^cc^u^a.  as  the  reading  of  his  own  copy ;  Ir  /3e- 
 Sayia,  as  the  reading  of  "other  copies."  The  former  is  found 
 in  the  Byzantine  text ;  the  latter  in  the  Palestine ;  the  former 
 €VKsequently  contained  the  text  of  St.  Epiphanius, 
 
(  9<5  ) 
 fity  6f  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- 
 J)le ;  it  is  difficult  even  to  conceive  what  mode  of 
 proof  will  be  deemed  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 
 lias  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 
 when,  through  the  medium  of  the  old  Italick  version, 
 (which  corresponded  with  some  of  the  copies  of  the 
 former  period,  and  which  corresponds  with  those  of 
 tlie  present,)  those  extremes,  however  remote,  are 
 directly  connected ;  the  mode  of  proof  which 
 evinces  the  identity  of  the  text  which  existed  at 
 botli  periods,  must  be  allowed  to  carry  the  force  of 
 dcmoustnition. 
 
 Independently  even  of  tlie  laboured  proof  by 
 which  I  have  endeavoured  to  establish  this  conclu- 
 sion, nothing  appears  to  be  more  probable,  thaa 
 tliat  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* 
 
{  9t  ) 
 
 Icended  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  prese«*ved  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  to  a  period  less 
 remote  than  the  eighth  century  ;  for  this  is  the  date 
 assigned  to  the  Moscow  manuscript,  which  con- 
 tains the  Byzantine  text^°9.  the  Vatican  manu- 
 script, which  contadns  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  pn  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 
 
 '«8  Woid.  Prolegg.iB  Cod.  Alex.  p.  xvii.  §  56,  "  Scriptusest 
 itaque  Codex  Alexandrinus  antequam  vir  doctus  teste  Euthalio, 
 anno  S96,  in  sectiones  Epistolas  diviserat^"     Carif;  supr.p.  70, 
 
 "»  Vid.  supr.  p.  62.  n.  -\ 
 
(    98    ) 
 
 times  df  St.  Jerome ;  it  must  be  granted  that  one 
 or  more  of  them  has  been  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  aUiance  to  the  text  of  the  former  period,  in- 
 
 "*Vkl.supr.  pp.  74,81. 
 
 '"  Vid.  supr.  p.  37.  n.  ''\  p.  93.  n.  '""^  Conf.  p.  92.  n.  '°^ 
 *"  Vid.  supr.  p.  94.  n.  '  \ 
 
 "^  Vid.  supr.  p.  32.  n.  ".  Conf.  Simon,  Nouy.  Obs,  sur  le 
 TexUetlesVere.p.  145. 
 
(    99    ) 
 
 stead  of  the  latter.  Nor  is  it  to  be  disputed  that  we  still 
 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  to  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-^ 
 ed  to  prove  has  been  established,    independent  of 
 
 *'*  Vid.  Blanchin.  Evang.  Quadr.  P.  I.  f.  cdxciii.  cdxcvii. 
 "*  Id.  ibid.  f.  cdxciii. 
 
 "«  Negot.  of  Sijr  T.  Roe.  f.  414.  460. 618,  Conf.  supr,  p.  7^ 
 n.  37. 
 
 "7Vid.supr.  p.  72.Bi.J7, 
 
 H  2 
 
(     100    ) 
 
 his  testimony.  The  reader  will  easily  perceiv«, 
 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  a^e  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  founds  in  his  own  authority, 
 for  taking  his  testimony,  in  the  more  enlarged  sense, 
 and  applying  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- 
 lar declaration,  with  respect  to  the  editions  of  Hesy- 
 
 "8  Vid.  supr.  pp.  70, 71. 
 
 "9  Vid.  supr.  pp.  74.    81. 
 
 "°  S.  Hier.  Praef.  in  iv  Evangg.  p.  i.  ^  Praetermitto  eos  co' 
 dices  quos  a  Luciano  et  Hesychio  nuncupatos  paucorum  homi- 
 num  asserit  perversa  contentio:  quibics  utique  nee  in  toto  Ve- 
 teri  Instrumento  emendare  quid  licuit,  nee  in  Novo  prqfuit 
 emendasse,  cum  multarum  gentium  linguis  Scriptura  ante  tran- 
 slata  doceat  falsa  esse  qu(E  addita  sunt,'* 
 -  ^"  Vid.  supr,  p.  26.  n.  '*♦.  p.  34.  n.  ^\  -  ' 
 
 ***  Vid.  supr.  p,  85,  lu  77.  ' 
 
(    101    ) 
 
 chius  and  Luclanus  ;  he  clearly  intimates  that  they 
 were  in  use  in  his  days ;  and  expressly  declares,  that 
 they  had  their  respective  admirers  "^  Now,  it  is 
 obvious,  that  the  same  causes  vs^hich  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  Testaments 
 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- 
 
 "»  Vid.supr.  p.  100.  n. '^^ 
 
 •**  Vid.  supr.  p.  72.  n.  J7. 
 
 '"  Such  is  the  constant  complaint  of  St.  Jerome  in  his  Pre- 
 faces; vid.  Praef.  in  Pentateuch.  Tom.  III.  p.  341.  Praef.  in 
 Jos.  lb.  p.  341.  Pr«f.  in  Paralipomra.  lb.  p.  343.  Praef. 
 in  Esdr.  lb.  p.  344,  &c.  Hence  St.  Jerome  dehvcrs  the  foK 
 lowing  injunction  to  his  friends;  Ibid.  p.  344.  "  Accedunt  ad 
 hoc  invidorum  studin;  qui  omne,  c^\xoiiscT\hvmviS,r€prche7idendmn 
 putant ;  et  interdujn,  contra  se  conscienria  repugnante,  publice 
 lacerantff^mdi,  occulte  legunt. — Itaque  obsepro  vos  Domnioa -et 
 
(     103    ) 
 
 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  traaslation,  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  />re- 
 valence  of  those  editions  till  the  latter  period,  in- 
 volves a  proof,  that  they  could  have  only  obtained 
 171  Egypt,  in  Palestine,  and  Constantinople  ;  since, 
 solely  and  respectively,  over  those  regions  extended 
 the  influence  of  Hesychius,  Eusebius,  and  Luci- 
 anus 
 
 1*7 
 
 Rogati'ane  carissimi,  ut  privata  lectione  content!,  llbros  non 
 efFeratis  in  publicum ;  nee  fastidiosis  cibos  ingeratis : — Si  qui 
 autem  fratrum  sunt,  quibus  nostra  non  displicent,  his  tribu- 
 atis  exemplar,"  &c.  vid.  infr.  p.  119.  n.  ^^ 
 
 "*^  Vid.  supr.  p.  100.  n.  '*^. 
 
 ^'^  Vid.  supr.  p.  72.  n.  ^■. 
 
H     103    ) 
 
 I  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  may  be  directly  referred  to  the  third  class,  and 
 ranked  under  the  edition  revised  by  Lucianus. 
 
 The  same  observation  may  be  likewise  extended 
 to  several  manuscripts  of  a  different  character :  some 
 of  which  are  observed  to  partake  of  the  peculiarities 
 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  **9^  on  the  death  of  Euse- 
 bius and  Constantine.     In  this  manner  St.  Athana- 
 
 "*  Such  are  the  Moscow  MSS.  denoted  by  M.  Matthaei  and 
 M.  Griesbach,  Mt.  a,  d,  e,  g,  10,  11,  &c. 
 **'  Vid.  supr.  p.  93.  ii.  '°\ 
 
(     104    ) 
 
 sius  and  St.  Basil  retouched  some  copies^  of  which, 
 by  an  extraordinary  chance,  we  seem  to  possess  spe- 
 cimens in  the  celebrated  Alexandrine  and  Vatican 
 manuscripts'^''.  But  these  copies  rather  contained 
 Tevisals  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 
 ^re  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- 
 
 "°  In  the  course  ov  the  following  investigation,  these  MSS, 
 will  be  particularly  described:  and  the  probabilities  of  their 
 alliance  to  the  corrected  text  of  St.  Athanasius  and  St.  BasiJ, 
 will  be  examined. 
 
(  105  ) 
 tical  with  the  editions  of  Egypt,  Palestine,  and  Con- 
 stantinople^ as  revised  b}^  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  Avas  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.  51.  n.  *\  p.  58.  n.  *\      ., 
 ^^'  Vid.  supv.  p.  86.  an.  ^°  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  referred  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  fii^t  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 
 
 '51  To  the  first  class  we  may  consequently  refer  the  Cam- 
 bridge, Clermont,  St.  Germain,  Augean,  et  Bcernerian  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.  3.  n.  \ 
 
i  107  ) 
 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.  Matthaei,  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  '^^ ;  but  it  sup- 
 
 '^^  Vid.  supr.  p.  105. 
 
 "^  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  innumeris  gravissimisque 
 mendis  corrupta,  partim  llecentiore  tantum  ilia  Vulgata,  non 
 vero  longe  jjrccstautiore  AnteJiieronymianciy  qiue  Itula  viclgo 
 dicitur." 
 
 *^^  M.  Blatthaei,  who  frequently  asserts  the  Extraordinary 
 coineidenc&  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  ditFers  from  the  scheme  of  M.  Mat- 
 thaei^  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  Vulg-ate,  from  those  which  have  been 
 corrected  since  the  times  of  St.  Eusebius^  of  Verceli^^ 
 of  St.  Jerome,  and  Cassiodorus  ''^  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  *^^:  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 
 over  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.  "  Hie  Codex  [H,]  scriptus  est 
 litteris  quadratis,  estque  eorum  omnium  qui  adhuc  in  Europa 
 innotueruni  et  velastissimus  et  prcestantissimus,  Insanus  quidem 
 fuerit,  qui  cum  hoc  aut  Cod.  V,  comparare,  aut  cequiparare 
 'coluerit  Codd.  Alexandr,  Clar.  Germ.  Bcern.  Cant,  qui  sine  ullo 
 dubio  pessirae  ex  scholiis  et  Versione  Latina  Vulgata  interpo- 
 lati  sunt.  Per  totum  hunc  Codicem  via;  quinque  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, 
 
 *^^  Vid.  supr.  n.  "^ 
 
(  109  ) 
 Independent  of  its  internal  consistency^  ^nd  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  theix  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,  I  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  Art.  §  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  ani/  doiibt  in  the 
 Church.''^  lb.  Art.  xx.  *'  Wherefore,  although  the  Church  be 
 a  xmtness  and  keeper  of  Holy  Writy"  Sfc. 
 
 *  Theod.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  V.  cap.  vi.  p.  200. 1.  15.    'Avtv 
 
 rr,s    voca    roLiflms   iXsv^iqac   ^Ufxsiyc.     KuvroitlTtoq    fxiv    ya^    o  rut 
 QatcrtMvi  uK^cn^^ri  on(pu?iOi^t.  ttsv  tvffs^t^**. 
 
(   in   ) 
 
 llod  of  forty  years,  when  the  Greek  Church  resigned 
 itseif  to  the  errours  of  Arius  ^  In  addition  to  tlie 
 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.  Prom  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  principled 
 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 in  a  code,  by  the  immediate  successours  of  the 
 apostles.  Here  St.  Paul,  and  his  companion  St. 
 Luke,  published  the  principal  part  of  the  Canon. 
 rVom  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-» 
 
 3  Vid.  supr.  p.  29.  n.  ^^ 
 
 *  Origen.  Praef.  in  Epist.  ad  Rom.  Tom.  IV.  p.  459.  e^, 
 Bened. — "  Etiam  illud  baud  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  EcclesicPy  quce  est 
 Cenchris*  Cenchris  enim  dicitur  locus  Corintho  vicinus  ivio 
 partus  ij^sius  Corinthi^*^  &c. 
 
(    112    ) 
 
 sus^  Phillppi,  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  *. 
 
 ^  This  is  evident  from  the  superscriptions  of  the  Epistles. 
 Vid.infr.  p.  115.  n.  *^ 
 
 ^  Euseb.  Hist,  Eccl.  Lib.  III.   cap.   xxiii.  p.   112.  1.  10. 
 
 0*  hyoi'Trei  6  'li9<r«?,  AworoAo?  o/^«  xat  'Efa/ysXiri?  'lucivvnq,  TaV  etvToBi 
 
 cucrBxi    rov    ?.6yov    [jia^rvfujv,  7r»ro*   o     av    etev    arot EiprivccToq  xaX 
 
 KXrjfjt.r,c  0  A'Ki^etv^fiU,  m  o  [tXi  wpoTtpo;  h  hvrepeo  rwv  wfO?  ra?  AlfiO-ete 
 u^tTTui;  ypci<pn  xaroi  Xe'ltv,  '*  Kat  Trccvrsq  o»  VfBff^vri^oi  />:af>TVf3crj» 
 of    xara    t^v    'Acrtav    'luixuvrt    tu    t5    Kyp3    |M.aSy;T«    cry^.S£/Sx»jy.oTe?> 
 
 «VM  p(^§Dvwv."  Conf.  S.  Iresn.  adv.  Haer.  Lib.  II.  cap.  xxii, 
 p.  148.  ed.  Bened. 
 
 ^  Clem.  Alexandr,  quisn.  div.  salv.  poss.  p.  112.     'E^rtioi  yci^ 
 
 l<c^T?^^£v  [|«  ludi/txc^  a.'?  T>;>  "E^acrov,  w'Ttjei  7roc^atKU?,eiJLitoc  x«*  Itt*  ra 
 
 exxKna^acq   a^uos-uvf    oW    ^e    xA^pw  baye    Titcc    x>,v)^u<Tuv    Tuv   vtfo    t5 
 
 UvsvfjLaroq    a-r.jj.oitvoiJLEyuv,      Conf.   Euseb.   ub.  supr.    p.   112.   1, 
 
 1—8. 
 
 •    »  Euseb.   Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  III.   cap.  xxiv.   p.   116.   1.  55. 
 
 *iuccivr,v  tpaa-)  T0»  TavTce  %po»oK  uyfdipcj  xi^^r,[/.siiov  xyi^vy{A,ari,  ri?^o; 
 Kut  IttI  rr,¥  ypoi(p7^v  Ix^eh  To»acr^£  x^r*"  «*'J'*a?»  '^^'>  TT^oavaypa^evTcyv 
 T^Twv    £1?   9r«»T«?    >?^>)    xai    els"    a^rov    ^ia5c5ojw,£'vci;v,   aTroJe^acrS'at 
 
(     113    ) 
 
 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 
 
 iiv)fuy[/,xroi    i/wo    rtf    X^trS    Trfw^ay/x/fwy    otyiyriaiv.    xat    aA^jS^?    yc   » 
 ^6yo(;» 
 
 ^  Id.  ib.  cap.  iv.  p.  91.  I.  15.     Tj^o^eo?  yt  fx\»  tJJ?  Jv   EipsVej 
 
 y.xrcc    Tiiv     hvTe^oiv    Trpo?    Tif/.o^Bov     ETrtroXyjy,     -/rpuiro?    [/.sTa,    UBTpo* 
 
 h^rT^urcci,     Vid.  infr.  p.  115.  n.  '*. 
 
 '"  Gomp.  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  oa 
 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. 
 6,  7,  8.  Act.  XXV.  25.  38. 
 
(     114    ) 
 
 Italick  vei*sion,  contained  in  the  Brescia  manu- 
 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  Churchy  and  the  unadulter- 
 ated testimony  of  the  Western,  in  favour  of  its 
 integrity. 
 
 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.  sqq. 
 '^  Vid.  supr.  p.  90.  sqq. 
 *^  Vid.  supr.  pp.  70,  71. 
 
(    115    ) 
 
 topyists  must  necessarily  have  observed  a  degree  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  in  a  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.  Praescr.  adv.  Haer.  cap.  xxxvi.  p.  ^IL  "  Age  jam 
 qui  voles  curiositatem  melius  exercere  in  negotio  salutis  tuae, 
 percurre  Ecclesias  Apostolicas,  apud  quas  ipsas  adhuc  cathedrae 
 Apostolorum  suis  locis  praesidentur ;  apud  quas  ipscB  autheniicc^ 
 litter ce  eorum  recitantu?',  sonantes  vocem,  et  repraesentantes  fa- 
 ciem  unius  cujusque.  Proxime  est  tibi  Achaia,  hades  Corin- 
 ihum.  Si  non  longe  es  a  Macedonia,  habes  Fhilippos,  habes 
 Thessalonidenses,  Si  potes  in  Asiam  tendere  habes  Ephesum: 
 si  autem  Italiae  adjaces,  habes  Romam,  unde  nobis  quoque  auc* 
 toritas  praesto  est.  Statu  foelix  Ecclesia !  cui  totam  doctrinam 
 Apostoli  cum  sanguine  suo  profuderunt;  ubi  Petrus  passioni 
 Dominicae  adsequatur;  ubi  Paulus^  Joannis  exitu,  coronatur; 
 ubi  Apostolus  JoanneSf  posteaquam,  in  oleum  igneum  demersus, 
 nihil  passus  est,  in  insulam  relegatur  !  Videamus  quid  dixerit> 
 quid  docuerit,  quid  cum  Africanis  Ecclesiis  contesserarit.** 
 The  best  commentary  on  the  phrase,  *'  authenticae  litterae/' 
 Used  by  this  arltient  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.  ix.  p.  19.  ed  Oxon. 
 *'  Legi  etiam  Literas  in  quibus  nee  qui  scripserint,  nee  ad  quos 
 scriptum  est  significanter  expressum  est.  Et  quoniam  me  in 
 iisdem  literis,  et  scriptura  et  sensus  et  chartae  ipsae  quoque  mo- 
 Verunt,  ne  quid  ex  vero  vel  subtractum  sit  vel  immutatum; 
 
(    116    ) 
 
 pkce^  it  must  have  been  in  the  region  contlguoiu 
 to  Constantinople^  where  they  were  originally  de- 
 
 isandeni  ad  vos  epistolam  authenticam  remisi,  ut  recognoscatis 
 an  ipsa  sit  quam  Clementio  hypodiacono  perferendam  dedistis : 
 perquam  etenim  grave  est,  si  epistolae  clericse  Veritas  mendacio 
 4liquo  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.  Q5, 
 *<  Quales  literas  ad  Clerum  Romae  agentem  fecerim,  quidque 
 illi  mihi  f  escripserint,   quid  etiam  Moyes  et  Maximus  Presby- 
 teri — sDque  ad  literas  meas  rescripserint,  ut  scire  possetis  exeiri' 
 pla  vobis  legenda  transmisi.     Vos  curate  quantum  potestis  pro 
 diligentia  vestra,  ut  scripta  nostra,  et  illorum  resaipita  fratribus 
 nostris  innotescant.     Sed  et  si  qui  de  peregrinis  Episcopi  Col- 
 legse  mei,   vel  Presbyteri,  vel  Diacones  praesentes  fuerint  vel 
 supervenerint,  haec  omnia  de  vobis  audiant ;  et  si  exempla  epis- 
 tolarum  transcribere  et  ad  suos  perferre  voluerint,  facultatem 
 transcription  is   accipiant.      Quamvis   et    Saturo  lectori,   fratri 
 nostro  mandaverim,  ut  singulis  desiderantibus  describendi  faciat 
 potestatem,  ut  in  Ecclesiarum  statu  quoquo  modo  interim  com- 
 ponendo  servetur  ab  omnibus  una  et  fida  consensio."     With  a 
 view  to  explain  the  terms  authejiticce  littera^,  and  exempla  epis' 
 iolarimiy  as  used  in  St.  Cypriari'^s  age^  I  have  transcribed  these 
 long  passages  :   not  so  much  in  reply  to  the  objections  of  Mr. 
 Person'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  Scriptures !     Both  ihe 
 above-cited  Epistles  of  St.  Cyprian  are  upon  the  same  subject ; 
 and  were  occasioned  by  a  communication  from  the  Church  of 
 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- 
 lity, of  which  St.  Cyprian  complains,  in  the  R-oman  Clergy,t 
 
X    117    ) 
 
 posited.  To  this  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  into  which 
 they  are  respectively  divided.  But,  as  they  do  not 
 vary  from  each  othe^  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  of  the  Church  at  that 
 period. 
 
(    lis   ) 
 
 .    I.  The  first  argument  which  may  be  advanced  iri 
 favour  of  the  uncori*upted  testimony  of  the  Eastern 
 Church,  is  deducible  from  the  extraordinary  coin- 
 cidence observed  to  exist  betvs^een  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  unquestion- 
 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.  cxxil.  *'  Praecipuus  vero 
 recensionum  in  criseos  sacra:  exercitio  usus  hic  est,  ut  earum 
 auctoritate  lectiones  bonas,  sed  injpaucis  liby-is  superstites  defen- 
 damus  adversus  juniorum  et  Vulgarium  Codicum  innumerabilem 
 'pa^ne  turbam,** 
 
 '^  MatthEpi  Praef.  in  Nov.  Test.  Tom.  I.  p.  xxvi.  "  Plerum- 
 que  enim  meiioris  notae  Codices  omnes  inter  se  consentiunt.  Qui 
 vero  notabiliter  corrupti  sunt,  unde  corrupt!  sunt,  multis  in  locis 
 facile  intelligitur,"  &c.     Vid.  supr.  p.  107.  n. '". 
 
(    119    ) 
 
 title  it  to  supersede  the  Palestine  text,  which  wa» 
 recommended  by  the  united  authority  of  Eusebius 
 and   the  Emperour  Constantine.     And   yet  it  ha* 
 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  Jerusalem,  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. 
 p.  81.  n. '°. 
 
 '^  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.  ji.  »*5,  conf.  infr.  p.  137.  n.  '\     Tha 
 
(     120     ) 
 
 great  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  manuscripts  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  publisaed ;  or,  so  pecu- 
 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.  lxxi.  Tom.  II.  c.  161.  c. 
 Quidam  frater  noster  episcopus,  cum  Jectitari  institiiisset  in  eccle- 
 sia  cui  praeest,  interpret atio?2 em  tiiam,  movit  quiddam  longe 
 aliter  a  te  positum,  apud  Jonam  prophetam,  quam  erat  omnium 
 sensibus  memoriceque.  inveteratum  et  tot  cetatum  successionibus 
 decantatum :  factusqiie  est  tantus  tumultiis  in  plebe,  maxinie 
 Graecis  arguentibus,  et  inclamantibus  calumniam  falsitatis, 
 ut  cogeretur  episcopus,  (ea  quippe  civitas  erat)  JudcEorum  testi' 
 moniiim  Jlagitare." 
 ~   y  Vid.  infr.  p.  131.  sqq. 
 
(    121    ) 
 
 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  Epistles  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  a  female.  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 
 
 **  Vid.  supr.  p.  70.  n.  '^ 
 
 ^'  Vid.  Negot.  of  Sir  Tho.  Roe,  p.  618.  41.4.  460. 
 *^  Vid.  Usser.  Antiqq.  Britt.  Eccless.  p.  110. 
 ^^  Vid.  Roe,  ub.  supr.  p.  618.     Woid,  Praef.  in  Cod,  Alex. 
 p.  ix.  §  44, 45, 
 
(    122    ) 
 
 fourth  century.  It  possesses  the  Gospels  divided^ 
 by  the  sections  of  Eusebius^  which  were  introduced 
 in  the  former  period  ^^^j*  it  retains  the  Pauline  Epis- 
 tles^ without  those  divisions^  which  were  invented  in 
 the  latter  period  ^^ :  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  "^^i  and  as  it  contains 
 
 **  Woid.  ibid.  p.  vii.  §  36.  "  Indicem  Periocharum  seu 
 Capitulorum  antiqiiorum  ante  initium  Evcmgeliorum  ponit,  quod 
 et  alii  Codices  MSSti  et  Milii  editio  recte  imitati  sunt.  Pra* 
 terea  etiam  numerum  et  tituUim  Periockarum  in  summa  pagina 
 adscripsit.— — Etiam  ad  sinistrum  marginem  notantiir  hccc  Ca- 
 pihda  quae  ?vlillius  quoque  notare  non  neglexit. — Praeterea 
 etiam  numerus  Cajpitulorum  Utera  alijhabeti  minio  appin- 
 gitiir," 
 
 ^'  Id.  ibid.  **  In  Actis  Ajpostolicis  et  Epistolis  Generalibus 
 et  Paidinis  nulla  Capitida  apparent,  in  quae  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  (quae 
 in  Evangeliis  initium  sectioniim  Eusebianorum  et  Capitidorum 
 designate,  scilicet  cap.  iii.  1.  iv.  ad  fin.  vers.  3.  viii.  26.  x.  1.'* 
 &c. 
 
 ^  Vid.  Bevereg.  Cod.  Cann.  Eccles.  Prim.  Illustr.  P.  II. 
 cap.  ix.  p.  116. 
 
 ^^  Woid.  ub.  supr.  §  53, 
 
 "^  Id.  ib.  §  80.  "  Si  itaque  lectores  et  formas  literarum  Co- 
 dicis  nostri,  Clementis  llomani  Epistolas,  et  Psalmos  Salomoni§j 
 
(    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,  thotigh  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  r^is-xyiov,  quae  desunt,  si  caetera  argumenta 
 summam  ejus  antiquitatem  confii*mantfa,  consideratissime  per- 
 penderint,  omnia  conspirare  videbunt,  ut  Codicem  Alexandrinnm 
 intra  medium  etjinem  seculi  quarti  scriptum  esse  ipsis  persuadeant. 
 
 *'  Griesb.  Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  I.  p.  ix.  n.  *.  Hinc  accidit  ut 
 Codex  Alexandrinus  non  in  omnibus  libris,  eandem  textus  recen- 
 sionem  sequeretur.  In  Evangeliis  exhibet  recensionem  Constant 
 tinopolitanam  sive  Asiaticara,'*  &c. 
 
 3^*  Vid.  supr.  nn.  *'  et  "-^ 
 
 ^*  Vid.  supr.  p.  29.  n.  *^ 
 
 ^*  Vid.  supr.  p.  72.  n.  ".  conf.  p.  100.  n.  '^* 
 
 3'  Vid.  infr.  n.  ?».  conf.  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  Vjll.  cap, 
 xiii.  p.  393. 1*  32. 
 
(   1^^  ) 
 
 know  that  in  Constan tine's  a^,  Eusebius's  text  was 
 published  at  Constantinople  '* ;  we  know  that  Lnci- 
 anus's  Septuagint  differed  from  it,  and  that  in  St. 
 Jerome's  age  it  prevailed  in  the  same  region  ^^ 
 There  is  consequently  no  alternative,  but  to  admit, 
 that  the  tradition  which  was  interrupted  in  the  former 
 period,  was  renewed  in  the  latter. 
 
 Now  as  the  Scripture  Canon  was  not  published 
 until  the  beginning  of  the  second  century  ^^  and  as 
 Lucianus  most  probably  completed  his  revisal  be- 
 fore the  year  284,  wlien  the  Dioclesian  aera  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  in  the 
 latter  part  of  it,  when  the  text  was  revised  by  the 
 hand  of  Lucianus. 
 
 But  against  this  possibility,  we  have  the  strongest 
 security  in  the  character  of  that  learned  and  pious 
 martyr.  To  his  skill  in  revising  the  sacred  text, 
 the  most  honourable  testimony  is  borne,  by  the  most 
 unimpeachable  witnesses ;    Eusebius  and  Jerome. 
 
 3+  Vid.  Euseb.  Vit.  Const.  Lib.  IV.  capp.  xxxvi,  xxxviL 
 p.  64-6.  sqq. 
 
 35  Vid.  supr.  p.*72.  n.  '\ 
 
 3^  S.  Iren.  adv.  Haer.  Lib.  V.  cap.  xxx.  p.  330.    OjJJe  ya^  v^l 
 
 9roXK»  Xgovy   icjfoi^ii    £r]  a7ro/ca^t;^|/^s3  >    a^^a  ^^e^ht  lir*  rr,q  r}fjt,ire^ci<; 
 yivsaiq,    'TT^OS  ru  TfiT^Si  «^f  AOjjX67Eav5  »flX^^*       ^^^^'  ^M^X.   p.  112. 
 
 no.  ^  et  7. 
 "  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  possibiU- 
 ties  which  have  been  already  calculated,  that  the 
 immediate  transcripts  of  the  writings  of  the  Apostles 
 
 3«  Euseb.    Hist.  Eccles.   Lib.  IX.   cap.  vi.  p.  444.  1.  22. 
 
 AtfJtiai'oij    Ti   «v'>5^    Ta   ttocvicx.    cc^iToq^    0icf   t£   eyy.pccTTi^    X^  ToTs   UgoTi' 
 
 viXTCi^uv  EKTuy^afE,  irxfutr^a/v  Ts  tTTi  T»  apvovTo?  T'/iv  VTrep  'h<;  Tr^oh-o-ro 
 ^i^x(7y.a7^ix<;    oi'7ro>.oyiXV,    ^ejj.an'Kficj    Trapad'&Ssi?    KrUiVTai.      S.    Hier. 
 
 Catal.  Scripp.  Eccll.  in  Lucian.  Tom.  I.  p.  128,  *'  Lucianus 
 ^ir  disertissimus,  Antiochense  Ecclesiae  presbyter,  tantum  ifi 
 Scripturarum  studio  lahoravity  ut  usque  nunc  ({Wdd&^mexemplaria 
 Scripturarum  Luciatiea  nuncupentur. — Passus  est  Nicoroediae 
 ob  confessionem  Christi  sub  persecutione  Maximini"— 
 39  Vid.  supr.  p.  72.  n.  ". 
 
(     126    ) 
 
 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 
 
 '^^  Thus  long  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.  i.  §  11.  Mirum — nemini  videbitur  qui  secum  reputaverit 
 sexto  aid  septimo  seculo  extitisse  jam  illam  recensionem  quce  in 
 codicibus  plerisqice  habetur,  et  a  textu  vulgari  typis  excuse 
 parum  differt ;  inde  vero  a  seculo  octavo  vix  novani  rece?isionem 
 idlam  jprocuratam  fuisse,  nee  variantium  lectionum  numerum 
 insigniter  auctum  esse,  si  sphalmata  demas  a  librariis  dormitan-* 
 tibus  aduiissa,  et  glossas  nonnullas  e  margine  in  textum  temere 
 translatas." 
 
 *'  Vid.supr.  pp.  70,71. 
 
 ♦*  Vid.  supr.  p,  72,  n.  'K 
 
(    127    ) 
 
 times  of  the  inspired  writers  *%  who  could  alone  im- 
 press that  authority  upon  one  text,  which,  by  bring- 
 ing it  into  general  use,  rendered  it,  from  the  primi- 
 tive ages  down  to  the  present  day,  the  xo*j.>j  U^Un, 
 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  establishing  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  coincidence  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- 
 
 «  Via.  STipr.  p.  125.  n.  'K 
 
 ^*  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.  '5;  it  remains  to  be  observed,  that  the  Verceli,  Verona 
 MSS.  and  the  Latin,  nay,  the  Greek  of  the  Cambridge  MS. 
 >vhich  respectively  possess  the  text  of  Hesychius,  have  been 
 copied  from  different  exemplars.  The  Verce'i  MS.  possesses 
 the  following  passage,  which  is  not  found  in  the  other  three ; 
 Mat.  iii.  15.   "  Et  cum  baptizaretur  lumen  ingens  circumfulsi; 
 
(    128    ) 
 
 lestlne  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  httle  from  their  authority. 
 
 de  aqua,  ita  ut  timerent  qui  adrenerunt."  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.f  on  the  other  hand, 
 possesses  the  following  passage,  which  is  not  found  in  the  Ver- 
 celi  MS.  Matt.  xxiv.  31.  "  Cum  cceperint  autem  haec  fieri 
 respicite  et  levate  capita  vestra,  quoniam  adpropriat  redemptio 
 vestra."  This  passage  however  occurs  in  the  Cambridge 
 Greek,  ib.  ^p;\^o^£vwv  ^\  riiruv  y'ivtj^oci  uvoL^'^i-^art  ytu)  iiroc^ocrt 
 tuq  Ki'potT^a.q  vy.ujv  SioTi  lyyl^ii  r)  uToxirpuxriq  i^^av'  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  tlie  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  Csesarea'^^  Now,  taking  the 
 question  on  these  grounds,  there  is  httle  room  for  a 
 competition  between  the  Byzantine  and  Palestine 
 editions.  The  country  in  which  the  one  arose  w^as 
 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- 
 
 *'  Vid.  supr.  p.  105.  n.  ^^\ 
 *8  Vid.  supr.  p.  105.  ru  '^\ 
 *^  Euseb.   Vit.   Constant.  Lib.   II.  cap.   Ixi.  p,  566,  1.  2. 
 
 xaTEiS'    uq  uTFo  |Octxp«  o-w»v$?fo?   {xsyx   wvp  t^B^O'Sro'  axpeiq  fAv  ucrrrep 
 
 rriv  avixTraauv  "AlyvTrroii  re  jc  Aj/SiJtjv,  rriv  r  sTriasivoc  (Bnt^&i^a.' 
 Ti'dri  Si  x^  tdq  Mifru<;  imveixiro  iTTotp^ioci;  re  x^  -jrohsic'  uq'  »  fjuQvovq  9)9 
 
 vhri%  KUTarifji.vo^e\icc»  Conf.  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  I.  cap.  vi, 
 p.  10.  1.  7—11.  Lib.  IL  cap.  xxviii.  p.  120. 1.  40.  Lib.  IV. 
 cap,  vii.  p.  268.  1.  27.  Theodorit.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  V.  cap.  vii. 
 p.  200. 1.  25—40. 
 
 5°  Vid^supr.  p.39.  nn.^8et7°. 
 
(    130    ) 
 
 larly  calculated  to  support  the  peculiar  errours  of 
 Arius  5'. 
 
 But  tlie  authority  of  these  texts  is  not  merely 
 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  5*.  And  of  the  extensive  influence  of  the  edition 
 of  the  latter^  we  have  a  standing  evidence,  in  the 
 prevalence  of  the  Euthalian  ^ections^  which  very 
 generally  exist  in  the  Greek  manuscripts  ^^      In 
 
 5*  Vid.  supr.  p.  28.  n.  '^'. 
 
 ^*  This  point  is  clearly  conceded  by  M.  Griesbach,  in  pro- 
 nouncing the  Palestine  text  the  Alexandrine;  vid.  supr.  p.  86» 
 nn.  8°  et  s^ 
 
 55  Zaccagn.  Collect.  Monn.  Vet.  Eccles.  Praef.  p.  Jxviii.  §  ir* 
 **  At  vero  Eiithalii  divisiones  perpetuo  in  usu  ajmd  Grcecos  fa^ 
 isse,  ii  probe  norunt,  qui  veteres  Bibliorum  Codices  perlus- 
 trarunt,  in  quihisfere  omnibus  habentur  Capitula  ah  Euthalio 
 excogitata.  Vidit  cnim  multos  Novi  Testamenti  scriptos  Codi- 
 ces Robertus  Stephanas-— viderunt  et  alios  Cedices  viri  doctis- 
 simi,  qui  de  Biblicis  rebus  tractarunt ;  sed  hos  o??mes  una 
 eodemqiw  7nodo,  in  Evangeliorura  quidem  textu  juxta  Alexandri- 
 num  Cyrilli  Lucaris  Codicem,  in  reliquis  vero  ejusdem  libris,. 
 Apocal ypsi  exgepta,  juxta  Eathalium  nostrum  divisos  fuisse  U~ 
 
(    131    ) 
 
 fact,  so  little  calculated  was  the  Egyptian  text  to 
 retain  its  gTOund  against  the  powerful  influence  of 
 the  Palestine,  under  the  double  publication  of  En- 
 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  flitrimos  Novi  Testamenti  scriptos  Codices, 
 (Juorum  nonnulli  eximia  sunt  vetustate  venerandi,  eisdem  Alex- 
 andrini  exemplaris,  et  Euthalii  nosiri  Capitidis  insignitos,  So- 
 him  in  Othobonianse  Bibliothecae  veteri  Codice,  liis  Uteris  et  his 
 numeris  signato  R.  ii.  vii.  Apostolorum  Acta  in  rapitula  li. 
 divisa  reperi,  et  in  Aldi  Manutii,  Pauli  Filii,  Aldi  nepotis  Co- 
 dice,  qui  nunc  ejusdemmunere  inter  Vaticanos  633'^-^  numera- 
 tiir,  alius  a  mdgatis  titulorum  ordo  hahetitrJ" 
 
 **  Vid.  supr.  pp.  54,  55  et  nn.  in  locc. 
 
 ^5  St.  Jerome  wrote  previously  to  the  year  393.  vid.  supr.  p. 
 70.  n.  3^  and  Eusebius  died  in  the  year  340.  vid.  infr.  n.  ^^ 
 
 '^  S.  Athan.  Apol.  ad  Constant.  §  4.  Tom.  I.  p.  297.  ed.  Be- 
 lied.       IL^iy^'zun)  UtcI   TKq    A7\  =  ^XV^fiiai;^    VK  £»<•    rl  r^^J^T^t^'^V  Tt   £i^£?.(p3 
 
(  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  5^  An  ap- 
 plication of  this  kind,  made  at  this  remarkable  pe- 
 riod, if  it  does  not  convey  some  tacit  censure  ag*ainst 
 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 
 
 xX7jcr»a  T«  x-ar'  l^iocwov  ©Tapa^SjiAai'Oj,  rara  yap  /aovou  /iz-oi  (p^ovnri<s 
 r.Vy  ia-y(p'ha.}^ov  ru7q  cvvu^zci,  Ta>  uhx^u  era  ^y.  tyfot^ocy  ^  (ji^ovov  OTS 
 o»  TTifi  "Evas^iov   sy^aij/av   uvru   kcct    IjaS,  y,a,\  ix.va.yy.riV  iO-X°*   ^'^'  ^*  ^' 
 
 XE^'.siJiTavTos  ocvTif  (jLOi  xctTaaxevccaaiy  rocvra.  Z30ir,(jcx.s  aTrheiXac. 
 
 "  The  Benedictine  fathers  fix  the  time  when  S.  Athanasius 
 revised  the  Scriptures  to  the  year  340 :  Vit.  S.  Athan.  p.  xxxiii. 
 j  4.  and  the  time  when  Constantine  died  to  the  same  year, 
 ibid.  §  4. 
 
 58  Vid.  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  II.  capp.  iii.  iv.  pp.  82,  83. 
 
 5'  S.  Epiphan.  Haer.  Lxviii.  p.  723.  c.  'ExsAsvo-i  ^l  [6  Kwvra*- 
 Tr>io?]    avyxforvi^^yca  "Evvo^ov   xccrcc     rh    <i>on/'m'/iv   l»    Tvfui   tjj    •nroAw* 
 
 IxiXzvaz  oe  ^ixa^eiv  'ETaeptov  t^j-  JLocioxpslocSy  y^  a,X>.a<i  Ttva?. ' 
 
 *Ev  oi?  T^v  0  [AOCKOCflrviq  YloToifAUV  o  fjityaq ,  'Eufaxuq  Tov    Efffe/SiOV 
 
 xa9"£^o/x£vov  tC)  oixa^ovTa,  x«*  'A$ava<7»ov  Iruta,,  xccrocTrovvi^iU  tr, 
 y.v'itri  y.oii  oaxpyc-a?,  oXcc  yUtrcci  ^ufd  roTq  uXriBiaiVf  ociriliUscio  (pocv^ 
 f/Ayoch-n  'Evcrt^lu  >iiyuv,   2y   KuBl^ri  'tYsrej^ts,   xa]    'Ahcx,vcc(7iOS  d^coOi 
 
 ^v,  Tsctpa  GH  Xfiveixif  rU    htyy.oi  ru   7oiavTot.  ;  Tavroc,  uKtsaxf 
 
 '£yo"£j3io$,  ot'lptlxi  uiv  lU  a,yo!,voi>ilr,<Tniy  x«i  atot^oti  ^ithvai  to  otxarip***' 
 Tiiyuv'  "Ot*  £t  Ei'lat'^a  JjASere,  >£«»  'sxfoi  ^jt>i«{  ra  toiavra,  okv\i>\iyf\s^ 
 ocfx  »v  aX7}9"Ejy^(Ttv  ol  xarioyopoi  j^ptav,  i»  y«p  w^f  Tvpaj-jrerrE,  woXX^ 
 
(  133  ) 
 leaned  in  a  contrary  direction  to  those  of  the  Bishop 
 t)f  Cagsarea  ^°,  whose  principles  were  unquestion- 
 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  sw^- 
 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 
 
 ««  Vid.  supr.  p.  110.  n.^ 
 
 *'  Vid.  Epiphan.  ibid.  p.  723.  c.  conf.  supr.  p.  39.  n. '°. 
 
 **  It  is  particularly  deserving  of  remark,  that  a  principal 
 charge  urged  against  St.  Athanasius  and  his  clergj,  in  the 
 Council  of  Tyre,  summoned  under  Eusebius,  was  that  of  having 
 burned  the  Bible,  in  the  church  of  Ischyras,  who  was  of  thlf 
 Arianjiiction  ;  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xxvii.  p.  64.  I. 
 10.     0»  ^e  [-sTEpt    'Ey(7£/3iov]   pt/fffi  Tw  Z5pos  *A3"ava<Tiov  ^t^olaj  ^\v 
 
 xo9r?5  «|«a  Tifj.ijcronf  h*  xarviyopiav  h<;rnazl<x.i  xacroi  AS'avoo'/w, 
 «rpo(p«c7ii'  >^ufA^xvotlti  oW  0  'iff^^^oiq  \'jr\a.T\i\o*  i(p^[ji,it,e  yoi^  uf  iVrj  rec 
 ^uv^Hvec  i|  l(p6^8  TffevovBut;'   v.a,)  o  Ma>i«§»o;  ilair'n^ria-at;  ilq  to  ^vaiaa- 
 
 r»  Upac  ^i^Xloc  xocli}<.a.vas. 
 
 ^^  Vid.  supr.  p.  123.  n.  *^  conf.  p.  131.  n.  '*. 
 
(    134    ) 
 
 the  year  567  *^.  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, w^ith  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  reasonablv  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  unquestionable  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 
 
 **  Vid.  supr.  p.  nn.  =^7.  et  ^\ 
 
 ^^  Patr.  Benedd.  Vit.  S.  A  than.  p.  xxx  §  1. 
 
 "  lid.  ib.  p.  Ixxxv.  §  2,  3. 
 
 *7  Vid.  Woid.  Praef.  in  Cod.  Alex.  Sect.  IV.  §  47.  p.  x.  The 
 learned  editour  adds  the  following  apology,  for  this  circum- 
 stance ;  ibid.  "  Qui  itaque  his  honoribus  Athanasium  afficie- 
 bant;  cur  uon  etmm  Psalmis  Prologum  ejus,  omnium  ccstima- 
 tione  di^nissimum  adderenl  ?  Si  quis  orationem  Gregorii  Nazian- 
 zeni  in  laudem  Athanasii  legent,  is  hoc  factum  fuisse  non  con- 
 
(     135    ) 
 
 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  ait 
 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  tlii.s  period  prevalent  at  Alexandria;  that 
 ^t.  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 ;  ^'she  em- 
 ployed one. 
 
(  136  ) 
 have  seen  the  inexpediency  and  danger  of  ventur- 
 ing, in  the  infected  state  of  the  Eastern  Churchy  to 
 undertake  at  once  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,  it  is  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  is  an  inference  which  necessarily  fol- 
 lows from  the  consideration  of  their  having  pub- 
 lished a  text,  which  differed  from  the  vulgar  Greek, 
 
 •*  Vid.  supr.  p.  72.  n.  J7. 
 
(    13T    ) 
 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   ntimerous    interpolations'^'. 
 Prom  such  an  imputation  the  text  of  Lucianus  is  ob- 
 viously free,  as  he  merely  repubhsiied  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  manuscript. 
 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* 
 chius  and  Eusebius's  texts  to  an  immemorial  tradi- 
 tion.    True  it  is  that  St.  Jerome  seems  to  pass  an 
 indiscriminate  censure  on  the  editions  of  Hesy chius 
 and  Lucianus  7^     But,  granting  him  to  have  pos- 
 sessed that  impartial  judgment  on  this  subject"^, 
 
 ^^  Ibidem. 
 
 '°  Ibidem. 
 
 '^  Vid.  supr.  p.  100.  n.  '*^ 
 
 7^  Vid.  supr.  p.  88.  n.  ^^ 
 
 7^  Vid.  supr.  p.  100.  n.*^°. 
 
 7*  St.  Jerome  not  only  innovated  in  revising  the  Septuagint^ 
 but  ejcpressly  followed  the  steps  of  Origen  and  Eusebius,  who 
 were  the  rivals  of  Lucianus  ;  Vid.  supr.  p.  S^.  n.  ''^.  S.  Hier. 
 ProcEm.  Dan.  Tom.  IV.  p.  495.  "  Sed  et  Origenes  de  Theodo- 
 tioiiis  opere  in  Editione  Vidgata  asteriscos  posuit;  docens  de- 
 
{     13S     ) 
 
 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  aftect  the  question  under  discussion  ^^ 
 
 From  a  view  of  this  subject,  as  well  from  the 
 positive  testimony  which  supports  the  Greek  Vul- 
 gate, as  that  whicli  invalidates  the  pretensions  of 
 the  Egyptian  and  Palestine  editions,  we  may  sum- 
 marily conclude,  tliat,  the  genuine  text  of  the  New 
 Testament,  if  it  is  at  all  preserved  in  the  three  edi- 
 tions which  have  descended  to  our  times,  can  be 
 only  conceived  to  exist  in  that  of  Byzantium. 
 
 11.  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- 
 
 faisse  qucp  addlta  sunt,  et  rursus  quosdam  versus  obells  pracno- 
 tavit,  swperjlua  quceqiie  designans.  Cumqiie  omnes  Christi  ec- 
 clesise,  tarn  Graecorum  quam  Latinorum,  S)^rorumque  et 
 ^gyptiorum,  banc  sub  asteriscis  et  obells  Editionem  legant ; 
 igrioscaiit  invidt  labori  men  qui  volui  habere  nostros  quod  Graeci 
 in  Aquilcfi  et  Theodotionis  ac  Synimachi  editione  lectitant/' 
 Conf;  Tonn  III.  Ep.  crv.  p.  S10. 
 
 ii  pn  this  subject  I  shall  have  an  opportuiiity  of  sneaking  at 
 large  Lercafter. 
 
(    139    ) 
 
 ready  offered  a  remark,  deduced  from  the  circum- 
 stance of  the  Western  Church  having"  retained  the 
 faith  uncorrupted,  while  the  Oriental  Church  wiis 
 infected  with  the  Arian  opinions  "*.  A  minute  ex- 
 amination of  this  evidence,  wUi  very  clearly  evinc  e 
 that  it  rests  on  the  side  of  the  Byzantine  text,  in- 
 stead of  the  Egyptian  or  Palestine. 
 
 The  first  argument,  which  may  be  urged  ftom 
 hence,  in  support  of  the  integrity  of  the  Greek  \  ul- 
 gate,  is  deducible  from  the  text  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  orig-inai  Greek.  We  are,  on 
 the  other  hand,  perfectly  acquainted  with  the 
 framers  of  the  text  of  the  Vulgate  and  Verccli  ma- 
 nuscript^"^, which  correspond  v/ith  the  Palestine 
 and  Egyptian  editions.  Now,  such  is  the  result, 
 wiiich  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. 
 And  as  this  manuscript  accords  with  the  Vulgar  Greek, 
 it  clearly  proves,  that  the  immemorial  testimony 
 of  the  Western  Ciiurch  is  on  tlie  side  ef  this  text. 
 
 '^  Vid.  supr.  p.  110.  u.  \ 
 
 77  Vid.  supr.  p.  15.  n.  ^''.  p.  59.  n. 
 
(     140    ) 
 
 '^-hich  tve  have  already  seen  is  similarly  siipp(!wrted 
 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  tiie  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  '^^.  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  ^9.  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.  57.  n.  *^ 
 
 79  Vid.  supr.  p.  57.  n.  ^K 
 
(    141    ) 
 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.  Eusebius's  undertaking  to  correct  the  current 
 translation,  that  this  translation  must  have  differed 
 from  the  ordinari/  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  revJsal  at  the  command  of  Pope  Julius,  who 
 came  to  the  Pontificate  in  the  year  337  ^° ;  the  or^ 
 dinary  Greek  text  was  obviously  contained  in  the 
 edition  of  Eusebms  of  Ceesarea,  who  lived,  after 
 this  period,  until  the  year  340  ^\  It  is,  of  course, 
 manifest,  that  the  received  text  of  Eusehius  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  ;  hia 
 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 
 nf  Hesi/chius  is  equally  destitute  of  the  primitive 
 
 ^''  Vid.  Patrr.  Benedd.  in  Vit.  S.  Athanas.  p.  xxx.  §  1.  a, 
 <*Vid.  supr.p.  1S2,  n.58. 
 
(     143    ) 
 
 tcstimon}^  of  the  Latin  Church,  as  the  text  of  Eu- 
 scbius  of  Caesarea.  And  as  the  corrected  version 
 of  St.  Euscbius  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,  wliich  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  Ca?sariensis.  But  if  this  objection  is 
 not  rendered  null  by  this  positive  fact,  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. 
 
 ^^  Vid.  supr.  pp.  90,  91,  92. 
 
 ^*  Vid.  supr.  p.  G3.  sqq. 
 
(  143  ) 
 tlon  had,  by  the  royal  mandate,  superseded  the 
 JByzantine  text  at  Constantinople.  It  might  not, 
 therefore,  have  been  safe^^'  for  Pope  Julius  to  au- 
 thorise a  version  wliich  was  not  merely  different 
 from  the  Received  Text  of  the  Greeks,  but  coin- 
 cident with  the  edition  whicii  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  sought  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  Verccllensis.  It  is  probable  that,  in 
 his  choice  of  Ilesychius's  edition,  in  correcting  the 
 Latin  version,  he  was  influenced  not  merely  by  in- 
 clination ^",  but  necessity.     It  is  certain,  that,    in 
 
 «5  That  the  Emperours  were  not  to  be  trifled  with  on  this  sub- 
 ject is  evident  from  the  severe  penalty  ro  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,  an.  Socrat. 
 
 Hist.  Eccl.  Lib,  I.  cap.  ix.  p.  32.  1.  3.  'Ez^vo  ^Mlo^  ^^^cayof.va;, 
 uq  %i  Ttg  cv'{y^a,^^^cc  W  Ap^a  <Tvi\ayh  (pcofaBny,  xp6-^ct:,  kou  ^), 
 ivBtuq  ^foc-'cvcyy.uv  'SV^)  nuluvu^.u^r,^  fdTij  ^xvocT'tq  ■  IVat  V  (-/^ixicc' 
 's:a.fa.xfriixa  ya,^  <Ia«?  IttI  Ti?r<i',  xcpa,-.iK);j/  vTroTiaycn  Tii^Lcopiai; 
 
 2^  Vid.  supr.  p.  27.  n.  '^. 
 
 ^^  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 
 improbable  that  he  imbibed  througli  him  some  share  of  the  dis- 
 taste to  the  Greek  Vulgate,  which  was  common  to  all  the  dis- 
 
(     144    ) 
 the  state  of  the  Greek  Churchy  there  existed  ^  suf* 
 ficient  cause  to  deter  him  from  following  the  copies 
 
 ciples  of  Ongen*s  school;  Id.  S.  Aug.  Ep.  Ixxxix.  Tom.  III. 
 p.  319:  and  that  he  thus  chose  Hesychius,  instead  of  Lucia- 
 iius,  when  he  was  prevented  by  other  motives  besides  his  friend- 
 ship for  St.  Athanasius  and  P.  Julius,  from  following  Eusebius 
 of  Csesarea:  Vid.  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  III.  capp.  v.  vi.  vii. 
 p.  176.  Conf.  Lib.  IL  capp.  xv.  xxiii.  p.  92.  109.  Hesychius 
 certainly  receded  farther  from  the  Greek  Vulgate  than  Lucianus  ; 
 vid.  supr.  p.  88.  n.  ^^  p.  72.  n.  ^^  And  Eusebius  Vercellensis, 
 as  a  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.  "  Omnes  veteres  tractatoreSy  qui  nos  in  Domino  pra- 
 cesserant,  et  qui  Scripturas  sanctas  interpretati  sunt,  &c. — 
 maxime  in  explanatione  Psalmorum — quos  apud  Grsecos  inter- 
 pretati sunt  multis  voluminibus,  pritmis  Origenes,  secundus  Euse- 
 bius C^sariensis — apud  Latinos  autem,  Hilarius  Pictaviensis  et 
 Eusebius  Vercellensis  episcopus  Originem  et  Eusebium  transtuh' 
 
 ^■unU Ego  enim  non  tam  vetera  aholere,  quae  linguae  meae 
 
 hominibus  emendata  de  Grceco  in  Latinum  transtuli,  quam  ea 
 festimojiiafquse  a  Judceis  p-cetermissa  suntvel  corrupta,  pro/erre 
 in  medium :  ut  scirent  nostri,  quid  Hebraica  Veritas  contineret. 
 Si  cui  legere  non  placet,  nemo  compellit  invitum."  Conf. 
 Praef.  in  Pentat.  Tom.  HI.  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  Hexapla  the  quota- 
 tions from  the  Old  Testament,  which  were  found  in  the  New, 
 though  not  discoverable  in  the  Vulgar  Edition  o£  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  oi  the  Sep^ 
 tuagint;  and  if  it  will  appear,  that  Ewse^/za  Vercellensis  io\\o\ve A 
 the  former  in  correcting  the  Old  Italick  translation,  we  shajl 
 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,  ma;y^,  I  conceive,  be  clearly 
 
(     145    ) 
 
 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  *9. 
 
 shewn  from  one  of  the  most  remarkable  quotations  from  the  Old 
 Testament,  which  occurs  in  the  New.  In  Luc.  iv.  18.  we  find, 
 iucraer^ai  T«?  ervnsr^iiy.[xe»iiq  rriv  xapS'jav,  Rec.  which,  as  the  reading 
 of  the  Greek  Vulgate,  was  found  mLiicianus's  text.  The  same 
 passage,  however,  occurs  verbatim  in  the  Scptiiagint,  Is.  Ixi.  1, 
 ioi(rcia^eci  Ttf?  o"yvT£Tgt/x/y,Hv»?  rviv  xap^iotn ;  and  is  consequently  ren- 
 dered, in  the  antient  Vulgar  Translation,  lb.  Ixi.  1.  *'  Sanare 
 contritos  corde."  But  the  phrase,  Iciaxa-^ai  ra?  crvyTsr^ifjiixsviii 
 rriv  xa^^tai/,  is  not  conformable  to  the  Hebrew,  iV  nitt^J^  irnnV ; 
 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  St.  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  Septiiagint ; 
 Ibid.  iv.  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. 
 
 ^  Blanchin.  Prolegg,  in  Evang.  Quadrupl.  p.  62.  "  Ante- 
 quam  vero  tollatur  manus  e  tabula,  unicum  saltern  laudati  Co- 
 dicis  [Verc]  locum  recitemus,  quern  Ariani  eo  tempore  quo 
 Auxentius  Mediolanensem  Ecclesiara  armis  exercituque  occu- 
 paverat,  ^Valente  et  Ursacio  Ecclcsiam  Siruiiensem  incursanti" 
 
(    146    ) 
 
 In  fact^  when  all  these  circumstances  arc  taken 
 Uiio  account^  the  history  of  the  Latin  version^  which 
 
 bus)  de  sacro  Joannis  Evangelio  punienda  nianu  siisiuleruntf 
 (nempe  vers.  6.  cap.  iii.)  Hoc  enim  flagitium,  quoniam  depre- 
 hensum  fuit  circa  annum  reparatae  salutis  357,  miram  Euse- 
 biani  Codicis  antiquitatem  ostendit,  atque  inolitae  traditioni 
 addit  maximum  pondus  authoritatis.  Legebatur  nempe  in 
 laudato,  cap.  iii.  *  Evangelii  secundum  Joannem,*  vers.  6. 
 *  Quod  natum  est  de  came  caro  est,  ^uia  de  came  natum  est ; 
 et  jquod  natum  est  de  Spiritu  Spiritus  est,  quia  Deus  Spiritus 
 e&t  et  ex_  Deo  natus  e^t,'  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.  Ara- 
 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  Cam. 
 Christ,  cap.  xviii.  p.  308.  which  S.  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 
 a  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. 
 
 ^3  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  Cam.  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 
 carnis  neque  ex. voluntate  viri,  sed  ex  Tieo  nati  sunty^  Brix; 
 winch  words,  with  the  single  correctioi?  oUanguine  to  sangninibuSf 
 after  al^okTuv  in  the  original,  St.  Eusebius  retained  in  his  revi- 
 
(    147    ) 
 
 is  otherwise  involved  in  inextricable  confusion^  di- 
 rectly ceases  to  be  perplexed  ;  and  all  the  inci- 
 dents detailed  in  it  naturally  arrange  themselves  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  Deo  natus  est,*  Hoc  quidem  capitulo  e^o 
 fotius  utar  quum  adulteratores  ejus  obduxero.  Sic  enim  sciiptum 
 esse  contendunty  non  ex  sanguine  nee  ex  carnis  voluntate,  nee  ex 
 
 viri  sed  ex  Deo  Jiatus  est. Intelligimus  ergo   ex  concubitii 
 
 7iativitatem  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  "  ?^o;^ 
 ex  sanguine  neque  ex  voluntate  canzf-j— natus  est,'*  disproved 
 the  incarnation  ;  and  the  Arian,  from  the  degradation  of  *'  the 
 only  begotten  Son,"  to  the  rank  of  those  sons  who  are  a'Hopted 
 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  th^ 
 same  heretical  stamp. 
 
(  1*8  ) 
 bius  CaesariensiSj  which  excited  suspicions  of  the 
 fidehty  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.  Juhus,  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  Church, 
 which  had  been  published  by  Eusebius  of  Caesarea : 
 and  as  he  could  not  readily  obtain  a  copy  of  Lucia- 
 nus's  text,  and  as  he  obtained  one  of  Hesychius'8 
 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  Caesarea  were 
 in  St.  Jerome's  age,  may  be  collected  from  the  declaration  or 
 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.  lll.sqq; 
 
(    149    ) 
 
 probably  indebted  to  Philastrius  Brixiensls.  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  which 
 it  is  founds  and  of  the  learning  and  authority  of  Phi- 
 lastrius^ who  was  bishop  of  Brescia  9°.  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 
 
 ^°  The  authour  of  a  work  on  the  Antient  Heresies,  which  is 
 inserted  in  Bibhothec.  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.  II.  c.  818.  a.  *'  Philastrius 
 quidam  Brixiensis  Episcopus,  quern  cum  Sancto  Ambrosio 
 Mediolani  etiam  ipse  vidi,  scripsit  hinc  librum,  necillas  haereses 
 praetermittens,  quae  in  populo  Judaeorum  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.  ^°°. 
 
 5'  Sabat.  Bibl.  Ital.  Monit.  in  Vet.  Ev.  Int.  Tom.  III.  p  xxxiv. 
 "  Quid  plura ;  versiculi  Evangeliorum,  quales  in  SS,  Patrum 
 vohminibus  laudantur,  maxime  in  Hilarii  scrij^tis,  tales  leguntur 
 iisdemque  verbis  in  Codice  Colbertino;  nee  ulla  est  descre- 
 pantia,  si  quando  aliqua  occurrit,  quae  non  alicujus  antiqui 
 lioctoris  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 
 Greeks  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  Scripturae  interpretationem 
 qua  usi  sunt  antiqui  scriptores :  hcpc  autem  non  alia  est  quam 
 Vetus  Vulgata^     Conf.  Blanchin.  Ev.  Quadr.  P.  I.  p.  70.  sqq. 
 
 5^  Vid.  supr.  p.  54.  n.  '\  p.  58.  n.  ^^ 
 
 ^^  Thus  much  is  in  substance  confessed  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  rapporfent  pas  precise- 
 merit  les  mots  de  I'ltalique,  parce  qu'ils  consultoient  le  Grec, 
 Us  la  suivent  pour  ce  qui  est  da  sens.^' 
 
 ^*  It  is  printed  in  parallel  columns  with  the  Verceli  MS.  ia 
 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  word^  which  time  has  obliterated  in  the  other. 
 
{    151    ) 
 
 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  aa 
 many  different  texts  as  different  copies  9^.  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  Eu- 
 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  Caesarensis ;  whose  text 
 had  been  certainly  revised  by  the  orthodox  in  the 
 same  age,  among  whom  we  cannot  include  the  ce- 
 lebrated bishop  of  Caesarea^^:  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  cor 
 pies  of  Lucianus's  edition^   as  modern.     For  the 
 
 ®5  Vid.  supr.  p.  15.  n.  *°. 
 ^*  Vid.  supr.  p.  83.  n.  ''. 
 ^'  Vid.  supr.  100.  n.  ^^°. 
 
 ^^  Vid.  S,  Epiphan,  Hser.  Lxviii.  p.  723.  d.  Conf.  ut  swpr. 
 p.  93.  n  '°^ 
 
(  15^  ) 
 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 
 iText  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 
 
 '5  Vi(L  supr.  p.  27.  n.  *\  p.  26.  n.  44. 
 
 '°°  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. 
 
 a^Ttf    'jrlric^^i    ffvyKuMT,    sTrt    to    yfoitvicci    riiv    ly    l^tKCcia,    m^iv,    x^ 
 y^u^orovncroci  tv)   Kuvs-avr'na  ttoXe*   I'rriax.o'Kovy  y.,  T.  I.      Conf.  Sozom. 
 
 Lib.  VII.  capp.  vii.  ix.  pp.  285.  288.     Theodor.  Lib.  V.  capp. 
 vii.  viii.  pp.  200,  201, 
 
(  153  ) 
 alteration ;  though  they  have  been  corrected  in  such  a 
 manner  as  to  preserve  the  original  readings  *°\  The 
 Corbeian  manuscript^  which  has  been  pubhshed  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  *  °''-.     V^ith  what  suc- 
 
 101 
 104 
 
 Vid.  supr.  p.  92.  n.  "^.  vid.  Infr.  n.  '°\ 
 Blanchln.  Evang.  Quadrupl.  P.  I.  f.  cclxiv.  *'  Exhibe- 
 mus  hie  Codicem  vetustissimura  Corbejensis  Monasterii  n.  195. 
 sexto  sseculo  descriptum  Romanis  Uteris,  in  quo  vacabula  per- 
 saepe  nullo  discrimine  sejunguntur.  Cum  autem  eo  Codice 
 uterentur  in  Ecclesia,  ut  ex  eo  Evangelium  in  missa  canerent, 
 hinc  persaepe  fit,  presertim  in  Matthaeo,  ut  interpolationes  occur- 
 rantf  quibus  codex  simillimus  effceretur  Viilgatce  ex  Hieronymiana 
 Versione,  Eae  tamen  correctiones  nullo  negotio  dignoscuntur, 
 turn  ex  atramento,  turn  ex  literarum  forma."  Vid.  supr.  p.  20. 
 n.  35. 
 
 '^^  Id.  ibid.  P.  II.  f.  dlxxvi.  "  Antiquam  Latinam  Italam 
 Versionem  quatuor  Evangeliorum  repraesentat  [Cod.  Veronens.] 
 cum  nativis  lineamentis  suis;  estque  nidlibi — ad  Hieronymianam 
 emendationem  exacta^ 
 
 *°*  Vid.  supr.  p.  16,  17. 
 
(     loi     } 
 
 cess  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  obtained,  that  if  some  copies  of  the  old  Italick  had 
 jiot  been  preserved  as  relicks,  or  on  account  of  the 
 beautiful  manner  in  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,  in  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  Avhich  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  incontestably  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  Churchy 
 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  iii 
 
(     155    ) 
 
 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 
 iextj  including  his  own  version^  exist  even  at  the 
 present  day,  as  he  has  described  them :  it  ought  to 
 folio Wj  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  tvv  .7  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.  Jeromfe 
 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 
 
 *°^  S.  Hier.  Praef.  in.  iv.  Evangg.  Tom.  VI.  p.  i.  «  Mag- 
 nus siquidem  hie  in  nostris  Codicibus  error  inolevit,  dum  quod 
 in  eadem  re  alius  Evangelista  plus  dixit,  in  alio,  quia  minus 
 putaverint,  addiderunt.  Vel  dum  eundem  sensum  alius  alitor 
 expressit,  iUe  qui  unum  e  quatuor  primum  legerat,  ad  ejus 
 exewplum  ccsteros  quoque  existimaverit  emendandos,  Unde  acci- 
 dit,  ut  apud  nos  mixta  sunt  omnia,  et  in  Marco  plura  Lucse  et 
 Matthaei,  rursus  in  Matthaeo  plura  Joannis  et  Marci,  et  in 
 ccsteris  reliquorum,  qucc  aliis  propria  sunt  inveniantur," 
 
(     156    ) 
 
 Vercellensis.  We  consequently  find,  that  the  Ver- 
 celi  manuscript  accurately  accords  with  this  de- 
 scription, and  exhibits  those  interpolations  in  its 
 text  '°^ 
 
 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  Evangehst,  which  the  Brescia  manu- 
 
 '°'  The  proof  of  this  assertion  may  be  taken  from  Dr.  Mills's 
 general  description  of  the  Cambridge  MS.  infr.  n.  "^  which 
 harmonizes  -with  the  Verceli  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  quaeritis 
 de  pusillo  crescere,  et  de  majore  minores  esse.  Intrantes  au- 
 tem et  rogati  ad  ccenam,  nolite  recumbere  in  locis  eminen- 
 tioribug,  ne  forte  clarior  te  superveniat,  et  accedens  qui  ad 
 ccenam  vocavit  te,  dicat  tibi ;  adhuc  deorsum  accede,  et  ccn- 
 fundaris.  Si  autem  in  loco  inferiori  recubueris,  et  supervenerit 
 humilior  te,  dicet  tibi  qui  te  ad  ccenam  vocavit :  accede  adhuc 
 superius.  Et  erit  hoc  tibi  utilius."  Verc.  ap.  Blanchin.  Evang. 
 Quad.  P.  I.  p.  clxiv.  We  read  exclusively  in  Mat.  xxi.  12. 
 Et  m?nsas  numulariorum  et  cathedras  vendentium  columbas 
 evertit  :'*  Vulg.  but  we  read  in  Luk.  xix,  45.  as  well  as  Mait. 
 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. 
 
 *°^  Vid.  supr.  p.  100.  n.  '^  ccnf.  p.  155.  n.  '"^ 
 
(  157  ) 
 
 script  ascribes  to  i!cCo'^9  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  aera. 
 
 3.  In  referring  to  the  very  copies  before  him,  St. 
 Jerome  cites  diiferent  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 
 
 »09  'Yhe  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  xiu  40. 
 Luke  XX.  47.  "  Vae  autem  vobis  Scribae  et  Phariscei  hypo- 
 critse,  qui  devoratis  domos  viduarum  sub  obtentu  prolixse  ora- 
 tionis ;  propterea  sumetis  pluriorem  damnationem." 
 
 "°  In  the  text  of  the  Vulgate  we  read ;  S.  Hier.  Com.  in 
 Matt.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xi.  p.  19,  "  Et  tu  Capharnaum  mimquid 
 usque  ad  ccelum  exaltaberis  ?  usque  in  infernum  descendes  :'* 
 in  the  annexed  commentary  we  read ;  ib.  *'  In  altero  exemplari 
 reperimus  ;  *  Et  tu  Capharnaum  quce  usque  in  ccelum  exaltaia 
 es,  usque  in  inferna  descendes." 
 
 "'  Mat.  xi.  23.  **  Et  tu  Capharnaum  numquid  usque  in 
 ccelum  exaltaveris  ?  aut  usque  in  infernum  descendes."  Verc, 
 *'  Et  tu  Capharnaum,  quce  usque  ad  ccelum  exaltaveris,  usque 
 in  infernum  descendes."  Brix.  In  Luk.  x.  15.  the  Brescia 
 MS.,  approaching  still  nearer  to  the  Vulgate,  reads,  «  usque 
 in  coelum.'* 
 
f    158    ) 
 
 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 
 the  present  system. 
 
 5.  In  speaking  of  tlie  general  mass  of  text,  as  dis- 
 persed in  the  different  copies,  which  existed  in  his 
 age,  he  declares  that  there  were  nearly  as  many 
 texts  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 
 accord  with  the  Greek  "^  We  of  course  discover 
 the  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.  n.  "°  et  ^". 
 
 '^^  S.  Hier.  ub.  supr.  p.  i. — "  verum  non  esse  quod  variat 
 ctiam  maledicorum  testimonils  comprobatur.  Si  enim  Latinis 
 exemplarihus  fides  est  adhibenda  respondeant  quibus :  tot  enim 
 sunt  exemplar ia  pene  quot  codices.'* 
 
 "*  Id.  ibid.  "  Novum  opus  me  facere  cogis  ex  veteri :  ut 
 post  exemplaria  Scripturarum  toto  orbe  dispersa,  quasi  quidam 
 arbiter  sedeam;  et  quia  inter  se  'variant ,  quae  sint  ilia  quae  cum 
 Grceca  consentiaiit  discernam.** 
 
 "^  This  will  fully  appear,  on  comparing  p.  156.  n.  ***7.  with 
 p.  177.  n.  '^\  and  p.  157.  n.  ''9.  with  p.  186.  b,  '^\ 
 
(    159    ) 
 
 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 
 kist  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  lie  has  given  of  his  me- 
 thod, by  furnishing  similar  readings  to  those  which 
 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  m-argin  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  translation,  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  stated  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.  Jerome  de- 
 clares, that  it  was  his  intention  to  follow  the  antient 
 
 ,  ""   "7  Vid.  supr.  p.  100.  n.  '^^ 
 
 *^^  Dr.  Mills,  whose  notions  of  the  geriuine  tex^  were  jn  most 
 cases  answered  in  the  Latin  Vulgate,  delivers  himself  in  the  fol- 
 lowing terms  on  the  subject  of  the  Canibridge  MS.  Prolegomm. 
 in  Nov.  Test.  n.  1274.  "  Hujus  certe  [Cod.  Cant.]  de  quo  agi^ 
 mus,  Graeca  quod  attinet,  vix  dici  potest  quam  supra  omnem 
 modum  in  iis  digerendis  licenter  se  gesserit,  ac  Jascivierit  Inter- 
 polator, quisquis  jlle,  In  animo  ipsi  fuisse  prima  fronte  credi- 
 deris,  non  quidem  textum  ipsum  exhihiere,  quem  ediderant  ipsi 
 Evangelistae,  sed  observato  dumtaxat  S.  Textus  ordine  ac  his- 
 toria,  singula  Evangelia  absolutiora  ac  jphniora  reddere.  Hue 
 enim  faciunt  mtromiss^  in  cujusqtte  Evangelii  textum  jjarticulce 
 H^arica  integrcegue  pei'iodi  reliquorumy^  S^c. 
 
(  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 
 
 "^  S.  Hier.  ub.  supr.  p.  i.  "  Igltur  haec  Praefatiuncula  polllce- 
 tur  quatuor  tantum  Evangelia,  quorum  ordo  est  iste,  Mattliaeus, 
 Marcus,  Lucas,  Joannes,  Codicum  Grcecorum  emeiidaia  colla* 
 tione,  sed  'vetertim." 
 
 ^"  On  examining  the  ma.Tginal  reference  annexed  to  Luke 
 xiv.  8,  we  find  in  the  Greek  MS S.  ^ofi,  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  Verceli 
 MS.  vid,  supr.  p.  .  n.  '°/.)  was  not  repeated  in  Eusebius's  edi- 
 lion.  On  examining  the  marginal  reference  annexed  to  Mark 
 xii.  40,  we  find  f^r  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.  '°9. 
 
 "*  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 
 
(  m  ) 
 
 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 Eusebius's  edition  and  the  Greek  Vulgate, 
 must  have  represented  St.  Jerome's  antient  co- 
 pies. 
 
 3.  In  forming  verbal  corrections,  St.  Jerome  de- 
 clares, 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  '''^  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 
 
 "-  Thus  Mark  xvl.  9—20.  Joli.  vii.  53.— viil.  11.;  though 
 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.  ^^.  are  inserted  in  the 
 text  of  the  Latin  Vulgate. 
 
 *^^  S.  Hier.  ub.  supr.  '*  Igitur  hsDc  Praefatiuncula  poUicetiu- 
 quatuor  tan  turn  Evangelia — Codicum  Graecorum  emendata  col- 
 latione— 'quae  ne  multuni  a  lectionis  Latinae  consuetudine  discre- 
 parent,  ita  calamo  tcmperavimus,  ut  his  tantum  quae  sensurh 
 videbautur  mutare  correctis,  reliqua  mansre  patcremtir  tit  JiiC' 
 rant.'^ 
 
 *^  The  reader,  on  turning  to  pp.  67,  68,  69,  may  see  thiB 
 observation  exempHlied  in  the  first  twelve  verses  of  St.  Mat* 
 thew's  tifth  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,  to  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  inserted 
 the  correction  in  his  amended  version.  Now,  on 
 supposing  that  the  Brescia  and  Verceli  texts  repre- 
 
 "5  In  Matt.  iv.  1.  the  Old  Italick  reads  <'in  Bethlehem  Ja- 
 d^^,"  Brix,  Verc.  Veron,  and  the  Greek  Iv  Bs^Xse/x  r^y  Ts^ata?, 
 Gr,  Vulg.  but  St.  Jerome,  on  the  authority/  of  the  Hebreiv,  cor- 
 rected this  phrase  to  "  in  Bethlehem  Jud^,**  Lat,  Vulg.  He 
 thus,  however,  apologizes  for  deviating  from  the  authority  of 
 his  Greek  and  Latin  copies.  Com.  in  Matt.  Lib,  I.  cap.  ii.  p.  2. 
 f,  "  Librariorum  hie  error  est,  putamus  enim  ab  evangelista  pri- 
 mum  editum,  sicut  in  ipso  Hehraico  legimus,  "  Judae"  non 
 **  Judaeae" — Judas  autem  idcirco  scribitur  quia  est  et  alia  Beth- 
 lehem in  Galilsea.  Lege  librura  Jesu  filii  Nave.  Denique  et 
 in  ipso  testimonio  quod  de  Michece  prophetiu  sumptum  est  ita 
 liabetur  ;  **  Et  tu  Bethlehem  terra  Juda.*'  Here,  of  course, 
 was  St.  Jerome's  authority. 
 
 "^  S,  Hier.  Sun.  et  Fretel.  Epist.  cxxxv.  Tom,  HL  p.  377. 
 **  Sicut  autem  in  Novo  Testamento  si  quando  apud  Latinos 
 quaestio  exoritur,  et  est  inter  exemplaria  varietas,  recurrimus  ad 
 Jbntem  Grceci  sermonis,  quo  Novum  scriptum  est  Instrumen- 
 tum :  ita  in  Veteri  Testamento  si  quando  inter  Grsecos  Lati- 
 nosque  diversitas  est,  ad  Hebraicam  recurrimus  veritatem:  ut 
 <juidquid  de  fonte  proficiscitur,  hoc  qiuxfamus  in  riuulii" 
 
 m2 
 
(     164     ) 
 
 sent  St.  Jerome's  Latin  copies,  and  that  the  lattei* 
 Was  the  basis  of  his  version  :  we  find  St.  Jerome's 
 readings  accounted  for,  on  comparing'  those  manu- 
 scripts with  Eusebius's  edition.  The  Verceli  and 
 Brescia  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  Verceli  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.  "^ 
 
 "^  The  following  collection  of  texts  will  illusttate  the  dwer^ 
 sit?/  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  agreemejit  with  his  old 
 Greek  copies,  INIat.  ii.  9.  supra  puerum.  Veix,  Veron.  [^Itrdm 
 S  ^v  TO  -crat^ioy.  Vat.  Gr.  Vulg.~\  supra  uhi  erat  puer.  Brix» 
 Fm^o.— -iii'  16»  descendentem  c/ec^/o,  Verc.  Veron.  [^hutu^uTvoi. 
 Vat.  Fzi/o".]  dcscendentenij  5/70:.  Vulg. — Ibid.  17.  dicens  ad  eum 
 hie  est.  Verc.  Veron.  [^^iyaa-oc,  iiro(;  Irt.  Vat.  Vidg.^  dicens  hie 
 est  Brix.  Vulg.  —  iv.  4.  omni  verbo  Dei.  Veron.  hiat  Verc. 
 r^aiT*  p:',/x5:'l»  sycTTopsvofj^ivcp  ^Lo,  <^6fjioc%s  ©£».  Vat.  Vidg.^  omne 
 verbo  quod  procedii  de  ore  Dei.  Brix.  Vulg. — lb.  10.  vade  retro 
 we  Satanas.  Veron.  vade  retro  Satanas.  Verc,  [vTruyt  i:alxvx. 
 Vat.  Vid^'"]  vade  Satana.  Brix.  Vidg. — lb.  24-.  omnes  curavit. 
 Verc.  Veron.  {l^tfocTnva-iv  avr^s.  Vat.  Vidg.~\  curavit  eos.  Brix. 
 yuJa-, — lb.  v.^,  5.  vid.  supr.  p.  63. — lb.  11.  propter  justitiam 
 Verc.  Veron.  [^-culopLhoi  Bvsy.sv  ept?.  Vat.  Vulg.^  meniientes 
 propter  me.  Brix.  Vulg.—lh.  12.  in  ccelo.  P'erc.  Veron.  [e^ 
 ToT;  epavoTt;.  Vat.  Vidg.^  in  coelis.  Brix.  Vidg.—lh.  13.  valet.  Verc. 
 Veron.  [iVx-:«  eri.  Vat.  Vidg.']  valet  ?ihra.  Brix.  Vulg.—lh.  14. 
 hujus  mundi.  Verc.  Veron.  [t2  y.o<T,j.^.  Vat.  Vulg.^  mundi.  Brix. 
 Vids. — lb.  32.  dico  vobis.  Verc.Veron  .[x/y^  ^i^-*""  o^'-  Vat.VuJg.'] 
 dico  vobis  quia.  Brix.  i'ulg.—Void.  qui  dimissam  duxerit  ma?- 
 Chatur.  Brix.  Vulg.  [o  cciroWKv^in^v  yx^ng-ac  ttoi;>^«T«u   Vat.  oj  £«» 
 
C  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  '^9.     it  must  be  of  course  evident  that  the 
 
 — ya/A^o-)}.  Vidg.'\  desuiit.  Verc.  Veron.~lh.  38.  dentem  pro 
 deiitem.  Verc.  Veron.  [x^  oo^oiOa  uvr)  o^ovto<;.  Vat.  Vnlg.~\  et  den- 
 tem pro  dente.  Brix.  Vvlg.—wn.  13.  quam.  V^rc.  Veron.  [or* 
 Vat.  Vulg.2  quia.  Brix.  Vulg.—ix.  15.  jejunabunt  in  illis  diebus, 
 Verc.  Veron.  [_i^  -von  urirBvo-aa-iv.  Vat.  Vulg.~\  et  tunc  jejunabunt. 
 Brix.  Vnlg.—lh.  25.  venit  et  tenuit  Verc.  Veron.  [siVsA^^i*  infa^ 
 rvicre.  Vat.2  intravit  et  tenuit.  Brix.  VuJg. — x.  18.  stabitis.  Verc, 
 Veron.  liox^-naa^z.  Vat.  Vidg.']  ducimini.  Brix.  Vulg.-^^-lh.  23. 
 quod  si  in  aliam  persequentur  vos,  fugite  in  aliam.  Verc.  Veron. 
 desunt :  Vat.  Vulg.  Brix.  Vylg.-^lh.  24-.  dominum.  Verc.  Ve- 
 ron. [toi/  y.vpiov  avTH.  Vat.  Vulg,']  dominum  suum  Brix.  Vulg. 
 —lb.  35.  dividere  filium.  Verc.  Veron.    l^x^aui  av^pojwov.   Vat. 
 
 Vulg.]  separare  hominem.  Brix.  Vulg lb.  42.  non  peribit  mer- 
 
 ces  sua  Verc.  merces  ejus.  Veron.  [a  f*-^  aTroAaV*?  rlv  i^ia-^ov  uvrS. 
 Vat.  Vulg.]  non  perdet  mercedem  suam.  Brix.  Vulg. 
 
 The  following  collection  of  texts  will  equally  illustrate  thfe 
 diversity  between  St.  Jerome's  Lat.  Conies^  and  shew  the  pecu- 
 liar readings  which  he  adopted  from  the  Received  Version,  on 
 account  of  their  agreement  with  Eusebius's  edition  of  the 
 Grceh  Matt.  v.  11.  beati  eritis.  Brix.  Veron.  Ifj^ocKccpioi  Irs  Vat^ 
 Vulg.]  beati  estis.  Verc.  Vulg.—lh.  30.  mittatur,  in  gehen- 
 nam.  Z?Wx.  [^tUynwav  dTraX^ri,  Vat.]  eat  in  gehennam.  Verc.  Ve- 
 ron. Vulg.—Yi.  1.  elemosynam  Brix.  p^y.cciocrvr/iv.  Vat.]  justitiam 
 Verc.  Veron.  Vulg.—lh.  13.  quoniam  tuum  est  regnum,  et  vir. 
 tus  et  gloria,  in  sascula.  Amen.  Brix.  desunt.  Vat.  Verc.  Veron, 
 Vulg.~x.  3.  Jacobus  Alphei  et  Lehheus  qui  noininatur  Taddeus. 
 Brix.  l^ccyJBoq  0  ra  AA<pai»,  «^  Qcc^^uTcc.  Vat.]  Jacobus  Alphei 
 et  Judas  Zelotes.  Verc.  P'eron.  Jacobus  Alphei  et  l^haddajus. 
 Vulg. 
 
 "^  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. 
 
 This  method  of  correcting  the  Latin  version 
 seems  hable  but  to  the  one  objection  which  it  is  my 
 main  object  to  estabUsh ;  that  the  text  of  Eusebius, 
 
 ing  a  juster  knowledge  of  the  Greek,    and  preserving  a  closer 
 adherence  to  the  copies  of  Eusehius's  edition.     Mat.  i.  25.  non 
 Cognovit.  Brix.  Cant.  Feron.  \jy\vuay.iv.  Fat.  Ftilg.']   non  cognos- 
 cebat.   Fnlg.  Corh. — ii.  9.   et  stetit  supra.  Brix.   Fere.  Feron  o 
 [_suq  EraS>j  iTram.  Fat."]  itsquedum  staret  supra.    Fulg.  Corb.-—^ 
 iv.  18.  cum  autem  transiret.  Brix.  cum  transiret  autem  Fere, 
 Feron.    [-zTspTD-aTo)!/ ^e  Fat.  Fulg.~\  ambulans   autem  Fulg.  Cerb, 
 "— V.  22.  frati'i  suo  sine  causa,  Brix.   Fere.   Feron.    [rf  uhx(p^ 
 aire.    Fat.']  fratri  suo.   Fulg. — vi.   2.  perceperunt  mercedenir 
 Brix.  Fere.  Feron.  \_u'7rixiicri  to»  /aio-Sov.    Fat.   Vvlg."]   receperunt 
 Fulg.  Corb, — lb.  8.  nollite — similar e  eis.    Brix.  Fere.   Feron* 
 \_l//r, — o^oiwS^Tfi  uv\oX<;.  Fat.  Fidg."]    nollite — assimilari  eis.  Fulg. 
 Corb. — ix.  28.  veniente  autem  eo  in  domum  Brix.  et  venit  in  do- 
 mum.  Fere.  Feron.  [eX^ovl*  ^l  tU  Ty/v  olyActv,  Fat.  Fnlg."]  cum  autem 
 venisset  in  domum.  Fidg.  Corb. — Ibid,  coeci  illi.  Brix.  coeci  duo 
 Fere.  Feron.  \_ol  •rvtp'Ko).  Fat.  Fvlg.]    coeci   Fidg.   Corb. — x.  5. 
 prsecipiens  eis  et  dicens.  Brix.  Fere.  Feron.    [-arapafyetXas  avraTq 
 •hiyav.  Fat.  Fulg.']  praecipiens  eis  dicens.  Vulg. — lb.   10.  dignus 
 enim  est  operarius  mercedem  suam.   Brix.   Fere.  Feron.  [a|»c5 
 yap  0  lpyaT»j$  rr^s  T§o(py>f  olvxs.  Fat.  Fnlg.]  dignus  est  enim  ope- 
 rarius cibo.  suo.  Fulg.  Corb. 
 
 While  these  examples,  together  with  those  quoted,  supr.  n. 
 '*^  et  infr.  n.  '^^  demonstrate,  that  the  Fidgate  has  had  no  in- 
 fluence on  the  Brescia  MS ;  they  illustrate,  in  the  particular 
 instance  of  the  Corbeian  MS.  the  influence  which  that  version 
 h?s  had  upon  some  copies  of  the  Old  Italich  The  examples 
 quoted  supr.  n.  "^  on  the  other  hand,  evince  the  influence 
 vhich  the  Brescia  text  has  had  on  the  Vuhate. 
 
{    167    ) 
 
 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 
 
 *'°  In  the  examples  cited  supr.  nn.  "^  et  **^,  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.J  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  ( VuIg.J.  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.  But  for  this  deviation  from  his  usual  plan,  he  offers 
 the  following  apology  ;  Com.  in  Matt.  Lib.  I.  cap.  v.  p.  6.  "  In 
 ^ uibusdam  Codicibus  additur  "sine  causa,"  cseterum  in  veriSf 
 definita  sententia  est,  et  ira  penitus  tollitur,  dicente  Scrip- 
 tura ;  "  qui  irascitur  fratri  sue."  Si  enim  jubemur  verberanti 
 alteram  praebere  maxillam,  et  inimicos  nostros  amare,  et  orare 
 pro  persequentibus,  omnis  ira3  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 
 **  antieyit  copies.*'  His  declaration  that  *•'  sine  causa"  ims  to 
 he  erased,  clearly  evinces  that  this  reading  xvas  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.  '^^ 
 
 "'  Vid.  supr.  p.  57.  n.  ".  Hilar.  Comment,  in  Gal.  ii.  «  Tria 
 hajc  mandata  ab  Apostolis  et  senioribus  data  reperiuntur,  id 
 est,  "  ut  observent  se  ab  idolatria  et  sanguine"  sicut  Noe, 
 "  et  fornicatione."  Quos  Sophisfce  Grcecomm  non  intelligen- 
 teSj  scientes  tamen  a  sanguine  non  abstinendum,  adidierarunt 
 Scrijyturam,  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- 
 
 '3*  S.  Hier.  adv.  Helvid.  cap.  iv.  Tom.  II.  p.  135.  "  Et 
 erant"  inquit  Lucas,  ^^ pater  illius  et  mater  adniirantes  super 
 his,  quae  dicebantur  de  eo."  Licet  tu  mira  impudentia  hcoc  in 
 Greeds  Codicibus  Jahata  contejidas,  quae  non  solum  omnes 
 jjeyie  Graecias  tractatores,  sed  nonnidli  quoque  e  Latinis,  ita  ut 
 in  GrsEcis  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. 
 n.  '\ 
 
 nz  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,  aTrep/es-Oai  airo  tuv  a.\iC7yr,^a,i:uv  tu:v  a^wAwv  aou  i:riq  luopviiaq 
 3^  TB  zjviKTs  ^  ra  xi^olIqs.  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 
 
 %ac(,  a'j  jw,»3  ^i'hua-iv  lacvloTq  yiuBa^ui,    hsfoii  /x>?   ^oibTv,  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  aTr/jj/saDat  t«  al'/xctlo? ;  yet  apprehen- 
 sive lest  it  should  be  understood  as  a  '  prohibition  from  eating 
 blood,'  they  superseded  "  a  suffocato"  by  "  sicut  Noe."    Such 
 
(  169  ) 
 l}ly  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  t5  Tri/txTa,  will  not 
 bear  the  sense  he  assigns  it ;  or  any  meaning  but  that  of  refrain- 
 ino-  from  partaking  of  blood,  vid.  1  Tim.  iv.  3.  The  vulgar 
 reading  is,  however,  right ;  the  prohibition  of  the  Apostles  hav- 
 ino-  been  evidently  levelled  against  the  inhuman  and  depraved 
 lites,  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.  Hser.  xxvi.  p.  84.  c.  87.  b. 
 
 »35  Luke  ii.  S3,  h  zjulrip  alye  y.ocl  r,  {jL'rjTYi^.  P^at.  pater  illius  et 
 mater.  Vulg.  la;ari(p  xal  h  ^yirr^^-  ^idg-  Joseph  et  mater  ejus. 
 Brix.  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  exeraplariorum 
 veritate  causeris,  quia  tibi  stultissime  persuasisti,  Grcecos  Co- 
 dices essefahatos :  ad  Joamtiis  Evangelium  venio,  in  quo  ple- 
 nissime  scribitur ;  'Invenit  Philippus  Nathanael,  et  ait  illi ; 
 quern  scripsit  Moyses  in  lege,  et  prophetae  invenimus  Jesura 
 Jil'um  Joseph.'  Certe  hoc  in  tuo  Codice  continetur.  Responde 
 mihi,  quo  modo  Jesus  sit  Jllius  Joseph,  quern  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  ef  Philip  ;  in  Luke  ii.  33.  the  in- 
 spired writer  ^^e-ak?,  for  himself.  From  Joh.  ii.  11.  vli.  5.  it 
 will  appear  that  had  Philip  at  this  XkwQ  declared  his  belief  in 
 
(     170    ) 
 
 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  Greek  was  exclusively  sup- 
 ported by  the  authority  of  the  original  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  reference  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  St.  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, 
 I  ain  persuaded,  grossly  corrupt. 
 
 "^  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 
 Ci reeks.  In  this  sense  St.  Irenaeus  speaks  of  i/ie  old  copies  of 
 the  Apocalypse,  while  he  asserts  even  of  tlie  original  xvorJcj  that 
 it  was  published  in  the  age  in  "which  he  Jlourished.  S.  Iren.  adv. 
 
 Hcer.  Lib.  \'.  cap.  XXX.  p.  S30.  Tslm  ai  ^tu;  Ix^Hovy  y.al  h 
 -nra^-j  04  TOK  o-TraJaters  y.cc\  apy^aciois  dy'lr/pcc(poii  t5  aptO/xS  rata  y.«/xe- 
 va,  xai  ixaflvpHvlojv  avra;v  8;esu'&'V  rcov  y.a,r  o-^iv  'IojoltjTiV 
 iw^axoTwy,  y.a.)  ra  Xoyy  o,}cLry.Qv\o^  r;ux,<; — Conf.    Ut  SUpr.  p.  121-.   D. 
 
 ''.  p.  167.  n.  '3°, 
 
(     171     ) 
 
 copies  of  Pierius  and  Origen,  to  which  he  appealg 
 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,  in  their  commentaries,  without  in- 
 specting their  manuscripts.  Had  he  possessed  co- 
 pies of  the  kind,  he  was  not  a  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  expHcitly  on  this  subject  to  be  reconciled 
 with  his  minute  description  of  the  text  of  Lucianus 
 and  Hesychius^  and  of  the  canons  of  Eusebius  of 
 
 "^  S.  HIer.  Com.  in  Mat.  cap.  xxiv.  Tom.  VI.  p.  54.  "  In 
 quibusdam  Codicibus  additura  est  "  neque  filius :"  cum  in  Grcecis 
 et  maxime  Adamantii  et  Pierii  exemplarlhiSy  hoc  non  haheaUir 
 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  this  passage  against  the  Greek  Vulgate. 
 
 ^^'  S.  Hier.  Cat.  Scriptt.  Eccless.  in  Pamphil.  Tom.  I.  p.  128. 
 **  Origenis  volumina  manu  ejus  [sc.  Pamphili]  exarata  reperi ; 
 quae  tanto  amplector  et  servo  gaudio,  ut  Croesi  opes  habere  me 
 credam.  Si  enim  laetitia  est  unam  epistolam  habere  martyris  ; 
 quanto  magis  tot  millia  versuum." 
 
 '9  Id.  ibid,  in  Pier.  *'  Pierius  Alexandrinae  ecclesiae  presby- 
 ter— florentissime  docuit  populos,  et  in  tantam  sermonis,  di- 
 versorumque  traetatuum,  qui  usque  hodic  extant,  venit  elcgan- 
 tiam,  ut  Origenes  junior  vocuretur.'* 
 
(     1"2    ) 
 
 Cagsarea  "^^  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- 
 g-en'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 
 Orig-en'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 '^"^ ;  it  would  have  been  rather  a  hazardous 
 attempt  m  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  V^ulgate  against  the  au- 
 thority of  the  antient  Latin  translation.  His  ver- 
 sion, as  founded  on  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- 
 
 "*°  Vid.  supr.  p.  100.  n.  ^^^  p.  ^5,  n.  ".  infr.  p.  173.  n.  ^« 
 
 '^'  Vid.  supr.  p.  171.  11.  '^^ 
 
 '^^  Vid.  supr.  p.  84.  nn.  7^.  et  7'. 
 
 *«  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib. 
 
 »**  Vid.  supr.  pp.  84,  85. 
 
 ^^^  That  he  condemned  it,  on  judging  it,  merely  by  Euse- 
 
(     173    ) 
 
 tion  is  besides  destitute  of  the  authority  of  the  an- 
 tient  Latin  Churchy  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^  in  follow- 
 ing the  edition  of  Eusebius  Caesariensis^  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  Churchy  than  the  Re- 
 ceived Text  of  his  age^  as  revised  by  the  hand  of 
 St.  Eusebius  of  Verceii. 
 
 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  Verceii  manuscripts.  But  a  choice 
 between  these  texts  may,  I  trusty  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.  '".  he  thus  observes;  Praef. 
 in  IV.  Evang.  Tom.  VI.  p'  i.  "  Canones  quoque  quos  Euseh'iim 
 Ccesariensis  Episcopus  Alexandrinum  secutus  Ammonium,  in 
 decern  numeros  ordinavit,  sicut  in  Grccco  habetur  expi'cssimus. 
 Quod  si  quis  de  curiosis  voluerit  quce  in  Evangeliis,  vel  eadem, 
 vel  vicina,  vel  sola  sint,  eorum  distinctione  coguoscet.  Magnus 
 siqnidemhic'mxio^Xn^  Codicibus  error  inolevit,'*  &c.  ut  supr. 
 p.  155.  n,  '^^ 
 
(    174    ) 
 
 Ibrms  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  '"^^ ;  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  m  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  *'^^.  We  can  be  as  lit- 
 tle mistaken  in  the  Greek  text  by  which  he  formed 
 
 H^  Vid.  supr.  pp.  67,  69,  et  p.  165.  n.  ''\ 
 '"  Vid.  supr.  p.  59.  n.  ""K 
 '4S  Vid.  supr.  p.  60.  n.  ^\ 
 ''^?  Vid.  supr.  p.  U9.  n. '-", 
 
(   n5  ) 
 
 hisrevisal;  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  Eg-ypt^  where 
 the  text  of  Hesychius  prevailed '5*.  JVow  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  in  the 
 VerceliMS.  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  copi/ 
 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.  Wlien  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  in  passages  where  it  differs  from  the 
 Latin,  we  produce  the  text  of  the  Verceli  manu- 
 script »^^ 
 
 '^"^  Vkl.  supr.  pp.  63, 6  i,  QS,  67. 
 
 '"  Vid.  supr.  p.  54'.  n.  *^ 
 
 •'^  This  position  may  be  verifiea,  by  a  collation  of  the  ex- 
 tracts  given  in  pp.  67,  69,  from  the  Cambridge,  Brescia,  and 
 Verceli  MSS. 
 
 ^"  The  following  collection  of  texts  will  illustrate  the  dkcr^ 
 •'f'/j;  existing  between  St.  Eusebius's  Latin  basis  and  his  Greek 
 t€xt ;  and  the  correspondence  of  his    Corrected   Text  with  the 
 
(     176    ) 
 
 In  both  cases,  therefore,  when  the  basis  and  ori- 
 ginal agreed  or  disagreed,  to  the  consideration  of 
 
 latter.  Matt.  li.  9.  stetit  supra  uU  erat  puer.  Brix,  [^Irci^n 
 iTTcivu  tS  'mxi^^H.  Cant.~\  stetit  supra  puerum.  Verc.  Veron, — iii.  16. 
 descendentem.  Brix,  \_y.u\a.^a7vov  ex.  t5  sqcuvu.  Cant.~\  descen- 
 dentem  de  ccelo.  Fere.  Veron, — lb.  17.  dicens  hie  est.  Brix% 
 \>^iyiiTa,  zsfos  oLvroMj  nroq  \ti.  Cant,']  dicens  adeinn  hie  est.  Verc* 
 Fero7i. — iv.  4.  orrmi  verbo  quod procedit  de  ore  Dei.  Brix,  [wam 
 }i)fj.u\i  Biti,  Cant.]  omni  verbo  Dei.  Fere's—lb.  10.  Vade  Satana. 
 Brix.  l^vTratye  oTiiaoo  po»  Yo^ava,.  Cant.]  Vade  retro  Satana.  Fere. 
 Vade  retro  me  Satanas.  Feron. — lb.  24.  euravit  eos.  Brix, 
 {^'sjciilaq  iQsfiiTnvai,  Cant.]  omnes  curavit.  Fe7-c.  Feron, — v.  4. 
 beati  qid  lugent)  &c.  Brix.  [^i^unolinoi,  ol  zypacsHs  x.  t.  I.  Cant.] 
 beati  7nites,  Fere,  Feron, — lb.  5.  beati  ^nansucti,  &c.  Brix, 
 [waxa^ni  ol  'nys'Mvleq  x.  t.  I.  Cant.]  beati  qui  lugent.  Fere,  Feron, 
 — lb.  11.  beati  er'itis.  Brix.  \_^a.y.a,^\.o\  Ire  Cant.]  beati  estis.  Fere, 
 Feron, — Ibid,  mentienies  propter  me.  Brix.  [evexek  ^ty.ajoo-yvjj?. 
 Cent]  propter  justitiam.  Fere.  Feron. — lb.  12.  in  coelis.  Brix. 
 \jv  rf  ii^uvu.  Cant.]  in  cceIo.  Vere.  Veron. — lb.  13.  valebit  ultra. 
 Brix.  [la-^vu.  Cant.]  valet.  Fere,  Feron. — lb.  30.  mittatur  in 
 gehennam.  B7'ix.  [aTrsX^j)  bU  ysiwuv.  Cant.]  eat  in  gehennam. 
 Fere,  Feron, — lb.  32.  Dico  vobis  quia.  Brix.  ^\iyu  vyuv.  Cant.] 
 dico  vobis.  Verc.  Feron. — Ibid,  qui  dimissam  duxerit  maechatur. 
 Brix.  desunt.  Cant.  Verc.  Feron. — lb.  38.  et  dentem.  Brix* 
 [hUvta.  Cant.]  dentem.  Verc.  Veron. — lb.  41.  vade  cum  illo 
 duo.  Brix.  [j/Trccys  /ast'  ayrS  eVt  oc'h'Ka  Ivo.  Cant.]  vade  cum  illo 
 adhuc  alia  duo.  P^erc.  Veron. — lb.  44.  orate  pro  calumniantibus 
 vobis,  Brix.  ^Tr^oa-ev^to-Bs  v'ttb^  t^J*  iTr-n^ecn^ovrav,  Cant.]  orate  pro 
 calumniantibus.  Vere.  Veron. — vi.  1.  elemosynam.  Brix.  [^txai- 
 ccr'jvr}».  Cant.]  justitiam.  P'erc.  V^eron. — lb.  13.  quoniam  tuum 
 est  regnum  et  virtus,  et  gloria,  in  scecula.  Amen.  Brix.  desunt. 
 Cant,  Verc.  Veron,  [liiat  Cant,  a  cap.  vi.  20.  ad.  ix.  2.] — ix.  5. 
 tibi  peccata  tua.  Biix.  [o-os  al  u^a^-vicn.  Cant.]  tibi  peccata. 
 Verc.  Veron.] — lb.  15.  jejunabunt.  Brix.  [vyjrey^-scru'  sv  Exs/vatr 
 ToiAi  riixio^ocis .  Cant.]  jejunabunt  iii  illis  diehus,  Verc.  Veron, 
 — lb.  '28.  venicnte  autem  eo  in  domum.  Brix.  [>:ai  £f%£Tat  skf  rriv 
 tUia^t.  Ca/il.]  et  venit  in  donium.  Verc.  Veron.-.^lh,  28.  caeei  z7//- 
 
(    177    ) 
 
 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,  in  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,  [oi  Ivo  rv^Xol,  Cant.']  duo  coeci.  Verc,  Veron. — x*  5.  Jaco- 
 bus Alphei  et  Lehheus  qui  nominatur  Taddeus.  Brix.  [^'lanu^og  o 
 t5  'AA(pata  kotl  Ai^^ouoq.  Cant.']  Jacobus  Alphei  et  Judas  Ze- 
 lotes.  Fere,  Feron.-^Ih.  18.  duciraini.  Brix,  [rafi^creaOE.  Cant.'} 
 stabitis.  Fere,  Veron* — lb.  23.  [loiv  ^\  l»  rij  a,KKri  ^luy.eaiv  IfAoiif 
 (pBvysle  £»;  rn*  cihXvjv,  Cant.]  quod  si  ill  aliam  persequentur  vos, 
 fugite  in  aliam.  Fere,  Feron,  desunt.  Brix. — lb.  35.  separare 
 kominem,  Brix,  [^i'/jkaon  vtov.  Cant.]  dividere  filium.  Fere.  Fero7i, 
 — lb.  4?2.  perdet  mercedem.  Brix.  [aTroXsVij  5  j^naOo?*  Cant.]  pe* 
 i^ibit  merces.  Fere.  Feron,  I  subjoin  from  the  Cambridge  MS. 
 the  correspondent  passages  to  the  extracts  given  from  the  Ver- 
 celi  MS.  supr.  p.  156.  n.  "^     Matt.  xx.  28.  'Y/^ar?  ^l  fursm  U 
 
 fU.Y.'K'n^ivlii  ^eiirvriaotyy  f^n  uvacy.\eiva.(T^ui  [I.  avxy.'KUa.a-^e]  i\q  raj 
 l^i-XQvlxq  voTraq'  fjt.yi'TroTt  hh^oTt^^q  an  i'rriX^ri-,  xa*  <s7^oa-eXB^uv  o  ^«9r* 
 i'oxX»jT6;p  EiVrj  a-oi*  "Et*  y.airu  %<«§«•  xj  mxrua^vvByiar,,  '£af  ^t  avaweVijj 
 i»S  Toy  iiTlovot  ro-jroVf  Koii  Iwi^Si}  an  rirluvf  IptT  aoi  o  ^eiTrvoKXirup' 
 l,vpaye  er*  avu*  kxi  li-oci  crot  tSto   x^riaiiAOv*     Cant,   Luke    xix.    45. 
 
 T*'*T»?«?firef«f.  Cant, 
 
 N 
 
(  ns  ) 
 
 The  most  remarkable  of  the  copies  of  the  old 
 Itahck  version,  which  conform  to  the  edition  of  St- 
 Eiisebius  Vercellensis,   are  those  contained  in  the 
 Verona  and  Cambridge  manuscripts.     While  they 
 preserve  a  verbal  coincidence  in  many  places^  and 
 a  general  conformity  to  the  text  of  Hesychius  '^^  ; 
 they  exhibit  a  diversity  between  themselves  in  num- 
 berless readings.     Prom  those  peculiarities,  we  may 
 make  several  deductions,  which  will  serve  to  esta- 
 blish the  foregoing  assumption.     If  in  accounting 
 for  the  conformity/  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  coincidences  are 
 wholly  inexphcable.     To  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  coincidence  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 
 Hesycliius's  text  has  been  already  pointed  out;  supr.  p.  175.  n, 
 '".  The  ivhole  of  the  correspondent  readings  there  extracted, 
 from  those  MSS.  are  found  also  in  the  Latin  version  of  the 
 Cambridge  MS*  witli  the  exception  of  those  mentioned  in  nu* 
 »5S  et  '". 
 
(     179    ) 
 plained^  by  conceiving  them  corrected  by  different 
 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  Hesycliius's  text;  the  other 
 coincides   with  the   Brescia  manuscript '^^.      It  is 
 
 **^  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.  «|to?  yu^  0  IpyaTTj;  t5}?  t^o^^;  uvr^.  dignus  enim 
 est  operarius  mercedem  suam.  Fere,  Brix,  dignus  enim  est  ope- 
 rarius  mercedem  (ayrS)  ejus.  Vej'on*  dignus  enim  est  operarius 
 (t>j5  t^o^^«)  esca  sua,  Cajit.  Instances  of  this  kind  occur  in 
 almost  every  page  of  the  Cambr.  and  Veroji.  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.  xv.  10. 
 !«•»  Ivt  a/xapTwXar  super  unum  peccatorem.  Vera.  Brix.  in  pecca- 
 tore.  Veron.  The  authority  for  this  reading  plainly  lies  in  In. 
 u^Ku^uihuy  mistaken  for  \v  cc(ji.ufiuXa,  probably  on  account  of  the 
 absence  of  iTri. 
 
 '^^  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.  I  subjoin  a  ^ew  examples;  Matt.  ii.  1.  venerunt  Hiero- 
 solyma.  Brix.  Veron.  («»$  'is^oo-e^t^t*)  venerunt  in  Hierusalem, 
 
 n2 
 
(  180  ) 
 wholly  inconceivable,  that  this  result  could  take 
 place,  if  the  text  of  this  manuscript  were  not  nearly 
 identical  with  the  primitive  versiorij  which  formed 
 the  basis  of  these  corrected  translations. 
 \  While  the  mutual  coincidence  of  those  manu- 
 scripts thus  confirms  the  authority  of  the  Brescia 
 text,  their  mutual  dissent  from  it  seems  to  destroy 
 the  credit  of  the  Greek  text  by  which  they  have  been 
 
 Verc.  CanU — lb.  v.  11.  beati  eritis.  Brix,  Veron,  Q^omoi^ioi  e^e) 
 beati  estis,   Verc*   Cant. — Ibid.  xii.  7.  misericordiam  volo  qua^n 
 sacrificium.  Brix,  Veron.  {iXiov  BiXu  o^  »  Bvaiuv.)  misericordiam 
 volo  et  non  sacrificium.    Verc. — Job.  xiv.  28.  vado  ad  Patrem 
 quoniam.  Brix.  Cant*  (TTopsvofxai  wpo?  rov  vocrsfot  on)  eo  ad  Pa- 
 trem quia.  Verc.  Veron. — lb.  xvi.  13.  diriget  vos  in.  Brix,  Cant. 
 ip^nyvian  v^di<;  tU)  deducet  vos  in.  Verc.  Veron.     By  the  same 
 principle  I  account  for  Mat.  v.  4,  5.  preserving  the  natural  order 
 in  Brix.  Veron,  while  these  verses  are  inverted  in   Fere,  Cant, 
 That  the  Verona  MS.  was  formed  on  the  basis  of  some  primitive 
 text,  I  first  discovered  from  two  readings.     This  MS.  is  divided 
 into  sections  and  verses,  (wEptxoTraJ  and  r»xoO>  the  latter  of 
 which  generally  contain  three  short  words ;  unless  they  termi- 
 nate the  section,  when  they  consist  of  owe  or  tiuo.     But  in  Matt. 
 ii.  9.  ix.   13.  the  last  two  lines  in  each  section  are  eked  out  by 
 two  words;  in  ii.  9.  supra  puerum ;  in  x.  13.  sed  peccatores. 
 But  if  we  restore  the  reading  of  the  Brescia  MS.  *  supra  uhi 
 erat  puer,'   and  of  the  St.  Germain  MS.  *  sed  peccatores  ad 
 pcsnitentianiy*   the  penultimate  line  will  have  its  full  comple- 
 ment, and  the  rt%o/:>i/]p«  will  be  perfect.     In  like  manner,  the 
 Verona  MS.  in  Mat.  v.  1 ;  videns  autem  Jesus  turbam,  omits 
 Jesus  ;  but  supplies  its  place  by  multarny  added  to  turbam.     As 
 in  MSS.  which  were  divided  rix^fug,  the  number  of  ri%ot  was 
 generally  added  at  the  end  of  each  book,  hence  a  duty  was 
 incumbent  on  the  copyists  not  to  multiply  or  diminish  the  num- 
 ber, which  has  been  consequently  a  mean  of  preserving  the 
 integrity  of  the  text. 
 
(     181    ) 
 
 revisedj  and  by  consequence  to  undermine  their 
 common  authority.  For^  as  the  coincidence  of  all 
 texts^  not  less  in  the  translation'  than  the  original, 
 proves  them  to  have  a  common  basis;  the  diver- 
 sity of  the  manuscripts  before  us  proves^  that  the 
 Greek  text,  by  which  they  have  been  corrected,  has 
 been  recast,  since  the  Latin  Version  was  originally 
 made,  which  furnished  their  common  basis :  were 
 not  this  the  case,  they  would  as  uniformty  coincide 
 with  the  former  as  with  the  latter.  Of  conse- 
 quence, the  version  which  conforms  to  a  text,  that 
 has  been  thus  new-modelled,  must  be  of  very  recent 
 authority. 
 
 Thus  tracing  this  labyrinth  through  all  its  wind- 
 ings, and  pursuing  the  Latin  version  through  all  its 
 changes,  we  ultimately  arrive  at  the  primitive  West- 
 ern Version.  There  now  exists  but  one  test  by 
 which  it  remains  to  be  tried ;  the  relative  merit  of 
 the  translation.  And  submitting  it  to  this  last  assay, 
 it  appears  to  contain  within  itself  a  sufficient  proof 
 of  its  integrity. 
 
 The  uniformity  of  the  text  declares,  that  it  is  an 
 original  composition ;  and  by  consequence  the  basis 
 of  those  different  texts  which  bear  it  a  general  affi- 
 nity. The  archetype  by  which  it  was  formed  is 
 one ;  being  that  particular  class  of  text  which  exists 
 in  the  Greek  Vulgate*";  and  it  conforms  to  this 
 model  in  all  its  parts,  while  the  other  versions  pos- 
 sess inequalities  which  have  originated  in  attempts 
 to  improve  upon  it,  as  the  primitive  translation  '^*. 
 
 '"  Vid.  supr.  p.  164.  n.  "^^  conf.  infr.  p.  186.  n.  "^. 
 
 *'*  This  is  apparent  in  the  uniformity  with  which  t  his  MS. 
 
(     183    ) 
 
 A  minute  investig-ation  of  those  inequalities  con* 
 stantly  enables  us  to  distinguish  the  original  version 
 from  the  derivative.  While  it  retains  the  common 
 marks  by  which  they  evince  their  affinity  to  the 
 Greek,  in  retaining  the  Greek  idiom  '^^ ;  it  is  free 
 
 generally  renders  the  same  Greek  term,  by  the  same  Latin 
 word;  while  the  other  versions  constantly  vary  from  them- 
 selves. Matt.  v.  27.  32.  {xoix^vcreiq'  /i^ot^arat.  moechaberis : 
 moechatur.  Brix.  moechaberis :  adulterat.  Vulg, — lb.  vi.  8, 
 p,?}  o[xoia)^riTr  ofxoiucru,  nollite  similare :  similabo.  Brix.  similare: 
 similis  est.  Verc,  assimilari :  assimilabitur.  Fulg. — John  viii. 
 13,  14.  (jLct^v^BTq*  fjt,a.^v^cu.  testimonium  perhibes:  testimonium 
 perhibeo.  Brix.  testificaris :  testimonium  dico.  Verc. — Conf. 
 Joh.  i.  7.  14.  The  repetitions  in  the  following  passages,  taken 
 from  Matt.  xxv.  21 — 46.  \vill  illustrate  this  remark  in  a  still 
 more  satisfactory  manner.  Matt.  ib.  35.  37.  42»  BTroTKj-ocle  fjn* 
 i7ror'iasi[xBv'  ETroTicraTe  /xh.  potastis  me :  potavimus :  dedimus  tibi 
 potum.  Brix.  dedistis  mihi  bibere :  dedimus  tibi  potum :  dedis- 
 tis  mihi  potum.  Fere. — Ib.  35. 38.  43.  'm^u^oi'h(ii  /xe*  TrEpjEiSaAo/iCsv 
 vi^n^ctXili  fjLs,  cooperiustis  me  :  cooperuimus  :  cooperuistis  me. 
 Brix.  operuistis  me  :  vestivimus  :  operuistis  me.  Verc. 
 
 '^^  The  following  are  purely  idiomatick  phrases  adopted  from 
 the  Greek.  Matt.  ii.  11.  Ix^ovln;  sU  rr,v  oIkIoiv.  intrantes  in  do- 
 mum.  B7-ix.  Verc.  Veron.  intrantes  domum.  Vulg.  Corb. — Ib. 
 23.  MurcoK-fiaiv  tU  TToAtv.  habitavit  in  civitatem.  Brix,  Veron.  habi- 
 tavit  in  civitate.  Verc.  Cant. — Ib.  vii.  13.  r^  vi^i^ixhuiAi^oe.  quid 
 operiemur.  Brix.  Verc*  Veron.  quo  operiemur.  Vulg.  Corb.'— 
 Joh.  xii.  18.  I'jTY.^iv  £7r'  EjLiE  tYiv  iflifvocv,  Icvavit  super  me  calca- 
 neum.  Brix.  Veron.  levavit  in  me  calcaneum.  Verc.  In  the 
 following  passage,  we  find  the  traces  of  the  original  still  more 
 strongly  marked  in  the  translation;  Matt.  xxiv.  15.  to  ^^iXvyfxx 
 rrnq  i^Yi^xuatuc,  to  p)?^/ 1'.  abominationem  dessolationis  quod  dictum, 
 Brix.  Verc.  Veron :  to  fri^iv  being  here  literally  rendered  quod 
 dictum,  without  much  attention  to  the  context.  The  phrase 
 was  however  retained,  as  "  abominatio  quae  dicta  est"  would 
 have  imperfectly  expressed  the  original ;  and  to  f>j$£»  ^»»  AuniiX 
 T«  w|)o9^Ta  may  be  considered  parenthetical. 
 
(  183  ) 
 from  peculiar  solecisms  which  they  have  evidently 
 acquired  in  undergoing  a  revisal*^°.  In  tlie  choice 
 of  terms,  it  constantly  exhibits  that  unfaithfulness  to 
 the  original,  which  is  unavoidable  in  a  first  attempt 
 to  transfuse  the  sense  of  one  language  into  ano- 
 
 '^°  The  following  errours  have  plainly  arisen  from  imperfect 
 corrections ;  the  context  not  having  been  adapted  to  the  emen- 
 dation.   Mat.  vi.  4.  iv  rZ  (pavtpu.  in  manifesto.  Brix.  2w  palam. 
 
 Fere. — lb.  ix.  25.   ots    ^s    b^b^A^By)   o  ox^o?,   bIctsXBuv  IV.^aTJjo-e.      Et 
 
 ^uum  ejecta  est  turba  intravit  et  tenuit.  Brix,     Et  cum  ejecta 
 €st  turba  et  tenuit.    Corb,     In  the  former  instance  the  cor- 
 rector,  in   rendering   Iv    ru    (pan^a,   would   have  changed   in 
 manifesto  to  j^^tlam ;    but  omitted  to   erase  iru     And  in  the 
 latter,  St.  Matthew  having   already  declared,   ib.   23.  \>^Bm  I 
 Ijjcra?  tU  T«»  olKkKv ;  the  corrector  not  perceiving  the  force  of 
 IaS^v  iU  t^iv  oi-Aocv,  "  coming  into  or  entering  the  house,"  and 
 Blcre>.Bwy,  «  entering  into''   an  inner  part,  or  room,   of  it,  be- 
 lieved  the  latter  phrase  implied  a  contradiction ;  and  conse« 
 quently  omitted  it  altogether.     Other  revisers  merely  softened 
 the  phrase;  and  thus  rendered  eiVtA^^^,  venit,  (Fere.  Veron,) 
 aceedens,   (Germ)  ;  either  of  which  terras  betrays  a  correction 
 of  the  text.     The  hand  of  a  corrector  is  still  more  apparent  in 
 the   following  passage ;  Matt.  xxv.  41.   tU  r'o  -^V^  to   uUhov  § 
 i3ToifA.ccciv  0  ^oc%^  ij,ii  rf  ^iocBoXc^.  Cant,  in  igne7n  aeternum  quod 
 paravit  Pater  raeus  Diabolo.   Fere,     This  solecism  is,  however, 
 easily  accounted  for.     The  original  text  and  version  having 
 stood    thus:    ik   to    -Trvp    to    ctluviov    TO    iiroiiA^cta-fjthoy   rZ    ^taBoXui 
 (Fulg.)    in  ignem  aeternum  qui  paratus  est  Diabolo,   (Brix) ; 
 rh  i)roifAucriA,ivov  was  changed  into  o  hroi[A,ac7Bp  5  TTUT^^  y,ii;  and 
 this  phrase  being  literally  rendered  by  «  quod  paravit  Pater 
 meus,"  was  inserted  in  the  text.     The  corrector  deceived  by 
 the  juxtaposition  of  quod  to  ceternuniy  overlooked  ignem,  with 
 which  it  should  properly  agree :  lie  has  thus  left  a  clear  testi- 
 mony in  favour  of  the  true  reading  of  the  original  Latin  ver- 
 sion, and  consequently,   of  the   integrity  of  the  Greek  Vul- 
 gate, 
 
(     184    ) 
 
 tlier*^' ;  while  they  possess  many  niceties  which  are 
 the  product  of  a  second  effort  to  approximate  the 
 copy  still  more  closely  to  its  model  '^*.     And  in  the 
 
 *^'  The  following  expressions  indicate  the  poverty  of  lan- 
 guage, which  is  the  effect  of  a  first  attempt  at  translation : 
 Matt.  vii.  24.  oixoiux^u,  similaho,  Brix.  assimilabitur.  Fulg. — 
 lb.  vi.  8,  fAT)  o/xo»cySaT£,  nollite  similare,  Brix,  nollite  assimilari, 
 Fulg. — Luc.  xxi.  38.  w^^pifj,  manicabat,  Brix.  de  luce  vigilabat. 
 
 Fere Matt.  xxv.  35.  iirol'^a-uis  fxs,  potastis  me.  Brix.  dedistis 
 
 iiiihi  bibere.  Fere. — Joh.  x.  22.  lyevelo  ra,  iy>ixmu.  facta  est 
 dedicatio,  Brix.  facta  sunt  encaenia.  Verc.  Veron. — Matt.  xxii. 
 19.  TO  voyna^jix  t£  yt'-ivaHy  denarium,  Brix.  denarium  census.  Cant, 
 numisma,  census.  Fere.  Fulg. — Luc.  ii.  1.  viroy^a.(pia-Bcn  descri' 
 ieretm:  Brix.  profiteretur.  Fe7'c.  Feron. — ^Ib.  3.  v7royfu(ph. 
 descriptio.  Brix.  professio.  Fere,  Feront  In  the  last  instances 
 the  corrector  has  been  detected  in  the  very  act ;  in  the  margin 
 of  M.  Blanchini's  Evang.  Quadruplex,  the  following  observa- 
 tion is  made  on  the  Codex  Gatianus,  "  ut  censum  descrihere- 
 
 iur  .•'*   recenti    manu,    '  profiteretur.' prirais  curis    "  haec 
 
 descriptio"  secundis  curis,  *  professio.' 
 
 *^^  In  the  following  expressions  we  trace  the  progress  of 
 improvement;  Matt.  xxii.  10.  omnes  quos.  Brix.  (Truvrocg  ooiss), 
 omnes  quotquGt.  Fere,  omnes  quoscunque.  Corb. — lb.  xiv.  22. 
 ^.taiim  jussit.  Brix.  Fere,  (g^SfV'?  r,vaiyy.acac)y  staiim  coegit.  Cant. 
 gtatim  compulit  Fulg.-^Va.  iii.  7.  ab  ira  ventura.  Brix.  Fere. 
 (^uTTo  7r)<;  fj^sKKmns  o^yr}<;},  ab  ira  Jidura.  Feron. — Marc.  xiii.  32. 
 nemo  scit.  Brix.  Cant.  («^e<s  otosy)  nemo  novit.  Fere, — lb. 
 xi.  25.  stabitis  ad  orationem,  Brix,  (rJjKvjle  'npoaw/py^zvQi)^ 
 stabitis  or  antes,  Vere.  statis  or  antes,  Veron. — Joh.  i.  13.  ex  san- 
 guine, Brix,  (gl  uli^ocTuv)  ex  sanguiyiibus.  Verc. — lb.  xv.  7. 
 quodcunque  wolyxQxiU^  petere,  Brix.  Fere,  [t  lav  ^e>.vflt  alryxner^t), 
 quodcunque  volueritis  petite.  Feron, — lb.  i.  12.  his  qui  ere-- 
 dunf  in  nomen.  Brix.  (tok  mTsvaa-tv  eU  to  ovoixoc),  credentibus 
 in  nomen.  Feron. — lb.  xv.  6.  projicitur — et  arescet,  et  colligent. 
 Brix.  {li3A^S>j — Ksc)  l^rifciv^y  xccl  avtoiyiijiv)  missus  est — et  aruit, 
 et  colligent.  P'eron.  I  subjoin  another  example,  as  forming  a 
 various  reading  in  the  first  ten  chapters  of  St.  Matthew ;  v.  5. 
 
(    185    ) 
 arrangement  of  the  words^  it  preserves  the  tenour  of 
 the  sense  unembarrassed^  while  they  exhibit  those 
 breaches  in  the  sense^  and  encumbrances  of  the  struc- 
 ture,  which   betray    the   hand    of  a  corrector ''^^ 
 
 hereditahunt  terram.  Brix.  {x.Xyi^ovouvi<rn<ri  rriv  yyi»)  hereditata 
 posddebnnt  terram.  Verc,  St.  Jerome's  critique  upon  Ruffi- 
 nus  may  be  here  cited,  as  in  point;  Hier.  Apol.  adv.  Ruf.  Lib. 
 II.  cap.  i.  p.  242.  "  Homo  Grcecus  videtur  mihi  se  ipsum 
 interpretari  vcluisse,  et  pro  eo  quod  apud  eos  dicitur 
 x?^r,p'^o/x:9£ra<rt,  et  apud  nos  uno  verbo  dici  potest  *  hcereditabunt,' 
 compositias  et  ornatius  dixisse,  "  liaereditate  potientur." 
 
 '*^  The  following  texts,  which  respectively  exhibit  a  defi^ 
 ciency  and  a  superabundance  in  the  Corrected  Text,  will  illus- 
 trate the  above  assumption ;  Mat.  xv.  8.  Ityii^zi  fAoi  5  >^aoq  stoj 
 TOJ  <^oiMa.ri  avTouM,  j^  roTq  ^siT^ea-i  fjn  rifxa"  Fulg,  Adpropinquat 
 se  mihi  populus  hie  ore  siio,  et  labiis  suis  me  honorat.  Brix. 
 *  Plebs  haec  labiis  me  diligit.*  Fere.  Here,  in  paring  down 
 the  original  text  to  the  standard  of  Mark  vii.  6.  the  corrector 
 gives  us  the  extraordinary  phrase,  *  labiis  me  diligit,*  which  is 
 however  corrected  to  *  labiis  me  honorat.*  Veron.  St.  Jerome 
 however,  adhering  still  more  closely  to  the  original  version, 
 confirms  the  true  reading,    *  popidus  hie  labiis  me  honorat.* 
 
 Ftdg.      Again,  Luc.  xii.  37.  Ma.y.a.fioi  ot  ^a^o»  x.  t.  I. — ku]  TrapeX^w* 
 
 Vulg.  Beati  servi,  &c. — et  transiens  ministrabit  illis.  Et  si 
 venerit  in  secunda  vigilia,  et  si  in  tertia  venerit,  et  ita  in- 
 venerit,  beati  sunt  servi  ilii.  Brix.  But  the  subjoined  reading 
 of  Marcion's  text  has  been  engrafted  on  this  verse ;  y.a)  sect 
 e7\Biii  iv  T»}  la-irefivv  ^uXax^  y.cci  evfv)  'htu^  [^UKciftoi  tlanvy  on  uvotithwiT 
 ayra^,  Koa  ix^uv  Tcciv  ^locaovyjaei  uvroTi,  It  has  produced  the  fol- 
 lowing, among  other  varieties ;  Beati  servi,  &c. — transiens 
 mimstrabit  illis.  Et  si  venerit  in  vespertina  vigilia  beati  sunt, 
 et  si  in  tertia  venerit,  et  ita  invenerit,  beati  sunt,  quoniam 
 Jubebit  illos  discumbere,  et  ministrabit  illis.  Feron.  Et  si  ve- 
 nerit in  vespertina  vigilia,  et  ita  invenerit  beati  sunt  servi 
 iJli  quia  jubebit  illos  discumbere,  et  transiens  ministrabit  illis. 
 
(    186    ) 
 Under  every  trial  therefore^  it  bears  internal  evi- 
 dence of  having'   been  the   pure,   unsophisticated 
 version,  which  had  been  used,  from  the  apostolical 
 age,  by  the  Western  Churches. 
 
 Having  thus  ascertained  the  testimony  of  the 
 Western  Church,  as  contained  in  the  Primitive  Ver- 
 sion, we  may  now  leave  the  coincident  testimony  of 
 the  Greek  and  Latin  Church,  to  speak  for  the  inte- 
 grity of  the  Received  Text"^^  which  has  furnished 
 
 Et  si  venerit  in  secunda  vigilia  et  si  in  tcrtia,  et  ita  invenerit 
 beati  sunt.  Maj.  Mon.  In  the  former  instance  the  genuine 
 and  spurious  text  are  blended ;  in  the  latter  they  are  kept  more 
 apart ;  the  diversity  between  them  and  the  original  text  suffi- 
 ciently evinces  their  corruption.  In  the  following  instance  we 
 discover  the  members  of  the  genuine  text  distributed  in  differ- 
 ent copies  of  the  corrected;  Mat.  X.  3.  'laiy.u^og  9  re  'A}^(pa,iy, 
 xat)  ABiSQccToi  0  iTTivM^iU  ©cc6^a,7o<;.  Viilg.  Jacobus  Alpliei,  et 
 Lebbeus  qui  nominatur  Taddeus,  Brix,  One  part  of  this  text 
 is  found  in  *  Jacobus  Alphaei  et  Taddcous.  Corb :  the  other 
 part,  in  '  Jacobus  Alphei  et  Lebbeus,  Cant.  These  texts  of 
 course  destroy  the  testimony  of  each  other,  while  they  confirm 
 the  reading  of  the  Brescia  MS.  In  the  present  case  the  Verc. 
 and  Veron.  MSS.  are  neuter;  reading,  *  Jacobus  Alphaei  et 
 Judas  Zelotes* 
 
 *^*  The  extraordinary  coincidence  of  the  Greeh  Vulgate  and 
 Brescia  MS.  have  been  pointed  out  in  the  course  of  the  pre- 
 ceding pages ;  see  particularly  pp.  63, 64-,  65,  69,  &c.  The  few 
 examples  in  p.  163.  n.  "*.  p.  157.  n.  '*'^.  which  have  not  been 
 confirmed  by  the  authority  of  the  Greek,  may  be  here  inserted ; 
 Mat.  vi.  1.  ne  elemosynam  facite.  Brix.  iMrn^ocrvvnv  f>t>?  tfouTv, 
 Vulg. — lb.  13.  quoniam  tuum  est  regnum  et  virtus,  et  gloria, 
 in  saecula.  Brix.  ort  an  It^v  t)  /Sacn^Eta,  y.at)  v  ^v>a.iJi,i(;,  y.ctl  v)  o&|a 
 lU  ra?  aluvx^,  Vidg.  lb.  xxiii.  14.  Vae  autem  vobis  Scribee  et 
 Pharisaji,  hypocritae,  qui  devoratis  domos  viduarum,  sub 
 ©btentu  prolixae  orationis ;  propterea  sumetis  pluriorem  dam- 
 nationem.   Brix.      Oy«i   v^h  y^a^^M-arerj   xot)   (poi,^iffOtXoif   vTFox^nat' 
 
(     187    ) 
 
 the  model  of  our  Authorised  Version.  The  short 
 specimen  which  I  have  already  given  of  their  extra- 
 ordinary coincidence,  even  in  passages  where  they 
 mutually  vary  from  other  texts  and  translations, 
 will  sufficiently  evince  the  integrity  of  the  text 
 which  is  contained  in  the  Greek  Vulgate. 
 
 In  determining  our  choice  between  the  three 
 classes  of  text  which  have  descended  to  our  times, 
 little  more  is  now  necessary,  than  to  state  the  com- 
 parative instability  of  the  grounds  on  which  those 
 criticks  have  built,  who  have  made  a  different  elec- 
 tion, and  expressed  a  different  partiality. 
 
 The  scheme  of  Dr.  Bentley  is  manifestly  defec- 
 tive. For  though  it  is  founded  on  the  mutual  testi- 
 mony of  the  Greek  and  Latin  translation,  it  is  un- 
 supported by  that  of  the  Western  Church  for  the 
 first  three  hundred  years,  and  by  that  of  the  Eastern 
 Church  for  the  last  thirteen  hundred.  For  the  La- 
 tin Vulgate,  on  which  his  scheme  is  principally 
 founded,  was  not  received  in  the  West  for  the  for- 
 mer period ;  and  the  Greek  Vulgate,  which  differs 
 from  it,  has  been  received  in  the  East,  for  the  latter. 
 His  Corrected  Text  must  of  course  have  rested  on 
 the  authority  of  St.  Jerome  and  Eusebius.  But  their 
 authority,  though  unquestionably  great,  and  confirm- 
 ed in  all  important  points  by  the  general  testimony 
 of  tradition,  is  not  of  consideration  to  the  Catho- 
 lick  Church  which^  in  being  the  witness  and  keeper 
 
 X^y^ivoi'  ^iu  T»To  A'^-vJ/eo-Se  TTefK^aoTifov  K^ifAo..  Vulg.  For  the  au- 
 thority of  Mat.  V.  32.  vid.  supr.  p.  64:  for  that  of  Mat.  x.  3. 
 vid.  supr.  p.  186.  n.  '^^ 
 
(    188    ) 
 
 of  Holy  Writ,  acknowledges  no  paramount  or  indi- 
 vidual authority  in  transmitting,  from  age  to  age, 
 the  rule  of  faith  and  manners. 
 
 The  scheme  of  M.  MatthaBi,  though  unexcep- 
 tionable, where  that  of  Dr.  Bentley  is  defective ;  is 
 likewise  defective  in  rejecting  the  testimony  of  the 
 Western  Church,  and  exclusively  building  on  that 
 of  the  Eastern.  It  has  contequentiy  no  more  thaa 
 presumptive  evidence  to  urge  in  its  support  for  the 
 first  seven  centuries  ;  since  which  the  generality  of 
 those  manuscripts  w^ere  written,  in  which  the  testi- 
 mony of  the  latter  Church  is  transmitted.  This 
 evidence  is  undoubtedly  of  the  highest  kind,  as  it  is 
 improbable  in  the  extreme  that  the  Eastern  Church 
 could  have  corrupted  the  sacred  text  in  the  earliest 
 and  purest  ages,  and  have  preserved  it  uncorrupt  in 
 the  dark  and  barbarous  ages.  As  some  manuscripts 
 however  exist,  wiiich  are  of  greater  antiquity  than 
 those  which  contain  the  Greek  Vulgate,  and  which 
 differ  from  it,  while  they  agree  with  the  Latin  tran- 
 slation ;  their  testimony  leaves  it  a  doubt,  whether 
 length  of  time,  supported  by  uniformity  of  consent, 
 ought  not  to  decide  against  superiority  of  numbers. 
 Such,  it  is  obvious,  was  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Bentley ; 
 the  reasonableness  of  whose  scheme  was  founded  on 
 such  a  presumption:  and  it  seems  to  render  the 
 merit  of  M.  Matthaei's  system  at  best  but  equi- 
 vocal. 
 
 The  great  merit  of  M.  Griesbach's  scheme  con- 
 sists in  the  singular  skill  with  which  he  covered  the 
 feeble  points  which  were  left  exposed  by  his  prede- 
 cessours.     His  professed  object  was  to  establish  the 
 
(  1S9  ) 
 antiquity  of  the  Alexandrine  text,  by  the  united 
 testimony  of  Clement  and  Origen  '^^ ;  and  to 
 strengthen  it  by  an  alliance  with  the  Western  text, 
 in  order  to  form  a  counterpoise  to  the  immense  supe- 
 riority in  numbers  on  the  part  of  the  Byzantine 
 edition  '^^.  Both  the  pillars  are  unsound  on  which 
 this  system  is  rested.  The  individual  testimony  of 
 Origen^  proves  nothing;  as  his  readings  are  incon- 
 stantj  they  no  more  prove  the  antiquity  of  the  Alex- 
 andrine text,  than  they  do  tliat  of  the  Byzantine. 
 The  unity  of  testimony  between  him  and  Clement, 
 is  not  more  conclusive ;  it  no  more  proves  that  these 
 early  fathers  quoted  from  one  text,  than  it  proves 
 that  Origen  quoted  from  his  preceptor.  Their  agree- 
 ment with  the  Alexandrine  text  is  fully  as  inde- 
 cisive; it  no  more  proves  that  they  used  that  text, 
 than  it  proves  that  Eusebius  corrected  it  by  their 
 writings.  The  alliance  between  the  Alexandrine 
 and  Western  editions  is  equally  beside  the  purpose ; 
 it  no  more  proves  that  they  contain  the  genuine  text 
 of  Scripture,,  than  it  proves  that  Eusebius's  text  was 
 brought  from  Palestine  to  Alexandria,  and  thence 
 transported  into  the  West,  by  the  revisers  of  the 
 Latin  Version. 
 
 In  fine,  the  proofs  of  M.  Griesbach  conclude  not 
 
 **5  Giiesb,  Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  II.  p.  234.  Prseter  Orlge- 
 niana  allegata  simul  ea  etiam  hie  exhiberaus,  quoe  in  scriptia 
 Clementis  Alexandrini  oecurrupt.— merentur  ipsius,  utpote 
 Origenis  magistri,  allegata  cum  Origenianis  conferri.  ULi 
 utraque  concinnu7it,  certo  iiobis  constat  de  antiqiiissima  lectione 
 Alexandrince  recensionis, 
 
 *^  Vid.  supr.  p.  U8.  n  '\ 
 
(    190    ) 
 
 more  strongly  in  favour  of  his  own  system^  than  of 
 that  which  I  have  ventured  to  propose.  While  the 
 latter  is  thus  far  supported  by  his  authority^  it  is 
 equally  supported  by  that  of  Dr.  Bentley  and  M. 
 Matthaei ;  as  it  builds^  with  the  one,  on  the  united 
 testimony  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  Church;  and, 
 with  the  other,  on  the  general  testimony  of  the 
 Greek  manuscripts.  But  it  differs  from  both,  in 
 confirming  the  testimony  of  the  Greek  Vulgate  by 
 the  coincidence  of  the  primitive  Latin  Version. 
 And  thus  it  secures  that  object  effectually,  which  M. 
 Griesbach  but  imperfectly  attained;  as  it  has  the 
 testimony  of  numbers  in  the  Greek  Vulgate,  of  anti- 
 quity in  the  Latin  Version,  and  of  consent  in  both 
 taken  together  :  and  this  evidence  it  possesses,  not 
 as  the  testimony  of  private  men  or  particular 
 churches,  but  as  that  of  the  two  great  Churches  in 
 the  Eastern  and  V^estern  Avorld,  which  were  not 
 merely  witnesses  and  keepers  of  Holy  Writ,  but  the 
 depositories  of  the  evangelical  writings. 
 
SECTION  IV- 
 
 vJF  the  three  classes  of  text  which  exist  in  the 
 Greek  manuscripts^  it  is^  I  trusty  by  this  time  appa- 
 rent^ that  the  Vulgar  Greek  is  entitled  to  the  pre- 
 ference :  as  that  alone  which  is  supported  by  the 
 uninterrupted  tradition  of  the  Eastern  and  Western 
 Churches.  Much^  however,  remains  to  be  ad- 
 vanced in  favour  of  this  text,  before  it  can  be 
 offered  as  a  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  manners.  To 
 qualify  it  for  this  end,  its  intei^rity  must  admit  of  a 
 perfect  vindication.  This  undertakings  is  indeed 
 imperative,  as  its  credit  is  involved  in  the  impeach- 
 ment of  three  remarkable  texts';  which  relate  to 
 points  so  essential  to  our  religion,  as  the  doctrine 
 of  the  Incarnation,  Redemption,  and  Trinity.  The 
 defence  of  the  Greek  Vulgate,  more  particularly  on 
 these  points,  is  of  the  greater  importance,  as  involv- 
 ing that  of  the  doctrinal  integrity  of  the  Sacred 
 Canon. 
 
 '  Griesb.  Prasf»  Nov.  Test.  ed.  1775.  *•'  Interim  uni  tamen 
 dogmati  eique  palmario,  doctrinae  scilicet  de  vera  Jesu  Christi 
 Divinitate,  nonnihil  a  me  detractum  esse  videri  possit  nonnuliis, 
 qui  non  solum  locum  istum  celebratissimum  1  Joli.  v.  7.  e  textu 
 ejectum,  verum  etiam  lectionem  vulgarem  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  (ut 
 et  Act.  XX.  28.)  dubitationi  subjectam  et  lectorum  arbitrio  per- 
 missam  invenient." 
 
(     193    ) 
 
 On  the  facilities  afforded  the  first  Bishops  of 
 Rome  and  Ephesus,  to  form  perfect  copies  of  the 
 Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament,  I  have  ah'eady 
 spoken  *.  That  a  dispersion  of  the  sacred  books^ 
 commensumte  with  the  diffusion  of  the  Gospel,  took 
 place  from  this  period,  is  rendered  not  merel}^  pro- 
 bable from  the  reason  of  the  case,  but  is  deducible 
 from  many  facts  expressly  recorded. 
 
 A  brief  inquiry  into  the  state  and  history  of  the 
 primitive  Church  will  be  sufficient  to  convince  the 
 most  sceptical  inquirer,  of  the  constant  and  intimate 
 intercourse  which  was  preserved  between  the  parti- 
 cular branches  of  the  Catholick  Church,  which  were 
 dispersed  in  the  remotest  regions.  Those  habits 
 of  communication  were  the  necessary  result  of  the 
 Christian  Polity  having  arisen  out  of  the  Jewish. 
 The  ceremonial  observances  of  the  synagogues, 
 which  were  dispersed  through  the  Gentile  world, 
 were  subject  to  the  controul  of  the  Sanhedrim  at 
 Jerusalem ' ;  and  the  obligation  laid  on  the  Jews  to 
 visit  the  Holy  City  periodically,  facilitated  the  means 
 of  communication  between  the  great  council  and  its 
 most  distant  dependencies '.     That  this  intercourse 
 
 *  Vid.  supr.  pp.  111,112. 
 
 ^  Intimation  was  thus  given  of  the  regulation  of  the  Jewish 
 Calendar  to  the  remotest  synagogues ;  Vitring.  de  Synag.  Vet, 
 Lib.  II.  cap.  xii.  §  4-.  p.  599.  ed.  1726.  "  Docet  ibi  Maimo- 
 nides  [Kiddush  Hachod.  cap.  iv.]  qua  ratione  annus  Judaicus 
 et  a  quibus  intercalatus  fuit ;  a  Principe  nimirum  Synedrii,  cura 
 quibusdam  Sijnedrii  dekgatis.  Quo  facto  lite7'£U  tnisscc  sunt  ad 
 Synagogas  omnes  remotiorcs,  nomine  Principis  Synedrii,  quibus 
 intercalatio  ej usque  rationes  expositaj  sunt. — Exempla  ejus- 
 modi  literarum,  nomine  Rab.  Gamalielis  et  Filii  ejus   Sime* 
 
(  193  ) 
 %vas  strictly  maintained  in  the  apostolical  age,  is 
 rendered  unquestionable  by  many  passages  in  the 
 apostolical  history.  Explicit  mention  is  made  of 
 *'  devout  men  out  of  every  nation  under  heaven^/' 
 who  visited  Jerusalem  at  the  feast  of  Pentecost; 
 the  number  of  the  Jews  who  were  not  disqualified 
 from  joining  in  that  festival,  having  been  computed, 
 from  a  census,  made  by  the  priests,  at  the  requisi- 
 tion of  the  Romans,  to  have  been  nearly  three  mil- 
 lions ^  We  consequently  find,  that,  while  the 
 Jews  confessed,  on  St.  Paul's  arrival  at  Rome,  that 
 they  were  acquainted  with  Christianity,  as  ''  a  sect 
 which  was  every  where  spoken  against^;''  they  ex- 
 pressed surprise  that  they  had  ''  not  received  letters 
 out  of  Judea,  concerning^ ''  the  apostle.  This  neg- 
 ligence, however,  was  soon  remedied;  when  the 
 rapid  and  extensive  diffusion  of  the  Gospel  rendered 
 
 onis  editarum,  reperies  in  Gemara  Sanhedr.  fol.  10.  col.  2^ 
 '0^  ♦n  VKinv6,  *  Fratribus  nostris  habitatoribus  Galilsese 
 Superioris  et  Inferioris.  Pax  vestra  augescat.  Notum  vobis 
 facimus  tempus  abolitionis  advenisse,  ad  auferendas  decimas  ex 
 oleario.'     Comp.  Lightfoot  Harm,  of  N.  Test.  P.  II.  p.  283. 
 
 *  Act.ii.  5.  conf.  9, 10,  11. 
 
 ^  Joseph.  De  Bell.  Jud.  Lib.  VII,  cap.  ix.  J  3.  Tom.  II.  p, 
 399.  ed,  Havercamp.  h^   ^\    l;)(^<y^£t  Tocrary?  n   ttoAk,   ^n^Qv  IK  ruf 
 
 lluaxo^  xaX£?Taj, — ruv  f^sv  Bv[A.uruvy  iUo(7i  irivn  {xv^iu^ag  rifi^^'^a-avj 
 wpo?   ^e   i^ay.iax''>^ix   «J   TFtvTUKdaiot,    yivovrcct   S'  av^^wv,    »/  Ixartf 
 
 ^^avTwv  y^  uyicov.     Conf.  Lib.  IL  cap.  xiv.  §  3. 
 
 *  Act.  xxviii.  22. 
 7  Ibid.  21. 
 
(    194^    ) 
 
 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 9. 
 
 ^  Selden.  de  Synedrr.  Vett.  Ebraeorr.  Lib.  I.  cap.  vili.  p.  12^. 
 ed.  1679.  "  Certe  ut  Suidas  ita  Joannes  Antlochenus,  in 
 Chronologicis  suis  nondum  editis  cum  Euodii  illic  episcopatu 
 Christiani  nominis  Antiochiae  ortum  conjungit,  quern  post  de- 
 cennium  ab  Ascensu  Domini  evenisse  scribit,  seu  sub  Clandii 
 initia.  Etiam  et  nominis  autorem  ibi  Euodium  ilium  facit. 
 Verba  sunt :  'Ev  ^l  rous  dpy^cus  rris  (iccaCkzias  ra  ajJrS  KXa:/^/a 
 'K.a.laixpoSy  jtASTa  to  uvuT^vi^ix^y^vcci  lov  Kvfiov  h^f-uv  kJ  ©eoy  IvjaSv  Xgifov, 
 jw,£T«  ET07  ^ixoc  9rpwTo?  jM,ETa  Tov  ctytov  Tlir^ov  tov  ATTOfoMv  tjjv  ^ii^oroviav 
 •r^5  ETTKTJtoTTvjf  T??  AvTto^siuv  (xEya^vj?  irohiuq  t^<;  "Lvfixq  B>\u^et> 
 "Etio^ioq  yBv6[A£yioi  Ilar^iuf^viq,  Ka)  Iwt  avrS  e^to-xoara  X^iS^'avot 
 fc'VO/xaffS'oOtJav,  tS  awrS  l7ric7>to7ra  Eyo^is  'TF^ocroixiXiicravToi;  uvroTq  xj 
 i<7ti%<Ta.vroq  to  oi/ojxot  tSto.  YlpcvriV  ya.p  Na<^a/§aToi  x^  r«A»Aarok 
 iKokHvro  o\  Xgifiavot.  Comp.  Act.  xi.  1.  3.  22.  26.  2S.  Peai'S. 
 Expos,  of  Creed.  Vol.  II.  p.  111.  ed.  Oxon.  1797. 
 
 9  Just.  Mart.  Dial,  cum  Tryph.  Jud.  p.  335.  b.  ed.  Par.  1615. 
 ■— »^^'  uq  'Tr^QtiTTovy  av^^ois  p(,s{§rov75(7avTs$"  IxXsKTeq,  £{$•  naaoiv  rm 
 Oixapisvyjv  iTniix-^ccr&y  it^vaa-ovrxq  ot»,  afpEcrt?  tk  aSso?  x^  a,voy,o<; 
 lyyiyi^rui  «c9ro  'I'/5(7»  Tivos'  PaXiXa/a  <»■^«^^s,  Id.  ibid.  p.  234.  b, 
 ccirmreimrE  yap  to?  ^ixaiov,  »cj  Trpo  avrS  t8?  rtfoipyirccq  avrS'  x)  y^v 
 T»?  IXTril^ovTccq  ht  avToVy  not  rov  TrBfj^-^avrct  avrov — aTi/AaC^sT£, 
 xara^w/Asvoi  Iv  ra7s  auva.yuya.7s  v[Amv  T»r  TTtreiJovraf  £7ri  tov 
 Xpis-ov.  S.  Epiphan.  Heer.  xxix.  p.  124.  c.  Ov  [/.ovov  yap  ol 
 ruv  la^ctiat  'TruThq  w^o?  t«t»$  [ray  Na^wgata?]  xUrnvron  /amto?, 
 »7^a  avtraV-""'  iV&J.&EV,  xai  ftsVij?  vi[AE^a(;,  kcs,)  we^*  t»?»  lo-Trepai',  Tp*^ 
 t55?    viAi^xcy    ots    Et'X'^'j    g7r*T«A2(7(»    iv    rais    avrojv    Gwaywycas, 
 
(     195    ) 
 
 At  how  early  a  period  the  Christian  Church 
 adopted  this  mode  of  communication  from  the  Jew- 
 ish PoHty^  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,  ''  to  send  chosen  men,''  and  ''  to  write 
 
 c'ffaqSjvroci  avtoTs,  >i(z)  (lv'X^r,ixa.rt^ii(Ji  (ptia-KcvTs^,  on  £<7riyc<xr(zpa.6at 
 o  ©SOS"  rss  N«^a;§a(«f.  accl  yap  tstok  mpKroSrepov  be^aai,  ^mi 
 TO   uTTo  Is^ociojv   avTiiq  ovroci;,  'Iricrtiv   K'/,gva(7HV    tivxi   Xfifov,      Comp, 
 
 Lightf.  ut  supra,  p.  278. 
 
 '°  Vitring.  ub  supr.  p.  598.  "  An  itaque  non  vides,  Si/ne- 
 drium  hoc  Hierosolyimitanum  Christianum  prorsus  ordinatum  esse 
 ad  formam  Si/nedrii  Hierosolymitani  Judaici,  et  de  omnibus 
 rebus  sacris  in  et  extra  Judaeam  statuebat ;  de  omnibus  Legis 
 quaestionibus  majoris  inomenti  judicabat : — Orta  est  quaestio  non 
 levis  momenti,  an  Gentes  salutis  suae  cupidae,  fidem  in  Christum 
 necesse  haberent  munire  observantia  Legis  Mosaicae.  De  qua 
 cum  variae  essent  Doctorum  sententiae,  visum  est  Ecclesiis  illius 
 definitionem  committere  Senatui  et  Ecclesice  Hierosoli/mitance, 
 Qui  postquam  de  hoc  negotio  decrevissent,  Legatos  cum  Epis- 
 tolls  mittunt  ad  varias  Ecclesias  Gentium,  quibus  suam  senten- 
 tiam  de  proposita  quaestione  exponunt.  Formam  Literarum 
 prorsus  convcnit  tijpis  Literarum  Si/nedrii*'*  Comp.  Lightf.  ub, 
 supr.  p.  283, 
 
 q2 
 
(    196    ) 
 
 Utters  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  stdl  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, 
 
 '*  Ibid.  23. 
 
 "  Vicl.  supr.  p.  121<.n.  3«. 
 
 '*  S.  Ignat.  Epist.  ad  Polyc.  cap.  vii.  p.  42.  ed.  Cler.  lYS-l. 
 
 fccrovy  xa»  ^Siporoy7i(yat  riVXy  ov  uyavrirov  T^lav  £%eT£  kccI  ocoy.voVf 
 fc'$  ^vyyj<7iTa.i  ^so^po/xo;  xuXtTcr^at*  tStov  Kdra^iuaccij  Hvoc  ^oqsv^Sif 
 iU  ^Vplacv  ^ofaVij  v[xuv  Txv  uoxvov  uyuTrvik  elq  ^oiat  X^»r5.  Id.  ibid, 
 cap.  viii.  p.  42.  'E^rsi  «»<  'nxacas  rous  BxyCkncious  »>c  r^vv^hrt't 
 fypx-^aiy  hci  TO  \^a.i<pvrii;  7r>^i7v  fjit  uirh  Tpau^o^  tlq  NbuttoMv,  uq  to 
 ^i?^niA.tt,  ir^oarota-any  yqi-^HS  rouiS  'sfATTfa^ev  EKKXinaiaif,  uq  ©eS 
 yKJiJi.vjt  xExTJj/xevo?,  tlq  to  5o  avras  to  auro  Troiriaai'  ol  fxh  ^vvoi[xBiot 
 Ors^wy  7[i(J,'^a.tf  0*  ^E  e^ts-oXaf  ^ix  rcjv  Ctto  era  Tre/ATro/Aevwi',  «»« 
 $-Q^uff^vTi  aluvM  ifyay  ui  ct|ios  Jv.    S.  Polycarp.  Ep,  ad  Philipp» 
 
(     197    )     > 
 
 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  to  the  most  distant  provinces^  in  epistles^ 
 attested  with  that  care  '^  which  I  formerly  had  occa- 
 
 cap.  xHi.  p.  191.     'Eypci-^xri  (xoi   v.ou  zJpcstV  ^  'Tyvarjof,  Tva  lav 
 
 OTTB^  Tror/ia-Uj  ix»  ^ai^w  xa»^o>  ev^snvj  iln  tyu  EiTE  ov  IlilJi-^OJ  TT^SO"- 
 ^ivaovroc  noti  -rrtfi  vi^uv,      Tus  sTii'iO'ku^  'lyvar/a  rois  9re/a(p^eiVa? 
 
 rdvrri.  Conf.  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  III.  cap,  xxxvi.  p.  132. 
 1.  14.  25.  sqq.  et  infr.  p.  200.  n.  *^  et  ^4. 
 
 's  Superscrip.  Polycarp.  Martyr,  p.   195.     *H  IxvA'/j^/a   r3 
 
 ©£«,  ri  TracqoiiiHGix.  2,oc,t^§vav,  tvj  ly.K7\naU  tS  ©eS  t^  'jrccpoiK^a-rt  b 
 <i>i\xh>.(pixy  xoil  'TTccaaiS  TOiS  JiXToi  TTccvTx  TOTTOv  rrjs  uyUs  od 
 KaS'oXtH^jy  'EKKXr/a/ar  Trccqotxixi^^  eXzoq,  stp^>?,  xat  uyaicrt  u'hq 
 ©eS  narpo?  xat  t«  Kvpi«  :^^wi/  I>50-5  XprS  TrA^jSf  ySei',).      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. 
 Sabas.  *'  Ecclesia  Dei  quce  est  in  Gothia  Ecclesiae  Dei  quae  est 
 in  Cappadocia,  et  omnibus  Ecclesice  CatJioUcce  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.  Kcclcc  TO  teXo?  t??  7p<»!p^?j  uvroTq  pyifjLoca-i  BTri^tyacri 
 ruvTx'      T?5   ^E    miro>>yig   v)[j(.uv  7rEJ§a3"ajT£    xara  Tixaocv  exxXoKj/av 
 
f    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. 
 h  3.  sqq. 
 
 '7  Euseb.   Hist.   Eccl.   Lib.  VL    cap.  xx.  p.   284.    1.   20. 
 
 At    acct    j^ETriroXa*,   «?   'Trpoq  aXA'^Aa?  ^tsp^aparloi'   ot    T'^o'yioi   not)    in-iiKvi- 
 
 £9rt  TuvTo  a-vvuyuys'tv  ^i^vv'-^i^a,  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. 
 
 '8  Id.  ibid.  Lib.  III.  cap.  xxvii.  p.  133.  1.  9.  xat  a^^o;  yiv) 
 nreroig  wAsii??  iyvu^'.C^ovl^  xcclcc  racroe,  mv  "TrpuTviv  ra^iv  t^j  tuv 
 ^ATCOTo'Kuy  i7rey(pv\i^  otad*o;^)7S*  ol  nai  org  fn^iKUvos.  ovln;  ^BoTrpunT^ 
 M,a$>9la«,  Ty?  tixisc.  woivloc  tqttov  ru»  |v.xA>jc7tiyv  Tr^oKaJa/SAjjSei/Jaf 
 vTiro  Twv  ATToroAiiw  SsaEX'ts?  I'TTU-itooQ^ay' — tTrsHx  ^l  aTroo'/j/xia?  r^^^^o- 
 fxzvoi,  i^yo»  i'TrtliKav  tvafysKi^uVf  roTg  £t»  iru^'ta.v  uvr,y.ooiq  ra  Tr,q 
 iriftui   'Koye   y.rt^y'flitv  t&v    X^iTov  ^tXoI»//a|M,s)'0»,    x«4   T/iv   Toiv    ^cicov 
 
(    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* 
 ties,  and  were  the  immediate  depositories  of  their 
 writings,  it  was  impossible  that  any  authentick  work, 
 which  proceeded  from  them^  could  have  existed  in 
 one  churchy  without  having  been  communicated  to 
 another.  The  intercourse  between  the  Syriack 
 Greek  and  Roman  Churchy  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- 
 
 '5  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.  Polycarp,  the 
 disciple  of  St.  John,  visited  Rome,  and  corresponded 
 with  the  Syrian  Church  from  Smyrna*';  and  St. 
 Ignatius,  his  contemporary  and  friend,  not  only 
 communicated  with  the  churches  of  Ephesus  and 
 Rome**,  but  visited  both  in  person *^     In  the  epis- 
 
 "  S.  Iren.  adv.  Heer.  Lib.  III.  cap.  iii.  p.  176.  Mela  t5toi> 
 ee  r^iru  tottw  utto  rm  LtfotoXuv  t^v  svianoTrnv  xXvjgSrai  KX-rj/XTlS",   o 
 
 «  ixovo^y  £Tt  ya,^  •ttoXXo)  vTTsXEiTrotlo  Tore  vtto  tu»  utto^oXuv  oioioocy^ivoi, 
 Ett*  thth  hv  tS  KXi^^Evlof,  Toco'icoq  ^y.  oXiyri^  ToTq  Iv  Ko^UBu  yivoiAevviq 
 uh?>(poTq  £7ri<ieiXsv  ri  ev  'Pfc/pcY)  lytyCkriGioc  \yta.vuroirm  y^acp-^v  Torf 
 Ko^jv^/oif — Conf.  S.  Clem.  I.  Ep.  ad  Cor.  cap.  i.  p.  146.  Eu- 
 seb.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  V.  cap.  vi.  p.  217. 1. 12. 
 
 *^  Vid.  supr.  p.  196.  n.  '*.  S.  Iren.  adv.  Ha?r.  Lib.  HI.  cap. 
 iii.  p.  176.  Tli>.vK<x^7ro;  ^l  a  (xovov  viib  aTros-oXcov  fAa^nrsv^^Uf 
 ata;  c7fvai'ar^a(p£t?  ttoXXoTi;  rov  K^irov  lufiooiovii',  uKkoi.  xa<  viro 
 Avrsro^i'v  xccloiS'cx.^Bi?  lU  tjjv  Aerial'  iv  rrj  h  H^v^vn  lKK?^ria-i» 
 i'o^ia-y.Q'Troqj  ov  xcci  ^/u-g<V   ^ci}pcczojA,iv  h  Tr^&'rvj   >3,w&Jv  ^Aixios. — £7r;  AviKvtra 
 
 vr^oq   <t)iX»7r'7r>5C7-ias  yty^a.ijt,[j(,ivvi    a,  T.  I.      Conf.   S.   Polycarp.   Epist, 
 
 ad  Philipp.  cap.  xiv.  p.  191.  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl,  Lib.  IV.  cap. 
 xiv.  p.  16L1. 1.  14.  34. 
 
 *^  Euseb.   Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  III.  cap.  xxxvi.  p.  130.    1.  9. 
 
 O  wapa  '7r><iiroiq  tltriri  tvv  ^loc^ot^oq  lyvanoq,  rvtq  accr  * Avlio-^mtv 
 Ciccoop^vig  oiVTB^oq  7r,v  iTrKry.OTTTiv  XExX^jpWjW-Evof. — Outu  ovitoc  iv  "Eixvpvri 
 yivo^tvoqy  tv^ct  o  JJoXvy.a^Ttoq  nv,  (Aiacv  /X£V  £7ri<iOXriV  rri  xocra,  TYtV 
 jLi^eaov  ^JixXyjaix  yqa.(pEiy  Troi^ivoq  ulr'riq  /xyvjjw.ofe^ojj'  Ov*jj-i^«*  Irspav 
 Ti  TY)  Iv  Mccyvr/a-ia.  «,  T.  I.  U^oq  ravruiq  oc  rri  'PoufjiYi  sycKXriaix 
 7§a(pe<.  Conf.  S.  Ignat.  Ep.  ad  Ephess.  capp.  i.  ii.  pp.  43,  44. 
 Ep.  ad  Rom.  cap.  x.  p.  74.  S.  Iren.  adv.  Hser.  Lib.  V.  cap. 
 xxviii.  p.  327.     Euseb.  ubi  supr.  p.  132. 1,  8. 
 
 *'  S.  Ignat.  Epist.  ad  Ephes,  cap.  xxi.  p.  52.     U^ocrevxicrBt 
 
 VTre^  rriq  iKK?^V)<riaq   rviq  Iv  St/^ia*    o0£v  dioijji^hoq  tig    Puj^y,v   ocTtocyoixai 
 
 Id.    Ep.  ad  Trail,    cap,  xiii.  p.   68.       Aaira^f^cn    vi^Siq    r,    ayxir-n 
 
(    201    ) 
 
 ties  addressed  by  those  primitive  bisliops  to  those 
 different  churches^  much  more  is  implied  than  tliat 
 they  were  possessed  of  the  inspired  writing's.  St 
 Poly  carp  speaks  of  the  Philippians  as  versed  in  the 
 Scriptures^  while  he  quotes  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
 tament"'^; and  St.  Ignatius^  in  impu^nin^  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. 
 
 If  we  may  now  assume,  wliat  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  all 
 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 
 
 D/xypcaiwv  y.a)  'E.Cpiaaoy.  Conf.  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  ubi  Slipr.  p, 
 130.1.  12. 
 
 *^  S.  Polyc.  Epist.  ad  Philipp.  cap.  xil.  p.  191.  *'  Confido 
 enim  vos  bene  exercitatos  esse  in  sacris  litteris,  et  nihil  vos  latet ; 
 mihi  vero  non  est  concessum  modo.  lit  his  Scriptur/s  dictum 
 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. 
 
 .*^  S.  Ignat.  Ep.  ad  Philadd.  cap.  v.  p.  TS*    '7r^o<T(pvyuv  tw 
 
(     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  pubhcation  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 
 
 *8  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  V.  cap.  ili.  p.  212.  1.  39.  rl^v  Sf 
 aitx(pl  rov  Movravov  xat  AT^mBi^^hv  xai  eso^orov,  7re§i  rw  <^^uylccv 
 aoli    T©Te    TTfUTov    Tr,v    W£^i     t5    >7rfo(pr^ivnv    l-TToXri-^yiv    wafct     iroT^oT^ 
 
 al^iq  ol  xacrai  rriv  JPac7J^ixv  &,^£X(poiy  rr,v  t^tai*  a^iaiv  xou  tts^)  tstwv, 
 evXcc0^  xul  o^^Q^o^o^olurr.v  lirola.'tliiaiv*  SK^iixsvoi  xj  tuv  vocp'  uvToTq 
 TfAatoSfiyli-'V  [^.x^v^uv  ^l(x(p6piiS  £7ri<iOXocS,   ccq   iV    ha-fA.o'i'q    m  VTrup^ofic^t 
 
 ^EKev'^E^CO    TW    tote  ^FcOlJiOcicOV  STTtQ-XOTrCJ,    T?$    TUV    lx.yih-n(7iUV    sl^'^vvii 
 
 tny.oc  ap£3-/3£tovl£?.  Eleutherius  is  mentioned  by  Hegesippus,  ap. 
 Euseb.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  xxii.  p.  182. 1. 19.  and  S.  Irena^us  Lib.  IH. 
 cap.  iii.  p.  176.  as  bishop  of  Rome,  when  they  flourished.  Of 
 Hegesippus,  Eusebius  declares,  that  he  Hved  in  the  first  succes- 
 sion after  the  apostles.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  H.  cap.  xxiii.  p.  78. 1.  L 
 and  St.  L'encEUs  will  speak  for  the  antiquity  of  his  own  testi- 
 mony, vid.  supr.  p.  200.  n.  *^.  conf.  infr.  p.  216.  n.  ^^  Euseb. 
 Lib.  V.  cap.  xx.  p.  238.  1.  36.  From  the  history  of  Tertullian, 
 who  was  contemporary  with  S.  Irenaeus,  Hier.  Cat.  Scriptt.  in 
 Luc.  Tom.  L  p.  121,  we  may  not  only  collect,  that  Montanism 
 liad  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,— provinciae  Africse,  civitatis  Carthaginiensis, 
 &c.  Hie  cum  usque  ad  mediam  aetatem  Presbyter  Ecclesice 
 permansisset,  invidia  postea  et  contumeliis  clericorum  Romanae 
 Ecclesiac,  ad  MoBtani  dogma  delajmiSy  in  multis  libris  novcs 
 
(    203    ) 
 
 hereticks  were  every  where  mingled  with  the  Ca- 
 thohcks^  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  which  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  hei^eticks,  forgetting 
 
 propheiice  meminit :  sjpeciaViter  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.  oAiyoi  y  r/uav  aroi  tuv  ^^vyuJv  i^vi'Trccl'/i^Avot, 
 TTJv  ^£  xaS^oXa  >c^  tcolgccv  Tr,v  viih  tov  npccvo))  sayJ^nalacv  /SXacff^prj/xerv 
 oioa.a-Kov\oq  TH  ocTrvivBu^ia-fjLBvii  "Jri/svixcclocj  oTi  [xrtrt  TifJt.7]V  fxriTZ 
 gra^o^ov  EK  ecvTviv  TO  -^Bv^oTi-poipeliKOV  eXdix^uvs  Ti^VSVfXOi.  Vid. 
 infr.  p.  208.  n.  ^'', 
 
 ^^  Besides  the  Synod  in  Gaul,  already  mentioned,  supr.  n.  ^^. 
 conventions  were  held  against  the  Montanists,  at  Ancyra,  An- 
 tioch,  and  in  many  parts  of  Asia ;  vid.  Euseb.  Plist.  Eccl.  Lib. 
 V.  capp.  xvi.  xix.  p.  228.  1.  13.  p-  236.  1.  22.  Respecting  these 
 Synods,  a  contemporary  writer  observes ;  Apolinar.  ap.  Euseb. 
 
 lb.  cap.  xvi.  p.  230.  1.  10.    ruv  yocp  y.ula,  Tr,v   Acriccv  TTi^uv  '^ro'AXa.zi^ 
 
 ?,6y8q  i^iioiffuvluv  y.ca  ^s^yiT^ag  ci7ro(P'fivd-Jicov  oy  (x.7ro^ox.i/j.oi0oivrcijv , 
 rr,v  ai^cUiv,  ^tu  ^b  rrjg  re  IxxXnijlcc^  B'E£U!(yQri(7aVy  >C,  rrjs  noiycoviscs 
 i\'pX^rt>yav.     Conf.  Ibid.  p.  227.  1.  33.  sqq. 
 
 ^°  Vid.  supr.  n.^l  Conf.  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl,  Lib.  V.  cap.  xvi, 
 p.  229.  1.  4.  sqq.  cap.  xviii.  p.  233.  I.  33.  sqq. 
 
(    204    ) 
 
 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  Greek  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  Eastern  ^^.  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.   I.  26. 
 
 'ZjViTYiGiOOS  ^riTO.  y.ccrcc  Tiiah  [_^ixa-ru  ys  /m'/jv  t*3?  Ko/aoJs  ^oca-iXsioti 
 tT«t]    »   o/Jiiy.pois    avaxjvTiS's/arjS',    oVt  ^n  t^?  'Aa-iccg   uTrxcrn^;   ul  9ra- 
 
 ft;ovTO  ^aTv  i^rt  t5j?  t2  o-ujTYi^'i8  I\cx,n%x  koqrr,s  'na.qa<^v\<x.r%iVy 
 h  -^  Bvsiv  TO  TTfo'iSalov  'ly^aiof,'  Tr^ovjyopEflo.  The  Emperour  Corn- 
 modus  came  to  the  throne  A.D.  180.  about  60  years  after  the 
 death  of  Trajan,  and  70  after  that  of  St.  John  the  Evangehst ; 
 see  the  testimony  of  St.  Irenseus,  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.  241. 1.  5.  7.  14.  cap. 
 xxiv.  p.  245.1.  9—17. 
 
 ^"'  Euseb.  ibid.  cap.  xxiv.  p.  245.  1.  3.    IttI  rkroiq   o  i^Xv  t5;j 
 
 *Vo}ij.a.'\.uv  7r^osToJ<;    BiJ'.Ta;p   uBfoaq   T^?   'Aaiccq   ntccanfi   »[/.«.   rcuq    of^o^oiq 
 
 33  Euseb.  ibid.  Lib.  VH.  cap.  ii.  p.  322. 1.  18.  raro;  ^Jj  i:rB(pavu, 
 
(    205    ) 
 
 any  ground  of  accusation  against  any  of  those 
 churches,  on  this  head,  it  seems  wholly  inconceiva- 
 ble, that  it  could  have  escaped  being  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  follow- 
 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- 
 
 «v    al^ecrsu;;    ETrjrpe'poj'la,',    ^^a    ^a]f)5    xat^jti^aJV.      Conf.  capp.  ill.  iv, 
 p.  323. 1.  5.  sqq. 
 
 ^*  Orig.  Horn.  I.  in  Luc,  Tom.  III.  p.  932.  d.     To  fx({loi 
 
C    20G    ) 
 
 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 
 
 ^cohy.iz  "EvoifysXiov  ot  avfy^ci-^avlsq  iTrs^il^r^crav*  ^zfiloci  ^\  to  nuioe. 
 Qa)(ji,ciu  'EvcifyiXiov*  v)^v)  ol  iT;o7\^Y,at  koX  Bacrt^Et^yj^  yfu-^oii  xala 
 'EucnXiQriv  EvcifyiXioi*  <7ro7\.>^ol  (Av  kv  svs^Bi^rjO-av  «^  nxTot  MalBiocVf 
 i^  ciXXoe,  'jrT^eiovoc,  Euseb.  Hist.  Ecclcs.  Lib.  III.  cap.  XXV.  p. 
 118.  1.  34.  'Ev  roTq  »5-^o;?  Kcclcilflx^^u  x^  run  ^at;^8  9rpa|fwv  ri 
 ypa,(pn — i^  ocrroKoi^V'^ig  Ubt^h* — vi^n  ^  £»  raToi?  Ttve?  xj  to  xa$* 
 *E^cai»j     E^aiysAtcv    )ioc\s>,sioiVf     u    i/.oi>.iroc      E^^atluv    ol   rov    Xptfo? 
 
 m'«'Oa,h^<x[jLivoi     y^cA^eai.      trscvTcc     (Av     'jravloc     7u»     oiilzMyoyAvuif     a» 
 
 if 
 
 ^^  Euseb.  ib.  p.  119.  I.  10.      uvci,yy.cc'icoq   l\  zoil   TaT&'f   o[A.uq  rl» 
 
 xccrccT^oyov     'TTiTCoiri^i^ot, jV     iloivxi      t^oiy.z»     ayra?     T£     T0tV7a,f 
 
 ■>C,    Tar    ovo/xart    raJv    'A7rofo?>.&;v    'npo^    ruv    *AI§stikcc;v    iipoa" 
 
 TiiTQ^q  uTO^uv  E-JufyBXicc  7r£pjE;^ycrac»  ri  uq  Av^fsa  ol  xal  'luavva 
 y.cd  Tuv  oM\u)y  " Aituro'^biv  '^px^sic,  uv  e^ln  H^aiiuq  Iv  a-i<ly^a,(A.[AOilt 
 rav    xulx    ^tu^o^ccq     hK^^na-iud^tHuv    Tij     uirt^     £»;     f.v^/;A»jy     uyctyuv 
 
 ^  Id.  ibid.  cap.  iii.  p.  90.  J.  7.  'E'm)  ^\  6  alroq  ^A'kqto'^oi;  Iv 
 Toi?  ETTt  TeA£»  vip(7(y,aea-i  t5j;  wpoj  'Pw/^aia^  I^vviayiv  TrsTroivjIat  (xilot 
 tZt  aXhuv  net)  *Ep/ji«,  s  (pa(74v  v'Tca.fyjuv  to  r«  Tloi/xsvoy'  (^i^XioV 
 — oSev  Yi^ri  5c  £V  h/.Y.7^%aixis  \afXBV  acvro  lc^rifji.o(Tisvof/.ivQVj 
 KCcl    tuv    iiaT^aiSla.TUV    avfya(peui>    y.E^pYiiA,sns<;    Tiva?    OrVTo)    ita,reiKr,(px, 
 
 Id.  ibid.  cap.  xxv.   p.   119.  1.  2.    axX  wpo?    tsto»j   vi   ^e^optEvrj 
 Bapva/3a   CTTi^oX^,    xa<    t«v    'ATroroAfc'v    at    h£y6[A.evai    oiox^cti- 
 Tocvrct    ira.v\oc.    tuv     uHi^syoi^svuv    av    ei»j,    ava-yKaiwg    ol     ku)     THrui 
 
(    207    ) 
 
 apocryphal  works  and  the  authentick  Scriptures, 
 the  antieiits  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  aiford  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 
 w^orks  have  descended  to  our  times.  The  synods 
 which  were  convened  almost  simultaneously  in  the 
 
 ruv  ky.xXn(yix<iixuJv  yifvco<yy.oiJisyas,  Id.  ibid,  cap.  xvi.  p.  I07. 
 1.    18.      Ttfra   ^i)   ev    t5    JLXrnfxsvros    liJ.oXoyHiAm   fxioc    sTTi^oK^n 
 
 ^e^Tipcofjieypcs'vTjv  Tr^X^it  ts  j^  nxb'  r^^^s  avTHS  syvcofj^ev. 
 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. 
 
 ^7  Vid.  supr.  p.  20-1.  nn.  ?'  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- 
 iiseus,  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- 
 
 3^  Euseb.   Hist.   Eccl.  Lib.  V.   cap.  xxiii.    p.  242.   1.  11. 
 
 Y,iiOoci  ^v)  xa*  ffvyy.polfto-iiq  I'may.oituv  lir)  tuvtov  [_tq  ^£p<  t5  Tlaa-^» 
 ^v^lijaa]     lyUovlo'    irocyizq    nrt    yAo,     yvujxri    a/    £'7r»ro?^«^i'    Ixn^^yiaiuriiiif 
 
 l^oyucc  roTc   vavlctp^pa-s  otalt'TrSvIo .      ^ifilai  ^'  ilffin   vvv  tuv  Kwra. 
 
 lloL'Xa.iT^r/tV  rrjViy.u^B  a-vy/.tx^olyjuivuv  y^utpr,,  av  9r^aT£T«xT0  ©io^tAo^ 
 TJj?  ev  K.cucraft'ia,  Trapoiy/ia?  sTiiaxoTroq,  y.cn  l<i apy.icra-oq  T'^f  Iv  lepofl"©- 
 hvi/,oi<,*  y.al  raiv  IttI  ^Vu^j.rtii  ^i  o^oiuq  u'Khvi  mf)  t5  a^rS  C,v^rjj/,ciloqy 
 tTricTKO'Teov  Bt«]opa  ^YiT^eau*  ruv  tb  nwroi  Tldvlov  liriay.o'JTUV  uv  Iloi.7^^ci% 
 l}^  uoyjuQry.Toq  "TrparsTaxTO*  y.u)  tuv  nala.  r«X/\jav  ^s  "Trapoixjwy, 
 a;  'LlcTtiixCoq  I'Trsay.oTrn'  sTi  th  tuv  nalu,  O(7po'/3V55V  you  ras  ly.ii(jz  icoknf^* 
 y,a\    loi(>}<;    Ba>;.;n^^^^tf   tvJj    Ko^iiBiuv    Exx^^5C7■^«?    £7r»crxo9ry,   x«*    9rA£»rfc-ir 
 
 25  Vid.  Euseb.  ut  snpr.  p.  197.  n.  '^  infr.  n.  ^^, 
 
 '^°  Vid.  supr.  n.  3^.   Alexandr.  Epist.  ad  Antinoitt.     'Aacra* 
 
 Toy     UBuh,     xct)     tvv     a-vvi^trn^o^ivoq     /xoi    ^i«    tuv    «^%wi',    IxaTof 
 
 hxu\^  hvi  hvxaif  X.  T.  £,  Vid.  Euseb.  ibid.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  xi» 
 p.  268.  1.  17.  sqq. 
 
(    §09    ) 
 
 vlnces*'.  Among  the  writers  celebrated  at  that 
 period,  we  particularly  distinguish  Pantsenus  and 
 Clement,  of  Alexaadria  ^'^ ;  Origen,  afterwards  pres- 
 byter, of  Palestine  "^S*  Caius,  presbyter  of  Rome'^^; 
 St.  Ireneeus,  then  bishop  of  Lyons;  and  TertuUian, 
 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.  Irenaeus  and  Tertul- 
 lian,  had  rejected  the  principal  part  of  the  Canon^ 
 and  corrupted  the  remainder*^;  and  the  Theodo- 
 tistSj  who  had  been  excommunicated  by  Victor*^, 
 
 ♦'  Vid.  supr.  n.  '^,  Euseb.  ib.  Lib.  V.  cap.  xix.  p.  236. 1.  20. 
 
 Iwir^AJ)  Tij  Trpof  Kufixov  t^  Itoyrix.6v*  h  »5  ^nv^vvuv  huI  ccvra^  7'^r 
 uvrviv  ^Tu¥  ^^vyuv'^  al'^scrtv,  IwtAs'ys*  rotVTa,  "O^ruq  ^\  y.ot,)  tsto 
 »'^r;Te,  0T»  TYii  nJ/f^Sf  tavTnq  r(x^iu<;  T^s  E7r<xaA8jt>t£»5j$   *  viaq  7r^o^)}l£»a?,* 
 
 i^juvy  X.T.I.     'Ev  Totvrvi  ^\  Tn  tS  ^otpxTriunoq  iTrtroA^,  x^  vTroa-ri^nuffstq 
 
 -♦*  Vid.  infr.  p.  209.  n.  ". 
 
 *3  Vid.  infr.  p.  210.  n.  ^\   Conf.  supr.  p.  12.  n.  *\ 
 
 '^'^  Euseb.  ib.  Lib.  IL  cap.  xxv.  p.  83.  1.  36.  xa»  lxK^^(r^a^»xo^ 
 
 ecv-n^  r«i'os  oi/o[/.cc  KOila  Xt(pvpmi'  Puf/.ix'iuv  ytyifnuq  tTriaxoTTov'  oq  ^>j 
 IIpoxAw  xala  ^pvyxq  'TTpo'irccfJi.si'U  yvu^m  6[y^ix(pui  ^»aAe;i^S£*f,  x.  t.  I. 
 
 ♦'  Vid.  supr.  p.  202.  n.  ^^ 
 
 ^*  Vid.  supr.  p.  53.  n.  '\ 
 
 ^^  Euseb.  ib.  Lib.  V.  cap.  xxviii»  p.  252.  1.  27,— B/xrw^ 
 
 P 
 
(    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 
 OrigeUj  who  were  friends  and  correspondents  ^% 
 were  professed  collectours  of  books;  the  former 
 founded,  at  his  own  expence,  the  library  at  Jerusa- 
 lem ^'^  and  the  latter  laid  the  foundation  of  that  at 
 Caesarea^*.  Pantaenus  and  Clement^  who  had  been 
 intimates  of  Alexander  and  Origen  ^^,  were  travel- 
 
 roy  CKvlix  ®£0^oloVf  rov  oc^^riyov  t^  wccli^oi  ruvTVjq  T^iq  ufWiO'tBiH 
 ccvoi-uiTioci;,  d'^SKTOfV^s  TYiS  xotvwv/af,  'n-furov  smovlce.  •\'i>.09  o^vB^uttop 
 TO*  Xptroti—— 
 
 '*^  Id.  ibid.  p.  253.  1.  37.  raTo;;  l7rKrvvoi-\'a[Ae»  x^  a,h%a.q  wepJ 
 tuiv  ocvruv   t5  ayTtf  avf'yfa.(piiji;    [Pa/a   ^ri>M^yi']    (puvuq,  tStov    i^kcraq 
 
 ,  ^^  Caius  ap.  Euseb.  ibid.  p.  2.54-.  1.  16.  E»  ya§  tk  BsXr.an 
 cvyy.oyiAa-uq  uinuv  iH-dra  rot  a.v\iypx(pcc  i^sloi^enf  Vfoq  a^^^^^a,  xala 
 9roXu  a,v  eypoi  ^ioc^ov^vlx,  uffi[j.ipuva,  y^v  trai  to,  Ac7xX>37r»«d»  roTq 
 OeoooTS, — TTxTnv  ^\  TaTo»5  rd  E^^o^t^a  a  <7Vi/ciaBi.  ru  ycc^  ATroXXwfia 
 ^^e  uvlci  luvloTq  In  crv[ji.^uva,  sver*  ya^  av[y.^7vui  Toi  'npors^ov  liv  uvruv 
 y.oilxo-y.ivcia-^svleti  roTq  vr^eov  waAtc  l7rt^iar^a^E*Vi,  x^  £t'p£~»  xoclwrro^.v 
 uTTcc^ovla.  Vid.  supr.  p.  146.  n.  ^^.  Tertullian's  testimony  will 
 be  more  particularly  considered  hereafter. 
 
 5°  Vid.  infr.  n.  ^\  '" 
 
 5'  Vid.  supr.  p.  198.  n.  '\ 
 
 5*  Vid.  supr.  p.  84-.  n.  '^ 
 
 "  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  VL  cap.  xiv.  p.  274.  1.  14. 
 JJuX^v  y  I  ^vjAw^sj?  'A>\s^av^pQq  t»  KX75//,evToy  «|Ua  ^l  x^  Ttt  Ylocvroci\u 
 
 7svo//,e'vwv  ruv  av^uv,     Conf.  cap.  xi.  p.  269.  1.  24.     Id.  ib.  cap. 
 
 Ti.  p.  264.  1.  4.  Yldvlaivov  ^l  K?k^|x>j?  ^tcch^a-iABVos  Tijj  xar'  AT^t^uvm 
 ^gciay  xoiln^y}a-BCif<; — xaSi^ysTro.  us  t^  Tov  'ilpy/vjiy  tuv  ^oUr^lut  uut3 
 nccTosi  9v[a.  yi)iiaBoii  x»t.  i. 
 
(    211    ) 
 
 lers^  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  x\ntioch,  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 
 
 "^^  Euseb.  ibid.  Lib.  V.  cap.  x.  p.  223.  1.  15.— 5  uJivlumT  xj 
 eIj"  IvdbS'  sX9"eiV  P^eyilon*  svBa,  T^oyoq  svpeiv  avTOV  i:^o(p^a,a-av  tw  avrS 
 'jrapaa-iuv,  ro  xocrx  vAar^a7ov  EvoifyiKiov,  iraoa,  riaiv  ainoBi  rov 
 "KfiTov  iinyvuiioaiv'  oi?  Bap^o^o^a^ol^  ruv  *A9ro^o^w»  ivcx,  HVjpv^cci* 
 avroTq  7£  \0^xiuv  y^ix^i/LCKXtv  t^v  t«  MaTJa/a  xaTaXst\{/at  y^ai^rlv" 
 jjv  xj  aul^sa-Bat  tU  Tov  JyjAa/z.Evoj'  ^^ovov,  Conf.  S.  Hicr.  Cat.  Scripp. 
 Eccless.  in  Pantaen.  Tom.  I.  p.  124. 
 
 "  Id.  ibid.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  xiv.  p.  273. 1.  8.  xul  rrj*  'jr^k  'E^pams 
 
 E^pxiKYi    (pcjvij*      Aaxwv    ^£    (pi?\oll[A.o}q    ccvTrtV    ^Si^^Y^vi.va-xv\a.f    U^avai 
 To7q  ^EXA'/3<7»i'*   o^£v   TO*  a^Tov  xf'^'^"'  £^f'0"X£cr$a*   xetiu   rnt  e^iA-ntiiuVf 
 
 'cetvTViq    re   tij?    tTrtr&^'J?,   *^   Toj*   Ilpci^iav. Elra  v<xo^oi<;  l<7n?^syn* 
 
 Hd>}    d£    u<;   0    MocKocfioq    IXsys    TTpEcr^yTEpoc,    x.  t.  e,      Conf.  Lib.  III. 
 
 cap.  xxxviii.  p.  134.  L  20. 
 
 ^^  The  facts  which  have  been  related,  on  the  authprlty  of 
 
 .f2 
 
(    212    ) 
 
 ti^ould  be  of  itself  sufficient  to  establish  all  that  it  i§ 
 my  object  to  evince.     Throtig-h  motives  of  curiosity 
 
 Justin  Martyr,  and  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  relative  to  tlie  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.  ^*.  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 ; 
 Gomp.  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.  iVt  ^e  w?  U  -n-upoi^o. 
 
 ATTos-oXoiCy  £911  ^u^sxoc  gTeffi  (j^'Ti  y^upia^Yivoii  T'/jy  'IspHffAXrif/,. 
 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.  361.  363.   et  all.   multt.   to  kcctu  MarSaro* 
 
 itccpoc,  Iwavvfcf.  ap.  Birch.  Nov.  Test.  p.  181.  Conf.  Griesb. 
 Symbb.  Critt.  TorA.  I.  pp.  Ixv.  civ. 
 
(    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 
 
 5'  Euseb.    Hist.   Eccl.  Lib.    VI.    cap.    xiv.    p.    274.   1.    27. 
 
 xala  Ta<7^£  Ttfj  %^o*'«?  'T^?  Pajxalcov  IzxXvia-iccq  vjySfjJvyy  s7^^^Y|[J.'>^aa^ 
 Trj  Pw/A*}  Kocl  ccvt6<;  7r«  y^ai^si  >.iyu)v,      EjVZOcij.svos  T'/iv  d^yonoroirr,'* 
 
 'AXi^div&fiBiav. 
 
 '^  Id.  ibid.  cap.  xix.  p.  283.  1.  20.  i'^r^ruq  tk;  rZv  rpajiwlijcwv 
 
 ecDs^i^a  y^xyt.yLOLia.  ArifxrUfhUf  re  tco  t^$  Trcc^or/iuq  iTrianOTrui,  y.cct 
 ra)  TOTS  T^5  'AlytTrra  Wcip^Vf  '^^f'^  ^5  t^?  'Apa.^ia?  riya^Jva' 
 u^   ccv    [/.{la    <77ry^>55    ccttcco-Yji;    tov     Qpiyevriv  'Trey^^c/isv   Koivcuvrjo-ovlcc  7\oyu9 
 
 'A§a/3i(zv.     Conf.  cap.  xxxvi.  p.  299.  1.  29.  sqq. 
 
 ^^  Id.  ibid.  cap.  Xvi.  p.  275.  1.  21.  Toaavrvi  ^t  ilo-r,y^o  tZ 
 '^piyivn  tZv  ^iiuv  "hoyuv  a7rr,)i^i^UfA.ivYt  e^ilucriCy  ug  >c^  Tr,v  E^fu'i^x 
 yXuTlccv  £>{//,a$£U'. — Kui  Tivuq  hipcc^y  vccpu  Tuq  y.cclvjfjLU^BVfAivott;  Ip- 
 (AYiVticcq  ivcc>^aT%<7ae,j  T'/jy  AavXs  xj  2y|(/.|xap^»  y.ct]  Qbc^oIiuvoi;,  Itpsvpuii* 
 aj,  a;i  oT^  oSe»  £x  Tivuv  ftv^uv,  rov  7ra\a»  Xav^uviicrug  ^^6i/ov, 
 ityi^viva-ctqj  iU  ?'w?  Tr^oyiyotytv,  i(p'  av  hu.  Tr,v  «5'^Xot»}I«,  Ti)io<;  up' 
 iliv  »x  i\^u<;,  uvTo  TdTo  i^.oi/ov  iTrfcrj^jjfaTo,  uq  a^ct  t'/jj*  />(.?v  s'vpoi  iv 
 Tvt    TTPoq  'Ay.T'iu    NiJiOTToXsi*    rrjv    at  iv    STBpcj    ToV<y   TOio/de.      Cont.  Cap. 
 
 xviii.p.  278.1.13. 
 
 ^°  Id.  ibid.  cap.  XXV.  p.  290.  1.  12.  Iv  ^e  to;  tt^-mtco  tuv  iTq  to 
 xaTflt  Ma]S«rov  'E.vayyiKiov  \J>  Q.piyiv'fi<;~\  tcv  iH.a'hria-^a.^iy.ov  (^vT^utIuv 
 xecvovaCf  yi^va,  Tsa-aapcc  sloivat  Ej;ayJiEA»a  [Aot^vpeluij  u)0£  m-uq  y^u^uv* 
 Slq  sif  7rapa3o<ret  (jlccBuv  Trap;  tc^v  Tsa-cra^uv  Et«iy£>/tfc')',  u  xxt  /x.oya 
 imxpiip^yjlci  Iv  ttj  Ltio  tqv  ip^atlv  \Y.\hr,a'ici.  tv  <£>iv'   k.  t.  ?, 
 
(    214    ) 
 
 their  due  and  exclusive  weight^' ;  and  has  deduced 
 their  authority  from  the  immemorial  tradition  of  the 
 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- 
 tures, 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 
 
 **  Orlg.  Horn.  i.  in  Luc.  Tom.  III.  p.  932.  d.     Ovru  nee)  vvr 
 
 ccTkTC  ol  Ukiixqi  rpcc7r£t,'niici  a  Tuvla  iK^ivaVy  kWa,  rnxx  ocvruv  l^iAi^otilo, 
 Tayoi.    ^\    xa«    to    *   iiriyi^^rtacc})^   \zKrf^mce.y  ''iyj.i    KO^myo^iav    tuv 
 
 '^Ic/.'c'^aios  yap  «x  iinx^ifYia-i*  uXK  gypa\J/£V  h%  (xyin  Hv&vfjixros 
 xtvapcevof  o/LLoiais  ^  Ma§)(05"  k^  IwavvTjy,  Trsipoi  TrXrtaLov  ^£  j^ 
 h^yJas.  Vid.  supr.  p.  205.  n.  ^♦.  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.  29L 
 
 6^  Vid.  supr.  n.  ^°. 
 
 '^  Dr.  Lardn.  Cred.  of  Gosp.  Hist.  P.  I,  B.  I.  ch.  xxvii.  p. 
 64- 1.  "  There  are  perhaps  more  and  larger  quotations  of  the 
 N.  T.  in  this  one  christian  author,  than  of  all  the  works  of  Ci- 
 
(  215  ) 
 Uave  formed  a  standard^  by  which  succeedhig  wri- 
 ters have  endeavoured  to  model  their  stile.  The 
 writing's  of  Clement  and  Orii^en  liave  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  integrity  of  the  sacred  wri- 
 tings, but  demonstrate,  by  the  most  extraordinary 
 coincidence  with  the  vulgar  Greek  "^^  that  the  tex- 
 ture of  the  phrase  and  purity  of  the  language  have 
 remained  uncorrupted  for  tiie  vast  period  which 
 has  intervened,  since  the  age  of  those  primitive 
 fatiiers. 
 
 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/' 
 
 ^*  Vicl.  Nov.  Test,  Locc.  ab  Orig.  et  Clem.  Alex.  Allegatt. 
 ap.  Griesb.  Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  IL  p.  229.  sqq. 
 
 ^5  M.  Griesbach  has  noted  the  deviations  of  the  Vulgar  Greek 
 from  the  readings  of  Origen,  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.  "  S.  S. 
 oracula  baud  raro  memoriter  excitat,  et  sensum  magis  quanj 
 ipsa  auctorum  sacrorum  verba  repraesentat;"  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, 
 must  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 
 Pantaenus;  and  all  of  them  wer^  the  intimates  of 
 Alexander,  bishop  of  Jerusalem  ^^ :  but  Pantaenus  is 
 expressly  said  to  have  been  a  disciple  of  those  who 
 were  the  immediate  auditors  of  the  Apostles  ^^. 
 Alexander  represents  Narcissus,  wlio  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  ^^i  he  of  course  must  have  en- 
 joyed the  same  opportunities  of  conversing  with  the 
 immediate  disciples  of  the  apostles,  w^hich  were  pos- 
 sessed by  Pantaenus.  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  ^^ 
 
 ^s  Vid.  supr.  p.  210.  n.  ". 
 
 ^^  Phot.   Bibliothec.   cod.  cviii.     T5to>  roUw  rov  'n^iyivriv, 
 
 ^iiyaai   yiVBcrBcci   KX>)[xi>]oi;   t5    Xr^w/xo-Tew?,  xul  re   xctra,   t»v    AXeI- 
 
 >>iyHJ-i  Ka)  oiK^oairjv  kuI  t2   ^i^acrxaAgta  ^ici^o^ov.      Tlaivrcavov  ^s  rc^V 
 Tc  THS  *A7ros"6>.bS'  Iw^axoTwv  dx^oxaoia^cci'    «  /xr,v  akXa  aoc'i  rtvuv 
 
 67  Vid.  supr.  p.  208.  n.  *^ 
 
 '^^  S.  Hier.  Cat.  Scripp.  Eccless.  in  Tertul.  Tom.  I.  p.  12(>. 
 *•  Vidz  ego  quendam  Paulum  Concordise,  quod  opidum  Italis 
 est,  senem,  qui  &e  B.  Ci/priani  jam  grandis  cctatis  notariunif 
 cum  ipse  admodum  esset  adolescens,  Romce  vidisse  diceret, 
 referreque  sibi  solitum,  numquam  Cyprianum  absque  Tertul- 
 liani  lectione  unam  diem  priEterisse:  ac  sibi  crebro  dicer e ; 
 *  Da  magistrum:'  Tertulliaaum  videlicet  significant,"     Id.  ib. 
 
(    ^17    ) 
 
 St.  Ii'enaBUS  mentions  his  having  been  acquainted 
 with  St.  Polycarp^  who  was  placed  in  the  see  of 
 Smyrna  by  St.  John  the  Evangelist^;  and  g-ives  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 
 facihties  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  Tertuilianus,  viclnus  eorum  tempo- 
 yum,"  &c. 
 
 ^  Vid.  supr.  p.  200.  n.  *?. 
 
 '°  S.  Iren.  Fragmm.  p.  340.    at  ya^    U   'jrui^uv  f/,a$>;<rfi?i  crwavm 
 
 xou  roiq  ^jaAffEtj  a?  iTronTTo  rrpoi;  to  wA^-jo?*  xcci  'c>3»'  fjMct  'luxvvts 
 cvvxvecT^fi^'nv  uq  u'KrjfyhT^.hB'  xa*  ttjc  jwcra  ruu  Xoiiruv  ruv  eupotKoruf 
 nrlt  Kyp»oy*  xoct  aq  ccm^vx^^vtvi.  iHc  Xoyyt;  ocvTuVf  v.ai  irifi  t«  Kvpis 
 riva,    vjv   a,    'TTOtp    IksIvuv  a,>tr,xon'  au)   Tri^i  dwuiAiuv  avr^,  xa)   <fftol    rv^ 
 
 7»  Clem.  Alex.  ap.  Euseb.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  xiil.  p.  272.  1.  29. 
 
 xa«  £V  to;  "hQyiJi  ^\  uvri  Tu  -nrspl  re '-^acr^ic  iy.^iaBijvai  £o  KXr/fjiYiil 
 o[jiA>My£if  ir^oq  ruv  erccifuv  «j  '^f^x^  'ma.^cc  ruv  upy^a'ius/  <srp£cr^'j7Bf(uv 
 uxvjKouq   vocpxdocreiq,   yp^^^    ^oT<;   ^^iialuvra,   irccfa^ivcci,      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  Apoitles ;  Id.  Stroinat 
 
(    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.  Poly  carp  and  St.  John,  in  the 
 churches  of  Smyrna  and  Ephesus7\  Similar  ap- 
 peals are  made  to  it,  by  St.  Irenapus  ^^  and  Tertul- 
 lian,  on  the  rule  of  faith  which  had  been  delivered 
 
 Lib.  I.  p.  322.  TtiTUv  0  [Av  \<jrt  rvii  E^^ao^f  o  'luvixo^'  o  ^\  Itt*  t?5 
 txEyaX-//^  'E^Aao05*  TV)?  xoiAjj?  cctb^o^  avrav  Yvpiaq  %v'  o  ol  uit 
 'Al7't;'7r1a*  ctXAoi  ^e  Lya,  rrtv  AvocIoXyjV*  y.at  ravTV)q  o  y.iv  Ti?  tuv 
 A<ravp'iW)/*  o  ^h  Iv  rr,  TlaXonfU-n  'E/?pans  aveKuBBf  vtcItu  ^l  •mpiUv^c^jv, 
 ^vta.!J.Bi  ^'upa,   TTfWTOf    rji*,  uii'rrxva-a.[ji,vipf   Iv    AlyvTrlu!  ^rifoccrctq  T^iXr.BoTU, 
 
 iv^iis  ccno  risTpa  xat  'luKui^e  xat  lutxwH  ra  no.)  HayAy  ruv  ayiup 
 ^A'noTo'Kcjv,  TLOit^  TTa^x  TT/xr^os  ex^e^a/x^vob',  oxiyoi  ^l  ol  •n-al^uaiv 
 ouoioi,  riKOV  ^ri  auv  ©so)  y^  els  vV^^j  ^^  'jrpoyovw.a,  ImTva  xon 
 ' AiroToXynoi  xaraSy^crojLcsJ'o;   srTri^jx<x.rcc.      Conf.   Euseb.  Lib.    V  .    Cap. 
 
 xi.  p.  223.  1.  3L  sqq.  cap.  xxviii.  1. 16.  sqq. 
 
 '^  Polycrat.  Epist.  ad  Vict.  ap.  Euseb.  ib.  Lib.  V.  cap.  xxiv. 
 
 p.  244.  1.  13.  m  ^e  y.ayoj  o  [xixpon^oq  'TTu.t/TUV  v'^uv  noAu^pary/f, 
 xara  TTocpcioQaiv  rcuv  cvfyiVuov  fxa,  ois  ^  T^cx^rnxokH^noac 
 ticrlv  avTuv'  STTTa  (xh  vio-uv  ffvfyBvUi  (xa  iTria-ao'Troif  iyu  h  oySoo^' 
 nal  TravTOTi  Tij*  yifxi^av  vtyuyov  ol  ffvfyBVcTi  /i*»,  otocv  o  T^uoq  yj^vvs  r-/it 
 Ivuviv,  iyu)  iiv  uh\(po]f  l|^JtoyTa  Vivre  £T»j  s^uv  Iv  xvpia/f  xa»  cvix^i' 
 ^Xr.Y.ux;  To~?  ot-iro  rrj?  olKS^ivYtq  a^£?i(poK,  xat  vocaav  ocyiav  T^cc(pr,9 
 ^nKnTiV^ui^y  »  TTTv^Ofxah  Iw*  tok  xccrcnrXricr^oixiyoiz, 
 
 73  S.  Iren,  adv.  Haer.  Lib.  TIL  cap.  iii.  p.  177.  uX>J  kJ  ^  h 
 'EsSeVw  hiro  nayXa  ^v  TeS'£/iAEXtw/>tBi'>j,  'laa-vva  h  9rapa^£i»a«'T0?  avro'i'i 
 f*'X?*  TiDv  TpaVai/tf  x^^^^^i  iJ^ocprvs  aXoo^ogs"  Efi  rriS  'Atto^oXcov 
 irupocloascijf.  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. 
 Haer.  Lib.  IV.  cap,  xxvii.  p.  263.  "  Quemadmodum  audivi  a 
 quodam  Presbytero,  qui  audierat  ah  his  qui  Ajoostolos  viderantf 
 «t  ab  his  qui  didicerant,"  &c. 
 
(    219    ) 
 
 to  the  Church  by  its  original  founders,  and  preserved 
 by  their  successours  7+.  The  former  states,  that  the 
 apostoHcal  tradition  was  preserved  in  every  church 
 throug-hout  the  world '^;  the  latter  appeals  to  the 
 apostolical  writings  as  preserved  in  the  particular 
 churches,  where  they  were  deposited  by  their  in- 
 spired authours  ^^. 
 
 ^*  Tertul.  adv.  Marc.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  v.  p.  406.  **  In  summa, 
 si  constat  id  verius  quod  prius,  id  prius  quod  ab  initio,  id  ab 
 initio  quod  ab  Apostolis;  pariter  utique  constahit  id  esse  ah 
 Apostolis  tradittivif  quod  apud  Ecclesias  Apostolorum  fiierit 
 sacrosanctum.  Videamus  quod  lac  a  Paulo  Corlnthii  hauserint ; 
 ad  quam  regulam  Galatse  sint  recorrecti ;  quid  legant  Pliilip- 
 penses,  Thessalonicenses,  Ephesii;  quid  etiam  Romani  de 
 proximo  sonent,  quibus  Evangelium  et  Petrus  et  Paulus  san- 
 guine quoque  suo  signatum  reliquerunt.  Haberaus  et  Joannis 
 alumnas  Ecclesias.  Nam  etsi  Apocal)^psim  ejus  Marcion  res- 
 puit,  ordo  tamen  Episcoporum  ad  originem  recensus,  in  Joan- 
 nem,  stabit  auctorem,  sic  et  cceierarum  generositas  recotrnoscitun 
 Dico  itaque  apud  illas,  nee  solas  jam  Apostolicas,  sed  apud 
 universas,  quae  illis  de  societate  sacramenti  confcederantur,  id 
 Evangelium  Lucae  ab  initio  editionis  suce  stare  quod  cum  maxime 
 tuemur :  Marcionis  vero  plerisque  nee  notum,  nullis  autem  no- 
 tum  ut  non  eo  damnatum." 
 
 ^5  S.  Iren.  adv.  Haer.  Lib.  IIL  cap.  iii.  p.  175.  "  Traditio- 
 nem  itaque  Apostolorum  in  toto  mundo  manijestatam,  in  onmi 
 Ecclesia  adest  respicere  omnibus  qui  vera  velint  videre:  et 
 habemus  annumerare  eos  qui  ab  Apostolis  instituti  sunt  Episcopi 
 in  Ecclesiis,  et  successores  eorum  usque  ad  nosj*'  &c.     Id.  ep. 
 
 ad  Florin,  p.  339.  Tccvtoc  t«  ^oyixacra,  cccrv[A(p6Jvci  er*  T»j  lK>c?iy,a-i» 
 cviJL^oiTna-xvrii;,  k  Tra^s^uy.av  n.  r.  I. 
 
 '^  Vid.  supr.  p.  115.  n.  '\  p.  218.  n.  ''\  The  meaning  as- 
 cribed to  authenticce  liierce,  in  the  former  quotation,  has  been 
 opposed  by  Dr.  Lardner,  Cred.  of  Gosp.  Hist.  P.  I.  B.  I.  qXx, 
 
(    220    ) 
 
 As  the  darly  period  in  which  those  apostolical  fa* 
 thers  flourished  is  thus  easily  connected  with  the  age 
 
 xxvli.  Vol.  II.  p.  636.  He  supports  his  opinion  on  the  autho- 
 rity of  Cicero,  and  of  Tertullian,  the  former  of  whom  uses  the 
 adverb  «u3cvT(x<i!?,  and  the  latter  the  adjective  authenticus,  in 
 designating  the  original  of  a  work,  as  distinguished  merel}''  from 
 a  translation.  And  he  contends,  that  the  very  originals  cannot 
 be  meant  by  the  phrase  aidhenticcs  Uteres  ;  as  it  is  inconceivable 
 the  Epistle  to  the  Ilomans  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 
 translatedy  arc  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  had  been  certainly  deposited  ;  as  an  autlien' 
 iicJc  tra?iscript  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  congregation.  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  in  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 
 is  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 
 ktter  period  down  to  the  present  day. 
 
 St.  Jerome,  who  formed  the  Latin  Version,  drew 
 his  information  respecting  Tertullian  from  one  who 
 had  conversed  with  a  notary  of  St.  Cyprian  ^7.  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  ^9.     But  the  great 
 
 tense  to  the  passage  before  us,  are  possessed  of  different  weight. 
 That  authenticce  litercB  was  considered,  in  Tertullian's  age  and 
 country,  synonymous  with  ipsa  ejnstola,  eadeyn  episiola,  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  iVIarcion  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  07ie  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. 
 ^ers  his  argument  nugatory. 
 
 "  Vid.  supr.  p.  216.n.  ^^ 
 
 ?^  Socrat.   Hist.   Eccles.    Lib.   I.   cap.   viii.    p.   19.    1.   50. 
 
 TtfTOi;   ^e    [ror?    '/^EJay^?   atpsVcW?]    yswaicoq   uvr-rtyuvl^no   ABavxa-to',^ 
 
 «.  T.  a.  Cont:  Sozom.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  L  cap.  xvii.  p.  26. 
 1.7. 
 
 ^^  S.  Hier.  adv.  Ruffin.  Lib.  III.  cap.  vii.  Tom.  XL  p.  257. 
 ^  Malui  per  Maleas  et  Cycladas  Ci/prum  pcrgere,  iihi  swscepius 
 
(    223    ) 
 
 Atlianasiiis  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 
 siiccessours^  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  Synods  held  at 
 Antiochj  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  veneralili  EpiscopQ  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.  S.  Epiphan.  Haer.  lxxii.  p.  837.  b.  hfioiA-nv  ^l  avTo? 
 lyai  X9°^^  ''^"'*  '^^''  (*^>t.ix,fiTviv  TlocjTccv  ' A^ot.vot,(7i<iv  wep*  rara  t$ 
 Ma()>iE^^y,  TTw?  av  £';>/ot  -zzrEpi  ayrS.  o  o\  ers  l^cfUTriKoyixTeilof 
 ars  -TjraXiv  Tipos  avrbv  oLiisy^ws  'niii'/^'/i,  fxorov  ^e  ^loi  rs  Trqoau/Tns 
 fJiSi^idoixs  v7li(^Yi\s^  ^o^-nf'ioe,<;  p,vj  ^*.uy.^av  ctvrov  eiv«»,  xa*  ug  aTTO- 
 7\0'yiriaa.(ji,svov  £i%E. 
 
 «^  Euseb.   Hist.   Eccl.    Lib.    VI.   cap.  xv.    p.  275.   1.   12. 
 
 f^q  y.ccryiX'O"'"^'  ^^*  ^^^^*  ^^P-  x^^^'  P^  ^^'^'  ^'  21*  "^^^  ^^  '^^'' 
 etvTo^i  Ka,Tr,^^aiu}q  T^»  ^iccr^i^nn  ^»a^E%£Tai  Aiovva-io^,    iU  ««*  aro?  ruv 
 
 ^*  Euseb.  ib.  Lib.  VIL  cap.  xxvii.  p.  357.  I.  12.   o  /*£v  kut 
 
 A^£|av^pE^«v  AtonJcrio?    "Trctpax^JjStJf    ^5   ocv    im  nrnv   cvvoSov    [In    AvJi- 
 
 «*  Alex.  Alexp.ndr,  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  all 
 that  it  is  my  object  to  establish  ^K  He  has  given  a 
 list  of  the  canonical  and  apocryphal  books,  in  his 
 Festal  Epistle  ^^  which  forms  a  sufficient  evidence 
 
 iv.   p.   15.    »>t   uyvo^^leq    on    v)    hocyxo^   iiravocTciacx,    rri    iy.y.T^viciX'ri-'tn 
 
 'Avlioy^Eiciv  UavXa  t5  'LxfAoaccliuq  a-vnoou)  y.al  x/icrsi  Tw»  ccrrailct^e 
 i'JTiffx.d'Kuv  u'Tray.rifvy.BBvioi  T'^;  iKHXriaicc^i'  ov  ^m,h^cx.u,tvo(;  AiiKiccyoi; 
 icTcoa-vvixyuyoq  iyi,nvt  Tpi&Jy  itc iaKO'rruv  <7io>.v{\tTq  ^^o»s?. 
 
 «3  Vid.  supr.  p.  131.  n.  ^^  Conf.  S.  Athan.  de  Incarn.  Verb, 
 Tom.  I.  p.  96.  b. 
 
 ^+  St.  Athan.  Epist.  Fest.  Tom.  I.  P.  ii.  p.  962.  c.  t^  f,  r^^ 
 
 EYAFFEAIA  rsaacc^^a*  notice  Motl^xTov,  y.a]cc  Moc^ytov,  xctlac  Aey.ccv^ 
 y.o[\oi  '[uavvr.v.  slroc  y^tioi  mvTa,  nPAHEIS  THN  'AnOSTOAr2N,  y.acl 
 'EniSTOAAl  KA0OAIKAI  xa?v8f/Ej'a»  tuv  * Airoroy^av  zttIcc'  iiTuq  f^lv^ 
 'lotKu^a  Uy  TLer^H  ^£  iS,  tlra  Icotivva  y,  xx)  yJJx  rccvTx;  lii^a.  oi, 
 TT^k  TtfTOK  riATAOT  'Awos-oX»  sla-iv  'Eni£TOAAI  h>ialt<rcr«pcq,  rv 
 ■Ta|£t  ypccipoixivai  trrw?'  ir^arin  TTfoq  PtVjW.ajtfs*  tiro.  'rr^o<;  Kop»»vi8?  ovq* 
 i^  fAslci  ruvru  v^oi  TuT^ciTsc^*  xj  i|>j$  v^oi  'Exeats?*  tlra,  <n-^oq 
 ^iXkTTTr-niTiaq,  )^  wpo?  Ko^«!Tc^£^?,  >^  (m/]»  rxvrx  Vflq  ©Ecrua^ovtxsr? 
 ^1^0*   xj    7)    TT^oq  'E(3f«ka5*    »c^    tvi^vq    Wfoj    Tt/xo.&£0>r   ^vo'    Trplq    ol    Tlrof 
 
(    224    ) 
 
 ©f  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 
 Churchy  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 
 Italy ^9^  and  governed  that  of  Alexandria,  he  not 
 only  possessed  the  means  of  tracing  the  tradition  to 
 its  source,  but  of  ascertaining  how  far  it  was  catho- 
 lick. The  different  editions  which  are  incorporated 
 in  the  Alexandrine  manuscript^'',  contain  a  sufficient 
 
 rocvTce,  'rr'nyoLi  t5  a-aj%^iii  x.  t.  I.  Conf.  Synops.  Script.  Tom.  II. 
 p.  177.  d.  sqq. 
 
 ^^  Id.  in  Epist,  Fest.  p.  961.  e.  7rcx,faKx>,:j   'tvex^j-B'^if  si  irs^t 
 
 y^o(,(puy  diotTE  T^»  ociocy'/.xv  v.cti  to  xP'fiai[A.ov  Tijf  £xx.^^o"t«?.  yiiKhui  ^% 
 inTuy  /xmj/ASVeVSJi',  x^y:crofji.on — ru  tirra  tS  E^a/yeAtra  Aay.ci,  ^iyup 
 t^  CLvToq'  ETTnaK'TTt^  Tutq  ETTEp^sl^jCTaJ'  cctctloliao-^oci  euvlo7^  ret 
 yayofAivok  A'j:QKfv(pa,  k^  sTTifxiiat  tuvtcc  ryj  ^loiivUfa  r^a(pip,  -re^i 
 vis  £-rX7}§o(fccy;3'i^/xsv,  xol^us  irapi^osciv  toXs  Tarqxaiv  ct  utt' 
 ei^X^^f  a^TOTrla*  x^  v'^ifira.^  yiyciAivoi  tS  ?^6yii*  i^o^e  xa-ixoi, 
 grfolpawEvIt  wetfu  yv7ia\u»  u^iX<pujv,  y.xl  (/.x^q-vti  avcu^Ev,  i^r^q 
 jxSfVSat  ra.    xavovi^o^eva  j^   9r<z§a5o3'6vr«,  zsi^iv^iyroc,   t£  S-eTa 
 
 «^  Patrr.  Benedd.  Vit.  S.   Athan.  p.  viii.   §  2.  d.  conf.  S, 
 A  than.  Tom.  I.  p.  128. 
 
 ^^  lid.  ib.  p.  xxi.  f.  vid.  supr.  p.  132.  n.  '\ 
 
 *^  Sozom.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  II.  cap.  xxviii.  p.  86. 1.  4. 
 
 *»  Vid.  supr.  p.  132.  n.5^ 
 .     ^  Griesb.  Sjmbb,  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  Churchy  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  Eva?i^ 
 gelitty  alii  Epistolas  Pauli,  alii  denique  Actus  Apostolorum  cum 
 Catholicis  Epistolis.  Hinc  accidit,  ut  Codex  Aiexandrinus  non 
 in  omnibus  libris  eandem  textus  recensionem  sequeretur.     In 
 
 Evangeliis  exhibet    recensionem    Cojistantinopolitanam    ; 
 
 in  Epistolis  Paulinis  repraesentat  Alexandrinam  recensionem 
 ■  ;   in  Actis  denique  et  Epistolis  Catholkis  textum  sequi- 
 
 tur,    passim   ad    Occid^talem    recensionem    conforma- 
 
 tam.»* 
 
 ^'  S.  Hier,  ad  Paulin.  Ep.  cm.  cap.  vii.  Tom.  II.  p.  340* 
 **  Tangam  et  Novum  breviter  Testamentum.  Matthacus,  Mar- 
 cus, Lucas,  et  JoaDJies  •- — .    Paulu^  Apostolus  ad  septem 
 
(    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 9^;    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- 
 nasiuSj  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  manuscript 
 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- 
 
 scribit  ecclesias  (octava  enim  ad  Hebraeos  a  plerisque  extra 
 numerum  ponitur)  Timotheum  instruit,  ac  Titum:  Philemonem 
 pro  fugitive  famulo  deprecatur. — Actus  Apostolorum  nudam 
 quidem  sonare  videntur  historiam,  et  nascentis  Ecclesiae  infan- 
 tiam  texere :  sed,  si  noverimus  scriptorem  eorum  Lucam  esse 
 medicum,  cujus  laus  est  in  Evangelio ;  animadvertemus^  pariter 
 omnia  verba  illius,  animse  languentis  esse  medicinam.  Jaco- 
 bus,  Petrus,   Joannes,  et   Judas,  AjJoStoli,  septem   Epistolas 
 
 cdiderunt. Apocalypsis  Joamiis  tot  habet  sacramenta,  q^uot 
 
 verba." 
 
 ^*  Vid.  supr.  p.  1G2.  n.  *"- 
 
(    227    ) 
 
 fragableproof  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  5^ 
 Prom  their  universal  dispersion,  must  be  inferred 
 their  freedom  from  general  corruptions^.  Verbal 
 errours  might  have  arisen  in  the  text,  and  have  heen 
 multipHed  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  9^; 
 and,  from  the  general  dispersion  of  the  Scriptures^ 
 must  have  been  limited  to  particular  districts,  or 
 have  continued  but  for  an  inconsiderable  period s^ 
 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  authours^"^;  and  as  far 
 as  the  testimony  of  those  early  witnesses  extends, 
 that  they  are  the  same  which  are  still  in  use  in  our 
 churches  9^  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  ^9.  Their  evidence  is,  however, 
 as  clearly  as  it  is  plenarily  set  forth  in  the  Alexan- 
 drine manuscript,  and  the  Latin  Vulgate,  -sdiich,  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 
 
 9^  Vid.  supr.  pp.  207—211. 
 '3  Vid.  supr.  pp.  210.  2H-. 
 »9  Vid.  supr.  pp.  221—223. 
 '°^  Comp.  p.  15.  n.  "^  p.  131.  n.  ^^. 
 
 '-6 
 
 '°'  Vid.  supr.  pp.  121,  122. 
 ^^  Vid.  supr.  pp.  114.  126. 
 "^^   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  Eas- 
 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  oeen  omitted  in  particular  versions,  or  can- 
 celled in  particular  edition'-; '^'^     The  private  testis 
 
 '°*  Vid.  supr.  p.  118. 
 
 '°^  Vid. supr.  pp.  70,  71.  111-. 
 
 '°^  Vid.  infr.  p.  230.  n.  '°\  p.  237.  n.  ''\ 
 
 Mark  xvi.  9—20.  Job.  vii.  63.^viii.  11.  vid.  supr.  pp. 
 
 I07 
 
 Sj— 38 
 
(    230    ) 
 
 inony  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  manu- 
 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 
 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.  Johnviii.  1 — 11'°^  have  been  exposed 
 
 '°«  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.   Lib.  III.   cap.   xxv.  p.  119.    I.  4. 
 
 £$y)V  aS'sraffiV.  tre^oi  ^s  tyn^lnBa-i  roTq  CjU,oXoy»/x£yoi?.  Id.  ibid. 
 Lib.  VI.  cap.  xx.  p.  285.  1.  6.  ruv  t5  le^S  'ATroro^a  hzur^iuv  ^ovuv 
 iTtiToXu)))  [6  Ta,'io<;~\  fjivviixonvsi,  rriv  'TTqhs  'K^poiin^  fJ^Vi  auva,qiJ[j,Yiaxs 
 rous  "komcus'  ittbI  y.cn  t\%  hv^o  irccfo,  'Pu}[jt,c(.1av  Ttcrtv,  «  voixi^STcci  t5 
 •ATTos-oXb  ruy^oivsiv.  Conf.  Lib.  VII.  cap.  xxv.  p.  352,  1.  4. 
 sqq.  Lib.  III.  cap.  iii.  p.  90.  1.  2. 
 
 »°5  Vid,  S.  Hier.  utsupr.  p.  35.  n.  ^J.  p.  37.  n.  ^^. 
 
(  ^31  ) 
 to  the  most  formidable  objections.  If,  however,  the 
 canonical  authority  of  the  sacred  volume  be  ground- 
 lessly  questioned  in  these  respects,  we  may  a  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 urg"ed  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, 
 7  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.    tv^a  xa*  li^iTricrus, 
 
 a|to»  l\<;  Kcaocfih^^vli  ccvru  [ra?  Uair'^cc]  to  'luuvva  Ivo^cc*  ut 
 rov  /w-ev  7r§ore^ov  Uh^u  t^  la-za^u  t^  MolSaiw  t^  Tor?  P^otTTOiq 
 *A<7roro^cK  a-jyy.oi\a7\iyn,   C(ji(paif    ^nXwv    rov    'EvJ.fysXi'i'nv'    Tov    S' 
 
 STSPOV    'IwaVVTOV,     ^IdTci^iCCq  TOV  T^oyov,   Ix/pOl?,  WOtga  TOV  TUV     A'TTOfd'hu* 
 
 ^Pi^uov,  Kctlccltia-a-ei,  WfOTa|a$  uvtS  tov  'Apifiwva*  aoi(puis  rs  ocurov 
 Tlpsa^vrspov  ovopca^et.  w?  x^  ^»a  t^tuv  uTrohlnvva-^on  rnv  trofiat 
 wXijSvj,    Tuv    ^vo    Kocra,    rviv    'Aaixv    oi^mv/iu     x£;)^p^cr$a»     il^nMruv, 
 
 ^UO  TF    IV    'E(p£Vw    7£V£(T^ai    l^Tfiy^OLT O.'     kJ     SXaTEfOV    'IwaHS     £Tt     »t?» 
 
 ^£yEc^^a^•  oT$  Xj'  kva-yv-odov  ■7rpocr£;^£tv  tov  vtfv.  zWos  yup  rov  ^Evrs^ov, 
 tl^n  TK  sfieAoi  TOV  TTf^TOv,  TViv  lit  ov6[xocToq  p^oyJvv}V  'Iwayv« 
 A'noytdXv^^iv  lojoocxivai.  Vid.  Lib.  VII.  cap.  xxv.  p.  353.  1.  44-. 
 sqq.    Conf.  S.  Hier.  Cat.   Scriptt.  Eccless.  in  Joan.  Tom.  I. 
 
 p.  121. 
 
 "*  S.  Hier-  Cat.  Scriptt.  EccL  in  Paul.  Tom.  I.  p.  120. 
 «*  Epistola  autem  quae  fertur  ad  HebrcEos,  non  ejus  crecUtiir  prop- 
 ter styli  sermonisque  dissonantiam  ;  sed  vel Barnahcc  ^w^i^  Ter- 
 tullianum;  vel  Luc^  Evangelistce,  juxta  quosdam ;  vel  Cle- 
 mentis,  Romana^  poitea  Ecclesiae  Episcopi,  quern  aiunt  senten- 
 
(    232    ) 
 
 Paul  the  Apostle"*.  The  particular  objections 
 urg'ed  against  those  books^  from  the  internal  evi- 
 dence, 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  point  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. 
 
 iias  Pauli  proprio  ordlnasse,  et  ornasse  sermone.'^  Conf.  Tert. 
 Lib.  de  Pudicit.  c.  xx.  p.  617.  Clem.  Alex.  ap.  Euseb.  Hist. 
 Eccl.  Lib.  Lib.  VL  cap.  xiv.  p.  273. 1.  8.  sqq.  Con£  Lib.  IIL 
 cap.  xxxviii.  p.  134-.  1.  18.  sqq. 
 
 "-  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. 
 
 "2  Dionys.  Alexandr.  ap  Euseb.  ibid.  Lib.  VII.  cap.  xxv. 
 p.  352.  1.  23.  ly^  ^l  d'^erriaaL  (xsv  «k  av  ToXfJirKJonixi  to  /3«/3X/ov* 
 iro^^uv  ocvTo  ^icc  (TTTB^yiq  lyjivruv  ahX(puv»  Id.  ibid.  p.  353.  1.  3. 
 xaXsr<7^ai  fjuv  iiv  avrov  'lua,vvYtv,  >o  eivai  rrtv  r§Ji(p^v  l/vcivvis 
 rscvTriv  HK  civre^uj.  ayia  f^lv  ya.^  Bhaci  rivos  o^  S"£0^vEi/$-8  avvcx.ivai, 
 (^y.ca  fjLt^*  £T£^a)  on  ^\v  iv  'luocvvvig  Eriv  o  tocvtoc.  y^oc^uv  \_xayca 
 ^luotvvvtq  0  ^Xiircov  Jtj  octtHuv  ravra.~\  avru  T^tyom  TTirevTiov*  •n'oToq  ^e 
 vToq  ahy^ov.     Euseb.  ib.  Lib.  III.  cap.  xxxviii.  p.  134,  1.  14. 
 
 ccc(^'iTCc\oL  5rapir'5<rii/  o-n  [xrt  teov  i/Trap^n  to  (Tv[yfa,^^iex>'  oBev  s'lKOTCUS 
 I'^o^EV,  ecvTo  TCK  >^oi7roTq  lfyLura7\£y(Privoa  ypccfj^ixaci  t«  'Att- 
 •5:0X8, 
 
 "4  Dionys.  ibid.  p.  3,53. 1.  5.     Ov  /*^v  ^a^»ws  kv  cryy^o»^y;p  t^top 
 
(    2SS    ) 
 
 Paiil"^  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  Epistle. 
 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- 
 
 ivvai    TOD    'A7^oVo^o^    rly    viov   Zi^e^ccie'    rov    uosT^Cpov   'lotKuBa'    a    to 
 
 lE.vufyiXiov   TO    y.cc\a,   'luamv  lmyiy^eciJ.[xsvoVf   )<^   n   imroXn  ri  xaSoXtx^. 
 
 5    iA.iv    ya^    I,vufyeXirr,i,     h^izfXH    To    ovo/jloc    avrS    'Traasfyqa.ipEi' 
 
 «^£   xvi^vaaei  socvrov,  srs  ^ix  rn  EuxfyEKiH,  «t£    ^i^  Try?  'Ett- 
 
 w^oTair<7£t. 
 
 "5  Vid.  supr.  p.  231.  n.  '".     Conf.  infr,  n.  ^'^, 
 
 ^'6  Clement,   of  Alexandria,    has   put  this  argument  more 
 
 forcibly ;  Clem.  Alex.  ap.  Euseb.  ibid.  Lib.  VL  cap.  xiv.  p.  273. 
 
 1.  19.  \tti\  0  Ki^^ior,  aTToro^o?  ^y  t«  namj^^aTo^e^,  aTr^raAj,  it^bi; 
 'E^paiy?-  ^.a/x6T^.oV>5T«,   5  Da^Aoc,  ig  ^v  z\s  t^  "E^vt}  aTTss-^X/^EVor, 
 
 «X   Ep/§^(Pci    Sa^TOV  'E^^OCICOV   AtTOS-oXoV     ^;^    TH     7^.    TTPO,'     Ti.   KtJ^ior 
 
 'Tiurtv,     ^la.    TH    TO    Ik    ve^mcria^    j^    roTq    'E^^ocioi:     lOTr^AAa.!/,    'eS*S* 
 
 xy^fvaa,  l,ry.  ^  Airoro^ov.  S.  HIer.  Comm.  in  GaJ.  cap.  i.  Tom. 
 VI.  p.  120.  f.  <'  Et  in  Epistola  ad  Hebrasos,  propterea  Paidum 
 sohta  consuetudinc,  nee  no7ne?i  mum,  nee  Apostoli  vocabukm 
 pra^j)osinsse,  quia  de  Chrisio  trat  dicturus :   "  Habentes  ergo 
 
(     234    ) 
 
 cular  churches  of  Rome  and  Corinth,  or  the  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.  Irenaeus, 
 who  was  but  one  remove,  in  the  line  of  succession, 
 from  St.  John,  having  heard  his  disciple  St.  Poly- 
 
 Principem,  Sacerdotem  et  Apostolum  confessionis  nostrae  Je- 
 sum :"  nee  fuisse  congruura,  ut  ubi  Christus  Apostolus  di- 
 cendus  erat,  ibi  etiam  Paulus  Apostolus  poneretur." 
 
 "^  Vid.  supr.  p,  112.  nn.  ^et^ 
 
 ■*^  Euthal.  Argum.  in  Ep.  ad  Hebrr.  p.  671.  xaj  Ix  tS  T.iynv, 
 
(    235    ) 
 
 carp  *'^  expressly  ascribes  tlie  Revelation  to  tlie 
 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.  Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
 whose  authority  Eusebius  represents  as  decisive  '", 
 relates  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  written 
 by  St.  Panl  in  his  vernacular  tongue,  but  translated 
 into  Greek  by  Luke  the  Evangelist  *'^  To  the  tes- 
 timony which  St.  Irenaeus  bears  to  the  work  of  St. 
 John,  we  may  add  that  of  Justin  Martyr '"^  Ter- 
 tullian*'^  Melito  "^  Theophilus  ^'^  Apollonius'"', 
 and  Clemens  Alexandrinus  »^9^  who  flourished  in  the 
 
 "9    Vid.  supr.  p.  200.  n.  *3.  p.  217.  n. '"'. 
 
 '*°  Vid.  supr.  p.  170.  n. '''.  conf.  p.  112.  n.  ^ 
 
 '"  Vid.  Euseb.  supr.  p.  112.  n.  ^ 
 
 "^  Id.  ibid. 
 
 "3  Vid.  supr.  p.  211.  n.  55. 
 
 '^*  Just.  Mart.  Dial,  cum  Tryph.  p.  308.  ^a/  %ijlTv  utl^  t*?  * 
 2yo/!-ta  Icoxv'jns,  eU  rajv  'Attos-oXwv  tS  Xp{S"»;>  £V  'A'roxaXi/4'« 
 ysvo/AEvn  a^7a>,  ;)(;;iAj«  £T»  Tcroiyia-civ  h  Ispsaa^r)/;^,  ra?  t«  »;fc£Jefw  Xg»r^ 
 ^i^ivaotilstt;  z^poB(pYircvaB. 
 
 *^5  Vid.  supr.  p.  219.  n.  *^*. 
 
 **^  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  xxvi.  p.  189.  1.  1.  «;  T^Cyot 
 
 T«  tsxift  t5  ^»ai5oAtf,  ^  Tr;f  'A7ro)taXz;4/ec<;y  'Iwavva. 
 
 "^  Id.  ibid.  cap.  xxiv.  p.  187.  K  27.  xj  aAAo  \_(7v\'y^iiA.ixa,  t5 
 0eo(p^^a  (pHpElai]   tir^o?  T^*-  «rp£atv  'E^fA-oysvaq  rviv  iTny^ccfviv  b^ov,    sv  a 
 
 "8  Id.  ibid.  Lib.  V.  cap.  xviii.  p.   236.  1.   1 1.  x/p/p /!«»  ^l  [5 
 
 ^i  ^vvausi  BsM  ZJpoS  OCUTH  'lojdvMH  SV  T^  '£(^€(70;  lyr.ygp^ai  IfOftT. 
 
 "»  id.  ibid.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  xiv.  p.  273.  1.  3.    'e^  ^l   -vaT^  [t5 
 
(    236    ) 
 
 age  of  St.  Irenaeiis ;  and  Origen  '^°,  who  flourished 
 at  the  beginning'  of  the  subsequent  aera.  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  Cffisarea^  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  ^'^^  ascribes  the  Epistie  to  the  Hebrews  to  St. 
 Paul  *^^  without  hesitation.     And  St.  Athanasius  '^^ 
 
 Conf.  Gricsb.  Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  II.  pp.  616.  619.  620. 
 
 '^°Orig.  Horn,  in  Joan.  Tom.  IV.  p.  95.  d.  ri  hT  'msp)  ra  eivx- 
 •Tsacivio?  T^syetv  i'iri  to  s-rj^oc,  t5  Uae,  Icoavvs;  os  EvafysXiov  "ev  y.ulaht^ 
 T^oiTTiv .  h/pa^s  Vs  ^  TYiV  AitoK'xkv^iv  y..  t.  e. 
 
 ^^'  Vid.  supr.  p.  232.  n.  "\ 
 
 "^  Orig.  Horn,  in  Ep.  ad  Hebrr.  Tom.  IV.  p.  698.  ly^  ^ 
 a.7ro(pa,UQ{y.£voi;  iliro\u!  at,  on  rx  (xhv  vorifxula  '?a  *A9ros"o?v«  is'tV    ^    SI 
 
 a(7'rrs^i)  a^oT^ioy^ccipYiaccPtoq  roc  £tp7?^x,£i/a  v'lro  t3  h^cta-KuXa.  el'  tk  «»• 
 £i£xA*3crta  t^H  ravTriv  ETrtroAyjy  uq  Ylav?x8y    avrfi    suooy.i{J^eircj    yd   klTi 
 
 *^^  From  the  following  quotation  of  Heb.  x.  34.  and  expiess 
 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.  xli.  p.  304. 1.  34.  liiy-Xivov  Ti  y.a.)  viravtx^i^* 
 
 »3*Vid.  supr.  p.  230.  n.  '°^ 
 '35  Vid.  supr.  p.  232.  n.  ^'\ 
 »36  Vid.  supr.  p.  223.  n,  ^\ 
 
(  237  ) 
 and  St.  Jerome  *^^  at  the  close  of  the  same  centuiy, 
 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 
 
 *"  S.  Hier.  Dardan.  Ep.  cxxix.  Tom.  II.  p.  370.  "  Quod  si 
 cam  \_Epist0la7n  ad  Hehrceos^  Latinorum  consuetudo  non  reci- 
 pit  inter  Scriptm*as  Canonicas  ;  nee  Graecorum  quidem  Ecele- 
 sia  Apocalyjjsim  Joannis  eadem  libertate  suscipiunt :  et  taraen 
 nos  utramque  susc!pimus,  nequaquam  hujus  temporis  consuetudi- 
 nem,  sed  vetenim  scriptoru7n  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  ecdesiasticis, 
 
 ^'^  Greg,  Nazianz.  Orat.  xxi.  ed.  Par.  Tom.  I.  p.  376.  c.  y.a.) 
 maaoLV  ixh  zjaXuiaiv  ^i^oy  Z5u,a(xu  bs  vc'av  [0  A^avaTiOfj  c/t^O^s- 
 TTjcraf  X.  T.  e.  Id.  ibid.  p.  397.  a.  ^rio-a.^,  ^l  »rw,  y^  zoaiosv^zls  5^ 
 CJai^SlJcraS",  wrs  o^oy  y.\v  zinc-y.o'Kr.q  bIvui  tov  intiva  ^iov  )^  rpoTrof,  vofJ.GV 
 $e  tC)  op^lo^iois  roc  g/.£tv«  ^oyfj.xloc.  S.  August,  conlr.  Jul.  Pe- 
 lao-.  Lib.  I.  cap.  vii.  Tom.  X.  p.  519.  b.  "  Hieronymus— qui 
 Gra;co  et  Latino,  insuper  et  Hebrseo  eruditus  eloquio,  ex  Occi- 
 dentali  adOrientalemtransiens  Ecclesiam,  in  locis  Sanctis  et  in 
 literis  sacris,  usque  ad  decrepitam  vixit  setatem.  Ilic  omnesy 
 qui  ante  ilium,  aliquid  ex  utraqite  parte  orbis,  de  doctrina  ecde^ 
 siastica  scripserant^  legit,"  &c. 
 
 '39  St.  Clement  is  reltrred  to  A.  D.  80 :  Justin  3Jartyr  to 
 A.D.  130:  S.  Irenseus  to  A.  D.  160:  Melito  to  A.  D.  170: 
 Theophilus  to  A.  D.  180  :  Clemens  Alexandrinus  to  A.  D.  190. 
 Apolionius  to  A.  D.  192  :  Tertulliun  to  A.  D.  2(X) :  Ilippolytus 
 to  A.  D.  220 :  Origen  to  A.  D.  230 :  Eusebius  to  A.Y)  S20  : 
 S.  Athauasius  to  A.D.  330:    S.  Jerome  to  A.D.  3S0.     Th:i 
 
(    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  links  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  in  the  Eastern 
 and  Western  Churciies^  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  Tertuliian  ''^^  and  Cyprian 
 »+^  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- 
 
 carliest  of  those  witnesses  lived  nearly  in  the  age  when  St.  John 
 saw  the  Apocalyptick  vision;  vidsupr.  p.  124;.  n,  ^^, 
 
 '^  Vid.  supr.  p.  235.  n.  ^-^. 
 
 ^'  Vid.  supr.  p.  215.  n.^^ 
 
 "^^  Vid.  supr.  p.  214.  n.^\ 
 
 '*^  The  three  books  of  testimonies,  which  St.  Cyprian  Ed» 
 Oxon.  p.  1 7.  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.  i^lened* 
 
(    239    ) 
 
 rome  '-^^  respectively  refer,  will  connect  the  tradi- 
 tionary chain,  as  extending  from  the  apostolical  age 
 to  the  final  establishment  of  Christianity  under  the 
 EmperourTheodosius.  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,  as  I  have  already  observed,  had  been 
 partially  withdrawn  from  the  sacred  text  ^^"^ ;  though 
 now  admitted  almost  without  exception,  into  the 
 Tulgar  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  authoi'ity 
 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  fi'om  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.  '^^ 
 
 '"^^  The  testimony  of  those  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.  z.  P. 
 II.  Vol.  II.  p.  331.  sqq.  Vol.  Til.  p.  355.  sqq. 
 
 '*'  Mark  xvi.  9—11.  John  viii.  1—11.  vid.  supr.  p,  35.  n.  ^^ 
 p.  37.  n.  <55. 
 
(    240    ) 
 
 and,  after  his  example^  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  ag*e,  or  inserted  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 
 }>assag*es  in  his  edition,  have  been  already  calcu- 
 'lated  '^\  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,  I  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  *^\  Two  witnesses  will  be  now  sufficient 
 to  establish  the  authenticity  of  those  passag-es,  and 
 to  connect  the  chain  of  tradition,  from  wliich  their 
 authority  is  derived ;  one,  to  prove  that  they  were 
 
 »+8  Vid.supr.  p,  36.  n.^^, 
 *^^  Vid.  supr.  n.  '^^ 
 '^^  Vid.  supr.  p.  93.  n.  "'^, 
 ^''  Vid.^supr.  p.  35.  sqq. 
 »5*Vid!'supr.  n.  ^'^. 
 
(    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,  consecjuently,  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 
 these  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 
 
 '-^  VId.  supr.  p.  93.  n.  *  ^  Hence  we  find,  that  not  only 
 Luke  xxi.  4-3,  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.  Gricsb.  nott.  in  locc. 
 
 "^*  Vid.  supr.  p.  94.  n.  '°^  p.  35.  n.  ^''.  p.  37.  n.  ^^ 
 
 **M'id.  supr.p.  IGl.  n.  "^. 
 
 11 
 
(    242    ) 
 
 establisli  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.  iSIarls  would  be  likewise  liable  to  ex- 
 ception ;  as  containing  some  circumstances  in  the 
 account  of  that  events  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  contain  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 
 such  passages^  no  influence  which  could  have  in- 
 duced those  Churches  collectively  to  incorporate 
 them  in  the  Canon. 
 
 When  we  inspect  more  narrowly  the  purpose 
 which  the  different  Evangelists  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 
 tlie  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* 
 
(    243    ) 
 
 object  of  the  apostolical  testimony  '^^  This  proof 
 was  ^iven,  by  the  express  appointment  of  our  Lord, 
 in  Galilee  '^^ ;  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- 
 
 *56  Act.  i.  21,  22.  X.  39,  40,  41.  comp.  Pears,  on  Creed.  Vol. 
 I.  p.  380. 
 
 ''7  Comp.  Matt.  xxvi.  32.  xxviii.  7,  10,  16. 
 
 '58  John  XX.  20. 
 
 '59  Mark  xiv.  28.  "  But  after  that  lam  risen,  I  mil  go  before 
 yoM  into  Galilee.'^ 
 
 '^°  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  tvas  risen.     Comp.  Matt,  xxviii.  7,  10,  16,  17. 
 
 '^'  S.  Iren.  adv.  Hasr.  Lib.  III.  cap.  xi.  §  1.  p.  188.  «  Hanc 
 fidem  annuncians  Joannes  Domini  discipuJus,  voleas  per  Evan- 
 
 R   2 
 
(     244     ) 
 
 daises;  ''thou  hast  them  that  hold  the  doctrlneof 
 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  com^e 
 unto  thee  quickly  '^^/'  &c.  Marriage  had  been 
 condemned  and  rejected  by  those  abandoned  mis- 
 creants; who  asserted  the  lawfulness  of  the  most 
 promiscuous  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 
 view,  he  selects  out  of  the  incidents  of  our  Lord's 
 
 geJii  annunt'iationem  auferre  eum,  qui  a  Cerintho  inseininatus 
 erat  hominibus,  errorem,  et  multo  priiis  ab  his  qui  diciintur 
 Nicolaiice,  qui  sunt  vulsio  ejus  quae  falso  cognoniinatur  scien- 
 tia,"  &c.  Vid.  infr.  n.  ^"K  Conf.  Tertul.  adv.  Haer.  cap. 
 xxxiii.  p.  210.  Hier,  Prsef.  in  Matt.  Prooem.  ad.  Euseb.  Cremori. 
 Tom.  VI.  p.  xi. 
 
 ^c»  Rev.  ii.  14,  15,  16. 
 
 **^  S.  Iren.  ib.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xxvl.  $  S.  p.  105.  Nicolaita^. 
 autem  magistrum  quidem  habent  Nicolaura,  unum  ex  vii  qui 
 primi  ad  Diaconium  ab  Apostolis  ordinati  sunt ;  qui  indiscrete 
 vivunt.  Plenissime  autem  per  Joannis  Apocalypsim  manifes- 
 tantur  qui  sint ;  nullam  differentiayn  esse  docentes  in  mcechandoj' 
 &c.  Conf.  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  IIL  cap.  xxix.  p.  123. 1. 18. 
 S.  Epiphan.  Hser.  xxv.  p.  77.  c. 
 
(    245    ) 
 
 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  ^^K"  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  commit  fornication — repent ,  or  L 
 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  tliose  passages  were  exposed  from  the 
 earliest  period  •^^.     That  they  occur  in  the  vulgar 
 
 *'*  Johnii.  l—ll. 
 
 '"  lb.  viii.  11. 
 
 *^^  The  following  observation  of  Victor  Antiochenus,  on 
 Marc.  xvi.  while  it  seems  to  establish  the  above  position,  will 
 bring  the  subject  before  us  home  to  Eusebius  Caesariensis  ; 
 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  aroraata  praeparaverant,  atta- 
 
 men  si  Eusebio  Ccesarieiisi  Jides  est,  non  sunt  tres  illse,  quae  orto 
 jam  sole  ad  monumentum  venerunt,  sed  aliae  innominatae. — 
 Secundum  Eusebium  igitur,  Marcus  non  de  Magdalena,  sed  de 
 aliis  incerti  nominis  mulieribus  haec  narrat.  Neque  enim  fieri 
 potest,  addit  idem,  ut  Magdalena  post  tantas  res  visas,  orto  de- 
 mum  sole,  ad  monumentum  veniret,  aut  quis  lapidem  revolveret 
 inquirer  et." 
 
 '^7  Griesb.  Nov.  Test.  not.  in  Mar.  xvi.  9.  "  Habent  peri- 
 copam  banc  Codices  GrcBci,  escepto  uno  B,  omnes ;  Evange- 
 listeria,  etiam  antiquiora,  e.  g.  1,  2,  6,  Mt.  B.  H;  VersioneSy 
 etiam  Syra  Hieros"  &c.  Id.  not.  in  Job.  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. 
 
 *^^  Bengel.  Apparat.  Crit.  var.  in  Job.  viii.  1.  p.  251.  ed 
 Burk.  "  Versio  Coptica  in  alio  cod.  habet,  in  alio  non  habet ; 
 jieque  habet  translatio  ejus  Arabica.  Versio  Syiiaca  Nov. 
 Test,  non  habet. — In  quibusdam  marmscriptis  codicibus  Syriacis 
 hroenitur,  inquit  Joh.  Gregorius,  sed  asterismo  hoc  notatur 
 ^to'U^si  »mn>«  quod  non  sit  te\tus."  Id.  ibid.  p.  252.  *'  ad 
 cap.  X.  Joh.  amandata  est  in  Vaticano  Versionis  Perslcce  Co- 
 dice  ;  ad  calcem  Evang.  Joh.  in  7ionnuUisy  et  apud  Er.  et  Pari- 
 sinis  tribus,  (quorum  duo  expresse  affirmant^  eam  in  antiquis 
 txemplarihus  ex&taie:)  et  apud  Avmenios  Cod.  duo  Seculi  X. 
 
(    247    ) 
 
 is  sufficiently  apparent  '^^  we  can  trace  the  tradition 
 in  favour  of  this  passage^  to  a  period  so  remote^  as  to 
 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  in  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  Jim  vero  Ev.  Joan,  est 
 jjositicm,  cum  notatione  in  Codd.  antiquioribus  et  melioris  notas 
 non  inveniri." 
 
 *''  Id.  ibid.  p.  251.  «'  Omittitur  etiam  in  Cod.  MS.  Ebne- 
 riano,  sed  tantummodo  a  vers.  3.  ac  sub  Jinem  Evangelii  secun- 
 dum Johannem  ita  suppletm;  et  versui  2  annectitur,  ut  Jcicile 
 appareat,  librarios  periocham,  pro  genuina  agnitam,  a  pitblica 
 iantummodo  lectione  removisse.''*  Id.  ibid.  p.  252. — *'  et  plane 
 Codices  banc  periocham  omittentes  sunt  fere  Leciionaiia :  ut 
 niirum  sit,  earn  non  in  pluribus  codicibus  omissam,  et  tamen  hodie 
 complures  de  ejus  germanitate  dubitare." 
 
 '^"  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  Job.  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  re<^pect  U 
 this  passage. 
 
(    248     ) 
 
 dent  writers'^*:  and  St.  Jerome^  in  introducing  it 
 into  the  Latin  Vulgate,  has  imphcitly  declared'"*, 
 that  it  was  found  in  the  copies  antecedent  to  their 
 revisal.  Nor  can  it  be  ascribed  to  Eusebius  Cffisa- 
 riensis;  it  does  not  occur  in  his  text  or  canons^  and 
 is  apparently  glanced  at  in  his  history,  as  entitled  to 
 little  credit '7^  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  in  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  '^^     Nor  can  it  be  as- 
 
 ^^'  Vid.  infr.  p.  250. 
 
 ^"*  Vid.  supr.  p.  161.  n."^ 
 
 ^"  Vid.  supr.  p.  38.  et  nn.  in  loc. 
 
 ^7^  Vid.  supr.  p.  100.  n.  ''■°. 
 
 '^5  Of  this  assertion  the  MSS.  marked  D.  G;  viz.  the  cele- 
 brated Cambridge  and  Harleian  Manuscripts  are  sufficient 
 vouchers :  vid.  supr.  p.  246.  n.  ^^7. 
 
 '76  Vid.  supr.  p.  37.  n.  ^K 
 
 '77  It  occurs  in  the  Codex  Corbeiensis  and  Gatlanus,  not  to 
 mention  other  MSS. :  and  these  MSS.  possess  that  similarity 
 among  themselves,  and  that  diversity  from  the  Vulgate,  which 
 proves,  that  this  passage  could  not  have  proceeded  from  St. 
 
(    249    ) 
 
 cribed  to  Philastriiis  of  Brescia,  or  Eusebius  of 
 Verceli;  for  it  does  not  occur  in  those  manu- 
 scripts '78^  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  Eastern 
 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  '^^^  who  wrote  in 
 
 Jerome.  I  subjoin  a  specimen  of  the  various  readings ;  Joli. 
 viii.  1.  pej-rexit  in  montem.  Vulg.  ascendit  in  montem.  Corb, 
 Gat. — lb.  2.  et  diluculo.  Vidg.  ct  mane  cum  factum  esset,  Corb. 
 Gat. — Ibid,  et  sedens.  Vulg.  et  cum  consedisset.  Corb.  Gat. — 
 lb.  3.  in  adulterio,  Vidg.  in  mcechatione.  Corb.  Gat.  et  statuermit, 
 Vulg.  et  cum  statuissent.  Corb.  Gat. — lb.  4.  et  dixerunt  ei.  Fuh. 
 dixerunt  ad  eum. — Ibid,  in  adulierio.  Vidg.  in  mcechatione, 
 Corb.  Gat. — lb.  5.  Moyses  mandavit  nobis  Juijusmodi  lapidare. 
 Vidg.  prcecepit  nobis  Moyses  iit  qui  in  adidterio  deprehenditur 
 lapidetur,  Corb.  Gaf» 
 
 *^^  Blanchin.  Prolegomm.  in  Evang.  Quadr.  p.  178. 
 
 '^5  Vid.  Tatian.  Harm.  ap.  Biblloth.  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- 
 cer,  from  the  concurrence  of  the  Latin  and  Arabick  translations. 
 
(    250    ) 
 
 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.  Athanasius ;  and  in  the 
 Diatessaron^  which  is  ascribed  to  Ammonius^  by 
 Victor  Capuanus  '^\  Nor  was  it  unknown  to  Euse- 
 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- 
 ino-  therefore  the  testimony  of  the  Eastern  and  West- 
 ern Churches,  as  contained  in  the  Received  Text 
 
 and  the  external  testimony  of  St.  Eplirem :  Cred.  of  Gosp.  Hist. 
 Vol.III.  p.  123— 132. 
 
 ^s^  Vid.  Synops.  Scrip,  ap.  S.  Athan.  Tom.  II.  p.  185.  e. 
 Altliough  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. 
 
 '^^  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.  IV.  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.  5i5. 
 
 *s*  Vid.  Euseb.  ut  supr.  p.  38.  n.  ^l 
 
 '^'  Vid.  S.  Ambros.  Tom.  II.  col.  892.  §  4.  ed.  Bened. 
 
 •^•^  Vid.  supr.  p.  37.  n.  ""K 
 
 *85  Vid.  supr.  p.  38.  n.  ""K 
 
 »8^  Vid.  supr.  p.  116.  n.  "\ 
 
(    251    ) 
 
 and  Version ;  as  supported  by  the  uninterrupted 
 chain  of  tradition^  and  as  expressly  avouched  by 
 St.  Jerome ;  we  must  acknowledge  this  pas- 
 sage'^^  as  a  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. 
 
 I  have  hitherto  laboured  to  no  purpose  if  it  is  not 
 admitted,  that  I  have  already  laid  a  foundation  suffi- 
 ciently broad  and  deep  for  maintaining  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 
 
 '"  I  subjoin  M.  BengePs  summary  of  the  external  testimony 
 which  supports  the  authenticity  of  Mar.  xvi.9 — 20.  Apparat. 
 Crit.  not.  in  h.  1.  p.  1 70.  "  Irenasus,  Ammonii  monotessaron, 
 Harmonia  Tatiano  adscripta,  Eusebii  Canones,  Synopsis  apud 
 Athanasium,  Ambros.  in  Luc.  xxiv.  et  Lib.  IL  de  Sp.  Sanct. 
 c.  V.  et  Lib.  I.  de  Poenit.  cap.  vii.  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  Gazaeus, 
 Anastasius  Sinaita,  Nicetas,  alii." 
 
 '"  Vid.  supr.  pp.  27—42. 
 
(    252    )       ' 
 
 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  in  the 
 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 
 
 V  are  not  more  opposed  to  the  peculiar  opinions  of 
 Eusebius,  by  whom  I  conceive  tliey  were  cancelled^ 
 than  of  the  Calholicks,  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 
 liiat  of  the  Sabeliians;  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  Ave  connect  this  circumstance 
 with  that  previously  advanced,  that  Eusebius,  the 
 avowed  adversary  of  the  Sabeliians,  expunged  these 
 
 . .  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- 
 lution of  the  question  lies  in  this  narrow  space,  that 
 he  expunged  them  from  the  text,  as  opposed  to  his 
 
(    253    ) 
 
 peculiar  opinions :  and  the  peculiar  apprehensions 
 which  were  indulged  of  Sabellianism,  l3y  the  ortho- 
 dox, prevented  them  from  restoring-  those  verses, 
 or  citing  them  in  their  controversies  with  the 
 Arians. 
 
 Thus  far  we  have  but  attained  probability,  thougli 
 clearly  of  the  highest  degree,  in  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. 
 
 UfQffix^'*  '="'  '^"'^^^'^'i — TTot^ali/-  Attendite  vobis — regere  ec 
 
 «v    rw    hy.>>'ftaiuv    t5    ©sy,    riv      clesiain  Dei,   quam   acquisivit 
 7r6pt£7rot:$c-«Io  ^iflfr  TB  ly^H  ul'[Aulo^,      sanguine  suo.      Vid<y, 
 Vulg, 
 
 1  Tim.  in.  16. 
 
 Kent  QixoXoyayAvax;  iA.eya.  er*  to  Et   manifeste   magnum  est 
 
 T^?  ivat^iiaq  i^.vrrjfK^v  Ssos  I9-  pietatis  sacramentum,  quod 
 AiiBfu/%  III  aafAj  l^iKuiuBn  h  manifestatum  est  in  carne  jus- 
 vyivi*.u\i — P'ulg,  tificatum  est  in  spiritu —  Vulg. 
 
 1  Job.  V.  7,  8. 
 "On  T^a^j  i.Vjv  0?  /AajJlygailgf, —  Quoniam  tres  sunt  qui  tes- 
 
 timonium dant  in  ccdo ;  Pater, 
 Vcrhum,  et  Sjjiritus  Sanctus : 
 et  hi  tres  unum  sunt.  Et  tres 
 sunt  qui  testimo?iium  dant  in 
 • — TO  TliEyfxa,  Koci  to  t-'oit'p,  kcc)  to  terra  :  Spiritus,  et  aqua,  et 
 alyx'  xcc»  oi  tpu?  stj  to  iv  jfViv.      sanguis :  et  hi  tres  unum  sunt. 
 
(    254    ) 
 
 As  the  Byzantine  text  thus  reads^  in  Act.  xx.  28. 
 Uyj.rKTiocu  t5  0g5,  and  in  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  0soV  H>a^ff^"^'»l  ,* 
 the  Palestine,  or  Alexandrine,  according  to  M.  Gries- 
 bachj  reads,  in  the  former  place,  ImXritrixv  tS  Ku^/W, 
 and  in  the  latter,  og  £>avs^a)^>:.  In  1  John  v.  7.  the 
 Byzantine  and  Palestine  texts  agree,  while  they 
 differ  from  the  common  reading  of  the  Latin  Vul- 
 gate;^— omitting  h   tw   a^ai/w,   o   noiTVPy   o  Aoyo?  Xp  TO 
 
 |wafTupavT£?  £1/  T>7  y^,  which  occurs  in  the  Received 
 Text  of  our  printed  editions ;  and  answers  to  ''  in 
 coelo.  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. 
 
(    255    ) 
 
 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  vv  ith  sense^  with  grammar^  or  the  uniform 
 phraseology  of  the  New  Testament. 
 
 1.  In  Acts  XX.  28,  the  phrase  lK>tXn(Tixv  rS  KypiW 
 is  unknown  to  the  language  of  the  Greek  Testa- 
 ment, and  wholly  irreconcileable  with  the  use  of 
 iV*2  oi7fj.a.Tog  for  ai(xa.Tog  aurS,  in  the  Context,  as  lead- 
 ing to  a  false  or  absurd  meaning.  The  phrase 
 UxXnTiocv  t5  ©fiS  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  0£a  is  absolutely  necessary  to 
 qualify  the  subjoined  ISU;  as  the  latter  term,  if  used 
 with  Kupi'a,  must  imply  that  our  Lord  could  have 
 purchased  the  Church  with  other  blood  than  his 
 own '9°:  which  is  apparently  absurd,  and  certainly 
 impertinent. 
 
 '^^  1  Cor.  i.  2.  X.  32.  xi.  16.  22.  xv.  9.  2  Cor.  i.  1.  Gal.  i.  13. 
 1  Thes.  ii.  14.  2  Thes.  i.  4.  1  Tim.  iii.  5.  15.  While  the  Apos- 
 tle is  thus  represented  in  the  Corrected  Text  as  deviating  from 
 his  uniform  phraseology,  the  simple  term  inyt'K'/icr'iuv,  which  is 
 used  in  at  least  twenty-two  places  by  St.  Luke,  and  in  double 
 that  number  by  St.  Paul,  would  have  answered  the  same  end 
 as  the  unusual  phrase  tKyM<^'iocv  ih  Ky^ts;  since  the  Apostle 
 might  have  said,  and  his  hi&itorian  have  written,  t'>;»  tHKX7ia^ciVf 
 
 *^^  Pears.  Expos,  of  the  Creed,  vol.  ii.  p.  1S8,  ed.  Oxf.  1797. 
 **  "ihnf  «T/A«  is  opposed  to  «Ty.«  «^^9Tpo».     And  therefore  it  is 
 
(    256     ) 
 
 2.  In  1  Tim.  iii.  16^  the  phrase  oV  l(pccvipoo3rvi  is 
 h'ttle  reconcileable  with  sense  or  grammar  *9'.  In 
 order  to  make  it  Greeks  in  the  sense  of/'  he  who 
 was  manifested/'  it  should  be  6  (px]^£pu^e\g;  but  this 
 reading'  is  rejected  by  the  universal  consent  of  ma- 
 nuscripts and  translations.  The  subjunctive  article 
 og  is  indeed  used  indefinitely ;  but  it  is  then  put  for 
 og  ^v,  Off  ixvj  ofig  ^Vy  zjotg  ofi?*'^;  as  in  this  state  it  is 
 synonymous  with  ichoever,  whosoever,  we  have 
 only  to  put  this  term  into  the  letter  of  the  text^  in 
 order  to  discover  that  it  reduces  the  reading*  of  M. 
 Griesbach  and  of  the  Palestine  Text  to  palpable 
 nonsense. 
 
 observable  the  author  of  the  Hacovlan  Catechism,  in  his  answer 
 to  this  place  of  Scripture,  doth  never  make  the  least  mention  of 
 i^iov  ov  p-oprium, — whereas  the  strength  of  our  argument  lies  in 
 these  words,  hci  t5  l^'m  uI'ijlccto^,  or,  as  the  Alexandrine  MS.  and 
 one  mentioned  by  Beza,  ^i«  t5  ul'i^uroq  t5  l^^eJ*  The  latter 
 phrase  is,  indeed,  the  more  emphatical  of  the  two,  and,  as  we 
 should  express  it,  means  *  by  blood,  his  very  blood.* 
 
 '^^  Objections  have  been  made  to  the  want  of  grammar  in 
 this  passage,  by  M.  M.  Ernesti  and  Matthasi ;  on  whose  com- 
 petency to  decide  this  point,  it  is  superfluous  to  add  an  obser- 
 vation :  vid.  Matth.  Nov.  Test.  Prsef.  in  Epistt.  Catholl.  Tom. 
 XI.  p.  xlv.  The  former  contends,  that  the  structure  of  the  sen- 
 tence requires  to  (pavspu^lv ;  doubtless  in  reference  to  fAvr^ifiov. 
 But  I  apprehend  the  tenour  of  the  sense  absolutely  requires 
 0  <pa,vs^u^s]<;.  Instances  of  this  structure  are  easily  produced 
 from  the  Old  and  New  Testament.     Sirac.  xlviii.  9.  o  dvxXrr 
 
 (p3"SiS-   iv  A«i;\a7rj  TTt/'foj  ;    Act.  i.  11.    o  oi\Oik'n<p^c\s  uip'  l^uv   elc   rlv 
 
 ^psivov :  analogous  to  which,  the  phrase  I  l^ye^ivoc,  *  he  'who  is  to 
 come,'  is  applied  to  designate  the  Messiah,  Mat.  xi.  4.  Heb. 
 X.  37. 
 
 '^^  Vid.  Mar.  iv.  25.  ix.  40,  41.  Mat.  x.  27.   Conf.  x.   14 
 i}2,  33. 
 
(    237    ) 
 
 S.  In  1  Job.  V.  7,  three  7nasculine  adjective?^ 
 r/)!K  ol  jwapTup8i/Te?,  are  forced  into  union  with  three 
 
 neuter  substantives^  to  ^vsu/^a  kx\  to  v^ojp  xal  to  aty.a  ; 
 
 a  grosser  solecism  than  can  be  ascribed  to  any  wrir 
 ter,  sacred  or  profane '9\  And  low  as  the  opinion 
 may  be  which  the  admirers  of  the  Corrected  Text 
 may  hold  of  the  purity  of  the  style  of  St.  John ;  it 
 is  a  grosser  solecism  than  they  can  fasten  on  the 
 holy  Evangelist,  who,  in  his  context,  has  made  one 
 of  these  adjectives  regularly  agree  with  its  corres- 
 pondent substantive  in  the  neuter:  ytoa  to  Trvivfioc 
 
 ffi     TO     UaOTVpaVf     OTl     TO     T3-]/lV[JI,CC     IflV     ??     OcXv^HX,       "Ot» 
 
 T/jfK  tl<riv  ol  fjt.ocpTvp'^vri^.  k.  t.  I.  There  seems  to  be 
 consequently  as  little  reason  for  tolerating  this  text 
 as  either  of  the  preceding. 
 
 From  the  alternative  to  which  the  question  has 
 been  reduced,  it  might  now  be  inferred,  that  the 
 reading  of  our  printed  editions,  which  is  supported^ 
 in  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  by  the  Greek  Vulgate,  in  1  Job. 
 V.  7.  by  the  Latin  Vulgate,  and  in  Act.  xx.  28.  by 
 both  the  Greek  and  Latin  Vulgate,  contained  the 
 
 '^^  This  objection  was  first  started  by  the  learned  Abp.  Eu- 
 genlus,  who  has  translated  "the  Georgics"  into  Greek;  and 
 ma)'^  be  seen  in  a  letter  prefixed  by  M.  Matthaei  to  his  Greek 
 Testament,  Tom.  XI.  p.  ix, — "  haud plane  consisteret,  nisi  cum 
 *ctolentia  qiiadam  dictionis,  et  per  solcecismum  patentissimum. 
 Cum  etenim  to  'irviv^A.a,  nu)  to  v^oj^  y.a)  to  aiixa.  nomina  neuirius 
 generis  sunt,  qua  ratione  concordabit  cum  iis  quod  iramediats 
 proecedit;  r^tTq  ilaiv  ol  ixa^nv^^vTsc,  et  quod  illico  sequitur,  y.ai 
 hroi  ol   TfeTq  X.  T.  \, — Sed  nonne  quaeso  dictio  naturalis  hin  et 
 
 propria  potius  esset ;  Tp»a  elo-i  ra.  Liaprvftina,  Iv  tv)  yriy  to  'tdiivja.x, 
 TO  v^u^j  y.oit  TO  al^^ta*  hxI  T«  Tfia,  ek  to  eh  thtv  ;    At  illud  tamen  CSt 
 
 scriptum  non  hoc." 
 
 S 
 
(    258    ) 
 
 genuine  text  of  Scripture.  As  the  reading  of  those 
 passages,  however,  admits  of  more  than  a  negative 
 defence;  I  proceed  to  examine  how  far  this  testi- 
 mony of  the  Eastern  and  Western  Churches  is  con- 
 firmed by  the  internal  evidence  of  the  original.  An 
 admirable  rule  is  laiddown  by  M.  Griesbach*'*  for 
 determining,  between  two  readings,  which  is  the 
 genuine  :  I  am  wholly  mistaken,  or  it  may  be  shewn, 
 that  every  mark  of  authenticity,  which  he  has  point- 
 ed out,  will  be  found  to  exist  in  those  readings  which 
 he  has  rejected  as  spurious. 
 
 Directing  our  attention,  in  the  first  place,  to  the 
 -structure  of  the  phrase,  the  tenour  of  the  sense  and 
 language  as  fully  declares  for  the  received  reading, 
 as  against  the  corrected. 
 
 1.  In  Act.  XX.  28.  the  apostolical  phrase,  UxXnaix 
 T»  0e5,  is  not  only  preserved,  but  its  full  force  con- 
 sequently assigned  to  the  epithet  Wa.  This  term, 
 as  used  by  the  apostle,  has  an  exclusive  and  empha- 
 tical  force;  an  exclusive,  in  limiting  the  sense  to 
 ''  God,"  the  subject  of  the  assertion; — an  empha- 
 tical,  in  evincing  the  apostle's  earnestness,  in  using 
 so  extraordinary  an  expression.  '  Peed  the  Church 
 of  God,  which  he  purchased  with  no  other  blood 
 
 '^■^  Griesb.  Proleg.  Sect.  III.  p.  lix.  Insita  sua  bonitate 
 commendatur  lectio,  quae  vel  auctoris  cogitandi  sentiendique 
 modo,  Ktylo,  scopo,  ca^terisque  wsptraa-io-*  sive  exegeticis,  ut 
 conte?Ltui,  adjunctis,  oppositis,  &c.  sive  historicis  omnium  con- 
 venientissima,  vel  ita  comparata  est,  ut  ea,  velut  primitiva, 
 posita  facile  iritelligi  queat,  quomodo  caeterae  lectiones  omnes — 
 sive  librariorum  errore — aut  criticorum  inepta  sedulitate,  pro- 
 genitae  ex  ilia  fuerint. 
 
(    259    ) 
 
 than  his  own/  is  the  literal  meaning  of  the 
 phrase '5^;  and  this  meaning  is  not  more  clearly 
 expressed^  than  we  shall  see  it  was  required  by  the 
 object  of  the  apostle^  in  writing. 
 
 2.  In  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  there  can  be  little  doubt  that 
 the  "  Great  Mystery/'  of  which  the  apostle  speaks, 
 and  that  whereby  some  one  ''  was  manifested  in  the 
 flesh,"  must  be  the  Incarnation.  If  we  take  the  ac- 
 count given  of  this  ''  mystery'*  in  John  i.  1.  14.  it 
 marks  out  ''  God"  as  the  divine  person  who  "  was 
 manifested/*  And,  putting  this  term  into  the  letter 
 of  the  text,  it  renders  the  apostle's  explanation  an- 
 swerable to  his  purpose,  and  to  the  solemn  mode  of 
 his  enunciation.  For,  as  the  manifestation  of  no 
 person,  but  the  incomprehensible  and  divine,  can 
 be  a  mystery,  any  "  manifestation"  of  ''  God/'  as 
 ^'  in  the  flesh,"  must  be  a  "  Great  Mystery"  '^^. 
 So  far,  the  apostle's  phrase  is  as  just  as  it  is  sen- 
 tentious. 
 
 ?.  In  1  John  v.  7.  the  manifest  rent  in  the  Cor-, 
 rected  Text,  which  appears  from  the  solecism  in 
 
 '«>'  It  was  not  merely  possible,  but  it  was  only  probable,  that 
 "  God**  would  "  purchase  the  Church"  with  other  "  blood" 
 than  "  his  oivn :"  but  it  was  wholly  inconceivable,  that  our 
 *  Lord*  could  have  purchased  it  with  any  other  "  blood,"  but 
 **  his  own."  On  the  possibility  implied  in  the  former  consi- 
 deration rests  the  propriety  of  using  '/^»05 ;  which  differs  from 
 avToCf  in  having  that  exclusive  force  which  is  solely  implied  in 
 the  antecedent  of  those  different  considerations. 
 
 _^^^  S.  Iren.  adv.  Hser.  Lib.  III.  cap.  xvi.  §  6.  p.  206 et 
 
 kominem  ergo  [Dominus  noster]  in  semetipsum  recapitulans  est, 
 mvisibilis  visibilis  factus,  et  incornpreltemibilis  f actus  compreheri' 
 iibilis,  et  impassibilis  passibilis,  et  Verbum  homo/*  &c. 
 
 s2 
 
(    260    ) 
 
 tlic  language,  is  filled  up  in  the  Received  Text; 
 and  0  nxT)io  Kx\  0  Aoyo;y  being  inserted^  the  mascu- 
 line adjectives^  r^ug  ol  (Ax^Tvphngy  are  ascribed  suit- 
 able substantives;  and^  by  the  figure  attraction, 
 which  is  so  prevalent  in  Greeks  every  objection  is 
 removed  to  the  structure  of  the  context.  Nor  is 
 there  thus  a  necessary  emendation  made  in  the  apos- 
 tle's language  ialone,  but  in  his  meaning.  St.  John 
 is  here  expressly  summing  up  the  divine  and  human 
 testimony,  '^  the  witness  of  God  and  man '9^;"  and 
 he  has  else^vherc  formally  enumerated  the  heavenly 
 witnesses,  as  they  occur  inr  the  disputed  passage. 
 In  his  Gospel  be  thus  explicitly  declares,  ''  I  am 
 one  that  bear  witness  of  myself,  and  the  Father 
 that  sent  me  beareth  icilness  of  me :  and  when  the 
 Comforter  is  come^  even  the  Spirit  of  truth,  he  shall 
 testify  of  me  ^^^."  And  yet,  in  his  Epistle,  where 
 he  is  expressly  summing  up  the  testimony  in  favour 
 of  Jesus,  we  are  given  to  understand,  that  he  passes 
 at  least  tv»'o  of  these  heavenly  witnesses  by,  to  insist 
 on  three  earthly ;  which  Imve  brought  the  suppress- 
 ed witnesses  to  the  remembrance  of  almost  every 
 other  person,  who  has  read  the  passage,  for  the  last 
 sixteen  centuries'.  Nay  more,  he  omits  them  in 
 such  a  manner  as  to  create  a  gross  solecism  in  his 
 language,  which  is  ultimately  removed  by  the  ac- 
 cidental insertion,  as  we  are  taught,  of  those  wit* 
 nesses,  from  a  note  in  his  margin.  Nor  is  this  all; 
 but  this  solecism  is  corrected,  and  the  oversi^-ht  of 
 
 *5'    1  Job.  V.  9.  * 
 
 »'5  Job.  via.  18.  xv.  26. 
 
(    261    ) 
 
 the  Apostle  remedied^  by  the  accidental  insertion  of 
 the  disputed  passage^  from  the  margin  of  a  iranS' 
 lation  :  the  sense  of  which^  we  are  told,  it  embar- 
 rasses,, while  it  contributes  nothing-  to  amend  the 
 grammatical  structure '^"^l  Of  all  the  omissions 
 which  have  been  mentioned  respecting  this  verse^ 
 I  call  upon  the  impugners  of  its  authenticity  to  spe> 
 cify  one,  half  so  extraordinary  as  the  present  ?  Of 
 all  the  improbabilities  wliich  the  controversy  re- 
 specting it  has  assumed  as  true,  I  challenge  the 
 upholders  of  the  Corrected  Text,  to  name  one, 
 which  is  not  admissible  as  truth,  when  set  in  com- 
 petition with  so  flagrant  an  improbability  as  the  last. 
 Yet,  on  the  assumption  of  this  extravagant  impro- 
 bability, as  matter  of  fact,  must  every  attack,  on  the 
 authenticity  of  this  verse,  be  built,  as  its  very  foun- 
 dation ! 
 
 Prom  viewing  the  internal  evidence  of  the  dis- 
 puted texts,  let  us  next  consider  the  circumstances 
 under  which  they  were  delivered ;  and  here,  I  am 
 wliolly  deceived,  or  the  investigation  will  lead  to  the 
 ultimate  establishment  of  the  same  conclusion. 
 
 It  is  of  the  last  importance  in  deciding  the  pre- 
 sent question,  to  ascertain  the  subject  which  was 
 before  the  apostles,  in  delivering  themselves  on  the 
 occasion  before  us.     Some  light  arises  to  direct  us 
 
 ^^^  Though  the  reading  of  the  Greek  Vulgate,  r^cIV  eiVtv  ol 
 fta^Tt/pSi'Tcf,  TO  Ti'jivy.'x.  ^  TO  voojq^  v^  to  ou^a.,  is  not  to  be  tole- 
 rated;  the  reading  of  the  Latin  Vulgate,  (from  whence  it  is 
 asserted  1  Joh.  v.  7.  has  crept  into  the  Greek  texty)  is  grammati- 
 cally correct;  <'  tr^s  sunt  qui  testimonium  dant,  spirliusy  aqua^ 
 .Qt  sanguis,^* 
 
(    263    ) 
 
 in  this  enquiry,  from  the  consideration,  that  the 
 words  of  both  apostles  were  addressed  to  the  Church 
 at  Ephesus;  in  which  the  Gnostick  heresy  had 
 made  some  progress  before  the  close  of  St.  John's 
 ministry.  With  respect  to  St.  Paul,  the  point  is 
 directly  apparent.  Acts  xx.  28.  occurs  in  the  ex- 
 hortation delivered  to  the  bishops  and  presbyters 
 assembled  in  that  city*°°:  and  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  occurs 
 in  the  Epistle  addressed  to  Timothy,  who  was  resi- 
 dent in  the  same  place  *°',  and  was,  for  some  time 
 subsequent,  bishop  of  Ephesus****.  With  respect 
 to  St.  John,  the  matter  before  us  is  not  involved  in 
 greater  difficulty.  His  Epistle  was  written  towards 
 the  elose  of  his  life,  which  was  ended  at  Ephe- 
 sus ***' ;  in  which  city  he  had  an  interview  with  Ce- 
 rinthus,  the  leader  of  the  Gnostick  heresy  "^,  against 
 whom  it  was  partly  directed  "5. 
 
 It  is  further  deserving  of  remark,  that  both  apos- 
 tles are  expressly  engaged  on  the  subject  of  those 
 early  heresies,  with  which  the  Church  of  Ephesus 
 was  menaced,  if  not  infected.  With  regard  to  St, 
 Paul,  the  context  of  the  passages  before  us  puts  the 
 matter  out  of  dispute.     ''  Feed  the  Church  of  God,'* 
 
 *°°  Comp.  Act.  XX.  17.  28. 
 
 "'^  Vid.  1  Tim.  i.  3. 
 
 ^°*  Vid.  supr.  p.  113.  n.  9. 
 
 ^^  Vid.supr.p.  231.n. ''". 
 
 *°*  S.  Iren.  Lib.  III.  cap.  iii.  p.  177.     Ka*   jtV;\  o»  uanHoom 
 
 K.  T.   £, 
 
 ^•5  Vid.  supr.  p,  243.  n.  *". 
 
(    263    ) 
 
 he  declares  to  the  Ephesian  pastors,  ''  which  he  has 
 purchased  with  his  own  blood.     For  /  know  this, 
 that  after  my  departing,  shall  grievous  loolves  enter 
 in  among  you,  not  sparing-  the  flock.     Also  of  your 
 own    selves    shall  men  arise  speaking  perverse 
 things,   to    draw  away  disciples  after    them'^''^/* 
 To  the  same  purpose  he  delivers  himself  in  his 
 Epistle  to   Timothy;    ''  And  without  controversy 
 great  is  the  Mystery  of  Godliness ;  God  was  mani- 
 fested in  the  flesh,  justified  in  the  Spirit^  seen  of 
 angels,  preached  unto  the  Gentiles,  believed  on  in 
 the  world,  received  up  into  glory.     Now  the  Spirit 
 speaketh  expressly,  that  in  the  latter  times,  some 
 shall  depart  from  the  faith,  giving-  heed  to  sedu- 
 cing spirits,  and  doctrines   of  devils '•°\"      The 
 early  tradition  of  the  Church  *°^  confirmed  by  the 
 internal  evidence  of  St.  John's  Epistle,  fully  justi- 
 fies our  forming  a  like  conclusion  with  respect  to  it, 
 and  the  Epistle  to  Timothy,  to  which  it  appears  to 
 allude.     ''  Little  children,'^  declares  the  Evange- 
 hst,  ''  it  is  the  last  time,  and  as  ye  have  heard,  that 
 Antichrist  shall  come,  even  now  are  there  many  anti- 
 christs.    They  went  out  from  us,  but  they  were  not 
 
 ^  Act.  XX.  28,  29,  30. 
 
 *°^  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  iv.  1. 
 
 *^^  S.  Hieron.  in  Mat.  Prooem.  ad  Eus.  Crem.  Tom.  VI.  p.  xi. 
 Ultimus  Joannes  apostolus  et  evangelista— cum  esset  in  Asia, 
 et  jam  tunc  haereticorum  semina  pullularent,  Cerinti,  Ehionisy 
 et  ccBterorum,  qui  negant  Christum  in  carve  venisse  :  quos  et  ipse 
 tn  Epistola  sua  Antichristos  vocat,  et  apostolus  Paulus  frcguenf 
 ier  percutit;  coactus  est  ab  omnibus  paene  tunc  Asiae  episcopis, 
 et  multorum  legationibus,  de  Divinitate  Salvatoris  altius  sen- 
 iere,  &c. 
 
i    264    ) 
 
 of  us. — Who  is  a  liar,  but  he  that  denieth  that  Jesus 
 is  the  Christ.  He  is  antichrist  that  denieth  the  Fa- 
 ther a7id  the  Son. — Beloved,  believe  not  every 
 spirit,  but  try  the  spirits,  whether  they  are  of  God : 
 because  many  false  prophets  are  gone  out  into  the 
 ivorld.  Hereby  know  ye  the  Spirit  of  God  :  every 
 Spirit  that  confesseth  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  thejiesh 
 is  of  God;  and  every  spirit  that  confesseth  not  that 
 Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  thejiesh  is  not  of  God :  and 
 this  is  that  spirit  of  Antichrist. — Whosoever  shall 
 confess  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  Godj  God  dwelleth 
 in  him,  and  he  in  God^°9/' 
 
 In  order  to  determine  the  question  before  us,  it  is 
 still  necessary  that  we  should  acquire  a  precise 
 knowledge  of  the  fundamental  tenets  of  those  here- 
 ticks,  whom  the  apostles  opposed.  St.  John  has 
 very  expressly  declared,  that  they  ''  denied  the 
 Father  and  the  Son  ;"  having  disputed  that  *^' Jesus 
 was  the  Son  of  God,"  and  that  ''  he  was  come  in 
 the  flesh."  With  this  representation,  exactly  ac- 
 cords the  account  which  we  receive  of  the  tenets  of 
 the  Nicoiaitans  and  Cerinthians ;  those  hereticks 
 whom  the  apostles  expressly  opposed*'''.  They 
 ■'  denied  the  Father,''  not  merely  disputing*  his  pa- 
 ternity, in  denying  his  only -begotten  Son^''^  but 
 
 '"^  1  Job.  ii.  18,  19,  Si2.  iv.  1,  2,  S.  15. 
 
 '-••°  Vid.  supr.  p.  243.  n.  '^^  p.  263.  n.  *"^8. 
 
 ""  S.  Iren.  adv.  Haer.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xi.  p.  188. — *'  Joannes 
 Domini  discipulus,  volens  per  Evangelii  annunciationem  auferre 
 eum  qui  a  Cerintho  inseminatus  erat  bominibus,  crrorem,  et 
 multo  prius  ab  bis  qui  dicuntur  Nicolaitcc, — ut  confunueret  eos, 
 et  suaderet,  quoniam  unus  Deus  qui  omnia  fecit  per  Verbuni 
 
(    263    ) 
 
 representing  him  as  a  being  who  was  removed  from 
 the  care  and  consideration  of  earthly  things ;  who 
 had  permitted  the  creation  of  the  world  hy  beings 
 of  an  inferiour  and  angelical  nature^  and  had  con- 
 signed it  to  their  superintendence*'*.  They  ''^de- 
 nied the  Son/'  as  disallowing  his  eternal  filia- 
 tion *''^  and  degrading  him  into  the  order  of  secon- 
 dary  and  angelical  existences ''^      Thus  far  the 
 
 suum ;  et  non,  quemadmodum  illi  dicunt,  alterum  qmdem 
 Jhbricatorem,  alium  aittem  Patrem  Domini;  et  alium  qiiidem 
 Jabricatoris   Filiiim,   alterum  vero   de  suijerioribus   Christum,'* 
 
 &c, 
 
 ^'^  Id.  ibid.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xxvi.  p.  105.  **  Et  Cerlnthus  autem 
 quidem-in  Asia,  7ioii  a  primo  Deo  Jactiim  esse  mundum  docuit, 
 sed  a  Virtute  quadem  valde  separata  et  distante  ab  ea  Princi- 
 palitate,  qua)  est  super  universa,  et  ignorante  eum  qui  est 
 super  omnia  Deum,"  Conf.  supr,  n.  ^".  S.  Epiphan.  Ha:r. 
 XXVIII.  p.  110.  c. 
 
 *'^  Vid.  supr.  n.  ^". 
 
 ^'*  S.  Iren.  ibid.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xi.  p.  18S. — quemadmodum  illi 
 dicunt — initium  quidem  esseMonogeni:  Logon  autem  vcrumfilium 
 Unigeniti."  On  the  former  passage  the  incomparable  Bp.  Bull 
 observes,  Defens.  Fid.  Nicsen.  Sect.  IIL  cap.  i.  §  8.  p.  160.  ed. 
 Lond.  1721.  "Denique  utrique  [Cerinthiani  et  Valentiniani]  'pe- 
 rinde  tS  Adyn  ccternltalem  negarunt. — De  Cerinthianis  diserte  hie 
 testatur,  quod  initium  tribuerunt  ipsi  Monogeni,  quern  Logi  patrem 
 dixerunt."  The  learned  Benedictine  P-Massuet  formed  the  same 
 conclusion,  from  a  comparative  view  of  the  passages  relative  to 
 those  antienthereticks ;  Dissert.  Pra^v.  in  S.  Iren.  p.  Ixv.  ^  127. 
 **  Eadem  fere  Cerinthi,  qua2  Simonis  Menandri,  et  aliorum 
 Gnosticorum  somnia  fuere,"  Id.  ibid.  p.  Ixvii.  §  133.  "  Dog- 
 mata NicoIaUarum  theoretica  recensere  supervacaneum  duxit 
 Irena^us :  eadem  quippe  fuisse  quae  cd'terormn  Cxnosticorum  per- 
 epicue  innuit,  Lib.  III.  cap.  xi."  Id.  ibid.  p.  xxxix.  *«  Logos 
 proinde  Angelus  erat,  qui  Dei  mentis  veluti  verbum  ac  interpres 
 
(    266    ) 
 
 Nicolaitans  and  Cerinthians  agreed.  They  agreed 
 also  in  ''  denying  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ;'' 
 though  they  maintained  this  doctrine  under  different 
 modifications.  The  Cerinthians,  dividing  the  per- 
 son of  Jesus  Christ,  considered  Jesus  a  mere  vian, 
 born  in  the  natural  manner  from  Joseph  and 
 Mary*'^;  but  mystically  united  with  the  angelical 
 being  Christ,  wlio  descended  upon  him  at  the  time 
 of  his  baptism  *'^.  This,  union,  they  conceived,  was 
 dissolved  at  the  time  of  the  crucifixion;  the  man 
 Jesus  having  suffered  on  the  cross,  while  the  impas- 
 sible Christ  ascended  into  the  heavens  ^'^.  The 
 Nicolaitans  "  denying  that  Jesus  loas  come  in  the 
 j^es/i,'*  considered  Jesus  Christ  a  mere  phantasm, 
 having  a  form  which  resembled  flesh,  but  which 
 consisted  of  an  ethereal  essence  **^     At  the  time  of 
 
 oracula  divlna  caeteris  pandebat,  ac  per  eos,  per  Salvatorem 
 maxime,  hominibus  manifestari  curabat.'*  Conf.  ibid.  p.  Iv.  J 
 100.    S.  Iren.  Lib.  I.  cap.  ii.  p.  13.  n.  e. 
 
 *"  S.  Iren.  ibid.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xi.  p.  188.  *'  Jesum  autem 
 subjecit  [Cerinthus]  non  ex  virgine  natum ;  impossibile  enim 
 hoc  ei  visum  est :  Juisse  autem  eum  Josephi  et  Marict  jilium^ 
 similiter  nt  reliqui  omnes  homities,'*  Conf.  S.  Epiphan.  Haer. 
 XXVIII.  p.  110. 
 
 **^  S.  Iren.  ibid.  "  Et  post  baptismum  descendisse  in  eum 
 ab  ea  Principalitate  quae  est  super  omnia  Christum,  figura  co- 
 lumbae.*' — Conf.  S.  Epiplian.  ibid. 
 
 ^^^  S.  Iren.  ibid.  "In  fine  autem  revolasse  iteriim  Christum 
 de  Jesu,  et  Jesum  passum  esse,  et  resiirrexisse:  Christum  autem 
 impassibilem  perseverasse,  existentem  spiritalera." 
 
 *^^  Of  the  tenets  of  the  Nicolaitans  we  have  no  specifick  ac- 
 count, as  this  heresy  was  soon  lost,  and  involved  in  the  great 
 sect  of  the  Gnosticks ;  vid.  supr.  p.  265.  n.  ^'*.  Conf.  S.  Epi- 
 phan. Haer.  xxv.  p.  77.  a.     We  may  therefore  take  our  notions 
 
(    267    ) 
 the  crucifixion,  they  held,  that  he  secretly  with- 
 drew himself,  while  Simon  the  Cyrenean  suffered 
 in  his  likeness  *'^ 
 
 While  these  hereticks  thus  denied  the  Divinity, 
 and  rendered  void  the  Incarnation  and  Redemption 
 of  Christ,  they  seemed  not  to  have  erred  so  grossly 
 on  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  As  they  were  re- 
 spectively descended  from  the  Jews"°,  though  their 
 notions  were  warped  by  the  peculiar  opinions  of 
 Simon  Magus"*,  they  must  have  derived  from  both 
 
 of  their  opinions  from  the  Saturnilians  and  Basilidians,  who 
 were  among  the  earliest  sects  of  the  Gnosticks,  and,  like 
 the  Nicolaitans,  arose  at  Antioch ;  conf.  Act.  vi.  5.  S.  Iren. 
 Lib.  I.  cap.  xxvi.  §  3.  p.  105.  cap.  xxiv.  §  1.  p.  lOQ.  Respect- 
 ing the  putative  body  of  Christ,  from  asserting  which,  they  re- 
 ceived the  name  of  Docetae,  they  held  the  following  notions, 
 S.  Iren.  ibid.  §  4.  p.  101.  '*  Innatum  autem  et  innominatum 
 Patrem. — misisse  primogenitum  Nun  suum,  (et  hunc  esse  qui 
 dicitur  Christus,)  in  libertatem  credentium  ei,  a  potestate  eorum 
 qui  mundum  fabricaverunt.  Et  gentibus  ipsorum  autem  appa^ 
 ruisse  eum  in  terra  hornmem^  et  virtutes  perfecisse." 
 
 S.  Iren.  ibid.  "  Quapropter  neque  passum  eum  [Chris- 
 tum], sed  Simonem  quemdam  CyrencBum  angariatum  portasse 
 crucem  ejus,  pro  eo :  et  hum  secundum  ignorantiam  et  errorem 
 cruclfixiimy  transfigurahim  ah  eo,  uti  putaretur  ipse  esse  Jesus : 
 et  ipsum  autem  Jesum  Simonis  accepisse  formam,  et  stantein 
 irrisisse  eos," 
 
 ""^  S.  Epiphan.  Haer.  xxv.  p.  76.  b.     l<[iy(.oXo^Qs  yiyoviv  sT?  iw» 
 
 ylvcToci,     Id.  Indie,  in  tom.  ii.  lib.  i.  p.  53.  c.     Kvp^vBiccol  of  «} 
 
 al'^trt^.    •/..  T.  I. 
 
 "'  S.  Iren.  ibid.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xxiii.  §  %  p.  99.  "  Simon 
 autem  Samaritanus,  ex  quo  universce  hcereses  substiterunt,  habet 
 hujusmodi  sectac  materiam."     Id.  ibid.  Prsef.  in  Lib.  II.  J  L 
 
(    268    ) 
 
 sources  some  knowledge  of  this  mystick  doctrine"*. 
 Hence  it  is  of  importance  to  observe^  that  the  Jews 
 
 p.  115.  "  Diximus  quoque  multitudinem  eormn  qui  sunt  ah  eo 
 Gnostici,  et  differentias  norum,  et  dcctrinas,  et  successiones 
 adnotavimus ;  quaeque  ab  eis  ha^reses  institutae  sunt,  omnes  ex- 
 posuimus.  Et  quoniam  omnes  a  Simone  hceretici  initia  siimentes 
 iinpia  et  irreligiosa  dogmata  induxerunt  in  hanc  vitam,  osten- 
 dimus. 
 
 "*  The  whole  of  the  early  heresies  may  be  divided  into  twcy 
 great  sects,  which  were  respectively  descended  from  the  Jews 
 and  Magians ;  Vid.  Pears.  Vind.  Ignat.  P.  II.  cap.  v.  p.  359. 
 From  both  sources,  these  different  sects  must  have  inherited  a 
 knowledge  of  the  Trinity.  Aliix,  Judgm.  of  Jew.  Church  ag. 
 Unitar.  ch.  i.  p.  6.  "  I  shall  prove  clearly,  that  the  Jetvs  before 
 Christ's  tirae,  according  to  the  received  exposition  of  the  Old 
 Testament  derived  from  their  fathers,  had  a  notion  of  a  plura' 
 lity  qfperso7is  in  the  unit}'  of  the  Divine  Essence ;  and  that  thU 
 2)luraUtij  uasa  Trinity."  Comp.  ch.  x.  pp.  138.  147,  148.  154. 
 &c.     Pletho  Schol.  in  Orac.  JMag.  sub  fin.     <i>rta)  ^\  trtfi  Zupoarps 
 
 TJKarccp^o;  w?  Tpp(,'/3  t«  oi/r»  etEAot*  zcci  rvt  fj^Bv  TT^ujTr)  ctvTuv  /zotpx 
 ^€lcou.a.t,r,v  I'^iTvy'  tStov  o\  thoci  tov  vTro  Tuv  Xoy'iuv  Yiccricoc  y.otT^suivav'' 
 TYi  Qi  zax'^Tft  'ApiixccvTji'  Mi^p'/)v  ^i  ryj  (xscry'  >^  tStov  (5''  uv  e'ivan 
 rov   hvTifov  N2v    y.a.7'>iiyLivov  Itto   ruv  T^cyiaiv'   n.  t.  e.       This  aCCOUnt  is 
 
 confirmed  by  the  Zendavesta,  v/hicli  is  preserved  by  the  Per- 
 sees  ;  who  still  profess  the  religion  of  Zoroaster,  and  assert  that 
 they  retain  his  sacred  books :  M.  Anquet.  du  Perron,  Zendavest. 
 Tom.  II.  Precis  Raisonnce  du  Syst.  Theol.  des  Pers.  p.  592. 
 *'  Ormiisd  et  AhrimaUf  Principes  secondaires,  actifs  et  produc- 
 teurs  ;  le  premier  bon  par  son  essence,  et  source  de  tout  bien  ; 
 le  seconde  corrompu  et  auteur  de  tout  niai,"  &c.  Id.  ibid.  p. 
 609.  d. — c'est  Mithra,  le  genie  qui  preside  a  la  fertilite  de  la 
 terre,  PIzed  de  la  bienveiliance,  Pennemi  de  la  Couleuvre  qui 
 eeme  I'envie  et  la  mort ;  c'est  lui  qui  est  charge  de  faire  naitre 
 et  de  entretenir  cette  harmonic  entre  les  diffcrentes  parties  du 
 Genre-humain.'*  In  a  word,  this  doctrine  was  professed  by 
 Simon  Magus,  from  whom  it  descended  to  the  different  sects 
 of  hereticks;  vid.  supr.  p.  267.  n.  "'.     S.  Iren.  adv.  Ha?r.  Lib. 
 
(    269    ) 
 
 expressed  their  belief  in  this  doctrine,  in  the  iden- 
 tical terms,  which  occur  in  the  suspected  passage , • 
 ^' and  the  three  are  one^*^''  It  is  likewise  observ- 
 able, that  as  these  notions  had  descended  to  the 
 hereticks;  the  Nicolaitans,  in  particular,  expressed 
 
 J.  cap.  xxiii.  ^  1.  p.  99.  *'  Hie  [Simon]  a  multis  quasi  deus 
 glorificatus  est,  et  dociiit  semetipsum  esse  qui  inter  Judaeos  qui- 
 dem  quasi  Filius  adparuerit,  in  Samaria  autem  quasi  Pater 
 descenderit,  et  in  reliquis  vero  gentibus  quasi  Spiiitus  Sanctus 
 adventaverit."  Conf.  S.  Hier.  Comment,  in  Matt.  xxiv.  Tom. 
 Vr.  p.  52.  f. 
 
 *^^  That  the  term  Aoyo?,  adopted  by  St.  John  in  the  passage 
 before  us,  had  been  previously  used  by  the  Jews  in  the  deter- 
 minate sense  of  '»  t^^DD,  the  Word  of  God,  as  distinct  from 
 the  speech  of  God,  is  placed  beyond  a  doubt  by  Rittangelius, 
 Lib.  Jezir.  p.  81.  sqq.  ed  Amst.  1642.  In  this  work,  which  is 
 ascribed  to  Abraham,  by  the  Jews,  and  is  confessedly  the  oldest 
 of  their  Cabalistick  works,  we  meet,  Ibid,  Sect.  iii.  p.  207. 
 nn«  ii^Vtr,  "  the  three  are  07ie."  And  in  the  same  work,  a  long 
 extract  is  inserted  from  Rabi  Schabte,  wherein  he  explains  the 
 mystery  of  the  Three  Sephiroth,  in  the  divine  *  Nature,'  which 
 turns  on  the  same  phrase ;  Id.  ibid.  p.  63.  iDi — njni  >nntr^  'i. 
 *'  Rabi  Shabte  dicit :  Et  ecce  nobis  perspicuum  est  id  quod 
 explicavimus  in  capitibus  superioribus,  Mysterium  nempe,  quod 
 dixerint  Sapientes  Cabalee  seu  Theologian,  T7'es  primarias,  quae; 
 sunt  Corona  Summa,  Sapientia,  Intelligentia,  in.  a:quali  dignitate 
 quasi  sumrae  Vnum  quid  esse.*'  In  the  preceding  page,  the 
 same  phrase  is  ascribed  to  Rabi  Simeon,  ibid.  p.  64. — 
 nn«  in'«  «ti  jnn«  nl>n,  "  tres  sunt  unitates  et  ecce  umim 
 zunt,"*  The  very  form  of  appeal  to  the  witnesses  in  St.  John, 
 is  adopted  from  the  same  source  ;  the  book  Zohar  observes,  in 
 referring  to  the  repetition  of  the  letter  Jod,  in  Is.  xliv.  6.  Id.  ib. 
 p.  57.  131  pTi^D  ]m»  n^n,  "  Tria  Jod  testimonium  perhibeni 
 dc  60,  quod  non  sit  supra  prseter  eum,  nee  infra  proeter  eura,*' 
 S:c.  Comp.  Allix.  ub.  su.pr.  cap.  xi.  p.  160.  sqq.  Maur,  Orient. 
 Tiin.  p.  199.  ?qq. 
 
(    270    ) 
 the  same  belief  in  similar  language **^     And  the 
 
 ^^  S.  Epiphan.  Haer.  xxv.  p.  78.  c.  uXMi  ^\  tov  yLOLvXoiv%oiv% 
 Itau-jTui  ^o|a^acrn',  "A^xovra  Tiva  t«tov  ^jtw  xaXavTer.  S.  Epi- 
 phanius  having  made  this  declaration  relative  to  the  term 
 x.(iv'Kocv%av%y  gives  the  following  derivation  of  this  term,  which 
 is  whollj  irreconcilable  with  the  above  declaration ;  Id.  ibid. 
 p.  78.  a.  a^^a  xa*  in^)  T»  y.a.v'kav'/jxvy^y  ri?  rm  yivcjo-Konuv  » 
 xuraytXoiasiiVy  oVt  ra^  'E^pai'r*  xa?vw?  il^-n^ivoc^  ^e'let?}  >J;  EX^ijvJf* 
 xaXw?  lo^ijvEySsiyag,  «^  vt/v  vrapa  Tor?    EX^»3>»r»    avayivo/crxso'*   (^xn^cc 
 
 T«?  otl(7^^»g  oivruv  t^  fAvBu^aq  Te^vriq  vvoff9roc(x,».  }LocvXav^oiv%  yetf 
 It  Tat  Haoiiot  yiy^wifloci^  ?»./^»?  rij  kax  \v  rjj  ^w^sxarrj  ofocatiy  e'vSa 
 ?i£7£f — ytav'Kay.uvy.    y.(x,v\a.y.ciy.,   i.'K'Tr)q    vie     \7^ir';\,      PetaviuS,   not.  in 
 
 b.  I.  Tom.  II.  p.  44.  and  Feverdantius  not.  in  S.  Iren.  Lib.  I. 
 cap.  xxiii.  p.  72.  refer  here  to  Isiah  xxviii.  10.  Tp^  "Jp  lp^  "ip, 
 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- 
 nseus,  Lib.  I.  cap.  xxiv.  p.  102.  ascribes  it  to  an  JEon,  and 
 Theodoret  to  a  Person  ;  Haer.  Fab.  Lib.  I.  cap.  iv.  p.  195.  d. 
 which  different  representations  are  perfectly  reconcilable  among 
 themselves,  though  wholly  irreconcilable  with  the  St.  Ej^ipha- 
 nius's  derivation.  The  'Ap^i^^,  'A\uiv,  and  S6;t^^,  Avith  which 
 K.a.vKci,vyjxvx  is  identified  in  these  explanations,  were  considered 
 Angelical  Existences :  vid.  Massuet.  Dissert.  Praev.  in  Iren.  p. 
 xxxviii.  §  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.  Prasv.  in  Iren.  §  V2,  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.  Archaeol. 
 Philos.  Lib.  I.  cap.  vii.  p.  89.  Lond.  1728.  Comp.  Yajur 
 Veda  in  Asiat.  Research.  Vol.  VII.  p.  251.  and  Maur.  Orient. 
 Trin.  pp.  c537.  388.  We  thus  find  the  name  Caulaucau  applied 
 to  the  iEon,  in  whose  form  the  second  Christ,  or  the  Saviour. 
 
>(    271    ) 
 
 Hebrew  Gospel,    which  was   used  by  the   Ebio- 
 
 descended ;  S.  Iren.  ib.  cap.  xxiii*.  §  5.  p.  102.  Quemadmo- 
 dum  et  mundus  [1.  mundi]  nomen  (^sse)  in  quo  dicunt  descent 
 disse  et  ascendisse  Salvatorem,  esse  Caulacau,  Igitur  qui  haec 
 didicerit,  et  omnes  angelos  cognoverit,  et  causas  eorum,  invisi- 
 bilem  et  incomprehensibilem  eum  angelis  et  potestatibus  oni- 
 vcrsis  fieri,  quemadmodum  et  Caulaucau  Jkisse.''*  The  applica- 
 tion of  this  term  to  the  Saviour,  or  second  Christ,  is  thus  ex- 
 plained by  S.  Irenaeus,  Ibid.  Lib.  III.  cap.  xvi.  §  1.  p.  204-. 
 **  Qui  autem  a  Valentino  sunt  [dicunt]  Jesum — ipsum  esse  qui 
 per  Mariam  transient,  in  quem,  illiimy  de  Superiori,  Sahatore'/n 
 descendisse,  quem  et  Christum  dici,  quoniam  omnium  qui  emi^ 
 sissent  eum,  haberet  vocabula :  participasse  autem  cum  eo,  qui 
 esset  ex  dispositione — ut  cognosceretur  Pater,  'per  eum  Salva- 
 tor  em  quidem  qui  desuper  descendisset,  quem  et  ipsum  recepta- 
 ciduyn  Christi,  et  imiversce  Plenitudinis  esse  dicunt,  lingua  quldenj 
 uniim  Christum  Jesum  confitentes,  divisi  vero  sententia."  And 
 on  another  occasion  he  describes  this  Personage  as  proceedinr^ 
 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.  'i)ia.  ty.a^ov  rut  Al&ituvj  otts^  s'^X^"  iv  la.vtZ  ;<aAAfroi'  k, 
 Mt^ripoToiTov  <rvnvBy/.aiJi,svH^ — Trpo^oiXicr^ui — otrfiov  ra  IlAjjpuaTOf, 
 TsXikov  KUpTTov  ro»  'l>ja£y,  tvxccl  ^corrjocc  TT^Qaacyo^sv^rivcci,  jc,  Xp/foi 
 xj  Aoyov  vul^uvvi/A-K^c,  5(J  Tldyrac,  ^loc  ro  uTio  Tiavrcov  slvoci.  The 
 following  quotation  will  now  explain  how  the  term  Caulachaud 
 has  been  applied  to  this  Saviour,  "  the  one  Christ,  who  was 
 the  receptacle  of  the  Divine  Plenitude;  who  was  called  All 
 things,  because  he  was  from  all;"  Zohar.  P.  I.  fol.  31.  2  in 
 Beresith.  ed  Mant.  iDi— »j^n  'Di»  l«.  «  Dixit  Rabbi  Jose,  quis 
 sensus  illius;  "  Cui  sunt  Dii  seu  Elohim  propinqid?'*  Potius 
 dicendum  videtur  projnnquus  quam  propinqui.  Se6.  est  Deus 
 Supremus,  Deus  timoris  Isaac,  Dcus  postremus.  Sic  propinqui 
 dicendum.  Lt  Fortitudines  seu  Majestates  aut  Potetitice  sunt 
 midtce  quce  procedunt  ex  Una.  Et  hi  omnes  Unum  sunt,** 
 The  last  cited  words,  "  hi  omnes  unum  sunt,"  expressed  in  the 
 original  by  in  in"?:,  clearly  contain  the  true  exposition  of  the 
 
(    272    ) 
 
 nites"^  if  not  by  the  Cerinthians,  both  of  which 
 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  KATAATX"ATA,  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, 
 Irenaeus,  quoted  by  the  Benedictine  editours,  which,  adding 
 *'  deus"    to   "  calaucu,"   probably  read    caulaucuiTs,  for 
 
 CAULAUCAUD. 
 
 *^^  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  HI.  cap.  xxvii,     Eya/yfiXi&j  ^g  y.oyuf 
 
 sTToitivIo  "Koyov,  Conf.  S.  Hier.  Comment,  on  Matt.  cap.  xii. 
 Tom.  VI.  p.  21.  b. 
 
 **^  Tertul.  PrjEScr.  adv.  Haer.  cap.  xxxiii.  p.  210.  "  At  in 
 Episfola  eos  maxime  Antichristos  vocat  [Johannes],  qui  Chris' 
 ium  negarcnt  in  came  venisse,  et  qui  non  putarent  Jesum  esse 
 Filium  Dei :  illud  Marcion,  hoc  Hehiori  'cindicamt, — Hsec  sunt 
 lit  arbitror  genera  doctrinarum  adulterarum,  quce  sub  apostolis 
 Jicisse,  ah  ipsis  Apostolis  discimus,  Conf.  supr.  p.  24-3.  n.  ^*^°. 
 p.  263.  n.  ^°l 
 
 "^  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- 
 l.ur  ad  Spiritum  Sanctum,  qui  apud  Hebraios  appellatur  genere 
 fcLunineo  mi.  In  Evangello  quoque  Hehrccorum,  quod  lectitant 
 Nazarsei,  Salvator  inducitur  loquens ;  *  Modo  me  arripuit 
 Mater  meciy  Spiritus  Sanctiis.'*  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  Jems  call  the  Holy  Spirit  Imma, 
 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 
 Krfi«,   sufTicieritly  declares,  that  this  Gospel  was  the  source 
 
(    273    ) 
 
 indisputable,  whatever  becomes  of  the  text  of  th6 
 heavenly  witnesses^  that  the  doctnne  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  diviniti/  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  Orlgen  adopted  the  passage ;  Orlg.  Selectt.  in 
 Ps.  cxxii.  Tom.  II.  p.  821.  ^tAot  ILvpluv  Yla.r^os  oCf  ^ih  ijvbv^oc 
 
 T^U  Kv^ioq  0  0£o?  hu.uv  lr»v,  01  joc^  T^eTf  TO  ev  s'lmv.  The  lattet 
 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  I  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.  Horn,  in  Joh.  Tom. IV.  p.  64.  a. 
 
 T 
 
(    274    ) 
 
 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  warn  every  one 
 night  and  day  with  tears  '^^^'*  To  Timothy  he  de- 
 clares, '^  If  thou  put  the  brethren  in  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 
 
 »'8  Act.  XX.  31. 
 ^^  1  Tim.  iv.  6.  16. 
 
(  275  ) 
 they  had  corrupted^  t^at  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  Mcolaitans 
 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- 
 
 *^°  S.  Iren.  adv.  Haer.  Lib.  III.  cap.  xvi.  p.  204.— sed  praevi- 
 dens  Spiritus  Sanctus  depravatores—per  Matthaeum  ait ;  Christi 
 autem  generatio  sic  erat;  et  quoniam  hie  est  Emmanuel,  ne 
 forte  tantum  eum  hominem  putaremus — neque  alium  quidem 
 Jesum  alterum  Christum  suspicaremus  fuisse,  sed  U7ium  et 
 eundem  sciremus  esse.  Hoc  ipsum  interpretatus  est  Paulus, 
 scribens  ad  Romanes, — "  quod  promisit — de  Filio  suo  qui /actus 
 est  ei  ex  semine  David,  secundum  carnem,^'  Et  iterum  ad  Ro- 
 manos  scribens  de  Israel,  dicit ;  "  Quorum  patres  et  ex  quibus 
 Christus  secundum  carnem  qui  est  Detis  super  omnes  benedictus 
 in  saecula."  Et  iterum  in  Epistola  quae  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. 
 
 *3'  Vid.  supr.  p.  243.  n.  "'. 
 
 *^'  S.  Ignat.  Ep.  ad  Ejphes.  cap.  i.  a»a{-;7r'j^^aa^Tf?  ev  ocifjLotn 
 
 ©e5,  to  ffvyymy.ov  spyov  rs>.iiu;  ccTt'/i^Tisrari,  cap.  vii.  eT?  lar^aq  £r»*i 
 crapxixo?  rt  xa*  w>£y/*aT»x.oc,  ycmnoi  kkI  ayivvnroiy  h  au^xl  yevoixnoj 
 0805"  cap.  XIX.  T^iflC  f/,isr,si<x.  y.fccvyy^qy  ocrmoc  Iv  viav^io,  ©£«  iTT^a^^-n^ 
 
 riw?  h  6(f)ave£a;^73  Tor?  aiZa^v, Tra-Aata  ^ota-iXt'ux.  ^teip^iifiro,  0e« 
 
 a*^fu<rrUaq  (pOLtie^iUJii-iiH  lU  xaivoTJjra  «V^i«  ^^5?^,  app^y>  Si  ihfiy.^oiti» 
 T©  Tdfii  ©sw  awrpTfcr/AtKoy,    pp.  12,  13.  16. 
 
(    276     ) 
 
 sists  on  the  divlniti/,  incarnation,  and  passion  of 
 Christy  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  y,  7j,  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  denied  that  Jesus  was  ''  the  Son 
 of  God/*  and  "  came  in  the  flesh/'  though  they 
 mutually  expressed  their  belief  in  a  Trinity.  Suck 
 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- 
 Tf  IK    in   the   masculine  to    £«/    in    the  neuter  *^^. 
 
 *^^  Id.  ibid,  cap,  Tli.    El?    \a,r^o<;    Wtv,   aa,^y.iKos  rs   y.ai   'nrvcVfxix- 
 
 t,un  aMSd/^j  y.u)  £>c  Magtas"  xat  la  ©£«^  tt^utov  TraS'yjroy  xai  Tore 
 cfZra^oQS-.     Id.  ib.  cap.  xviii. — ^"o  yu^  &£o^  ri^uv  ^lr,a^s  o   'Kpi'^o^ 
 
 XIvBv^aroi  ol  aym,  os  lyzMvn^'fi  xocl  s^KTrria^rij  JVa  ra  'jtu^h  r» 
 t^co^  Kcc^u^icrv),  Kofi  EAaSe  rov  ap^ovToc  tS  ulufoq  Tara  vj  itu^inot, 
 Mu^ia(;f  Hal  o  Toxerof  avrr)f,  ouolu;  y.al  o  B'avaros'  t8  Kf§i8. 
 
 ^^*  Two  authorities,  which  are  above  all  exception,  will  fally 
 evince  the  justness  and  happiness  of  this  distinction.  Tertul. 
 adv.  Prax.  cap.  xxii.  "  Ego  et  Pater  unum  sumus.'*  Hie 
 ergo  jam  gradum  volunt  figere  stulti,  immo  cseci  qui  non  videant, 
 primo  "  Ego  et  Pater,"  duorum  esse  signification  em ;  dehinC' 
 in  novissimo,  "  sumus"  non  ex  zinius  esse  j)ersona,  quod  j)lu-' 
 ralitcr  dictum  est ;  turn  quod  "  imim  sumu's,"  non  unus  sumus. 
 
(    277    ) 
 
 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  ''three,"  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  Divinitij  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  ijs 
 
 Si  enim  dixisset  unus  sumus,  potuisset  adjuvare  sententiam 
 illorum.  Unus  enim  singularis  numeri  significatio  videtur,  ad- 
 huc  eum  duo;  mnscuUnl  generis.  "  Unum"  dicit,  neutrafi 
 verbo,  quod  non  pertinet  ad  singularitem,  sed  ad  imitatem,  ad 
 similitudinem,  ad  conjunctionem,*'  Sec,  In  the  justness  of  this 
 distinction,  an  eminent  Critick  acquiesces:  Vid.  Pors,  Lett. 
 p.  240. 
 
 ^^5  Luk.  xxiii.  46. 
 
 ^^^  Job.  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  vag'ue  and  unsettled,  the  Church 
 was  thus  left  without  any  warnings  against  their 
 peculiar  tenets,  though  the  apostle  wrote  with  the 
 express  view  of  countervailing*  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 
 the  authenticity  of  the  disputed  verses.     As  inter- 
 polations, we  must  find  it  as  difficult  to  account  for 
 their  origin,  by  considering  them  the  product  of 
 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  historical  circumstances 
 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 
 
(    279    ) 
 
 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  *^7      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  tlfese  verses 
 for  the  support  of  their  cause ;  they  had  other  pas- 
 sages which  would  accomplish  all  that  they  could  y 
 effect ;  and  without  their  aid,  they  maintained  and 
 established  their  tenets.     Admitting  the  possibility 
 
 *^^  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.  ^n.  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.  VH.  p.  188.  ria?  yu^,  oq  uv  poT]  ofxoXoyPi  'Inasy  Xpi^ov  ev 
 Cxp'Kl  s\nXv%vxi,  ccnixptrSg  Iri-   y.ccl   o$    ^v  ixs^o^sur)  ra  -Koyioi,  ^5 
 
 tkca*,  aros  w^wtotoko?  hi  Ta  SaTaia.    Couf.  S.  Iren.  adv.  Hser. 
 Lib.  I,  cap.  i.  $  L  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  Csesarea,  to  suppress 
 those  passages,  which  apparently  favoured  the  er- 
 rours  of  the  Sabellians,  have  been  already  specified. 
 And  the  alterations  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.  Kup/a,  as  a  word  nearly  syno- 
 nymous with  0£^,  was  inserted  in  Act.  xx,  28*^^; 
 
 *^^  That  the  term  Kiptoq  has  thus  crept  into  the  text,  has 
 been  determined  by  i^rof.  Michaeljs,  from  the  varieties  disco- 
 verable in  the  subjoined  readings  ;  Marsh's  Mich.  Vol.  I.  ch.  vi. 
 §  xi[i.  p.  336.  *'  Of  the  following  different  readings,  Acts  xx. 
 28.  0t5,  Kwfiy,  Xpir'i^i  Kvpia  ©ss,  ©aa  k^  Kvple,  Kvpia  >^  QeS, 
 the  first  is  probably  the  true  reading,  and  all  the  others  are  to 
 be  considered  corrections  or  scholia,  because  ©£«  might  easily 
 give  occasion  to  any  of  these,  whereas  none  could  easily  give 
 occasion  to  ©£b.  If  St.  Luke  wrote  ©et,  the  original  of  Kypa 
 and  XptrS  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  Kvp'm,  it  is  inconceivf 
 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  difliculty  in  the  passage, 
 and  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  Kypla 
 to  ©£yj  it  must  have  been  made  early  in  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- 
 log-y  of  a  similar  passage  in  Col.  i.   26,  27.    to 
 
 fAvs-Ti^is  r-dTis — eg  Ifi  Xoifog,  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  was  chang- 
 ed into  fAiyoc  if  I  fAVfYipio-^y  og  i(pxp£^u^n  :  o?  being  pre- 
 served in  the  masculine  to  denote  a  person,  and  in 
 this  form  agreeing  with  X^i^og,  sylleptically  impli- 
 ed in  'fji.vfvoiou  ^^9^     Out  of  this  reading,   [Mv^TiPm   d 
 
 when  Sabellianism  was  in  a  great  measure  revived  by  Mar- 
 cell  us,  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  exi||ing  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. 
 
 ^■'^  This  conjecture  is  supported  by  the  Oriental  versions,  the 
 varieties  in  which  are  at  once  reconciled,  by  considering  the 
 neuter  noun  f/.vryiftoy  taken,  b}^  a  syllepsis,  in  the  masculine  / 
 which  notion  is  alone  reconcilable  with  the  reading  proposed 
 by  M.  Griesbach,  in  the  Greek ;  [ABycc  er*  to  t^j?  Bva-s^eiag 
 fxvrr.cir.v,  os  i(p'Xvip'M^vi.  Thls,  I  bcg  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.  I.  "  Copt.  Sahid.  et  Syr.  p.  in  m. 
 [exhibent]  o?,  qui;"  the  latter  declares;  Rem.  on  Griesb, 
 Classif.  of  MSS.  p.  78.  "  in  both  the  Coptic  and  Sahidic  the 
 word  MYZTHPION  mystery  is  decidedly  proved  to  be  masculine, 
 by  the  definitive  article  masculine  ni  in  one  case,  and  n  in  tha 
 
(    282    ) 
 Ipxnau^r,  naturally  arose  ^*%  merely  by  correcting 
 
 other,  prefixed. — A  similar  remark,  respecting  the  Philoxeniaii 
 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,  /*ur>5pio»  os 
 i(panpu^ri :  but  I  here  reason  from  the  premises  laid  before  me, 
 as  I  am  wholly  unacquainted  with  the  Oriental  languages. 
 
 ^"^  That  fxvfripiov  0  i(pa.vefcj^'n  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- 
 ed to  /xur'jpof  OS  i(pctvipu>^x.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  suppose 
 oq  iCpavi^'l-Bv)  the  original  reading,  the  change,  it  must  be  con- 
 fessed, was  easy  both  to  o  ^(pxn^cj^v)  and  Qeo?  itpays^u^n :  as  th6 
 neuter  gender  was  obviously  suggested  by  the  context  ^t;r«- 
 Aiov ;  and,  in  the  uncial  character,  02  is  easily  converted  into 
 ©r,  the  usual  abbreviation  of  0EOr.  But  i^vtv^^iov  os  i(pa.vi^u^yi 
 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  o;  to  0£oj,  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  the 
 same  obstacles  to  such  a  correction,  as  to  that  of  ©eS  to  Kypia 
 in  Act.  XX.  28.  If,  in  the  last  case,  we  suppose  ©2  the  ori- 
 ginal reading,  OS  might  have  been  first  suggested  by  those 
 transverse  lines  having  been  omitted,  in  the  hurry  of  transcrip- 
 tion, which  distinguish  OS  and  02 ;  and  this  alteration,  which 
 was  apparently  justified  by  Col.  i.  27,  might  have  been  finally 
 recommended,  as  the  word  02  had,  in  this  form,  the  appear- 
 ance of  an  accidental  omission ;  and  as  it  afforded  a  ready  ex- 
 pedient of  converting  02  into  02,  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 
 doctrme  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  in  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.  '^\ 
 
 '**  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; 
 
(     284     ) 
 
 Vulgate  *^^  read  in  Act.  xx.  28.  ©£« ;  in  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   Qeh,  but  in   conjunction  with  Kvpia  ^*^ 
 
 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  WagstaiFe, 
 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  Job.  v.  20.)'*  The  following  collation  of  the  disputed 
 text  is   added,  along  with  the  above-cited,  in  Mr.  WagstafFe's 
 
 hand,  **  Act.  xx.  28.  H^oai^ns.  laVToTcf  y.a,\  •jtu^t)  ru  Troifxnuif  l» 
 u  vjjioiq  TO    -Trvivy.oe,   to   ccyiov  I'^eTO  e7rt<7xo9r«?,  7ro»^aiy£H>  tvi»   iKKXytaiacv 
 
 Ta  3"e8,  '^v  TTEfU'TroiYtaa.To^  oicc  tS  uijxuToq  t2  i^»8*  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  tb  ai'/^aTo?  t5  i^»«,  p.  74.  the 
 MS.  must  have  read,  with  the  copy  which  was  collated,  IxxATjjriav 
 
 TV  QiH. 
 
 2-*^  Griesb.  Nov.  Test,  not,  in  h.  1.  "  Vulgatum  GsS  habent 
 codd.  4,  22,  46j  65y  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  tIp 
 
 ixy.Aj)5-Jav  Ttf  0s2  nu  Tre^is'JTOiyiaa.TO  ha,  tS  l^m  aif^aToc. 
 
 '^  Mill.  Nov.  Test.  not.  in  h.  1.  "  Vulg.  in  omnibus  Codd. 
 Lat.  iEthiop."  &c.  * 
 
 '^5  Vid.  Griesb.  Nov.  Test,  not,  in  h.  1. 
 
(    283     ) 
 
 2.  The  Alexandrine  *^^  and  all  known  manu- 
 scripts "-^^  except  two  of  the  Palestine,  and  one  of 
 the  Eg-yptian  edition,  read  in  1  Tim  iii.  16.  0£o?; 
 the  Latin  Vulgate  reading-  ''  quod/'  in  opposition 
 to  every  known  manuscript  but  the  Clermont  *+^ 
 
 ^"^^  That  the  true  reading  of  the  Alexandrine  MS.  in  1  Tim. 
 iii.  16.  was  0eo?,  not  oj,  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,  Mho  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- 
 lowing 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  ar.d  original  reading 
 of  this  MS.  was  0S  i.e.  ©E02."  Nay  more,  he  openly  charges 
 M.  Wetstein,  whose  single  testimony  is  now  supposed  to  turn 
 the  scale  against  this  host  of  witnesses,  with  having  admitted  to 
 a  common  friend,  that  he  satv  the  transverse  line  of  the  0,  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  testimory,  vAW  be  exposed  in  the  sequel. 
 
 ^^^  Dr.  Berriman,  Crit.  Disert.  up,  1  Tim.  iii.  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.  MattliSEri,  at  Moscow,  and 
 other  criticks,  we  greatly  underrate  the  number  of  those  JMSS. 
 in  estimating  them  at  an  hundred. 
 
 ^•'^  Gricsb.  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  in  fa- 
 vour of  the  reading'  of  the  Received  Text^  or  Greek 
 Vulgate. 
 
 I.  On  Act.  XX.  28.  St.  Ignatius *^^  in  the  aposto- 
 lical age;  andTertullian*^*^  near  the  same  period. 
 At  the  distance  of  a  century  and  upwards  from  those 
 primitive  times^  St.  Athanasius  ^^^  St.  Basil  *^^  St. 
 
 omnem  dubitatlonem  positum  jam  esse  videtur,  Claromontani 
 Codicis  lectionem  primitivam  non  fuisse  0S  sed  O.*' 
 
 ^^  Bengal.  Apparat.  Crit.  not.  in  h.  1.  §  xix.  *'  Habet  La- 
 tina  Versio  antiquissima.  *  Versus  ille  solemniter  legitur  turn 
 in  Epistola  Dominicae  in  Albis  dictas,  turn  in  octavo  Respon- 
 sorio,  in  omnibus  Dominicis  a  festo  SS.  Trinitatis  usque  ad 
 Adventum.  Reperitur  etiam  in  optimis  quibusque  et  vetus- 
 tissimis  Vulgatae  codicibus,  ita  ut  paucissimi  sint  in  quibus 
 deest.'  Henr.  a  Bukentop  de  Vulg.  p.  307.  Videlicet  de 
 Codicibus  Hentenii,  quorum  circiter  24?  ad  banc  epistolam  col- 
 lati  sunt,  5  tantummodo  omittunt.  &c. 
 
 *5°  Vid.  supr.  p.  275.  n.  ^'^. 
 
 "r  Tertul.  ad  Uxor.  Lib.  IL  cap.  iii.  p.  175.  "  Quod  sciam, 
 *'  non  sumus  nostri"  sed  "  pretio  empti ;"  et  quali  pretio? 
 **  sanguine  Dei.*' 
 
 *5*  S.  Athanas.  Ep.  i.  ad  Serap.  Tom.  IL  p.  653.  e.   h  ^l 
 
 TlcX'VXoi'   h   CO    vyi.oi,^  to  YIvwiacc  to  ay»ov   sSeto    ETrJcrxoTras  TTOJ/xaiveii/  rrjf 
 
 *"  S.  Basil.  Moral.  Reg.  lxxiii.  cap.  xvi.  Tom.  IL  p.  285. 
 a.  ed.  Par.  1618.  o  -^oii^m  o  xaAo?  triv  -vj/up^w.  avre  rlBncru)  vne^ 
 Tuv  'jT^o^a.Tuv.  n§a|s»5.  HfocrEp^ETE  av  layTcrj-— — 'Trot/AWkvim  T'3» 
 fXKMffiuv  t5  ©£». 
 
(    287    ) 
 
 Epiphanius  *^^  St.  Ambrose '^^  and  St.  Chrysos- 
 tome  ^^^  deliver  the  same  testimony.  In  the  follow- 
 ing age  occur  Ibas*"  and  Ccelestinus*^%-  and  in  the 
 succeeding-,  Fulgentius^^^  Ferrandus*^,  and  Pri- 
 
 *5*  S.  Epiphan.  Ilaer.  lxxiv.  p.  895.  a.  9rpo j-e^ete  tprjcrt  eawoK, 
 
 *"  S.  Ambros.  de  Sp.  Sanct.  Lib.  II.  cap.  xiii.  Tom.  JI.  col. 
 663.  d.  "  Dixit  enim  Paulus :  '  Adtendite  vobis,  et  omni  gregi, 
 in  quo  posuit  vos  Spiritus  Sanctus  episcopos  regere  ecclesiam 
 Deu'* 
 
 *5^  S.  Chrysost.  in  Actt.  Apostt.  Horn.  xliv.  Tom.  IX.  p. 
 
 333.  a.  U^offe^iTS  fcv  locvToT^ — Wo»jm,«(ve»»  tvjv  i>ix.>^Yjariav  t«  ©£», 
 r,v  Trepw/rQinaritro  ^»a.  t»  lola  a\'[jt,etro^.—~Ta.vrcx,  ^.iyn  tfx  ETrstOH  or*  a» 
 lat^Tor?  TTfoa-sp^w/AEV,  tote  xJ  to  •Tro/jt^noi/  xEp^aiVE*,  iv  u  vy,ct.%  TO  'n-nvf/.oc 
 to  'uyhQV  i^'.ro  lina-y.oiTHqy  TrotfJiCcUfiv  triv  iKnT^rjaixv  th  ©£«.  opcc  Trocrat 
 scycx.yy.cc\  ttx^cc  tS  'TTvsvf/.ccToq  rnv  ^nforoviccv  e'p^ete'  (p'/jo-i*  t«to  ycip 
 Irt    TO,     e'^eto*     /L«t(Z     uvTvi    avayKr}'      iWx    iroi(A.aUnv    7t)v    iKX^via-iccv 
 
 Tb   0c8. 
 
 »57  Ibas.   Epist.   ad  Marin,    Pers.    rSnT^r^Bv  ^l   <  o  GsW'   5 
 
 Traylole  ^pj/li^wv  T??  tiS'ia?  '  tuxXT^aiaq  t>}?  tw  Joio;  ar/:>taTt'  avrie 
 Ai/l^w.^s/cnj?,  >c^  TJ?!*  y.ufoicti  Ta  'AlyfTrl**}  jj.izXci^xiy  k.  t.  I.  ap.  Lab. 
 et  Cossart,  Concill.Tom.  IV.  p.  665,  b,  ed.  Par.  1671. 
 
 *^^  Ccelest.  Epist,  ad  Synod.  Ephes,  "  Ptespiciamus  rursum 
 etiam  ilia  nostri  verba  doctoris,  quibus  proprie  apud  Episcopos 
 utitur,  ista  praedicens ,'  "  Attendite"  inquit,  "  vobis — regere 
 ecclesiam  Dei  quam  acquisivit  sanguine  suo,"  Ap.  Baluz.  Nov, 
 Collect.  Concill.  Tom.  I.  p.  491. 
 
 ^5>  Fulgent,  de  Fid.  ad  Petr.  Diac,  cap.  xix.—in  isto  autem 
 sacrificio    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 
 sue."     Max.  Bibl.  Patrr.  Tom.  IX.  p.  80.  h, 
 
 ^^  Ferrand.  ad  Anatol.  Epist.  cap,  xiv.  "  Nam  ecce  apud 
 Miletum — Beatug  dum  traderet  Paulus;  "  Attendite,"  inquitv 
 
(    288    ) 
 
 masius*^'.  In  the  next  age  we  meet  Antioclms  *^*, 
 and  Martin  I/^^•  and  in  the  subsequent,  Bede*^^ 
 who  is  followed,,  after  some  distance  of  time,  by 
 Etherius^'^   (Ecumenius*'^    and    Theophylact^'^ 
 
 *'  vobis — regere  Ecclesiam  Dei,  quam  adquisivit  suo  sanguine.'' 
 Die  modo  Gentium  Doctor,  et  responds  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.'* 
 
 *^*  Antioch.  Horn,  cxxii.   Auctar.  Bibl.  Patrr.  Tom.  I.  p. 
 
 1214.  e.  ed  Par.  1624.  ror?  ^\  ''^(piaiQiq  "Kiyuv'  ir^oa-t^ia^i  euv7o7(; 
 '—voijj.aivnv     rrt»     iKySKyicriccv     T«     0c8.        Conf.     Hom.     LXI.     p. 
 
 1122.  d. 
 
 ^^^  Martin,  in  Cone.  Later.  Rom. — "  et  maxime  praeceptum 
 liabentes  apostolicum,  "  attendere  nosmetipsis,  et  gregi — 
 regere   Dei  ecclesiam    quam  acquisivit    per    sanguinem   pro- 
 
 prium." — Id.  ibid.  [ji,a,Xircc  'TrxpsfyiXixv   'i^ovrti   u'7ro^o?^iK7iVf  TTfoo-E^siv 
 
 7roi}jcra%  hoi  ra  I^ia  aI]!A«1o?.  ap.  Lab.  et  Cossart.  Concill.  Tom^ 
 VLp.  93,  94.  b. 
 
 ^^^  Bed.  Comment,  in  Actt.  Apostt.  cap.  xx.  Oper.  Tom.  V. 
 p.  659.  ed.  Col.  Agr.  1612. — "  Regere  Ecclesiam  Dei,  quam 
 acquisivit  sanguine  suo."  Non  dubitat  "  sanguinem  Dei'* 
 dicere,  propter  unionem  personae  in  duabus  naturis  ejusdem  Jesa 
 Christi.'' 
 
 ^'^  Ether,  contr,  Elipand.  Lib.  11.  "  De  quo  Dei  sangufne 
 sub  certo  Dei  hominisque  discrimine,  in  Apostolorum'Actibus 
 legimus :  "  Attendite  vobis,  et  universe  gregi  vestro,  in  quo 
 
(    289    ) 
 
 To  these  we  may  add  some  anonymous  authori- 
 ties ***^  whose  age  is  not  easily  determined. 
 
 g.  On  1  Tim.  iii.   16.  we  may  quote  St.  Ig-na- 
 'tius*^^  in  the  apostolical  age ;  and  Hippolytus  *7^, 
 in  the  age  which  succeeded.     The  next  age  pre- 
 sents St.  Athanasius'7'^   St.  Gregory  Nyssene*^*, 
 andSt.  Chrysostome*75;  and  the  following  age,  St. 
 
 vos  Splritus  Sanctus  posuit  apostolos  regere  Ecclesiam  Deu^* 
 Et  cujus  Dei  Ecclesiam  subsequens  sermo  demonstrat  ita  di- 
 cens ;  "  quam  acquisivit  sanguine  suo."  Aperte  hie  nomine 
 Deitatis  et  sanguinis,  ccelestia  et  humana  sociavit.'*  Max.  BibL 
 Patrr.  Tom.  XIII.  p.  S83.  d. 
 
 *^^  (Ecumen.  Comment,  in  Actt.  Apostt.  Tom.  I.  p.  152.  ed. 
 Par.     1634.      Wfocr/p^elfi     «v     lavroTi Trot/xamiv    t^v     i>£itA)j<r/a»* 
 
 T»  ©£?. 
 
 *^7  Theophyl.  Oper.  ed.  Finett.  Tom.  III.  p.  290.  b.  Venet, 
 
 1758.    wpoo-jp^/le  «v  ia.vlo7i-r-7FOiixa.Ueiv  rrtu  inttXyio^'iav  T«  feJeS. 
 
 *fi8  Anon.  ap.  S.  Athan.  Tom.  III.  p.  4.  a.  Al.  ap.  S.  Chry- 
 80St.  Tom.  VI.  p.  510.  Auct.  de  xlii.  Mans,  SchoU.  Codd^ 
 15.  18.  37.     Confes.  Eccl.  Orient,  p.  139. 
 
 ^^9  Vid.  supr.  p.  275.  n.  ^3\ 
 
 *'^  Hippolyt.    contr.    Noet.    cap.    xvii.      ©£of    l»    cuixuli 
 
 *^*  S.  Athan.  Ep.  iv.  ad  Serap.  Tom.  II.  p.  706. — 'x»«^i  y»^ 
 
 *A7roroAov  ffvfyvwi*v)v  uvrol't;  vs^oilay  xj  oXqh)  X*^F*  c-vtoT^  h  ra  ^£yin> 
 licleivoyla.,    oT»    k^    oiAo^.oyttfJi.hui  y-iya.    er*    to    t^j   tvat^eiai    fAVf/if t9}>* 
 
 *  *  S.  Greg.  Nyssen.  Orat.  iv.  Tom.  II.  p.  581.  ed.  Par. 
 
 1638. — <Ka.v\tq  qI  to*  Aoyov  KTi^vacrovltq  If  t«t«  to  Satz/AOt  t5  (AVfyi^'itg 
 v,uia.yi.viwiia-if  oTt  0£Of  l^avE^wS*}  iv  a«§xt,  St*  o  Aoyoj  cagl  lyiiti* 
 X.  T.  I.    Conf.  pp.  430.  445.  536.  595. 
 
 *"  S.  Chrysost.   Comment,  in  1   Tim.   Tom.  XI.  p.  605. 
 
 Ka»  ofAoXo78fA£va>«,  ^*j<7t,  fjisya.  Ir»  to  r^q  tiffs^siaq  [/.vrri^ioV  ©Co? 
 I(pav£§w3*j  U  ffa^y.)  iS'ixata/Sw  iv  TrnvfAoli'  rali^iv  i  oUovouia  n  ivep  r,fA,uit 
 
 ^—■ivvG'/ia-ov  TO  f4.vrv^iov $U  ete^oit   »my»  79  <jrga.yi/.»  hiyuv,   ©eef 
 
 U 
 
(  290  ) 
 Cyril *7*,  of  Alexandria,  Theodorit  ^^^^  and  Eutlm- 
 lius^'^.  At  a  considerable  distance  of  time,  occur 
 Danmscene*"^  and  Epiphanius  Diaconus*^*;  who 
 are  followed  by  Photius*'^^  (Ecuinenius^^°,  Theo- 
 pliylact"^^',  and  others*^*,  at  different  intervals. 
 
 s^av:e(SBr,   Iv    a-afy.)y    rarsfm   o   ^y.uie^yo^.      Conf.   Tom.  I.    p.  497* 
 VIII.  p.  85.  sqq. 
 *'*  S.  Cyril.  Alex.  Orat.  I.  de  Rect.  Fid.  Tom.  V.  P.  ii.  p.  124. 
 
 ed.   Par,  1638.   k)  S/zoXoya/^tayw?  {jiiya.  Eft   TO  r%s   iva-i^iia,;  {Avryifiov' 
 
 VAilrili  >cj  iruiluq   o    Iv.    0i5   Ilalpo?  A078?*    aro;  yoc^  I'raJ  /xsya   to  rv{ 
 
 {/.iyot  Iri  TO  Trig  evTt'^iiccq  [jLvr*i^iQ]/'  ©eor  i^unfuBr]  it  era ^k)  x,r,h 
 Conf.  p.  153.  Tom.  VI.  p.  148. 
 
 *'5  Theodor.  Comment,  in  1  Tim.  Tom.  III.  p.  478.  ed.  Par. 
 
 1642.  ©cOS"  e<pa,»sfou^ri  Iv  aufKr  ©60S"  ya^  u»  )^  0itt  vloCj  Jt^ 
 ao^alov  s^uv  Tr,v  (pv(7iVy  dvjAo?  uTraiTiv  ivav^^WTrKs-cte  lykvelo,  au(pui 
 ^j  ^//,a5    T«5  ovo  (pvain;  iOioa^ev.  iv  aocsxl  yoip  Tr/V  S"£tav  £^>!  (panoubrivxt 
 
 ^•'^  Eiithal.  ap.  Zaccagn.  p.  692.    Ka*  S/^tAoyi^^Evwj  /^sVa  Ir* 
 
 TO  T»js  ivai^iix(;  [xv<-y:fizv,      ©bo^  t^avefu^m  x.  t.  I. 
 
 *77  Damascen.  Tom.  II.  p.  263.  ed.  Par.  1712.     Ku)  t^oXoye- 
 
 yi,Ux<;  fxiyx  If*  to  tvjj  tiai^iiacq  fxVfK^iof.  ©gbs"  l(paye^uBv  iv  cra^x*' 
 X.  r.  E. 
 
 ''^  Epiphan.  Djac,  in  Cone.  ir.  Nic. — <*  audi  igitur  Paulum 
 magna  voce  clamantem,  et  veritatem  i.stam  corroborantem  : 
 *  Dens  manifestatu5;  est  in  came,  justificatus  est  in  spiritu — . 
 O  magni  doctoris  afFatum  !  '  Deiis^  inquit  manifestatus  est  in 
 carne,  &c.  A  p.  Lab.  et  Cossart.  Concill.  Tom.  VII.  col. 
 618. 
 
 ^^5  Phot.  Comment,  in  1  Tim.     Keel  luoXoyaijisvuc  fxiyx  Irl  to 
 
 T^5    Bvci$eixq    fy.trr,fioV       ©eoS"    i'pxn^u>Br,y    y..    t.    i.     C.     Cod.    MS. 
 
 Cantab,  n.  2430.  250. 
 
 *8o  CEcumen.  Comment,  in  1  Tim.  Tom.  II.  p.  227,  228.  ed 
 
 Par.    1631.      ©£oy    E^avE^wSyj    l»    cufx.) h^oii,    otyx^x^fj^hq,    ©gg;- 
 
 -fa^att^^^n  ly  crapxi,  thu  ?^iyn  to  fAVrr/fun 
 
(    291    )  ^ 
 
 S.  On  1  Joh.  V.  7.  we  may  cite  Tertullian  *''  in 
 the  age  next  the  apostolical^  and  St.  Cyprian  in  the 
 subsequent  aera*^*.  In  the  following  age,  we  may 
 quote  Phcebadius*^^  Marcus  Celedensis**^  and 
 Idatius  Clarus*^^;  and  in  the  succeeding  age^  Eu- 
 
 *"'  Theophyl.  Comment,  in  1  Tim.  p.  769.  ed.  Lond.  1636. 
 
 *^*  Ep.  Dionys.  Alexandr.  adscript.  Anon.  ap.  S*  Athaft.  de 
 Incarn.  Verb.  Tom.  II.  P.  ii.  p.  33.  Al.  ibid.  p.  5^4.  Anon.  ap. 
 Theodorit.  Tom.  IV.  pp.  13. 15.     Euthym.  in  Panopl.  1  it.  xv* 
 
 *^^  Tertul.  adv.  Prax.  cap.  xxv»  p.  506.  "  Ita  connexus 
 **  Patris"  in  Filio,  et  *  Filii'  in  *  Paracleto'  tres  efficit  cohee- 
 rentes,  alterum  ex  altero,  qui  "  tres  unum  sunt,"  non  unus; 
 quomodo  dictum  est,  '*  ego  et  Pater  unum  sumus,**  ad  sub" 
 stantice  unitatem,  non  ad  numeri  singularitatem." 
 
 *'*  S.  Cypr.  de  Unit.  Eccles.  p.  109.  "  t)icit  Dominus; 
 *«  Ego  et  Pater  unum  sumus."  Et  de  "  Patre  et"  Filio  "  et 
 Spiritu  Sancto"  scriptum  est ;  **  et  hi  tres  unum  sunt.*'  Conf. 
 Ep.  Lxxiii  ad  Jubaian.  p.  203* 
 
 *8*  Phcebad.  contr.  Ariann.  cap.  xlv*  *  Dominits  "  Petam,** 
 inquit,  **  a  Patre  meo  et  alium  advocatum  dabit  vobis."  Sic 
 alius  a  Filio  "  Spiritus"  sicut  allies  a  Patre  **  Filius."  Sic  tertia 
 in  Spiritu,  ut  in  Filio  secunda  persona:  unus  tamen  DeuS 
 (omnia)  quia  *'  tres  unum  sunt."  Max.  Bibi.  Patrr.  Tom.  IV. 
 p.  305.  b. 
 
 *s^  Marc.  Celed.  Expos.  Fid.  ad  Cyril.  "  Nobis  unus 
 "  Pater,"  et  unus  *  Filius*  ejus  verus  Deus,  et  unus  '*  Spiritus 
 Sanctus"  verus  Deus,  **  et  hi  tres  unum  sunt ;"  una  divinitas, 
 et  potentia,  et  regnum."  Sunt  autem  tres  Personae,  non  duse, 
 non  una,"  &c.  Ap.  S.  Hier.  Tom.  IX.  p.  73.  g.  Conf« 
 Ep.  Lxxvii.  Tom.  II.  p.  302. 
 
 '^^  Idat.  Clar.  de  Sanct.  Trin.  Lib.  I. — dicehte  Jqanne  Evan- 
 gelista  in  Epistola  sua  ;  '*  tres  sunt  qui  testimonium  dicunt  iii 
 coelo,  "  Pater,  et  V^erbum,  et  Spiritus,  et"  in  Christo  Jesu 
 *'  unum  sunt/'   non  tamen  unus  est,  quia  non  est  iju  hfs  una 
 
(    S92    ) 
 
 cherius^^^  Victor  Vitensis^^^^  and  Vigilius  Tap- 
 sensis*9°.  Fulgentius*^'  and  Cassiodorus*'^  occur 
 in  the  next  age;  and  Maximus^^?  j,^  i\^q  subsequent: 
 to  whom  we  might  add  many  others^  or  indeed  the 
 whole  of  the  Western  Churchy  who^  after  this  pe-^ 
 
 persona."  Ap.  S.  AthaJi.  Tom.  III.  p.  606.  f.  conf.  pp.  607.  b. 
 622.  a. 
 
 *^^  Eucher.  Formull.  Spirit.  Intellig.  cap.  xi.  n.  3. — m  Jo* 
 minis  epistola :  "  Tres  sunt  qui  testimonium  dant  in  ccelo, 
 Pater,  Verbum,  et  Spiritus  Sanctus :  et  tres  sunt,  qui  testi- 
 monium dant  in  terra,  Spiritus,  Aqua,  et  Sanguis."  Max.  BibL 
 Patrr.  Tom.  VI.  p.  838.  e. 
 
 *^'  Vict.  Vitens.  de  Persec.  Vandal.  "  Et  ut  adhuc  luce 
 clarius  unius  divinitatis  esse  cum  Patre  et  Filio  Spiritum  Sanc- 
 tum doceamus,  Johannis  Exmngelistce  testimonio  comprobatur : 
 ait  namque,  **  Tres  sunt  qui  testimonium  perhibent  in  coelo. 
 Pater,  Verbum,  et  Spiritus  Sanctus,  et  hi  tres  unum  sunt.  Max. 
 Bibl.  Patrr.  Tom.  VIII.  p.  686.  a. 
 
 »5o  Vigil.  Tapsens.  contr.  Varimad.  "  Johannes  Evangelista 
 — arf  Parthos:  "Tres  sunt"  inquit,  "qui  testimonium  perhibent 
 in  terra,"  aqua,  sanguis,  et  caro,  et  hi  tres  in  nobis  sunt :  **  et 
 tres  sunt  qui  testimonium  perhibent  in  coelo,  Pater,  Verbum, 
 et  Spiritus,  et  hi  tres  unum  Sunt."  Max.  Bibl.  Patrr.  Tom.  V. 
 p.  729.  b. 
 
 *^'  Fulgent.  Respon.  contr.  Ariann.  "  Beatus  Joannes  Apos- 
 tolus teatatur  d'lcens;  Tres  sunt  qui  testimonium  perhibent  in 
 coelo,  Pater,  Verbum  et  Spiritus:  et  tres  unum  sunt."  Quod 
 etiam  beatissimus  martyr  Cyprianus  in  Ep.  de  Unit.  Eccles. 
 confitetur,"  &c.     Max.  Bibl.  Patrr.  Tom.  IX.  p.  4.1.  f. 
 
 ***  Cassiod.  Complexionn.  in  Epistt.  Paulinn.  *«  Testifi- 
 cantur  "  in  terra"  tria  mysteria,  *'  aqua,  sanguis  et  spiritus," 
 quae  in  passione  Domini  leguntur  impleta :  "  in  coelo  autem 
 Pater,  et  Filius,  et  Spiritus  Sanctus,"  et  hi  tres  unus  g%% 
 JDeus." 
 
 *^'  Maxim.  Disput.  contr.  Ariann.  wpoj  ^\  reto^^  Tras-n*, 
 'lu&vvini  (pdarxn  **  >^  o»  7fus  re  i»  stV**.'*  Ap.  S,  Athan,  Tom.  IIL 
 "  .  229.  a. 
 
(    29,^    ) 
 
 riod,  generally  adopted  this  verse  in  their  authorised 
 version  ''^*. 
 
 With  respect  to  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  Acts  xx.  28.  it  is, 
 I  trusty  unnecessary  to  add  another  argument  in 
 support  of  their  authenticity.  Admitting  that  there 
 exists  sufficient  external  evidence  to  prove  that  those 
 verses  constituted  a  part  of  Scripture;  the  internal 
 evidence  must  decide,  whether  we  are  to  consider 
 them  genuine,  or  must  reject  them  as  spurious.  The 
 point  at  issue  is  thus  reduced  to  a  matter  of  fact,  on 
 which  there  is  no  room  for  a  second  opinion.  It 
 has  been,  I  trust,  sufficiently  shown,  that  the  one 
 text  is  supported  by  the  testimony  of  the  Eastern 
 Church,  and  the  other  by  that  of  the  Eastern  and 
 Western.  The  inference  is  of  course  obvious^  with-? 
 out  a  formal  deduction. 
 
 With  respect  to  1  John  v.  7.  the  case  is  materi- 
 ally different.  If  this  verse  be  received,  it  must  be 
 admitted  on  the  single  testimony  of  the  Western 
 Church ;  as  far  at  least  as  respects  the  external  evi- 
 dence. And  though  it  may  seem  unwarrantable  to 
 set  aside  the  authority  of  the  Greek  Church,  and 
 pay  exclusive  respect  to  the  Latin,  where  a  question 
 arises  on  the  authenticity  of  a  passage  which  pro- 
 perly belongs  to  the  text  of  the  former;  yet  when 
 
 ^*  Mar.  Victorin.  in  Hymn.  iii.  Ambrosius  Ansbertus  Com- 
 ment, in  Apoc.  &c.  Conf.  Bengel.  Appar.  Crit.  not.  in  h.  |. 
 §  xviii — "  Post  Annum  m.  Radulphus  ArdenSy  Rupertus 
 Tvitiensis,  BernarduSy  Hugo  Victoriinus,  Lombardus,  Aquitias^ 
 ScotuSy  ceteriy  sine  descrimine,  dictum  citant.  Vid.  Dorschei 
 Diss,  de  Sp.  Aq.  et  Sang.  p.  11.  Calov,  Bibl.  111.  h.  I."  Vid. 
 supr.  p.  286.  n.  *^^ 
 
(    291    ) 
 
 the  doctrine  inculcated  in  that  passage  is  taken  into 
 account^  there  may  be  good  reason  for  giving  even 
 a  preference  to  the  Western  Church  over  that  of 
 the  Eastern.  The  former  was  uncorrupted  by  the 
 heresy  of  the  Arians^  who  rejected  the  doctrine  of 
 the  passage  in  question  ^^j.  iYl^  latter  was  wholly 
 resigned  to  that  heresy  for  at  least  forty  years  *^^ 
 while  the  Western  Church  retained  its  purity.  And 
 while  the  testimony  borne  by  the  latter  on  the  sub- 
 ject before  us,  is  consistent  and  full ;  that  borne  by 
 the  former  is  internally  defective.  It  is  delivered  in 
 language,  which  has  not  even  the  merit  of  being 
 grammatically  correct;  while  the  testimony  of  the 
 latter  is  not  only  unexceptionable  in  itself,  but  pos- 
 sesses the  singular  merit  of  removing  the  fore- 
 mentioned  imperfection^  on  being  merely  turned 
 into  Greek,  and  inserted  in  the  context  of  the  ori- 
 ginal*'^. Under  these  circumstances  there  seems 
 to  be  little  reasonableness  in  allowing  the  Western 
 Church  any  authority^  and  denying  it^  in  this  in- 
 stance, a  preference  over  the  Eastern. 
 
 But  numberless  circumstances  conspire  to 
 strengthen  the  authority  of  the  Latin  Chuich  in 
 supporting  the  authenticity  of  this  passage.  The 
 particular  Church  on  whose  testimony  principally 
 we  receive  the  disputed  verse,  is  that  of  Africa. 
 And  even  at  the  first  sight,  it  must  be  evident,  that 
 the  most  implicit  respect  is  due  to  its  testimony, 
 
 *55  Vid.  supr.p.  110.  n.*. 
 ^'^  Vid.  supr.  p.  2a  n,  ^K 
 ^^  Comp.  pp.  257.260, 
 
(    295    ) 
 
 1.  In  those  s-reat  convulsions  which  asjitated  the 
 Eastern  and  Western  Churches,  for  eight  years, 
 with  scarcely  any  intermission  ^^^ ;  and  which  sub- 
 jected the  sacred  text  to  the  greatest  clianges*^^^ 
 throug'h  that  vast  tract  of  country  which  extends 
 round  the  Levant,  from  Libya  to  Illyricum,  the 
 African  provinces  were  exposed  to  the  horrours  of 
 persecution  but  for  an  inconsiderable  period '°°. 
 The  Church,  of  course,  which  was  estabhshed  in 
 this  region,  neither  required  a  new  supply  of  sacred 
 books,  nor  received  those  which  had  been  revised  by 
 Eusebius  and  St.  Jerome;  as  removed  out  of  the 
 range  of  the  influence  of  those  antient  fathers. 
 
 2.  As  the  African  Church  possessed  this  compe- 
 tency to  deliver  a  pure  unsophisticated  testimony  on 
 the  subject  before  us;  that  which  it  has  borne  is  as 
 explicit  as  it  is  plenary :  since  it  is  dehvered  in  a 
 Confession  prepared  by  the  whole  church  assembled 
 
 ^^  Euseb.  de  Martyrr.   PaLiest.   cap.   xili.   p.  437.    1.    10. 
 
 retvra,  ^e>  h  rcc  yard  Ucc>.ctirlv7)v  Iv  oKoif  ersai  oxrco  crviATroc^u^inoo 
 
 rcuv  ufx^vTuv  s-Trctvocraceaiv'  iv  alj  7ro^t;Tf07ro^ — r,hMy.oru\>  uyuvzi 
 aiot^i^^QV  Tk  ir'hn^Qq  (Accprnfuv  y.cclx  Trcccra,*  lita^yQav  crvvtTvia-ano^ 
 6V  rrns  a-ro  Aifivm  tC^  di  oXtjs-  'Aly^^^rw,  2y§/af  re  j(^  TiI'v 
 aTr'    avaToX-^f    x^    y.\i)i.'Kco    /xsx,§t     to    'IXku^nCo)/    K>-/^<<a    Tra^a- 
 
 '^'^  Vid.  supr.  p.  27.  n.  "^^ 
 
 ^''®  Euseb.  ibid.  p.  4  37.  1.  23.— PaM'^  te  x^  Zau  %(£{d.  h'ay.siat. 
 ri\iov  Ivi  'E-jfccHuv  Maiv^<Tavi(ZV  re  ^  *A(pfi>cr,v  »^'  oXois  srsni 
 ovai    ToTr     ir^dorois     r»      ^nwypta     rov     Tro^sptov     v^noiABivavroc, 
 
(    §96    ) 
 
 in  council.  After  the  African  provinces  had  been 
 over-run  by  the  Vandals^"',  Hunnerick,  their  king, 
 summoned  tbe  bishops  of  this  churchy  and  of  the 
 adjacent  isles,  to  dehberate  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. 
 
 ^pYlffy.tveov,     utxoreiTcc     oijtOeto    ui^^l    Ttf?     bv     Av^vri     Xptr»av«?,    Ti?f 
 
 ^°*  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' 
 noruniy  quam  defenditis,  de  divinis  scripturis  proprie  approhetisj 
 quo  possit  agnosci  si  integram  fidem  teneatis."  Max.  Bibl. 
 Patrr.  Tom.  VIII.  p.  682.  d. 
 
 ^'^^  Vict.  Vitens.  ibid.  p.  683.  d.  "  Appropinquabat  jam  fu- 
 turus  dies  ille  calumniosus  Kal.  Febr.  ab  eodem  statutus.  Con- 
 veniunt  non  solum  universce  Africce,  verum  etiam  insularum 
 multarum  Episcopi,**  &c.  A  catalogue  of  the  bishops  is  given, 
 p.  689.  e.  sqq. 
 
 3^4  Max.  Bibl.  Patrr.  Tom.  VIII.  Preef.  p.  i.  «  lisdem 
 [libris  Vict.  Vitens.  de  Pers.  Vand.]  inserta  Professio  fidei 
 Catholicorum  Episcoporum  Africae,  quae  ex  Gennadio  cap. 
 xcvii,  probabilius  creditur  esse  Eugenii  Carthaginiensis  Epis- 
 copi — . 
 
 3^*  Ut  supr.  p.  292.  n.  »8^ 
 
C  297  ) 
 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  Pulgentius,  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.  **  Fictor,  genie  Afir 
 Vitensis  in  Africa  ICpiscopus:  An.  487."  Id.  ibid.  p.  104.. 
 **  Fulgentiiis  A/er,  ex  Abbate,  Ruspensis  hi  Africa  Episcopus : 
 clar.  circ.  An.  508."  Id.  ibid.  p.  23.  «  Ci/pnwius,  Cartha- 
 giniensis — ab  An.  248.  Episcopus  Carthagiuieiisis.''*  Id.  ibid, 
 p.  16.  "  Tertidlianus,  Presbyter  Carthaginiensis  circa  An. 
 192."  Bengel.  Apparat.  Crit,  var.  in  1  Job.  v.  7.  §  xiv.  p. 
 461.  *'  Expositio  haec  [vid.  supr.  p.  291.  n.  ^^^]  nomen  auc- 
 toris  non  habet  adjectum  ;  sed  praeter  cetera,  tenor  versionis 
 Latina^,  in  dictis  ibi  citatis,  ostendit,  in  Africa  olim  earn  esse 
 scriptam.  Et  quidem  scriptorem  ejus  esse  Marcim  Presby- 
 terem  Celedensem,  argumento  est  ilia  epistola  quam  Hieronyinus 
 ad  hunc  ipsum  Marcum  circ.  A.  C.  375  dedit,  ubiait,  '*  De  fide 
 quam  dignatus  es  scribere  Sancto  Cyrillo,"  &c. 
 
 ^°^  Vid.  supr.  p.  291.  n.  ^^^  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    ) 
 
 >vhich  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." 
 Uic  ergo  jam  gradiim  volunt  Jigere  stulti,  immo  cceci,  — — . 
 Si  enim  dixisset  imus  siuuuSf  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  Senno  nisi  vox   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."     Hie  ergo  jam   gradum   volunt  figere 
 Stulti  immo  ccEci,  qui  non  videant  primo,  **  Ego  et  Pater"  duo. 
 rum  esse  significalionem  ;  dehinc  in  novissimo,  "  sumus,*'  non 
 ex  unius  esse  persona,  quod  pluraliter  dictum  est ;  turn  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  subsiayitia  Patris. 
 £Id.  ibid.  cap.  iv.]     Caeterum  ubique  teneo  unam  siibstantiam, 
 in  trihus  cohcBrentibus,**    [Id.  ibid.  cap.  xii.]     In  order  to  ex- 
 press Tertullian's  notions  fully,  1  Joh.  v.  7.  should  stand,  "  tres 
 testimonium  perhibent  in  ccelo.  Pater,  Filius,  et  Spiritus  Sane-. 
 tiis ;  quae  tres  personce,  una  substantia  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 
 Tilio  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  ant^ 
 clearness  to  his  reasoning.     That  he  introduces  it  in  this  rp»n* 
 
(    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.  SO.  "  cceci 
 non  videant,  primo,  *'  Ego  et  Pater"  duorum  esse  significa- 
 tionem;  dehinc  in  novlssimo  '*  sunius,"  non  ex  unius  persona, 
 quod  pluraliter  dictum  est;  turn  quod  **  unum  sunius"  non  units 
 siimiis.  Having,  by  these  three  reasons,  wrested  Joh.  x.  30. 
 from  his  adversaries,  he  applies  it,  thus  interpreted,  to  the 
 explanation  of  I  Joh.  v.  7.  which  was  even  more  strongly  on 
 the  side  of  his  adversaries;  "  tres  unum  sunt,"  non  iimis,  qiio- 
 modo  dictum  est ^  <<  ego  et  Pater  unum  sumus.**  The  expla- 
 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.  fJO.  Tertullian  builds  on  Joh.  xiii.  16.  xvi.  7.  for  these  text* 
 clearly  proved  that  personal  diversity  between  the  Father,  the 
 Son,  and  the  floiy  Spirit,  which  Praxeas  denied;  as  they  re- 
 presented the  Son  as  interceding  ttvM  the  Father,  and  both  as 
 sendin^r  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  of  course  exhibited  the  three  in 
 ditferent  Persons.  But  it  was  necessary  that  Tertullian  should 
 not  divide  the  substance,  while  he  distinguished  the  Persons ; 
 and  iKi.i  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  opiained  by  Joh.  x.  SO:  at  the  same  time  that 
 he  insists  on  the  personal  diversity  of  "  Pater  et  Films."  His 
 argument  will  now  speak  for  itself;  "  post  Philippum  efc  totam 
 substantiam  quaestionis  istius  (Joh.  xiv.  8.),  qua^  in  finem  Evan- 
 gel ii  perseverant  in  eodem  genere  sermonis,  quo  Pater  et  Filiiis 
 in  sua  proprietate  distingtcmitur)  Paracletum  quoque  a  Patre 
 se  postidaturum,  quum  ascendisset  ad  Patrem,  et  missiiriiin  re- 
 promittit  (Joh.  ib.  16.  xvi.  7),  et  qiddem  alium,  sed  jam  pra?- 
 misimus  quomodo  alium,  Caeterum  "  de  meo  sumet"  inquit 
 (ib.  xvi.  14.)  "  sicut  ipse  de  Patris."  Ita  connexus  *  Patris 
 io  I^ilip,'  et  '*Filii  in  Paraclete*  ♦*  tres"  efficit  cohaereutes,  alte- 
 
G    300     ) 
 
 African  Churchy  until  it  loses  itself  in  time  imme-^ 
 morial. 
 
 rum  ex  altero,  qui  "  tres  unum  sunt**  non  unus  (1  Joh.  v.  7.) 
 quomodo  dictum  est  (John  x.  30),  '*  ego  et  Pater  unum  sumus;'* 
 ad  substantiae  unitatem,  non  ad  nunieri  singularitateni."  III. 
 That  St.  Cyprian  quotes  Scripture  is  placed  bej'ond  cent 
 troversion  by  his  express  declaration ;  scrijjitwn  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  in  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  TertuUian'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  tcater  aitd 
 blood**  not  only  Persons,  but  of  "  one**  substance  with  "  the 
 Spirit  y"  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  scriptum  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,  tiiat  it  must 
 liave  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;   aod  St.  Cyprian  had  absolutely  con- 
 
(    301    ) 
 
 4.  The  testimony  of  the  African  Churchy  which 
 possesses  these  stron^^  recommendations^  receives 
 confirmation  from  the  corroborating  evidence  of 
 other  churches,  which  were  similarly  circumstanced. 
 Phoebadius  and  Eucherius^  the  latter  of  whom  had 
 been  translated  from  the  Spanish  to  the  Galilean 
 Church,  were  members  of  the  latter^**';  and  both  these 
 churches  had  been  exempt^  not  less  than  the  Afri- 
 can, from  the  effects  of  Dioclesian's  persecution  ^°9. 
 Both  those  early  fathers,  Phoebadius  and  Euche- 
 rius,  attest  the  authenticity  of  the  contested  passage : 
 the  testimony  of  the  former  is  entitled  to  the  greater 
 respect^  as  he  boldly  w^ithstood  the  authority  of  Ho- 
 sius'*°^  whose  influence  tended  to  extend  the  Arian 
 
 nected  "  Pater  et  Fdius  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.  "  tre* 
 sunt  qui  testimonium  perhibent  in  ccelo.  Pater,  Verbum,  et  Spi- 
 ritus Sanctus."  I  must  question  the  seriousness  of  any  man 
 who  will  persist  in  declaring,  that  he  believes  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  inventcdby  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. 
 
 ^°^  Cave.  ub.  supr.  p.  56,  "  Pkosbadius  Galhis,  Agenni  Epis- 
 copus,  clar.  An.  359."  Id.  ibid.  p.  88.  "  Eudm-'nis  senior, 
 ex  Monacho  Leri?iensi,  ab  An.  circ.  434?.  Lugdunetisis  Eph' 
 copus." 
 
 509  vid.  supr.  p.  295.  n.  5°°. 
 
 "°  Phcebad.  contr.  Ariann.  sub.  fin.  '•'  Sed  non  sum  nescius 
 «— Osii   nomen  quasi   quemdam   in  nos   arietem   temperari — . 
 
(    302    ) 
 
 opinions  in  the  Western  world,  at  the  very  pefiod 
 in  yvhicli  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  tlie  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. 
 
 Sect  hanc  contra  iios  errigentibus  machinain  brevi  admodum 
 serraone  respondeo.  Non  potest  ejus  authorltas  praescribi, 
 quia  aut  nunc  errat  aut  semper  erravit,"  &c.  Max.  Bibl.  Patrr. 
 Tom.  IV.  p.  305.  c. 
 
 3"  Vid.  supr.  292.  n.  *^^  Bengel.  Apparat.  Crit.  var.  m 
 h.  1.  p.  4"71.  '*  Auctorem  Collocationis  [int.  opuscc.  Athanas* 
 Tom.  III.  p.  226.]  hodie  docent  esse  Maximum  Confessorem  : 
 qui  A.  C.  64-0,  monasterio  suo,  prope  Constantinopolin  relicto, 
 in  Africam  hit:  An. 645.  Romamvenit:  et  An.  655  Constant 
 tinopolin  retractus  est.  Unde  colligas,  Maximum  dicti  Jo* 
 hanneiy  [1  Job.  v.  7. J  antehac  sibi  ignoti,  apud  Afros  fuissc 
 votitum ;  eaque  re  exultantem,  ipsius  dicti  ornandi  et  produ- 
 cendi  causa  Dialogum  fecisse. — multa  dicta  ex  Nov.  Test,  (ne 
 de  LXX  interpr.  dicani,)  eo  modo  citat,  qui  Codicibtis  Africaiiis 
 respondet :  et  boo  dictum  *'  tres  unum  sunt,"  si  ille  ex  scholio 
 duntaxat  aliquo,  si  ex  Latinis  mom/mentis  id  repetisset,  si  alle- 
 gatio  ex  uUa  parte  minorem  firmitudinem  haberet :  quomodo 
 Athanasius,  Gra^'cus  doctor,  eo  utens  potuisset  introduci  ?  quo- 
 modo auctor  iotius  Colloqnii  coronidem  ac  summam  in  eo  posn- 
 isset'^  quomodo  Johan?ies  id  dicere  diceretur  ?  quomodo  deni- 
 que  Arianus,  diu  reluctatus,  cederet  ?  Vix  plus  huic  Dialog© 
 tribui  potest,  quam  tribuimus  modo.  Latinis  Afrorum  Codi- 
 cibus  notitiam  dicti  sine  dubio  debet  ille  auctor :  in  Grsecis  ao 
 deinceps  repererit,  considerent  eruditi.*' 
 
(    303    ) 
 
 Not  to  insist  at  present  on  positive  testimonies^'*, 
 
 ^**  To  the  testimony  of  Maxiraus,  already  cited,  n.  5".  we 
 li>ay,  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.    uvtIkoi,  yav  hfyon^av, 
 
 0T»  iv  T/j  y.a.Bo'^hK'p  'luccvva  yiypocTrlo  iv  roTq  i!:a>.ouin<;  avliypci^oiqy  OTl 
 **  Trav  TTDBViAat  o  uira'ktin  rlv  iricr^v,  cctto  t»  068  «x  eV**'*  TavtV})/  yuf 
 rriv  ^iccvoiav  ek  rcuv  TracXociuiv  oiyriy^oi(f)cov  TTspisTKov,  ol  x'^oi^nv  aTro 
 t5  Tijf  oixoKOjW.ia?  ocyBpuTTn  /SaAojtAsj'oi  rY,v  ©iOTy^ru  I  he  directly  ob- 
 serves to  the  purpose  already  specified:  Ibid.  1.  36.  ^^9  *J 
 ol  ituKoiOi  6^/X7}VeTs"  avrh  tSto  tTrsaioiAvivavro,  ux;  nvsq  thv  fxx.^mp'- 
 ynoavTss  rr,v  67r4S'0?'.'/iv,  >>vnv  ocito  t§  ©its  tov  ocv^futrov  BsP^ovn^, 
 cvvccviiKYi'rrrcti    ^\    avSpwTTOT^?  tr,  0£ot»jt»*    >t,  ax/rj  ilal   ^vo,   uKKci  tV. 
 
 Valesius,  n.  *.  in  h.  1.  observes;  *'  falhtur  hie  Socrates,  ct  dum 
 Nestorium  reprehendit,  in  Eutychetis  errorem  dilabitur,  qui 
 post  unitionem,  non  duas  in  Christo,  sed  unam  duntaxat  natu- 
 ram  esse  existimabat.'*  And  yet  1  Joh.  iv.  3.  v.  7,  8.  as  read 
 in  the  Latin  Vulgate  at  this  day,  fully  bears  out  the  allegation 
 of  Socrates.  1.  It  reads  in  1  Joh.  iv.  3.  "  omnis  spiritus  qui 
 solvit  Jesum,  ex  Deo  non  est ;"  and  thus  exactly  corresponds 
 with  7ru¥  w»ey/*a  o  Xv£i  Tov  'Ir^aSv  utto  re  ©te  «x  ertj  in  Socrates  ; 
 in  opposition  to  the  Greek  Vulgate,  which  reads,  t^  ^rav  -rrvevfxcc 
 0  fx-h  opooXoyeT  rov  'ItjctSv  X^js^ov  sv  aa^al  kXri'ku'^orocy  ex  tS  0e5 
 iK  tn  1  expressly  with  St.  Polycarp,  St,  John's  disciple,  vid. 
 supr.  p,  279.  n.  *-^^.  2.  In  retaining  "  tres  sunt  qui  testimonium 
 dant  in  ccelo,  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  mutHatioris  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,  '*  tre»  \mum  sunt,"  instead  of  o»  t^s??  sIj 
 
(    304    ) 
 
 the  disputed  v6rse^  though  not  supported  by  the 
 text  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 
 
 ro  sV  etcrt,  which  occurs  In  the  Vulgar  Greek;  and  thus  predi- 
 cating "  unum  sunt"  of  Spirltus  et  Sanguis,"  as  well  as 
 *'  Pater  et  Verbum,"  it  naturally  justifies  the  inference  of  So* 
 crates,  respecting  the  divinity  and  humanity  of  Christ,  which 
 he  represents  as  one^  k^  av./rt  eJcr*  ^^'o,  ochxd  'iv.  The  allusion,  in 
 this  passage,  to  *'  et  hi  tres  mum  suntf**  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  >cj  a  y.iTraif 
 fiV;  Uof  uAhoi  'iv.  But  souie  officious  scribe,  ignorant  of  the 
 variation  in  1  Joh.  v.  8.  {^k  ^o  ev,  in  the  Greek  Vulgate,  being- 
 rendered  "  unum  sunt,"  in  the  Latin)  turned  a  Scripture  quo- 
 tation into  an  heretical  assertion,  by  changing  e  xiTrai  into  «x/t«. 
 For  an  example  of  KiTr^i  in  the  sense  ascribed  by  S.  Jerome 
 to  posit um  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.  VIL  cap.  ix.  p.  854?.  under  whom  St.  Jerome  revi* 
 sed  the  Latin  text  of  the  Vulgate  in  :\:hich  the  abQV€  readmgs 
 ccciir,  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.  2;54. 
 
(    305    ) 
 
 thought  that  one  church  becomes  a  sufficient  voucher 
 for  one  even  of  the  sacred  books  of  the  Canon  ^'"^j 
 and  as  Eusebius  has  borne  the  most  unquahfied  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  tliat  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  wanting  to  convince  any  ingenuous  mind, 
 that  1  John  v.  7.  really  proceeded  from  St,  John 
 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.  VI.  cap.  xxv. 
 p.291.1.  40. 
 
 ^*'  Vid.  supr.  p.  295.  n.  J^o, 
 
(    306    ) 
 
 ern  worlds  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  exphcit.  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  in^ 
 stances,  which  are  of  any  importance. 
 
 It  is  scarcely  necessary  any  further  to  prolong 
 this  discussion,  by  specifying  the  relative  imperfec- 
 tion of  those  systems,  to  which  the  present  scheme 
 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.  Matthaei  is  scarcely  less  excep- 
 tionable, in  rejecting  the  testimony  of  the  Western 
 
(   so?   ) 
 
 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- 
 grity of  the  inspired  Word  is  properly  sustained,  must 
 necessarily  build  on  a  foundation  of  sand.  Whe- 
 ther 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- 
 ments must  be  taken  subject  to  the  testimony  of 
 tradition.  But  it  seems  to  be  a  strange  perversion 
 of  reason,  which  will  lead  any  man  to  give  a  pre- 
 ference 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 
 that  of  the  latter,  in  having  the  stream  of  tradition 
 rendered  turbid  in  its  course ;  it  is  exposed  to  infi- 
 nitely greater  chances  of  corruption,  from  external 
 sources.  Particular  Manuscripts^  not  to  speak  of 
 the  sacred  writings,  yet  of  the  antient  Fathers  are 
 liable  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  w^ere  committed;  that  they  were  guarded  from 
 corruption,  by  commanding  that  veneration,  which 
 has  never  been  excited  by  any  human  work;  and 
 that  they  have  been  dispersed  to  a  degree,  which 
 rendered  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;  and 
 that  the  true  reading  may  be  acquired  in  other 
 and  suspicious  sources. 
 
SECTION  V. 
 
 XhE  integrity  of  the  sacred  canon  being  once 
 placed  beyond  the  reach  of  the  objectour's  excep- 
 tions; the  raain  object  of  the  present  inquiry  may 
 be  said  to  be  already  accomplished.  The  great  end 
 which  the  inspired  founders  of  the  Church  had  in 
 view,  in  delivering  to  their  successours  a  written 
 Instrument,,  was  to  furnish  them  with  an  unerring 
 rule  of  faith  and  manners.  But  it  is  not  necessary 
 to  the  perfection  of  this  Instrument,  that  it  should 
 be  guarded,  by  a  perpetual  miracle,  from  the  chances 
 of  literal  errours.  The  real  practical  advantages 
 of  any  rule  of  faith  or  morals,  must  result  from  a 
 religious  adherence  to  the  precepts  which  it  incul- 
 cates. But  it  will  not  be  disputed,  that  those  pre- 
 cepts might  have  been  conveyed  in  an  endless  va- 
 riety of  manners  by  the  inspired  writers ;  and  that 
 the  language  in  which  they  chose  to  deliver  the  pre- 
 cepts may  be  endlessly  varied,  while  the  doctrine  is 
 preserved  unchanged  in  its  intention  and  substance. 
 Were  an  exact  literal  acquaintance  with  the  phra- 
 seology of  the  sacred  text  indispensably  necessary 
 to  an  attainment  of  the  important  truths  which  it 
 reveals^  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  the  mind^  is  indeed  vivid  and 
 permanent ;  but  when  the  volume  is  closed^  few  re- 
 tain an  accurate  remembrance  of  the  language  in 
 which  they  are  expressed :  and  no  memory  was  ever 
 adequate  to  the  task  of  retailing  the  whole  work 
 without  many  omissions  and  misrepresentations. 
 
 The  general  and  doctrinal  integrity  of  the  sacred 
 canon  being  preserved  from  corruption^  there  exists 
 no  obvious  or  necessary  cause^,  that  the  text  should 
 be  preserved  immaculate.  How  fully  impressed 
 with  this  conviction  the  inspired  writers  were^  must 
 be  directly  apparent  from  the  use  which  they  have 
 made  of  the  Septuagint^  which  was  ever  considered 
 a  free  translation  \  Those  who  were  best  qualified 
 to  inform  us  on  this  subject  have  expressly  declared, 
 that  the  apostles  have  quoted  from  that  version*. 
 
 '  S.  Epiphan.  de  Menss.  et  Pondd.  cap.  vi.  Tom.  II.  p.  163. 
 
 xapSi  ia-f^cc'/iX  Ul3$ilci  uy.coX'  «.  l^v  lpiJi.riViv6[/,Bva,  *  Kv^is  iy.£fct^» 
 •TTDoq  ffiy  tlcnxymcov  y.t,  Ucotr^si  Tn  (puvvi**  o^tx,  hv  Truq  ^uXov  ivpiatttlai* 
 01     ^£     lB^oiA,rjKOprci^vo    IpiJ.rivtviec)     'jrpocrlsBux.orsi;     to,     '   ^iVjo-Baq    yLHy* 
 
 erg,   iic70(,KHaov    jw,8,    TTfo^p/s;   T15    (puv-n   rtfi  dt^aiuq  (/.a,     v.a.t    opoc    vug 
 
 ToTs"  01/.0I01S  ccvTcov  '-f-ciTcc  Tr;y  'Trpoa-^nzviv  TTxvlci^^  vTTo  ruv  uvruv 
 lpu-/ivBvlu!v  •A.iiyi.ivoiq,  oTt  KoXus  o\  Xoyoi  iTpoGcTi'b'naccv  eIs"  (ppoiai))  ytaX 
 Cj(p€kzi'xv  ruv  fjLih'KQvruv  t^wv  efs  twv  t5  ©sa  tt/th'  wyscr^at  h,  t.  u 
 vid.  infr.  nn.  *  et  ^. 
 
 ^  S.  Hier.  adv.   Ruffin.  Lib.  II.  cap.  ix.   Tom.  II.  p.  25  K 
 <'  Apostolici  viri  Scripturis  utuntur  Hebraicis;  ipsos  Apostolcs 
 
(    311    ) 
 
 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  persplcuum  est.  Dominus  atque 
 Salvator,  ubicumque  Veteris  Scripturae  meminit,  de  Hebraicis 
 voluminibus  ponit  exempla : — in  ipsa  cruce  OnntJ/  nnh  »^«  »^« 
 Eli  Eli  lama  azavtani:  quod  interpretatur ;  *  Deus  meus,  Deus 
 meus,  quare  me  dereliquisti :'  non  ut  a  Sepfuaginta  position  est, 
 *  Deus  meus,  Deus  meus,  re  spice  in  me,  quare  me  dereliquisti  :* 
 et  multa  his  similia.  Nee  hoc  diciraus,  quod  Septuaginta  in- 
 terpretes  suggillemus,  sed  quod  Apostolorum  et  Christi  major 
 sit  auctoritas  :  et  vbicumque  Septuaginta  ah  Hebrceo  non  dis- 
 cordant, ibi  Apostolos  de  interpret  at  ione  eoriim  siimpsisse  exem- 
 pla, ubi  vero  discrepant,  id  posuisse  in  Graeco,  quod  apud  He- 
 brcBos  didicerajit.'*  Videatur  Id.  Procem,  in  Lib.  XV.  Com. 
 Is.  Tom.  IV.  p.  174. 
 
 5  Vales.  Epist.  de  Vers.  Septuag.  Interp.  subnex.  Euseb. 
 Hist.  p.  791.  1.  88.  Caeterum  ut  ea  quae  dixi,  in  compendium 
 redigam,  de  versione  LXX  ita  censeo.  Primum  quidem,  uni- 
 cam  semper  fuisse  LXX  Seniorum  versionem — kac  semper  usos 
 esse  Judaos  Alexandrines,  et  reliqiios  Hellenistas.  A  Judaeis 
 deinde  Chrlstianos  earn  accepisse.  Neque  enim  Apostoli  et 
 primores  illi  Christiani  alia  Veteris  Instrumenti  interpretatione 
 Grceca  sunt  usi,  quam  ea  qucs  vulgo  in  Synngogis  Judceorum 
 Plellenistarum  legebatur.*' 
 
(    312    ) 
 
 We  are  not  however  at  liberty  to  conclude^  that 
 the   inspired  writers  abstained  from  revising  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 a  settled  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 
 of  the  apostles,  that  they  rejected  the  notion  of  their 
 divine  commission.     On  these  grounds,  I  will  not 
 say  it  was  .politick,  but  I  believe  it  was  agreeable 
 to  the  principles  of  the  apostles,  whp  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 Text  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  hke  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 
 calculations,  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,  1  believe  it 
 may  be  inferred,  in  the  strictest  consistency  with 
 what  has  been  hitherto  advanced^  that  the  Byzan- 
 
 *  S.  August  ad  Hier.  Epist.  lxxi.  Tom.  II.  col.  161.  "  Ego 
 pane  te  mallem  Grcecas  potius  canonkas  nobis  interpretare  scrip- 
 turas,  quce  Septuaginta  interpret iim  auctoritate  perhibentar, 
 Perdurum  enim  erit,  si  tua  interpretatio  per  multas  ecclesias 
 cceperit  lectitari,  quod  a  Greeds  ecclesiis  Latince  ecdesice  dissQ-* 
 nabunt,  &c."     Conf.  supr.  p.  119.  n.  '^ 
 
 5  Vid.  supr.  p.  126.  n.  *°. 
 
 ^  Vid,  supr.  pp.  71.  121, 
 
(    314    ) 
 
 tine  text  may  possess  verbal  errours,  while  the 
 Eo-yptian  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 
 
(    315    ) 
 
 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.  h,  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  9.  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.  Ixxvifi.  sqq.  Tom.  II. 
 p.  87.  sqq. 
 
 ^  Id.  ibid.  Tom.  II.  p.  90.  n.  *.  "  In  judicandis  lectlonibus 
 spectatm*,  (1)  interna  eariim  honitaSy  qiise  pluribus  rebus  cer- 
 nitur:  (2)  testium  (codicum,  versionmii,  patrmn)  antiqiiorum 
 et  honorim  consensus,  prassertim  si  e  diversis  familiis  orti  sint, 
 diversasque  recensiones  texius  sequantur.''  Conf.  Proleg.  N.  T. 
 p.  Ixxix.  §  e. 
 
 ^  Id.  Praef.  in  Nov.  Test.  Sect.  III.  p.  lix.  sqq. 
 
 '°  Id.  Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  I.  p.  cxl.  *'  Copa  Iversio']  tam 
 presse  sequitur  vestigia  turn  Origenis  turn  cognatorum  cum  hoc 
 codicum^  ut  mcridiana  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  i?idole  tmhersa  sed 
 de  singulorum  etiam  locorum  lectionibus  exemplaris  istius,  quod 
 interpres  in  vertendis  sacris  libris  usurpavit,*'  «S:c.  Conf.  Proleg. 
 N.  T.  p.  Ixxviii.  c. 
 
 **  Id.  ibid.  p.  cviii.  "  Lectiones  codici  nostro  [L.]  cum 
 uno  alterove  Alexandrino  communes  pro  lectionibus  Alexandrince 
 recensionis  indubie  sunt  habendae."  Id.  ibid.  p.  cxxix.  "  Inter 
 omnes  quotquot  supersunt  Evangeliorum  codices  nullus  propin* 
 quiore  affinitate  cu7n  L  et  Origine  conjunctus  est  Codice  C. — 
 Sed  vix  unquam  C  et  L  in  lectione  a  textu  vulgari  diversa,  quoe 
 non  sit  nullius  plane  momenti  conveniunt,  quin  Origines  ultro 
 comitem  lis  sese  adjungat,  Qua2  observatio,  memoratu  longe 
 dignissima,  firmissimum  praesidium  est  theorice,  quam  tuemur, 
 de  receusione  Alexandrina,  et  de  textuSy  (quern  hi  codices,  con- 
 junctim  spectati  exhibent,)  antiquitatef  patria,  et  p-cBstantia,^* 
 
 **  Id.  ibid.  p.  cxxxiii.  "  Vicimus  igitur,  Codices  C  et  L — 
 plenos  esse  Alexandrinarum  lectionum  vetustissimarum,  eosdem- 
 que,  ubi  a  vulgari  textu  ita  discedunt  ut  inter  se  consentiant^ 
 semper,  paucissimis  forte  locis  exceptis,  lectiones  exhibere 
 easdenif  quas  Origines  ex  suo  exemplari  excitavit. — Quos  in 
 Evangeliis  perpetuos  fere  habuit  [Cod.  C]  comites,  (nempe 
 Origineniy  Clementem,  Eusebiiimy  Athanasiiim^  Cyrillumy  et  in- 
 terpretem  CoptuMy  nee  non  iEthiopum  et  Armenum)  ad 
 eorundem  in  Epistolis  quoque  societatem,  tantum  non  semper 
 applicat.  Itaque  in  his  etiam  libris  textus  ejus  Alexandrinus 
 est  et  vetustus." 
 
 "  Yid.  Symbb.  Critt,  ib.  p.  Ixxx.  sqq. 
 
(    317    ) 
 
 as  far  as  is  possible^  the  evidence  of  Teitullian  and 
 Cyprian,  with  that  of  the  Latin  translation  '^.  To 
 those  reading's,  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 '^  J^.  The  testi- 
 mony of  both  recensions  must  be  received  in  siib- 
 jection  to  the  internal  marks  of  perfection  or  errour. 
 2.  A  reading  which,  when  internally  regarded,  is 
 apparently  good,  is  admissible  on  the  single  tcsti* 
 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  comphcated  system,  which 
 is  intended  to  form  an  alliance  between  the  Alexan- 
 drine and  Western  texts,  in  order  to  outweigh  the 
 
 "*  Id.  ibid.  pp.  cxviii.  cxix. 
 
 *5  lb.  ibid.  Tom.  II.  p.  624?.  "  Ex  quibus  omnibus  efRcitur, 
 (1) — in  judicanuis  lectionibus  alterutri  recensioni  peculiaribus 
 sententiam  ferendam  esse  secundum  interim  bonitatis  lectionis 
 cuj usque  c77/ma  .-  (2)  lectionem  in  se  spectatam  bonam  ac  pro- 
 babiiem — pioeferendam  esse  lectioni  vulgarium — librorum,  $i 
 allcrutrius  recensionis,  sive  Alexanchincej  sive  Occidentalis  ei 
 patrocinetur :  (3)  majorem  tamen  esse. — Alexandriiice,  utpote 
 minus  interpolata?,  aucloritatem^  quam  Occidentalis — .  Quanti 
 vero  mouienti  nobis  esse  videatur  vtritisque  recensionis  consen- 
 f'Cjis  ted'imonlum,  sa?pius  diximus,"  Conf.  pp.  143,  H4,  145, 
 Proleg.  N.  T.  p.  Ixxix.  sqq. 
 
(    318    ) 
 
 authority  of  the  text  of  Byzantium^  is  rested  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  th^  name  of  Eusebius,  who  pubhshed  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'^ 
 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'9;  we  need  not  pass  those  concessions, 
 Avhich  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.  ^ 
 
 >7  Vid.  supr.  p.  54.  n.  '\  221.  n.  '^^  83.  nn.  ^^  et  7o. 
 
 «  Vid.  supr.  p.  144.  n.  ^\  137-  n.  '\  171.  nn. '''  et  "^ 
 
 '^  Vid.  supr.  p.  14.  sqq.  comp.  p.  22.  n.  '*°. 
 
 *°  Griesb.  Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  I.  p.  cxxviii.  Ex  his  mani- 
 festum  jam  est— nullum  siiperesse  Codicem,  qui  ubique  U7iam  atqiie 
 ecpiclem  recensionem  Ha  exprimat,  ut  lectiones  ex  aliis  recen- 
 sionibus  admixtas  habeat  nullas,  trium  quos  inter  se  compara- 
 vimus  Codicum  exem.plo  constare  potest.  Nonnunquam  enim 
 Origincs  et  D  cojisprant,  dmentiente  Codice  Lj  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. If  all  that  has  been  hitherto  advanced  be  not 
 fundamentally  erroneous,  neither  of  those  texts  can  be 
 aiUedated  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  ijiterpolaied  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  ^ve  have  only 
 to  take  his  own  account  of  ^lie  state  in  which  he 
 
 et   L   interdum  concinnunt,  refragrante   Ongcne.'*     Conf.  pp, 
 cix.  cxi.     Proleg.  N.  T.  p.  Ixxviii.'  b. 
 
 ""'  Vid.  supr.  pp.  25,  70.  130.  &c. 
 
 '"■  Vid.  supr,  p.  119,  conf.  pp.  T0,7L 
 
(    320    ) 
 
 finds  the  best  part  of  his  materials^  in  order  to  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  ofOrigen,  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 
 BI.  Griesbach's  voluntary   concessions,  his  works 
 must  have  gone  through  a  course  of  progressive 
 deterioration,  which  must  leave  us  at  a  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  further 
 
 *^  Griesb.  Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  I.  p.  cix.  *'  lihrarii  etiam  qui 
 Origenis  opera  transcribeyido  proj)agariinty  et  editores  qui  ti/pis 
 excndi  ea  cararunt,  saepenumero  justo  negligeniiores  fuerunt  in 
 describendis  aut  recensendis  locis  e  S.  S.  citatis,  eosqiie  e  Codi- 
 cibus  junioribus  aut  editionibus  bibliorum  Graecorum,  quibus 
 adsueti  ipsi  erant,  interpolarunt.^* 
 
 ^  Id.  ibid.  p.  cviii.  **  tenendum  est — ron  ubique  satis  certo 
 nobis  constare,  quid  in  sue  cxemplari  legerit  Origenes ;  nam  non 
 solum  paidlo  Uberius  interdum  oracula  S.  S.  excitavit,  pallulum 
 immidato  uno  et  altera  vocabido,  aut  consfructionis  ordine,"  &c. 
 
(    321     ) 
 
 granted^  that  there  is  no  security  in  depending  on 
 the  very  copies  which  he  used^  as  they  too  were  suf- 
 ficiently often  corrupted  *K 
 
 With  regard  to  the  cimracter  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* 
 rieSj  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  sw^eeping  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- 
 
 *^  Id.  ibid.  "  tenendum  est,  exemplor  Origenisy  utut  praestan- 
 tissimum,  et  alii  nulli  secundum,  non  tame?!  ab  omni  omnino  labe 
 immune  Juisse ;  fieri  igitur  potuisse,  ut  in  nostro  codice  [L] 
 conservaretur  prisea  et  nativa  lectio — ubi  Origenis  exemplar  iii' 
 terpolatiim  jam  esset."     Conf.  p.  cxxxii. 
 
 ^^  Vid.  supr.  p.  318.  n.  "°. 
 
 *^  Griesb.  ibid.  p.  cvi.  "  Certe  exemplari  usus  est,  [libra- 
 rius  qui  Cod.  L.  scripsit],  in  cujiis  maigine  a  manu  recentiori 
 annotatx  erant  lectiones  variae,  e  junioribus  libris  decerptee, 
 quas  cum  librarius  noster  correctiones  esse  autumaret,  passim 
 praetulit  eas  antiquis  et  genuinis  lectionibus,  quae  in  archetypi 
 sui  textu  primitus  exstabant.  Atque  sic  irrepsere  in  codicem 
 nostrum  lectiones  nonnullce  sed  perpaucas  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- 
 clusion to  what  is  here  assumed  as  true,  might  be  just  as  easily 
 established, 
 
 t 
 
(    322    ) 
 
 ginal  scliolia,  and  from  the  interpretations  of  the 
 antient  fathers  *^ 
 
 With  respect  to  the  testimoriy  of  Versions,  we 
 find  as  httle  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  ^9_,  cannot  be  accounted 
 antient  or  separate  witnesses.  As  these  versions  are 
 divided  by  the  Eusebian  sections  ^°,  they  possess  in- 
 ternal evidence  of  having*  in  some  measure  descend- 
 ed from  the  Palestine  edition.  An  agreement  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  Evange- 
 lists.    With  respect  to  the  Persick  and  Arabick^% 
 
 *^  Griesb.  Praef.  in  Nov.  Test.  Sect.  II.  p.  1.  "  Caeterum 
 jiullius  codicis  vitia  de  consulto  me  celasse-aut  dissimulasse, 
 satis  inde  patet  quod  innumeros  gravissimosque  errores,  in  iis 
 commissos  codicibiis,  quos  caeteroqui  ^nagni  Jac'io^  velut  BCD 
 L  1  33  124  157,  &c.  ingenue  indicavU*  Conf.  Sect.  III. 
 p.  Ixiv, 
 
 *^  In  the  present  instance  I  would  be  understood  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. 
 Jerome. 
 
 ^°  Adler,  de  Verss.  Syriacc.  Lib.  II.  p.  50.  "  Idem  Thomas 
 Evangelia  [Vers.  Syr,  Philox.]  in  capitula  vel  sectiones  distri" 
 huit,  et  pericopas  diebus  festis  recitandas  constituit."  Conf. 
 supr.  p.  82.  n.  ^^  p.  29.  n.  ^°.  Woid.  Pro^.egg.  in  Vers.  Saliid. 
 Fragmentt.  p.  140. 
 
 *'  No  one,  it  is  presumed,  will  claim  a  higher  antiquity  for 
 these  versions,  than  the  age  of  Constantine,  when  Eusebius  re- 
 
(    333    ) 
 
 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  tha,t 
 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  tei^t,  as  authorised  by  Constantine ; 
 vid.  supr.  p.  26.  n.  '^*.  conf.  p.  S4<.  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.  7rt;0o/>tayos  yhot  'Jta^oi 
 ra)  Hifcuv  yivn  irKr^^vvnv  roi<;  Ttf  ©£«  eHKA>3«ria?,  Ka,ii<;  Ts  /xt'payJpas 
 totTi  Xp»r«  B'otjw.i'atj?  tvccyiXot^cO-^aiy  ^ai^u*  ett*  tvj  rsruv  ocKori,  oioi 
 7ii  Koivoq  ruv  a,'rrcinccp(H  mn^i^uv  vu'Kiv  KuvravBoi  rvjv  ruv  octfuvtuv 
 t\(Trtyz  ir^ovoixv,     Socrat.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xix.  p.  49. 1.  3L 
 
 6  ^pt^iocviafjioi  ETrXaUvvslo'  rr^viKccvra,  ya.^  'Iv^aJv  re  rwv  iv^ore^a 
 xj   \^Y)£Uv  rcc  B^r/i)   if^o<;   to  ^^t^iaviQn*  IXayS^ve   triv   u^y^v,      Conu 
 
 Euseb.  Vit.  Const.  Lib.  L  cap.  viii.  p.  502.  1.  20-  Lib.  IV.  cap. 
 L  p.  ^Z^.  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. 
 1.  26.  Lib.  III.  cap.  i.  p.  576.  I.  17.)  the  Gospel  was  read  in 
 Arabia  in  the  reign  of  his  successour,  Constantius.  Theophi- 
 lujs,  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  Eniperour;  Philostorg.  Hist.  Eccl. 
 Lib.  III.   $  5.  p.  488.   I.  17.  ed.  Read.  Cant.   1720.   y.dy.u^t* 
 
 I.  27.3?  »*3  wo^^a  Tuv  9ra^'  avro7$  a;t  tvayw^  ^p&jfAEvuv  iTrocvuf^usocro, 
 3ti  yaq  xaS's^o/xevoi  to/v  ivcc\yikiKuv  dva.jVMCiJ.oi.rcfjy  sTToiSylo  rr,if 
 dy.p6(x.aiVy  x.  t.  e. 
 
 ^*  As  the  Goths  embraced  Christianity  through  motives  of 
 policy,  to  conciliate  the  Emperpur  Valens,  v/ho  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. 
 
 x'ri 
 
(    324    ) 
 Saxon  ^^  and  Slavonick  ^"^^  the  testimony  of  whicft 
 
 p.  9,56-  1.  8'  T0T£  ^E  xj  *OYX<piXecz  o  ruv  Tot^uv  ETrianoTro?,  -ypajt/i/AaTot 
 ra?  ^i»^/3a§»?   /xa>Sai/£iv    ra   ^era   ?;oy»a    wa^acry.Evafrft'.      But  OS  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  Northern 
 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. 
 Griesbach  terms  it,  the  Alexandrine  Recension.  It  is  worthy 
 ©f  remark,  that  at  this  period  St.  Athanasius  was  alive,  who 
 revised  Eusebius's  text  under  the  Emperour  Constans;  vid. 
 eupr.  p.  131.  sqq.  Socrat.  ibid.  cap.  i.  p.  214.  1.  19.     ^OTdX'/is 
 
 ^poUiiiluv  l^yaauroj  uq  ir^o'ikiv  o  t>3?  Wof'^ccq  ^-nXua-n  7\oyo<;.  KCKloi  ^■n 
 Tov  y^povov  rov^E,  ryiq   /ae»  Iv    'Fu>[/,y)    UKXriaiaq    wposr^xet    Af/Si'otos* 
 
 ' As^tiuntjicr-nq  Aszxoi;. 
 
 ^5  The  testimony  of  the  Gothick  version  being  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  M'estward  as  Britain,  and  the  dispersion  and  influence  of 
 Eusebius'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  Constantino,  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«  i*  ottb^  y  uv  aura,  tjjv  ruv  Pw/z^atwc  ttoAjv  te  y^ 
 Aippiy.YjVj  'lra?^luv  te  a'jrccauv'  Alyvn^rov,  'L'^TccAxVf  TuXhiotq,  Bps-rloiAai, 
 Ai^vcy.^y — //tri    x^    <rv^^a:v<o    (pv>.a.'[\BTui    yvcuy-viy   cccrnhuq    tSto     x^     ^ 
 
 vuArs^a  -s-po-^jl^Ta*  avnaK;,  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  Cop  tick  and  Phi- 
 loxonian  version ;   that  this  conformity  is  derived 
 
 the  Empire;  Ibid.  cap.  xx.  p.  589. 1.  28.  ravr-n^  ^ccai^sv^lviroXni 
 Itro^vva^ji^a-av  y^cctprtv  g(p'  IxfljfyiS'  llIaQ^yjas  onTrEixTrsTo*  ho'Trl^l^eo-Bon 
 rvji  avra  ^lavoiaq  to  y.uBccfaiTurov   x^   T?ij   w^oj  to  ^sTou  oa-icc^j  iroLpiymv 
 
 TOK  evTuxa^acrt.  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. 
 XXxiv.  p.  G^^.  1.  29.  0  ^£  1UV  Ix-yMo-ii^v  t5  Qsh  •n-sTrpovo^iA.syo^y 
 arc^i  KoclacaxBUYtS  ^eo7rvsv<3-cov  Xoyicov  sis  vnAsrsqav  'jr^oacoTToy 
 tTrail'^ei  to  y^ccixjxac*  a,?^a.  ^yj  y^  tts^I  rrjf  uyicJlxrriS  t«  Uaa'/jx 
 
 ^*  This  Version,  according  to  M.  Griesbach,  follows  the  By- 
 zantine text,  instead  of  the  Alexandrine ;  Prolegomm.  in  Nov. 
 Test.  Sect.  III.  p.  Ixxv. — "  Jicec  recensio,  quam  ConstantinopO' 
 litanam  hinc  nominare  licebit,  in  Patriarchatu  Constantinopoli- 
 tano  potissimum  propagata  ac  per  libraries  innumeros  deinceps 
 longe  lateque  disseminata,  et  in  Slavonicam  eiiam  Versionem 
 (cujus  tamen  codices  ipsi  inter  se  haud  raro  dissentiunt,) 
 transfusa,*' 
 
 35  On  this  subject  I  shall  have  an  opportunity  of  speaking  at 
 lai'ge  hereafter. 
 
(    326    ) 
 
 from  the  text  of  Eusebius.  The  concurrence  of 
 Clement  and  Origen  in  the  East,  with  Tertullian 
 and  Cyprian  in  the  West,  may  be  conceived  enti- 
 tled to  greater  attention  ^^.  But,  in  the  first  place^ 
 the  very  existence  of  such  a  coincidence  of  testi- 
 mony, must  be  disputed  ^'^.  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- 
 
 2®  Griesb.  Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  I.  p.  cxviii.  *'  Hinc  enim 
 coUigimus,   plerasque   lectiones   Codicis   D — extitisse  jam   in 
 
 iji  illis  libris  GrcsciSy  e  quibus  conjicta  est  Versio  Latina  VetuSy 
 qua  usi  sunt  Tertullianus,  Cyprianus,  aliique. — recte  etiam  pro 
 antiquissiraa  earn  a  nobis  haberi,  cum  eandem  in  Tertulliani  et 
 Cyprlani  allegationibus  jam  inveniamiis.  Sed  altera  Recensio, 
 quam  proper  perpetuum  patribus  Alexandrinis  et  cum  versi- 
 onibus  in  Mgyipto  confictis  Alexandrinam  appellamus  ceque 
 \)etusta  est,  utpote  quae  Clementis  jam  et  Origenis  cevo  ex- 
 stitit.'* 
 
 ^^  I  subjoin  a  few  examples  of  remarkable  texts,  in  \rhich 
 Origen  differs  from  Clement,  and  Cyprian  from  Tertullian. 
 Mat.  V.  48.  0  TraTJjp  0  8V  ToTf  ipcCMOiS,  Vulg.  Clem,  o  Trar-^p 
 o  ^gavtof.  Vat,  Orig.  lb.  x.  39.  zv^Tiasi  oivrh*  Vulg.  Orig.  cuazi 
 ecvrhv.  33.  Clem.  Luc,  xii.  9.  hou'Triov  rcjv  cifyeTiuv.  Vulg.  Orig. 
 €po7r§off3-£v  Tc^v  a,fyi>.m.  Cant.  Clem,  Mat.  xxv.  41.  to  c^rojpta- 
 dJ'ivov  ra  ^iuBoXu  Vulg.  jprceparatum  diabo  lo  .  o  rirotfxxasy 
 
 0  <7rotT7ip  /x8  Tw  ^la^oXu)  Cant,  quern  paravit  pater  meus  diabolo. 
 Cypr.  Gal.  i.  9.  afysXos  e|  y^avS,  svacfysXi^rflai  Trct^'  o,  Vulg, 
 angelus  de  coelo  aliud  adnunciet  praeterquam.  Cypr.  afyeXo?  s| 
 i^a,vH  £uccfyE\iffrflai»  Alex*  angelus  ex  ccelo  aliter  evangelizaverit, 
 Tert. 
 
 ^*  The  monks  of  Palestine  brought  this  charge  against  those 
 who  took  a  part  in  the  Nestorian  and  Eutychian  controversy. 
 
(    327    ) 
 
 pies  of  Clement  and  Origen  were  corrupted  in  their 
 life  time  ^^ ;  the  manuscripts  from  which  Tertullian's 
 
 which  arose  very  shordy  after  the  death  of  St.  Athanasius ; 
 Epist.  Monn.  Palest,  ap.  Evagr.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  III.  cap, 
 Xxxi.  p.  363.  1.  34.   k^  »  ^xvy.a^  >t)  y«p  tc  Koyas  ncclipuv  iroWacKiS 
 
 0ai;^a]«^7iw,  x^  laAiw,  oj«  ruv  l7riypa(pajv  KvctltBiiy.uaH)*  ol<;  /xa^jj-a 
 rhq  7ro?vAa?  Tpof  ras  t^ta?  ccas^eiug  cr<pBls^i^oila.t,  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  quae  ex  lihris  Grceconim  Scriptorum 
 
 exempla  protulimus, non  pigebit  etiam  Latinis  Scriptoribus 
 
 talla  qiicrdam  accidissc  monstrare,  et  calumnias  immensas,  ex 
 adulteratione  lihrorum  suorumy  Sanctis  et  probatissimis  viris  esse 
 commotas.  Et  ne  quid  apertaj  credulitati  desit,  7-es  qiice  dnt 
 adhiic  memorice  nostrce  retexam,  quo  testimonii  Veritas  neminem 
 iateal."     Int.  Operr.  spectt.  ad  Orig.  Tom.  IV.  p.  53.  b. 
 
 ^^  Thus  much  is  apparent  from  the  controversy  between  Ru- 
 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  follov.ing  words ;  Rufin.  ib.  p.  50.  b. 
 *'  Et  quamvis  quamplurimi  sint  ex  veteribus  in  quorum  libris 
 hujuscemodl  depi-ehenditur  adulterium,  paucorum  tamen  sufficit 
 adhibere  teslimonia,  ex  quibus  facilius  quid  etiam  Origenis 
 libi-is  accideritj  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. 
 **  Fradmissix  Jalsatione  ab  haereticis  Apostolorum,  et  utriusque 
 
 dementis,  atque  Dionysii,  venit  ad  Onginem.*' 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;  Origenn.  Lib.  II.  cap.  iii.  §  x. 
 
(    328     ) 
 
 works  have  been  printed  are  notoriously  faulty^*; 
 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, 
 
 '^^  Rigalt.  de  Tert,  Praef.  [p.  ii.]  "  TantI  viri  scripta 
 legentibus,  etiam  baud  mediocriter  litteratis,  occurrunt  difficilia 
 non  pauca,  sermonis  et  scripturse.  Nam  sermonis  quidem  Afri- 
 cani  superbia,  doctrinarum  ferme  omnium  dote  pr£EStans,  lec- 
 tores  sibi  poscebat  ad  nutum  attentissime  sagaces.  Posteaquam 
 vero  in  longe  alios  incidit,  mutari  ccepit  a  quibus  7ion  potuit 
 capi  :  et  spurias  dictiones  pro  legitimise  adultercE  manus  inverere' 
 cundia  sparsit.  Scripturse  autem  nativae  ruina,  auctoris  verbis 
 semel  interceptis,  ut  obtrito  corpora,  sensum  una  quoque  ipsum 
 et  mentem  profligavit.  Sic  pessimi  correctores  emendatissima 
 jjerdidere. — Dira  natio  ta7n  fcede  Septimii  nostri  lihros^  adeo 
 quoque  pridem  vexavit,  ut  jam  falsi  vetustas  longi  temporis  praet 
 scriptionem  obstruat  veritati.  Quod  si  veterum  librorum  ap- 
 pelles  fidem,  etiam  veterwn  librorum  fide  fahissimce  lectione$ 
 adseruntur.  Nam  sunt  et  libri  veteres  depravatissime  correcti  j 
 neque  ulla  spes  reducendae  unquam  veritatis,  nisi  tam  veteres 
 nanciscamur,  yt  sint  omni  correctorum  antiquitate  vetus- 
 tiores.*' 
 
 '^^  Fell.  not.  in  Cypr.  Lib.  Testim.  p.  17.  "  Sperabam  qui* 
 dera  ex  largo  hoc  quod  in  tractatu  isto  liabetur  Scripturarurr\ 
 spicilegio,  ad  Versionis  Latinee  quae  Hieronymianam  praecessit 
 restitutionem,  gradum  aliquem  praestrui  potuisse.  Et  certe  si 
 modo  sibi  ubique  constaret  Cypriani  textusy  loca  ilia  quae  a  lec- 
 tione  vulgata  discrepare  deprehenduntur,  pro  Antiquce  Versio' 
 nis  reliqidis  non  immerito  haberemus.  Sed  cuxxv  ea  sit  lectionum 
 in  MSS.  codlcibiis  varietas,  ut  plura  simul  occurrant  quae  a  vul- 
 gatis  discrepent ;  et  in  his  quid  a  Cypriano  scriptum  fuerit, 
 codicibus  sibi  ipsis  non  respondent ibus,  minime  constet :  porro 
 cum  primorum  saeculorum  patres,  in  S.  Scripturis  laudandis, 
 diversimode  se  habeant;  curam  hanc  ceu  tantum  non  deplorataiyj, 
 Cf.mcmus.     Flam,  Nobilius,  aliique  viri  eruditi,  Tertiilliani,  C^^ 
 
(    329    ) 
 
 tJiat  these  fathers  not  only  followed  each  other**, 
 adopting  the  arguments '•^^  and  quotations  ^"^  of  one 
 
 jyrianiy  Hilaril,  Ambrosii,  Hieronymi,  et  Augustini  lectlones 
 Scripturarum,  ex  libris  impressis  afFatim  Ingerunt ;  parum  me- 
 mores  in  codicibus  MSS.  rem  aliter  atqiie  aliter  passim  se 
 habere.'* 
 
 "**  The  works  of  Tertullian  opened  a  channel  through  which 
 the  peculiar  texts,  that  were  cited  by  Justin  Martyr  and  St. 
 Irenaeus,  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.  Nee  undiquK 
 dicemur  ipsi  nobis  finxisse  materias,  quas  tot  jam  viri  sanctitate 
 €t  praestantia  insignes,  nee  solum  nostri  intecessores,  sed  ipso- 
 rum  haeresiarcharum  contemporales,  instriwtissimis  voluminihus 
 et  prodiderunt  et  retuderunt :  ut  Justinus  Philosophus  et  Martyr, 
 ut  Miltiades  Ecclesiarum  sophista,  ut  Irenceus  omnium  doctri- 
 narum  curiosissimus  explorator,  ut  Proculus  noster,  virginis 
 senectae,  et  christianse  eloquentiae  dignitas :  giios  in  omni  opere 
 Jideiy  quemadmodum  in  isto,  optaverim  asseqni." 
 
 "♦^  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.  Hacr,  Lib.  IV.  cap.  xxxiii.  p.  273.  Tert.  adv. 
 Marc.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  xlii.  p.  450.  S.  Cypr.  adv.  Jud.  cap.  xxiii. 
 p.  46.  In  the  same  manner  Is.  Ivii.  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.  Ila^r.  Lib.  IV,  cap.  xxxiv.  p.  276.  Tert.  adv.  Marc.  Lib. 
 III.  cap.  xxii.  p.  398.     S.  Cypr.  adv.  Jud.  cap.  xiv.  p.  40. 
 
 "^"^  Instances  constantly  occur  of  Origen  following  Clement, 
 and  Cyprian  following  Tertullian  in  readings,  which  are  found 
 in  no  manuscript  or  version ;  Mat.  x.  26.  ii^lv  yup  In  xExaAu/x- 
 
 fAiVoVf    0   ii>c   ci7ioy.(xXv(pd*icrs7cciy  t^  y.fVTTTov  o   »   yvoj^'/iJ-sTOti    Vldg.   kTitf 
 
(     330     ) 
 
 another;  but  that  they  quoted  from  the  heterod(55t 
 as  well  as  the  orthodox  "^^     They  were  thus  also 
 
 Cleni,  Oiig.  Mat.  vi,  S3.  >^  tocvtcc  'Traura  TrpoarivJ^crETat  vijusi, 
 Vulg.  nul  Tiravra,  x.  r.  a.  ociTBira  ra.  [xeyuXx,  >^  ru  fAiKfci  CyAV 
 9Tpoar£^ria&rai'  yC,  aircXrB  roc  sTrnqoLVioCj  oc  ra  I'Tiiyzix  'npoS" 
 rE^rtOilxi  v[/.7v.    Clem.   Orig,  Euseb,     1  Thes.  v.  21.   fruvra,  St 
 
 roc  (Av  a'Tro^oKifxa'^ovTiCj  to  ol  xaAov  kccte^^ovtbc.  Clem.  oCKt/XOI 
 T^a7r£<^tT«t  7tv£(J^cj  «;  tnv  UavXe  ^t^ap^rjv  (puay.ovroq*  Ilxvra  ^oxi" 
 ftoi^iTi  TO  kocXqv  xaT£%£T£.    Orig.    Mat,  vi.  13.    «}    /Lt^    8tV£PEy)«»J?    ^/:;taj 
 
 St;  wsipacr/xoi/.  Fz^/o".  ne  nos  inducas  in  teiitationem,  id  est,  ne  nos 
 patiaris  induci.  T^rt.  et  ne  nos  j^aiiaris  induci.  Cypr.  Joh.  iii.  6. 
 vnv(jt.x  Ifi.  Vulg.  spiritus  est,  qicia  Dens  spiritiis  est  et  ex  Deo 
 ^atus  est.  Tert.  Cypr.  1  Cor.  vi.  20.  ^o^.cc<jcx.t£  o^j  rov  Qiov  h  ru 
 9u)yt.a.Ti.  Vulg.  Glorificate  et  toll/te  Deum  in  corpore  vestro. 
 Tert.  Glorificate  et  portate  Deum  in  corpore  vestro.  Cypr. 
 The  two  last  readings  are  however  found  in  some  MSS. 
 
 ■'^  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  Hebrseos :  si  tamen  placet  alicui  red* 
 pere  illady  non  ad  auctoritatem,  sed  ad  manifestationem  pro- 
 positce  qusestionis;  *  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.  lav  o\  Tr^oo-itrcci  tk  tt 
 
 fxe  ii  f.4«Try(:  f.'.»  TO  '  Aytov  YivBVfj,a  sv  jjao,  tcjv  Tfiy^uv  ^a,  >cj  uTtivtyyti 
 tKZ  tU  TO  0^0';  TO  ixiyu  Ga^iSf.'  i'lrocTrofr.cru  vruq  iA,vi'xr,^  XprS  to  ^ioc 
 tS  Aoya  yiyir/ii/Aiov  Hviiy.ce.  " Ayiov  ilvon  ^vvctrctr  tavTct  ^g  t^  tSto 
 »  ^'y.?si7rov  sf>j.-nnv:Txi.  k.  t.  e.  Another  example  has  been  already 
 given  bupr.  p.  27i3.  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.  Ha^r.  xliv.  p.  382.  b. 
 
 Ourwr  yrjCQj  (b.crw^  ipv  £»  t:?  E:^'a^76^^«.      '  VUicr^e  ^ov.j/AOt  TfaTrs^iTai.* 
 
 which  has  been  cited  by  a  long  succession  of  writers  from  Cle- 
 ment to  Clir^sostome.     Conf.  Orig.  Tom.  I.  p.  912.  b.  1. 
 
(    331     ) 
 
 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  thence 
 transplanted  into  the  text  from  the  margin ''^7.     New 
 
 *^  The  orthodox,  In  reasoning  against  the  hereticks,  fre- 
 quently derived  their  authorities  from  those  Scriptures  which 
 were  acknowledged  by  their  opponents.  S.  Iren.  adv.  Haer. 
 Lib.  III.  cap.  xii.  p.  198.  "  Unde  et  Marcion  et  qui  ah  eo 
 sunty  ad  intercidendas  conversi  sunt  Scripturas,  quasdam  qiiidem 
 in  totum  non  cognoscentes,  secundum  Lucam  autem  Evange- 
 lium,  et  Epistolas  Pauli  decurtantes,  haec  sola  legitima  esse 
 dicunt,  quae  ipsi  minoraverunt.  Nos  autem  etiam  ex  his,  quct 
 adhuc  apud  cos  custodiuntur,  arguemus  cos,  in  altera  conscrip- 
 tione,  Conf.  S.  Epiphan.  Hser.  xlii.  p.  310.  b.  An  example 
 of  this  mode  of  conducting  the  controversies  maintained  against 
 the  hereticks,  has  been  already  given  from  Tertullian ;  supr. 
 p.  147.  n.  «^ 
 
 '^^  The  following  appear  to  be  readings  which  have  demon- 
 strably originated  in  this  manner ;  Mat.  x.  23.  (piiysrz  iU  Trjy 
 aKhfiv,  Vidg,  <pivys7£  sU  rriv  Iri^ccv  xav  s>t  rccvins  ^iuyicoai^  vfxoif, 
 (^ivyBXZ  eIs"  rriv  a,'K>>T,y,  Orig*  1.  33.  22.  al.  (piiyirt  tlq  r-fiv  aK^yiv, 
 focv  5e  fcv  rr,  c^KXri  huncaaiv  Cixais  (fsi/ys/s  iU  rr,v  aXXw,  Cant. 
 ^svyiTE  Els'  r7]V  krioaVy  y.<p  h  tyJ  ers'^a  "^iJjKcoaiVy  ttoXiv  (psuysls 
 its  Trjv  aXXijv.  Grig,  alibi.     Act.  iv.  25.  o  ^ta  TOfjiuToq  Aa/S*^  t5 
 
 TTOii^Oi  ffH  iiTTUV,     Vldg,    0  ha.    'nVEVfJ.ofhs  Uy'lH    hx    TO^XToq    AjcjSJ^   t5 
 
 'jTon^Q(;  an  il'Ttui-'.  Didym,  Syr.  Copt,  o  t»  'no^pos  ^/xa;v  ha.  zrvexJ- 
 (xocJos  dyls  ro«.*To;  Acc(Sl^  •7ra,i^6i;  an  tliruv.  Vat.  Alex.  Laud.  Syr.p, 
 lb.  iv.  31.  IXaKuv  rlv  >^6yov — jtA£T<x  '7rapfr,(ricc<;.  Vldg.  iT^a'Say  rov  Aoyov 
 — (jt-iTa  Tra^^Yiaiaq  TTocvll  ru  ^IXovli  •TTis'svsiv.  Iren.  Cant.  Laud. 
 lb.  32.  y)  Jta^S'iet  k^  ri  '^'v^o  (/.la.  Vulg.  ^  xa^o^ta  t^  4'^%''  '/^»a, 
 ■)C^  bK  yjv  ^i&K^iais  Ev.ajJToTs"  bOcy.iV,.   Cant,  KXfh'cc  >^  vj  -^fx^  fj^ix. 
 
(    SS2    ) 
 
 revisals  of  Scripture  we^e  thus  formed,  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 ''^9.     From  such  progression  in  errour,  it  is 
 
 9C  iiii  ^v  y^oo^iayjjs  h  avrois  ris.  Laud,     lb.  xv.  20.  uTcix^ar^'^i-^ 
 
 &av%Xs  yivcs^oci,  kripoLS  (X'h  'TToisiv.  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.  ^s  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.  Haer.  xxx.  p.  138.  b.  -h  ^l  ap%^  tS  wap'  avtoTq  Et;a/1 
 
 *^  The  peculiar  readings  which  have  been  pointed  out  in  the 
 Cambridge  and  Verceli  MSS.  supr.  p.  127.  n.  '^^  p.  146.  nn. 
 *^  et  ^'.  6:c.  sufficiently  prove  them  to  be  revisals,  which  have 
 been  made  in  this  manner. 
 
 "^9  The  number  of  MSS.  which  we  retain  of  St.  Cyprian's 
 works,  em\bles  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,  INlat.  xxv.  31 — 46,  and  which  he  has  repeated  three 
 times  in  his  writings.  Lib.  I.  adv.  Jud.  p.  51.  Lib.  III.  Testi- 
 monn.  p.  59.  De  Operr.  et  Eleemm.  p.  207.  But  while  it 
 differs  considerably  from  the  Brescia,  Verceli,  and  Verona 
 MSS.  it  agrees  verbatim  mth  the  modem  Vulgate,     It  can  b& 
 
(    333    ) 
 
 evident  that  nothing  but  uncertainty  can  be  the 
 result,  when  we  proceed  to  determine  the  antiquity 
 of  any  reading  or  text^  by  its  consent  with  the  pre- 
 sent copies  5°  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  ocoasionally  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  fe-.v 
 €xaniples  will  illustrate  this  assertion.  Mat.  ix.  13.  xaAc-crat 
 ^ixaiaj,  a^^a  <^^«pTa;^i??  £»?  (/.f-ravoiav.  Vulg.  Bamab.  vocare 
 justos  sed  peccatores.  Verc.  Bam,  Literpr.  Rom.  v.  14.  t's-* 
 Tfcf^  afjict^rrtrrccirx^.  Grig,  in  eos  qui  non  peccarunt.  Vtdg^  Orig. 
 Interp.  Hence  also  we  find  the  translation  frequently  contra- 
 dicts itself,  as  it  is  rendered  conformable  to  different  texts  j 
 Mat.  XXV.  41.  qui  prseparatus  est  diabolo.  Gr.  Vulg.  Orig.  his. 
 quern  praeparavit  Deus  diabolo.  Orig.  scp.pe.  That  the  genuine 
 reading  of  Mat.  ix.  13.  xxv.  41.  is  retained  in  the  Greek  Vul- 
 gate, has  been  already  made  evident  from  the  context  of  the 
 iLilick  Versign,  supr.'p.  180.  n.  '^^.  p.  1S3.  n.  *'°. 
 
(    SPA    ) 
 
 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  ihis  corruption  of  the  sa^ 
 creel  text  must  have  preceded  the  times  of  Clement 
 
 ^*  Griesb.  Symbb.  Critt,  Tom.  I.  p.  xxviii.  *'  Scimus  enim, 
 omnes  Recensioues  variis  vicissitudinibus  domesticisque  casibus 
 obnoxias,  et  procedente  tempore,  multis  modis  immutatas,  aut 
 cum  ctliis  recensionibus  permixtas  confiisasque,^*  Id.  Prole- 
 gomm.  in  Nov.  Test.  Sect.  III.  p.  Ixxviii.  "  Nulla  Recensio 
 in  codice  ullo  jam  superstite  reperitur  intaminata.  Eo  tem- 
 poris  intervalloj  quod  inter  Rccenslonum  origines  et  codicum 
 liodie  extantium  natales  intercessit,  singuli  codices  Recensio- 
 num  omnium  multifariam  Jiiere  corrupt i*  Quilibet  Jibrarius  in 
 apographo  suo  exarando  sphalmata  qusedam  commisit ;  erepse^ 
 rirnt  e  margine,  vel  aliunde  nova  interjjramenta,  glossary  addiia- 
 mcnta ;  negligens  et  festinans  scriba  nonnulla  passim  oraisit; 
 alterius  Recensionis  lectiones  illatss  sunt  in  alterins  familm 
 Ubros."  Id.  Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  I.  p.  cxxi.  "  Hinc  nosm.et 
 ipsi,  quamquara  utramque  illam  llecensionem  [Alex,  et  Occi- 
 dent.] magni,  ut  par  est,  faciamus,  tamen  in  nostra  Nov.  Test. 
 ^ditione  lectiones  sexcentas  Alexandrinas,  et  miUenas  Occident 
 talis  vel  prorsus  damnavimus,  vel  improbabiles  saltim  esse  pro- 
 nuntiavimus ;  iramo  haud  pancas  lectiones  in  iiiriusque  JRecen" 
 &ionis  codicibus  obvias  repudiavimus.'* 
 
 5^  Id.  Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  I.  p.  cxxi.  "  Ultra  tamen  fatemur 
 nullam  Recensionem  a  nxvis  immimem  esse,  aut  imquam  fuisse» 
 Nam  ncc  Alexandrina  neqve  Occidentalis  ex  autographo  pro- 
 fiuxit,  sed  uiraque  ex  apographis  passiin  interpolatis  derivaia 
 lest.'* 
 
(    335    ) 
 
 and  Tertuliian^  which  are  his  earliest  voiichen?^ 
 and  must  be  necessarily  referred  to  the  age  which 
 directly  succeeded  to  the  apostolical  ^^ !  After  the 
 concession  of  this  pointy  it  is  difficult  to  discover 
 what  further  objections  remain  to  be  made  to  this 
 system.  To  me  it  appears,  that  the  person  would 
 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,  tliat  we  should  be  able  to 
 recover  any  just  notion  of  it,  is  a  paradox  so  mon- 
 strous, that  the  man  who  maintains  it,  may^  1  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  voucliers,  wlio,  by 
 his  own  confession,  are  grossly  and  systematically 
 corrupted.  In  fact,  it  requires  but  a  slight  ex- 
 ertion of  sagacity  to  discover,  that  the  tlieory  of 
 sacred  criticism  must  be  absolutely  inverted  in  that 
 
 53  Id.  Prolcgg.  in  Nov,  Test.  Sect.  III.  p.  Ixxiv.  "  Poste- 
 riorem  hiinc  textum,  quern,  post  Clementem  et  Origineirfy  Alex- 
 andrini  ac  iEgyptii  potissimum  adhibuerunt  ac  disseniinarunt, 
 non  incommode  Alexandrinum  dixeris.  Alter  inde  a  TertuU 
 liani  tempore  ab  Afris,  Italis,  Gallfs  alii'ique  occidentalibue 
 usurpatus  baud  inepta  Occidentalis  nomine  insignlri  po- 
 tuit.'» .     Conf.  supr.  p.  526.  ii.  ''\    ' 
 
(    356    ) 
 
 system,  which  supposes  the  sacred  text  to  have  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 ;  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  vfhat  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- 
 blislied  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; — thai 
 since  that  early  period,  the  sacred  text  has  under- 
 gone revisals,  in  which  it  was  not  merely  liable  ta 
 interpolation,  but  positively  acquired  those  pecuh- 
 arities,  which  are  now  taken  as  evidence  of  its  an- 
 tiquity ^'^.     We  njay  be  indeed  told,  that  a  critick, 
 
 5^  Vid.  supr.  p.  72.  n.  ^\  p.  100.  n.  ^^.  pp.  14r— S3. 
 
(    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  rather  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  inapphcable  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  such  a  mode  of 
 defence,  we  may  give  the  preference,  not  only  be- 
 cause it  is  least  exposed  to  the  exceptions  of  the 
 
 '^  Griesb.  Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  I.  p.  cxx.  **  Viri  criticae  artis 
 henei^eriti  ejusmodi  maculas,  quibus  codices  singuli  polluti  sunt 
 nullo  tiegotio  abstergunt,  comparatis  inter  se  pluribus  ejusdera 
 Recensionis  codicibus,  versionibus,  et  patribus,  ac  adhibitis 
 regulis  criticis,  qua^  interpolationes  seriores  et  glossemata  a 
 lectionibus  genuinis  ac  primitivis  discernere  docent."  Conf. 
 Prolegg.  in  Nov.  Test.  p.  Ixiv.  sqq. 
 
 5^  Id.  Prolegomm.  in  Nov.  Test.  Sect.  III.  p.  Ixxiv.  "  Origo 
 variarum  textus  Novi  Test.  Recensionum,  deficientibus  docu- 
 mentis  satis  vetustis  ac  testimoniis,  historice  dedurari  nequitf 
 nee  hujus  loci  est,  conjecturis  defectum  iUum  sarcire.** 
 
 ^    Vid.  supr.  p.  315.  n.  ^ 
 
 % 
 
(    338    ) 
 
 objectour,  but  as  it  affords  as  advantageous  ground 
 as  can  be  easily  chosen,  for  vindicating  the  Greek 
 Vulgate. 
 
 Laying  it  therefore  down  as  a  principle  agreed 
 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  Byzantine 
 editions. 
 
 The  space  to  which  our  enquiries  are  limited,  in 
 seeking   those  antient  and  separate  witnesses,  is 
 necessarily  bounded  by  that  tract  of  country,  in 
 which  we  are  infallibly  assured  the  Gospel   was 
 planted,  and  copies  of  the  Scripture  dispersed,  at 
 the   earliest   period.     This  consideration   directly 
 [  fixes  our  attention  on  the  Syriack  Church  in  the 
 \  East,  and  the  Latin  in  the  West;  as  being  wit- 
 I  nesses  possessing,  above  all  others,  the  necessary 
 I  requisites,  of  being  antient  and  separate.     Situated 
 at  nearly  equal  distances  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. 
 
(    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  vn*iters  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,  by 
 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  other;  and  either  the 
 original,  or  one  of  the  translations,  must  be  con.^ 
 sidered   the   common  source  of  their  agreement. 
 
 5'  Vid.  supr.  p.  25.  n.  *'.  pp.  70,  71. 
 
 5^  Vid.  supr.  p.  49.  n.  ^.  p.  82.  n.  ^6, 
 22 
 
(    340    ) 
 
 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  relir 
 gion.  Under  the  auspices  of  this  monarch,  a  new 
 >revisal  of  the  sacred  writings  was  published  by  Euse- 
 
 *°  Vid.  supr.  p.  126.  n.  *°.  Conf.  Griesb.  Prolegomm.  in  Non 
 Test.  Sect.  III.  p.  Ixxv. 
 
C    341     ) 
 
 bius ;  to  the  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  prjo- 
 vinces  were  exposed  to  the  same  casualties  ^^, 
 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.  \  p.  322.  sqq. 
 
 *^  Griesb.  Prolegoram.  in  Nov.  Test.  Sect.  III.  p.  Ixxiv. 
 Hie  [textus  Alexandrinus]  cum  EvangeJiorum  Codicibus  C, 
 L,  33,  102,  106,  et  (in  postremis  Matthaei  capitibus,  Marco, 
 Luca,  et  Joanne)  Vaticano  B,  versionibus  Coptica,  j^thiopica, 
 Armenica,  Syra  Philoxeniana,  et  allegationibus  Eiisebii,  &a — 
 concinere  solet.'* 
 
 ^*  Vid.  supr.  p.  29.  n.  *».  p.  152.  n.  '°°. 
 
 *'  Such  is  Eusebius's  express  declaration,  as  quoted  supr. 
 p.  295.  n.  ^^^  ^j'  oXns  'AIy^7r7«,  Iv^lxs  n  t^  rut  uw  «y«TeA?s 
 ^  x:5xAi;  /xjp^^i  to  'IaXv^ucov  }t\iu.»t 
 
 ^^  Vid.  supr.  p.  27.  n,  46. 
 
(    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- 
 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 
 
 *''  Vid.  Fupr.  p.  S5.  sqq. 
 
(    343    ) 
 
 availing  himself  of  the  improvements  made  by  St, 
 Jerome.  This^  however,  has  not  been  the  case, 
 with  the  text  of  the  Brescia  manuscript,  which  I  am 
 alone  concerned  in  defending ;  as  it  contains  those 
 errours  of  the  primitive  Latin  version,  which  were 
 corrected  in  the  modern  Vulg'ate^^  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- 
 
 C8  Vid.  supr.  p.  166.  n.  "^  sub  fin. 
 
 *'  Vid.  supr.  p.  173.  sqq.  p.  181.  sqq. 
 
 '^^  Walt.  Prolegomm.  in  Bibll.  Polyglott.  Sect.  xiii.  p.  89. 
 §  3.  "  Praeter  hanc  Versionem  Syriacam,  quam  Simplicem  et 
 Antiqnam  appellant  Maronitce,  qua  sola  in  Divinis  publice  utun* 
 
 tur, aliam  etiam  habent  recentiorem  ex  Graeco  expressam, 
 
 tarn  Vet.  quam  Nov.  Testamenti."  Id.  ibid.  p.  92.  }  3.  "  De 
 Versions  Syriaca  testatur  Sionita,  quod  ut  semper  in  sujmna 
 veneratione  et  auctoritate  habita  erat  apud  omnes  populos,  qui 
 Chaldaica  sive  Syriaca  utuntur  lingua,  sic  publice  in  omnibus 
 eorum  ecclesiis  antiquissimis,  constitutis  in  Syria,  Mesopotamia, 
 Chaldaea,  i^gypto,  et  denique  in  universis  Orientis  jjartibus, 
 dispersis  ac  disseminatis,  accepta  et  lecta  fuitJ*  Having  speci- 
 fied the  Nestorians  and  Jacobites,  he  subjoins ;  "  ex  hoc  cal- 
 culo  liquet  pracipuas  per  totum  Orientem  christianorum  ecclesiaSf 
 longe  lateque  propagatas,  Script  uras  et  fyfficia  sacra  lingua  5v- 
 riaca  legere  et  cekbrare.^' 
 
(    344    ) 
 
 ligious  differences,  which  had  commenced  under 
 Ibas,  Theodorus  Mopsuestenus,  and  Theodorit^', 
 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]  accejnt  Ibas,  qui  praeter 
 alias  multas  blasphemias,  quibus  praefatos  magistros  suos  ad 
 amussim  imitabatur,  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  naturae."  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  ccepit  Persarum  regio  Nestorianismo  mjici  per  IbcB 
 epistolasj  et  per  magistrorum  ejusdem  Orationes  atque  Commen- 
 taria  (Nestorii  nimirum,  Theodoreti,  Theodori  Mopsuesteni,  ac 
 Diodori)  quae  in  Syrorum  sermonem  convertebantur.'*  Conf. 
 Assem.  Dissert,  de  Syris  Nestoriann.  }  ii.  Bibl.  Orient.  Tom, 
 III.  p.  Ixix. 
 
 '*  Asseman.  Dissert,  de  Monophysitt.  §  ii.  Bibl.  Orient.  Tom. 
 II.  p.  i.  "  In  Oriente  Barsumas  Archimandrita,  qui  Conci- 
 liabuli  Ephesini  pars  baud  exigua  fuit,  Syrorum  enim  niona- 
 chorum  nomine  ei  interfuit,  postquam  a  Concilio  Chalcedo- 
 laensi  justam  damnationis  sententiam  excepit,  in  Syriam  regres- 
 sus,  eandem  hceresim  popidarihus  suis  propinavit :  nee  iis  dum- 
 taxat,  sed  et  Jinitmis  Armenis,  ad  quos  Samuelem  discipulum 
 
 suum  misit .     Atque  haec  fuere  Monophysismi  initia  in 
 
 Syria,  Mesopotamia,  et  Arabia;  auctore  scilicet  Barsuma, 
 ej usque  discipulis,  qui  eandem  plane  cum  Eutyche  opinio- 
 nem  tenebant."  Id.  ibid.  p.  iii.  "  Ad  Syros  quod  spectat, 
 licet  iis  Barsumae  Eutychisque  sententia  ab  initio  placuerit, 
 hanc  tamen  paulo  post  rejecerunt:  quando  nimirum  Philoxenus 
 Xanajas  Mabugi  sive  Hierapoleos  episcopus,  et  Petrus  Gnapheus 
 Antiochence  sedis  invasor,  nee  non  haeretici  Imperatores,  Zeno 
 atque  Anastasius,  aliud  ejusdem  temperamentum  per  Orientem 
 
(    345    ) 
 
 East^  from  Edessa  and  Antioch,  to  Arabia,  Mesopo- 
 tamiaj  and  Armenia.  It  is  therefore  wholly  incon- 
 ceivable,  that  both  sects  should  agree  in  correcting* 
 the  received  text  7^;  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  Eutychianism  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 text  7^;  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 
 text  could  have  acquired  such  authority  in  Syria, 
 as  to  influence  the  authorised  version.  Previously 
 to  that  period,  the  preponderancy  of  the  Arian  fac- 
 
 disseminarunt,  Severus  vt  eandem  sectam  stahiliret,  pluriraum 
 operae  contulit :  cujus  studium  aemulati  sunt  diversarum  Syrice^ 
 Cilicicu,  Mesopotamice,  et  Capadocice  urbium  episcopi^"  &c. 
 
 7?  Vid.  supr.  p.  S43.  n.  ^°. 
 
 '*  Vid.  supr.  p.  77.  n.  5°. 
 
 ''  Vid.  supr.  p.  34?1.  n.  "^^ 
 
(    3^6    ) 
 
 tion  in  tills  country  ^^  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- 
 ttion  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 
 tiie  middle  of  the  sixth  ^%-  in  order  to  discover  that 
 
 ^'5  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.  VL  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.  2v^ia.  ^e  ^  roi  7re§<S  e^vo},  >ej  ^aXtra  5 
 
 ttruf  ruv  roc  'Aqda  (f>§ovHVTa;v,  o^  ras  exxXyi^/ay  exovrcov. 
 Under  Constantius  and  Valens  the  same  historian  declares,  they 
 became  thus  numerous  and  powerful;  Id.  lb.  Lib.  VII.  cap.  vi. 
 p.  284.  !•  8*  «T*  ^^  ^"^o'  ['*  'Agitai/o*]  wXJiSo?  ovln;  U  T?5  KuvrotvTut 
 KOtl  'OYaXti'lo?  poTT^S  a^dn^ov  <7VvioM,  'rr^i  ©£«  «at  tsffiuq  avrS 
 hf^oaix  ^it\ifov%.  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.  280.  1.  17.  £'  Tarw  ^l  it'hh  'hfoj-oXv(A.uy,  hi  ruy  uvai 
 rri9   ioj  £xxX'-5aiw»  o»   ra  Afiia  (pfovai'lef  h^^THv.     Conf.  SUpr.  p.  29. 
 
 77  Vid.  supr.  p.  21.  n.  '^ 
 ^8  Vid.  supr.  p.  33.  n.  'K 
 
(    347     ) 
 
 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  Italick, 
 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  integrity,  as  forming  separate 
 witnesses  to  the  text  of  Scripture. 
 
 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  versions  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 
 
 7»  Vid.  supr.  p.  22.  conf.  p.  20.  n. 
 
 35 
 
(    348    ) 
 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  original  Greeks  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- 
 cessions 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.  lU, 
 
 **  Griesb.  Prolegomm.  in  Nov.  Test.  Sect.  Ixxv.  "  Hi 
 omnes  [Codd.  A  E  F  G  H  I]  in  Evangeliis  cum  its  fere  Pa- 
 tribus  (quantum  ex  imperfectis  horum  collationibus  colligere 
 licet,)  qui  sceculo  quarto  exeunte  quintoque  et  sexto  in  Grsecia, 
 Asia  Minore,  et  provinciis  vicinis  floruere,  fuitque  haec  Recen- 
 sio,  quam  Constajitinopolitanam  hinc  nominave  licebit."  That  the 
 Latin  and  Syriack  version  are  equally  antient,  may  be  seen  on 
 referring  to  the  authorities  already  cited  s  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; 
 and  admitting  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  of 
 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  notwithstanding  the  near 
 
 **  Vid.  supr.  pp.  123, 12'i. 
 
(    350    ) 
 
 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 
 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  Greek  Vulgate. 
 
 The  foundation  of  the  system  which  it  is  my  ob- 
 ject to  establish,  is,  therefore,  I  trust,  not  less  securely 
 laid,  than  the  connecting  principle,  by  which  it  is 
 held  together,  firmly  cemented.  But  the  same 
 strength  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- 
 
 *3  Griesb.  ibid.  p.  Ixxv.  "  Nulli  harum  recensionum  [Occi- 
 dent. Alexandr.  Contantinopol.]  Syriaca  Versio,  prout  quidem 
 typis  excusa  est  similis  est,  verum  nee  ulli  prorsus  dissimilis  est. 
 In  multis  concinnit  cum  Alexandrina,  in  pluribus  cum  Occiden- 
 tali,  in  nonnullis  etiam  cum  Comtantinopolitaiia,**  &c.  Vid, 
 infr.  p.  352.  n.  »". 
 
(    351     ) 
 
 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  w  hich  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  in  use,  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 
 Palestine  texts  respectively  prevailed;  and  from 
 their  preservation,  that  they  have  been  regarded  as 
 relicks  in  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 
 
 «+  Vid.  supr.  p.  108.  n.  "^  p.  118.  n.  »*.  p.  126.  n.  ^.     ConC 
 Griesb.  Prolegomm.  in  Nov.  Test.  Sect.  III.  p.  Ixxii. 
 *'  Vid.  supr.  p.  18.  n.  ".  p.  121.  ct  u,  ^\ 
 
(    352     ) 
 
 opening-  cliapters  of  St,  Matthew  ^^  and  the  Alex- 
 drine  in  the  whole  of  the  Gospels  ^^r  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 
 tlian  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- 
 gute. 
 
 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  9°.     And  however  the  in- 
 
 «<*  Vid.  supr.  p.  341.  n.  ". 
 
 87  Vid.  supr.  p.  123.  n.*\ 
 
 «»  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  Bezce  is  as  old  as  the  fifth  cen- 
 tiiry.  But  as  the  writer  of  this  manuscript  inserted  sections  in 
 the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  ijohich  imply  the  previous  existence  of 
 the  Euthalian  sections,  I  would  not  ascribe  to  it  greater  antiquity*' 
 Conf.  supr.  p.  85.  n.  ^^. 
 
 «9  Vid.  supr.  p.  34-8.  n.  «'. 
 
 ^  Griesb.    Prolegomm.  in  Nov.  Test.    Sect.  Ill,    p.  Ixr, 
 
(    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  quae  multis  in  locis  ad 
 junior es  Codices  GrcBcos  reficta  est,  quod  Syriacce  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  corrup- 
 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  ba/ 
 modern  copies  of  the  Greek,  while  he  had  expressly  corrected 
 it  by  the  antient.  In  this  single  consideration,  the  aCrls  Btpa. 
 of  M.  Griesbach  finds  a  sufficient  reply. 
 
{    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  even 
 presumptively  proved  to  have,  had  the  smallest  in- 
 fluence on  each  other. 
 
 With  respect  to  the  testimony  of  ancient  FatherSj 
 the  Greek  Vulgate  is  not  left  unsupported  by  their 
 authority.  Of  those  who  preceded  the  Council  of 
 Nice,  none  but  Clement  and  Origen  of  the  Greek 
 Church,  and  Tertullian  and  Cyprian  of  the  Latin, 
 have  made  copious  extracts  from  Scripture^*;  but 
 sufficient  has  been  already  advanced  to  prove,  that 
 implicit  reliance  cannot  be  always  placed  on  their 
 authority.  It  may  be  however  observed  in  support 
 of  the  vulgar  text,  that  in  all  points  of  importance, 
 their  testimony  may  be  cited  in  its  favour^'.     We 
 
 ^»  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.  Irenaeus'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. 
 
 '^  In  the  quotations  extracted  from  Origen,  and  inserted  in 
 the  Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  II.  p.  241.  sqq.  M.  Griesbach  has  pre- 
 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  observei 
 
(    355    ) 
 
 may,  however,  appeal  to  still  earlier  witnesses, 
 among  the  apostolical  fathers,  on  the  integ-rity  of 
 the  Greek  Vulgate.  Though  those  primitive  wri- 
 ters are  not  copious  in  their  Scripture  quotations, 
 they  are  often  found  to  correspond  with  the  Vii]p;'ar 
 Greek,  in  readings  whei'ein  that  text  differs  fi'om 
 the  Palestine  9*.  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- 
 tion, as  the  authorised  text ;  while  they  give  us  up 
 their  contemporaries,  who  favoured  the  text  of  By- 
 zantium 9^ 
 
 to  differ  from  the  Vulgar  Greek,  not  in  t'wenty  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.  ^.a^itlv 
 a^iov*.  Orig,  Kct^iTiis  a|i»f.  Vulg.  ib.  v.  32.  fA.oix,£vBviieiu  Orig. 
 lA.oiXoio-^ocu  Vulg.  ib.  XV.  34.  va^a,fyi?^\si,  Oiig,  IxiMvcre,  Vulg. 
 ib.  xvii.  20.  j>$£v.  Orig,  ivrsv^ev,  Vulg,  ib.  xix.  17.  I^wraj-  ve^l 
 t5*,  Orig,  >^iyn<;,  Vulg'  ibid.  29.  ^5ro^Aaw^ac^io^a.  Orig,  Ixaroy- 
 tctit'ha.criovoi,,  Vltlg.  ibid,  deest.  yvvctT>ta,  Orig,  yvvaTxoc.  Vulg. 
 Mar.  X.  46.  t^x^rui,  Orig,  ipxovrui,  Vulg,  Luc.  iii.  5.  BvBeixf. 
 Orig,  ev^i7av»  Vulg,  Joh.  viii.  38.  a  h^i^aocrt,  Orig,  o  luouKan, 
 Vulg,  y'm,  42.  t5*.  Ofig*  deest.  Vulg.  ib.  xiii.  18.  rUotu  Orig, 
 •Sf.  Vulg,  ibid.  26.  /3a^}/a;.  Orig,  ^u-^us,  Vulg,  ibid.  30.  II^aSj^ 
 tv^vf,  Orig,  tv^eui  l^yiTi^iv,  Vulg.  1  Cor.  vii.  34.  Trvey^ar*  kou 
 truf/Lart,  Orig,  xca  a-u[Aoiri  y.eu  'rrnvyLXTi,  Vulg,  1  Thes.  ii.  6, 
 fiiirm.  Orig,  riTnot,  Vulg,  On  these  readings  it  must  be  how- 
 ever 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  thiife  assertion  will  be  pro- 
 duced in  the  sequel. 
 
 95  Vid,  supr.  p.  348.  n.  »'. 
 
 ▲  a^ 
 
(    S56    ) 
 
 l^rom  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 9^;  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  of  a  single  witness ;  but 
 when  the  Egyptian  and  Byzantine  texts  agree,  they 
 confirm  the  reading  which  they  support,  by  thQ 
 testimony  of  antient  and  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  Greek 
 Vulgate. 
 
 The  reasonableness  of  these  rules  may  be  easily 
 evinced  from  the  foregoing  observations.     It  roust, 
 
 »*  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  to  a 
 voice,  it  must  deliver  a  separate  testimony  ^7.     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  ^l 
 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,  w^as  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 
 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 
 coincident.  In  this  case,  the  Palestine  text  must 
 want  every  requisite  which  can  give  it  authority  as 
 
 97  Vid.  supr.  p.  315.  n.  ^ 
 
 ^  Vid.  supr.  p.  25.  sqq.  p.  322.  s^q^  p  340.  sqq. 
 
(    358    ) 
 
 an  adequate  witness.  Of  itself,  it  is  destitute  of  the 
 support  of  tradition ;  and  it  wants,  by  supposition, 
 the  support  of  an  antient  and  separate  witness.  But 
 the  weig-ht  of  this  species  of  testimony  is^  in  this  case, 
 on  the  side  of  that  reading  which  is  supported  by 
 the  joint  evidence  of  the  Egyptian  and  Byzantine 
 editions.  It  possesses  the  authority  of  tradition  in 
 the  testimony  of  the  latter  text ;  and  that  of  consent 
 in  the  concurrence  of  the  former  9'. 
 
 2.  When  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine  texts  agree, 
 their  consent  can  reckon  but  as  the  lestimony  of  a 
 single  Witness;  as  these  texts  have  had  an  imme- 
 diate influence  on  each  oiiier.  When  opposed,  in 
 consent,  to  the  Byzantine,  the  various  readings 
 which  are  avouched  by  the  different  witnesses  ihus 
 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  its 
 favour.  And  the  reading  which  is  supported  by  this 
 weight  of  evidence,  possesses  every  thing  requisite 
 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  re- 
 vised by  M.  Griesbach.  Mat.  xxvi.  60.  x)  »«  ivpov.  Mar,  vf. 
 S^.  0  I>3cr2{.  lb.  ix.  7.  >^iy8<7ot*,  lb.  xii.  33.  c  Sjo?.  Luc.  vi. 
 7*.  auTov,  lb.  xiii.  3^.  efjj/Aos.*  lb.  xvii-  4.  liri  as.  Joh.  i. 
 26.  ccvTCi  er*y.*  Ibid.  29.  o  'lucivnq,*  lb.  iii.  2.  ro»  *Ina5>.* 
 lb.  vi.  43.5;'.*  lb.  xvi.  3.  v/*r».*  Ibid.  I6.iyu.  Those  marked 
 [*]  are  supported  by  other  witnesses  than  the  Egyptian  and 
 Palestine  texts ;  conf.  n.  ^°°» 
 
(    359    ) 
 
 tradition  in  the  Byzantine  text;  and  that  of  consent^ 
 in  those  antient  and  separate  witnesses^  the  Italick 
 and  Syriack  Versions '°°. 
 
 S.  When  the  old  Itahck  and  Syriack  versions 
 agree  with  the  Palestine  and  Egyptian  texts;  the 
 concurrence  of  these  witnesses  may  be  merely  owing; 
 
 *°°  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. 
 
 JVlat.  vi.    1.  (Xir)[jLoavvytv,  del.  ^iKOtiocvv/jv,      lb.  xii.  35.   rvi  xac^»a?4'« 
 
 lb.  XV.  4.  <rov.  lb.  xix.  19.  a-v.  Ibid.  26.  er».  lb.  xx.  6.  ufyta* 
 lb.  xxi.  33.  TK.  lb.  xxiv.  36.  /*«.+  lb.  xxv.  31.  ay»ot.  lb. 
 xxvii.  64<.f  vvHToq,  lb.  xxviii.  20.  a/x^K.  Mar.  i.  2.  ifATr^os-^iv  aa^., 
 lb.  V.  40.  a.»ociisliA.svov.  lb.  vi.  2.  0T».4.  lb.  vii.  2.  Ijji.sfA.'i^avro* 
 lb.  ix.  7.  ^iyti<Toi.  Ibid.  24.  xvfis^.  Ibid.  38.  Iv.  Ibid.  41.  /Ay.4. 
 lb.  X.  40.  /!*»f.  lb.  xii-  5.  wa^»v.  Luc.  ii.  33.  'Iwo-^^,  del. 
 0  TTctr^f.  lb.  iiif.  19.  <l>»^»9r9r«,  lb.  iv.  41.  5  Xf»ro?.  lb.  X.11. 
 1^*  v/xaj.  lb.  xi.  29.  Ttf  TTpofp^raf.  lb.  xiii.  35.  «p»5/*o?.  lb.  xvi. 
 15.  Iriv.  lb.  xvii.  4.  twi  o-e.J  Ibid,  xviii.  3.tk.  Ibid.  xxii.  62. 
 0  UeT^oq,  lb.  xxiv.  49.  'l5p«(7aAr)/iA.  Joh.  i.  26.  avro^  srJK. 
 Ibid.  29.  0  'Ia;avy„j.  lb.  vi.  43.*  45.  h.  Ibid.  58.  to  /x«»va. 
 Ibid.  69.t  t5  ^ivTo?.  lb.  vii.  26.  a^»jSw?.  lb.  viii.  53.  o-t;.  xi. 
 41.  «  ^v.»  lb.  xii.  26.  x;\+  lb.  xvi.  3*.  lixTv.  Ibid.  25.  aAX*. 
 lb.  xxi.  25.  a^rjv.*  In  the  following  places  0  'l^o-a?.  Matt,  viii, 
 29.  xiv.  25.  Marc.  xi.  15.  Luc.  xxiv,  36.  Joh.  i.  44.+  iii. 
 2.  iv.  46.  xi.  45.  In  the  following  places,  avroc,  s.  uvrS.  s. 
 avTu,  s.  avTOK.  Matt.  viii.  254  xii.  3.4.  xvi:]:.  8.  xix.  25.4. 
 xxv.  44.+  Mar.  ix.  26.  Luc.  vi.  7.t  viii.f  21.  xi.f  28. 
 xvii.  9.  xxiii.  25.  And  in  the  following  places  ;f«»,  Mar.  x. 
 14.  28.t  Luc.  vi.  28.  xv.+  19.  xx.  31.  Joh.  iv.  36.  xii"; 
 26.  Thus  marked  [fj  want  the  testimony  of  the  Primitive 
 Italick  {Brix.);  but  thus  [:{:]  supply  its  place  with  the 
 revised  Italick  (  Verc.  &c.)  Thus  marked  [4-]  want  the  testi- 
 mony of  the  Primitive  Syriack  (PeshiL)  ;  but  thus  [*]  sup- 
 ply its  place  with  the  revised  Syriack  {S2/r»  Philox.)     All 
 
(    360    ) 
 
 to  the  itifliience  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  Itahck  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 
 latter  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 
 \ersions. 
 
 *"  Vid.  supr.  p.  25.  sqq.  p.  S22, 
 
(  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  ItaJick  and  Syriack.  Matt.  v.  27.t  tok  ap%ator?.  lb. 
 IX.  13.  £45  i^sravoiaivA  lb.  xvi.  20.  'l»}i75?.  lb.  XXvi.  9.4-  to  [.iv^ov, 
 lb.  xxiii.  8.f  o  Xpi^oc.  Luc.  iv.  8.  vTraye  oirio-u  iJLH  raT«^a.+ 
 lb.  xvi.  25.  av,  Joh.  v.  30.  irccr^h.^  lb.  xvi.  16.  ly^.f 
 Thus  marked  [f]  want  the  testimony  of  the  revised  Italick, 
 though  they  possess  that  of  the  revised  Syriack.  Thus  marked 
 [4-]  vvant  the  testimony  of  the  revised  Syriack,  though  they 
 possess  that  of  the  Itahck. 
 
 '°^  Griesb.  Prolegomm.  in  Nov.  Test.  Sect.  III.  p.  Ixix. 
 '*  JEtas  testium  non  unice  nee  prcucipue  judicanda  est  e  membra* 
 narum  vetustate;  potuit  enim  seculo  v.  c.  decimo  quarto  ^ 
 codice  longe  antiquissimo  apographum  fieri,  quod  exemplar 
 suum  exactissime  reprsesentaret ;  sed  contra  etiam  quinto  jam 
 seculo,  quo  g  codicibus  hodie  superstitibus  vix  unus  aut  alter 
 referri  potexit,  jorceter  tectum  genuinum  extitit  alius,  in  quo  lee- 
 
(    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  '°^  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  in  a 
 testimony,  which  has  been  perpetuated  for  fourteen 
 hundred  years '"^j*  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. 
 
 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  liaud  paucae  juniores  in  primitlvarum  locum  irrepserant. 
 Jtaque  text  us  ipsius  pofiiis  quam  librarii  cttas  indaganda  est. 
 Haec  vero  judicatur  e  crebro  consensu  cum  aliis  testibus,  (in 
 primis  cum  Versionibus  et  Patribus,)  de  quorum  aetate  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. 
 
 **=*  Vid.  supr.  n.  '°\  conf.  p.  71.  p.  350. 
 
 ^'^^  Vid.  supr.  pp.  114.  118.  etnn.  in  loco. 
 
(    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 .^eem  to  set  strongly  in  favour  of  the  text 
 of  Palestine.  The  early  writers  w^ho  have  been 
 cited  in  support  of  this  text,  as  having  followed  it 
 in  their  quotations  ^''^  may  be  thought  to  outweigh 
 the  stro  gest  presumptive  evidence  which  may  be 
 adduced  in  favour  of  the  Byzantine.  But  the  tes- 
 timony of  none  of  them  but  Origen  reaches  higher 
 tlian  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 '°7;  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 
 
 *°*  Vid.  supr.  p.  316. 
 
 »°'  Vid.  supr.  p.  310.  n.  '°.  p.  316.  nn.  "  et  '% 
 
 '°'  Vid.  supr.  p.  25.  sqq.  p.  340.  sqq. 
 
 *^'  Conf.  supr.  p.  8.  sqq.  79.  sqq* 
 
 "°  Vid.  supr.  p.  72.  n.  ^\ 
 
 '"  Origen  alludes  to  the  enmity  of  Demetrius,  and  his  own  flight 
 
(    S64^    ) 
 
 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.  •>^   i^-^X?'  7^  '^^  7reix7:%  Toitx«,  el  >cj  « 
 
 'AlyvTrry  x.  t.  1.     Conf.  p.  102,  a.  et  infr.  n.  "\ 
 
 '^*  Orig.  ibid.  p.  102.  b.  Vcr^i  ^e  ot»  atro  vo'KXviq  9rpoSt;/Aia? 
 ^evripav  iciv-iyi»  a.P-)(r:j  ixo^h^ol^  £y.7a  To/xy,  ^\a,  to  ra  TiqovTlixyo^tU- 
 S"evTa  v)^Xv,  Iv  r-ri  'AXs^iXv^^si^,  8X  ol^'  onus  [j.y,  sKxafJA^j^at. 
 
 "^  These  fragments  are  contained  in  the  Philocalia,  which 
 consists  of  a  cento  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  fi-oni  the  Acts,  and  two  from  the  Epistle 
 to  the  Romans  ;  inserted  by  the  Benedicth^e  fatliers,  Tom.  IV. 
 p.  4*57.  and  p.  462.  n.  K  p.  580.  n.  ^  and  in  Dr.  Spencer's  edi- 
 tion of  the  Philocalia.  at  pp.  32.  34.  90.  ed.  Cant.  1677. 
 
 "*  The  third  and  fourth  books  of  the  Commentaries  on  St. 
 John,  which  were  written  by  Orlgen  previously  to  his  departure 
 from  Alexandria,  vid.  supr.  n.  "\  are  lost ;  witli  the  exception 
 of  a  few  fragments.     Conf.  supr.  n.  "\  infr.  n.  "^. 
 
 "^  The  last  books  of  the  Commentaries  on  St.  John  were 
 undertaken  by  Origen  after  his  arrival  in  Palestine ;  vid.  supr. 
 |).  *".  But  at  the  time  they  were  written,  the  Commentaries 
 on  Matthew  were  not  begun,  as  Origen  sliews  by  his  declara- 
 tions when  engaged  in  the  former  work ;  Orig.  Comment,  in 
 Joan.  Tom,  IV.  p,  192,  a.  »cj  xavT*  (Ad  kutcc  oCvcx^yM  £K   TG   vafd 
 
(    S65    ) 
 
 togellier  with  his  treatise  on  Prayer*'^,  and  his  reply 
 to  Celsus''7^  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. 
 
 zuxxiqor^ov,  OTOiv  sis-  TO  jcar^  Mar^aTov  rz/xTv  Xiym  loh^, 
 
 "^  Patrr.  Benedictt.  Monit.  in  Orig.  de  Orat.  Tom.  I.' p.  196. 
 *'  De  anno  quo  hie  de  Oratione  libellus  scriptus  est— id  unum  ex 
 iisquaelegunturnum.23/'  [conf.p.235.  c.]  "discimus,scriptum 
 ilium  esse,  editis  jam  in  Genesim  Tomis.  Cum  autem  octo  solum 
 priores  in  Genesim  Tomi  ante  Annum  231,  quo  ex  Alexandria 
 urhe  decessit  Origenes,  similiterque  quatuor  de  Principiis  libri 
 post  primum  in  Genesim  Tomum  conscripti  sunt,  merito  cotti^ 
 gimus  librum  ,ra^i  l.v^.,  post  Ongenis  ex  Alexandria  discessum 
 ducuhrnhmi   esse,   et   quatuor    ^s^l    'a^^.-^    libris    esse   poste- 
 
 riorem. 
 
 "^  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.   h  r^,^  ^   £| 
 
 fvfypu[xi/.alu  (TtHarlsi, 
 
 "*  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.      Tors  r,ru-^C^lp  rcl  If^.o.m  ^.al.  .V, 
 
(    866    ) 
 
 The  whole  of  the  presumptive  evidence,  which 
 arises  from  these  preUminaries,  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- 
 
 «'^  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)  Excerptay  quce  Greece  r^oT^ia  nuncupantur, 
 in  quibus  ea  quae  sibi  videbantur  obscura,  atque  habere  aliquid 
 difficultatis,  summatim  hreviterque  perstrinxit.  Secundum  i/o- 
 miUaticum  geniiSy  de  quo  et  prsesens  interpretatio  est.  Tertiura 
 quod  ipse  inscripslt  To/>c«?,  nos  Volumina  possumus  nuncupare, 
 in  quo  opere  tota  ingenii  sui  vela  spirantibus  ventis  dedit,  et 
 recedens  a  terra  in  medium  pelagus  aufugiL** 
 
 "*  S.  Hier.  in  Procem.  Tradd.  Hebrr.  Tom.  III.  p.  451. 
 "  De  Adamantio  autem  sileo ;  cujus  nomen,  si  parva  licet  com- 
 ponere  magnis,  meo  nomine  invidiosius  est ;  qui  cum  in  Homi" 
 His  suis,  quas  ad  vulgum  loquitur,  Communem  Editionem  sequa- 
 tur ;  in  Tomisy  id  est  in  disputatione  majori,  Hebraica  veritate 
 Stipatus,  et  suorum  circumdatus  agminibtis,  interdum  linguce  pere* 
 grince  quxrit  aux'dia,**  The  auxiliaries,  whose  assistance  Ori- 
 gen  thus  sought  in  his  written  compositions,  were  the  Ebionite 
 hereticks,  Aquila,  Theodotion,  and  Symmachus,  who  revised 
 
(    367    ) 
 
 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  th» 
 
 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  works,  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.  ***• 
 
 '*^  Instances  of  this  kind  have  been  already  produced ;  supn 
 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  Hebrevr 
 Gospel,  inserted  in  the  Commentary  on  St.  Mattheiv,  may  be 
 cited  as  an  example.  Vid.  Orig.  Tom.  III.  p.  671.  conf.  Tom, 
 IV.  p.  289.  n.  b.  Pamph.  Apol.  p.  18.  a. 
 
 '"  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl,    Lib.  VI.   cap.  xxiii.   p.  287.  I.  4. 
 
 ^§o7§oxra7f,  a  ruTq  ^t»    >^oyu}>   xj    7ra6xy.>.v(rBcrni   etvro   f/.6vov,   a^Aa   x^ 
 
 a(pBovula7on^  ruv  tm%hluv  p^op-yiaj:.     Conf.  Orig.  Hom.iii  Joan« 
 Tom.  IV.  pp.  S.  b.  4.  a. 
 
 "*  Euseb.  ibid.  cap.  xviii.  p.  278.  1.  19.  Iv  thtco  xJ  'Afx^^oaioff 
 to.  rrjs  '0TaXsv7jv»  (p^ovuv  ouciaSiCos,  Trp;  t^?  vttI  Opygj'tfj  «r|g^* 
 
(    368     ) 
 
 world  without  the  consent  of  their  authour;  who 
 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  inconstant  readings; 
 occasionally  agreeing  with  the  Byzantine  text^  while 
 
 ^■voijAv'/ii   «X'/i^£kaj   IX£J3(;'^£i? — 7a  t?s   g>£xA>j<7<ar»'''3S   o^^o^oliaj  •fffOfU 
 
 •"5  Vid.  siipr,  p.  10.  n.  ". 
 
 "^  Orig.  Ep,  ad  amice.  Alexandr.  Tom.  I.  p.  5.  b.  "  Sed 
 nihil  mirum  mihi  videtur,  si  adulteretur  doctrina  mea  ab  inimicis 
 meis,  et  tali  adulterio  corrumpatur,  quali  adulterio  corrupta  est 
 Epistola  Pauli  Apostoli. — Talia  ergo  quaedam  video  etiam  nobis 
 accidere.  Nam  quidam  auctor  kereseos  cum,  sub  praesentia  mul- 
 torum,  habita  inter  nos  fuisset  disputatio,  et  descriptum  accipiens 
 ab  his  qui  descripserant  Codicem,  qucB  voluit,  addidit,  et  quce 
 noluit  abstulit,  et  quod  ei  visum  est  permntavity  circumferens 
 tanquam  ex  nomine  nostro,  insultans  et  ostendens  ea  quae  ipse 
 conscripsit.  Per  quibus  indignantes  yj-a^/e^  qui  in  Palcestina 
 $unt,  miserunt  ad  me  Athenas  hominem  qui  acciperet  a  me 
 ipsum  authenticiim  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  ilium  ipsum  qui  adulteraverat  lihrum, 
 quare  hoc  fecisset,  velut  satisfaciens  mihi  respondit,  quoniam 
 macrjs  ornare  mini  disputationem  illam  atque  purgare.  Vide?e 
 quali  purgatione  disputationem  purgavit:  tali  nempe  quali 
 purgatione  Marcion  Evangelia  purgavit  vel  Apostolum,  vel 
 <iua\[  successor  ejus  Apelles.  This  curious  fragment  is  pre- 
 served by  Ruffinus,  De  Adult,  libror.  Orig.  Tom.  IV.  p.  5K 
 a.  and  is  acknowledged  by  St.  Jerome,  Adv.  Ruffin.  Lib,  IL 
 cap.  V.  Tom,  II.  p.  246. 
 
(    369    ) 
 
 he  deviates  from  the  Palestine ;  nor  can  it  be  c6i*-» 
 tainly  concluded  from  his  express  references,  thst 
 the  text  which  he  used  did  not  conform  to  the  former 
 edition  "^     When  due  allowance  is  also  made  for 
 
 '*^  Of  the  examples  already  cited,  p.  355.  h.  ^^  as  expressly 
 referred  to  by  Origen,  there  are  but  three,  Mat.  iii.  8.  xix.  17i 
 Job.  viii.  42.  which  are  not  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.  Iri  one  instance  only,  of  course,  ddes 
 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.  II.  644.  III.  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  ai 
 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  lb.  x.  29,  SO.  he  merely  observes,  that  the 
 Scripture  declares,  that  those  who  "  left  houses-  brethren,  sis- 
 ters, father,  mother,  iy//e,— should  receive  an  hundred  fold,  now 
 in  this  time — houses,  brethren,  sisters,  mothers,  children  ;" 
 thus  omitting  **  wife"  in  the  second  enumeration  ;  yvmTKO.  is 
 accordingly  otnitted  in  the  Greek  Vulgate  ;  vid.  Orig.  Tom.  L 
 p.  284.  c     In  mentioning  iC^eiu?  as  the  reading  of  Luc.  iii.  4 
 
 Bb 
 
(    370    ) 
 
 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  weig'ht, 
 in  deciding  the  question  at  issue. 
 
 When  the  testimony  of  Origen  is  set  out  of  tha 
 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.  1 7.  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  not 
 only  supported  by  the  testimony  of  those  antient  witnesses,  the 
 primitive  Italick  and  Syriack  Versions,  but  the  express  allega- 
 tion of  an  antient  father  who  lived  in  the  next  succession  after" 
 the  apostles ;  vid.  Mat.  xix.  17.  ut.  infr.  pp.  372.  381.  While  the 
 express  testimonies  adduced  from  Origcn,  supr.  p.  355.  n, '', 
 contain  a  sufficient  proof  that  the  Greek  Vulgate  and  this  early  "^ 
 father  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- 
 tion. 
 
(    371    ) 
 
 toilected  and  embodied  by  M.  Griesbach ;  and  oti 
 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  moralsi 
 1  shall  lay  these,  in  the  first  place,  without  excep- 
 tion, before  the  reader;  adding  the  testimony  of 
 the  Western  Chufch  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 
 
 '*^  Liberat.  Diac.  Breviar.  cap.  ii.  p.  4.  ed.  Par.  1675* 
 "  Igitur  Nestoriani  dogmatis  author,  ut  multi  volunt,  Paul  us 
 agnoscitur  Samosatenus  episcopus,  &c.  M.  Reriaudot,  in  Praef- 
 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 
 ilenodotio  diselt,  Nestodanam  Ha^resim,  in  Constantinopolitana 
 Dicecesi  potius  quam  in  aliis  Provinciis  incrementum  habuisse?" 
 quum  et  hoc  ipsum  qualecumque  incrementum  a  Syris  eo  pro- 
 fectis  Haeresis  Nestoriana  acceperit,  velut  a  fonte  ris'ulum* 
 Hsec  enim  in  Syria  ducentis  ante  annis,  Paulo  Samosateno  Pa- 
 triarcha  Aiitiocheno  auctore,  primum  erwperat,  vicinas  provin- 
 ciis sua  contagione  afflaverat,  ita  ut  Diodorus  Tarsensis,  et 
 Theodorus  Mopsuestenus,  Pauli  gentiles,  deinde  Nestorius 
 ejusdem  affinis,  antiquum  errorem  potius  quam  novum  praetu- 
 lisse  dicantur.'*  The  origin  of  Eutychianism  is  traced  to  the 
 heresy  of  ApoUinaris/  into  which  extreme  Eutyches  fell  in  com- 
 
 Bb3 
 
(  ^^^   ) 
 
 wiiolly  lapsed  into  Ariauism  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- 
 ix>me,  being  numbered  in  their  order.  An  asterism 
 is  added  to  the  readings  adopted  by  M.  Griesbach 
 in  his  Corrected  Edition. 
 
 Mat.  XIX.  17» 
 
 i  ^i  itn-iv  uvru,  *  T»  /xt  "Kiym  Jesus  autetn  dixit  ei  quid  me 
 eoya^Qyi  ^^«*i  aya^oj,  i\  i*.ri  eTj  o  dicis  honum?  neiuo  bonys  nisi 
 ©2o:."     Byz.  Deus.     ItaL  1. 
 
 *  r\  fxi  ifcorxq  wEp»  t5  ayoc^i;  quid  me  interrogas  de  bono? 
 eT?  ir^1 0  aya$of.     JEg*  Pal*,         unus  cst  bonus.    liaL  2,  3. 
 
 Just.  Marl.  Apol.  Maj.  p.  63.  d,  i^  w^o-sxSokTo?  a.lru  T»yo?,  »<J 
 
 9    0£O;'   0   TTQincTXi   TTXiTX, 
 
 bating  the  opposite  errours  of  Nestorius :  Liberal,  ibid.  p.  10. 
 *'  Quapropter  apparet  ex  omnibus  superius  dictis  atque  pro- 
 latis,  a  Paulo  Nestorianos  fuisse  propagatos,  et  ab  Apollinari 
 unius  natura?  prfedicatores,  ut  sunt  Acephali  et  Eutychiani." 
 Vid.  supr.  p.  31'4'.  n.  '\ 
 
 **^  Vid.  supr.  p.  169.  n.  "5. 
 
 '^°  Vid.  swpr.  p.  ^U.  nn. ''  et  '*. 
 
(    373    ) 
 
 Mar.  xiii.  32. 
 
 cjpxq  ih]q  oioeVf  u^s  ol  afytXci  ot 
 iv  i^avZ^  b  e^i  o  yto$",  si  //ij  o 
 Uxriip.     Byz,  JEg  *. 
 
 ^  desunt,  aJs  o  vlo^,    PaL 
 
 De  die  autem  illo  et  hora  nemo 
 scit  neque  angeli  in  coelo,  ne' 
 que  Jilius  nisi  pater.  Ital.  1, 
 2,3. 
 
 S.  Iren.  adv.  Ha^r,  Lib.  II.  cap.  xxviii.  p.  158. — Dominus, 
 ipse  Filius  Dei,  ipsum  judicii  "  diem  et  horam'*  concessit  scire 
 solum  Patrem,  mamfeste  dicens  ;  **  de  die  autem  ilia  et  hora 
 nemo  scit,  neque  Filius ,  nisi  pater  solus,'* 
 
 Luc.  ii.  33. 
 
 xj  vjp  c  'iuaY,(p  xj  h  (A^TTp  uvth"  Et  erat  Joseph  et  mater  ejus 
 Sat/xa^ovTts  tTTt  Tor?  Aa^»y.£>o^?  mirantes  de  his  quae  diceban- 
 weft  ayra.     Byz,  tur  de  illo.     ItaL  I,  2. 
 
 *    0   irccTYip    av7H  xj   h,  (Ji.yi7'/ip,     pater  ejus  et  mater.    Jtal,  3, 
 jEg.  Pal*, 
 
 S.  Hier.  adv.  Hclvid. — "  Et  erant  pater  illius  et  mater  admi- 
 rantes  super  his,  quae  dicebantur  de  eo'* — Licet  tu  mira  impu- 
 dentia  hacc  in  Graecis  codicibus  falsata  contendas,"  &c,  vid. 
 supr.  p.  169.  n.  '^K 
 
 lb.  xi.  13. 
 
 •I    «»   v[jiuf    frovr^po)   yTTapyovTE?  Si  cr^  vos  cum  sitis  mall  nos- 
 
 <jV^alE  ayaSa  ^oijlccIcc  h^ovai  tok  tis  bona  data  dare  filiis  vestris : 
 
 TEHvoif  vixuvy  Tiroo-u)  ixa>sXov  o  nra,-  quanto  magis  Pater  de  ccelo 
 
 T^p   0   tl  «p«v5  d    3wcr£»  Trnv^ob  dahit  Spiritmn  Sanctum  peten* 
 
 ayiov'  Tor?  aWia-iv  ocvtov,    JByz*.  tibus  se.      ItaL  1. 
 
 A  $uffti  eiyx^Q}/ 56fA.x.     jEg,  dabit  bonum  datum.     Ital.  2, 
 
 4  ^'jcru  irviv^a.  dyx^ov.     Pal,         dabit  Spiritum  bonum.  ItaL  3* 
 
 Tert.  adv.  Marc, Lib.  IV.  cap.  xxvi.  p.  432.  A  quo  Spiritum 
 Sanctum  postuhm  ? — agnosce  igitur  et  Patrem,  quem  etiam  ap- 
 
(     374     ) 
 
 pcllas  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,  nee 
 scorpium  pro  ovo. — Itaque  et  Sjpiritum  Sanctum  is  dahit^  &c. 
 
 lb.  xxii.  43,  44. 
 
 u(p^-n  ^t  aitZ  afyfXo?  aV  hfocvH     Apparuit    autem  illi  angelus 
 
 ivic^vuv    avTov,     Kj     yivouevog    tv 
 iyivilo  oe  o   Ih^w^  a,vre  uat)  •&^o/x- 
 
 de  ccjelo,  confortians  eum.  Et 
 fact  us  est  in  agonia,  et  prolix* 
 ius  orabat :  Et  factus  est  sudor 
 illius,  quasi  guttae  sanguinis 
 decurrentes  super  terrain. 
 Ital.  2.  3. 
 
 desunt.    Palf 
 
 desunt.     Ital,  1. 
 
 Just.  Mart.  Dial,  cum  Tryph.  p.  331.  d.   Iv  ya.p  toI?  «Vo/ahj« 
 
 — I>to£;^ojw.g%«y  TJjy  tS 
 
 Job.  V.  3,  4, 
 
 i^ociviv  iv  T^  xeAv^/3i3$pa,  x^  eTat- 
 fMi7-0'6  TO  t;^a;p.  9  dt  '^rpuras  iyi.&cci 
 ftilai  ttiv  rotpx^igv  rS  vaccTogy  vyiv)<; 
 
 Byz.*  ' 
 
 — spectantium  aquae  motum. 
 Angelus  autem  Domini  des- 
 cendebat,  et  movebat  aquam. 
 Et  quicumque  prior  descen- 
 debat  in  natatoria,  samis  fiebat 
 quacumque  tenebatur  infirmi- 
 tate.    Ital.  2.  3. 
 
 desunt.    Mg-  Pah  desunt.    Ital.  1. 
 
 Tert.  de  Baptism,  cap.  v.  p.  221.  Angelum  aquis  intervenire 
 si  novum  videtur,  exemplum  futurum  praecucurrit.  Piscinam 
 Bethsai'dam  "  angelus  interveniens  commovebat ;"  observabant 
 qui  valetudinem  quaerebantur.  Nam  "  si  quis  prsevenerat  des- 
 cendere  illuc''  quaeri  post  lavacrum  desinebat," 
 
(    375    ) 
 
 Act.  viii.  37. 
 
 stvt  H  0  <l);xiw9ro4*  £t  virdaq  l|  Dixit  autem  ei  Philippus :  si 
 oX>j5  T?j  xa^^ta?,  t'lar"'.  aVoxp*-  credis  ex  toto  corde,  suscepis. 
 Siij  ^£  eTtts*  -TTtrst/fc*  Tov  yioc  Ttf  Respondcns  autem  dixit :  cre- 
 0cS  £^ai  Tov  *l»3C7»i/  Xfirov,    Byz,      do  in   Christum   Filium  Dei. 
 
 ItaL  2.  3. 
 
 desunt.     Val* 
 
 S.  Iran.  adv.  Haer.  Lib.  III.  cap.  xii.  p.  196.  t»to»  eTirai  'lijcrtv, 
 lb.  XV.  28. 
 
 s}o^i  yap  tZ  ayico  UvsvfA,ctli  >cj  Placuit  enim  Sancto  Spiritui 
 TiiJiTv,  fAVi^iv  7^^£o^'  tTnliSeo-^ai  IfATv  et  nobis,  nihil  ampHus  imponi 
 ^xpoq  '7r>^h  7UV  ixavu^Kiq  TiiTuf      vobis  oneHs,  quara  haec  qua 
 
 necessaria  horum :  abstinete 
 ab  immolatis,  et  sanguine,  ct 
 siiffocatis,  et  fornicatione,  a  qui- 
 bus  observantes  vos  ipsos  bene 
 agetis.  Valete.    Ital  %  3. 
 
 TOf,   K)    TTVi^rSf    kJ     wops  (a?.    ^ 
 "Eppaa-Bs,    Bi/Z.  Pal* 
 
 f  add.  xa*  oW  a»  /!x>j  Senile  laJIor^       
 
 Tert.  de  Pudic.  cap.  xii.  p.  563.  Primam  banc  regulam  de 
 auctoritate  Spiritus  Sancti,  Apostoli  emittunt  ad  eos,  qui  jam 
 ex  nationibus  allegi  coeperant.  "  Visum  est,'  inquiunt,  *  Spi- 
 ritui Sancto  et  nobis  nullum  amplius  vobis  adjicere  pondus, 
 quam  eorum  a  quibus  necesse  est  abstineri,  a  sacrificils,  et  a 
 fornicationibus,  et  sanguine,  a  quibus  observando  recte  agitis, 
 vectante  vos   Spiritu    Sancto.''     Clem.  Alex.  Paedag.  Lib.  IL 
 
 p.  202.    oinriyta^^^   tl^uXoBvTuv,    xal    al/iAaJof,    ^    9SrViXT6;V,    KCil   7535 
 
(     376     ) 
 
 Col.  i.  U. 
 
 if  u  txoiJ'B.t  ftjv  tlTroXvrfv^iv"  ^ta  In  quo  habemus  e  tedemp- 
 t5  al'i/.cclQ^  acvrv",  tj??  u(pia-iv  ri^v  tjonem  per  sanguinem  ejus,' 
 u^xfiuv.     Bi/z,  remissionem  peccatorum.  JtaK 
 
 3. 
 
 avTH. 
 
 *  des,    ^ix  t5   u\'(ji,ptloi 
 Pal* 
 
 . . .  «  des.  redemptionem  per 
 sanguinem  ejus.     Ital.  2. 
 
 S.  Iren.  adv.  Haer.  Lib.  V.  cap.  ii.  p.  293.  Sanguis  enim  non 
 est  nisi  a  venis  et  carnibus,  et  a  reliqua  quae  est  secundum  ho- 
 minem  substantia,  qua  vere  factum  est  Verbum  Dei.  Sanguine 
 suo  redemit  nos,  quemadmodum  apostolus  ejus  ait ;  "  in  quo 
 habemus  redemptionem  jyer  sanguinem  ejus,  remissionem  pec- 
 catorum.** 
 
 lb.  ii.  2. 
 
 — iU    liriyvuciv   ru  /xvr«pjy   t5  — in     aguitionem    mysterii  f 
 
 0£«  f  xat  Uxlfoq  K«t  tS  XpifS."  Dei  Patris  et  Christi  Jesu,"  in 
 
 f¥  u  i\ffi  iruiliq  ot  %7av(c)  t^?  quo  sunt  omnes  thesauri  sapi- 
 
 ao<pia,(i  «a*  t^s  yvu<:rw(;  ecrrU^vtpoi,  entiae  et  scientiae  absconditi, 
 
 Bijz,  Ital,  3. 
 
 '    desunt.  xa*  naipo;    xa»    t5     ^  ^uod  est  Christus.    Jtal.  2. 
 Xf»r».     Pal* 
 
 Clem.  Alex    Strom.  Lib.  V.  cap.  x.  p.  683.    aul  vru>,iv  oTo« 
 
 av^fUTTOv    £1/   w«<rt    ao^ia,    Hvcc    iru^ctT^auiAii    voivlx    kvBfUiTo*    TiXnov 
 wravla  toi'    mreyovla   t/Ajioj'   gv  Xli^W* — I'm)    ort   a   Travlwv  h    yvucriq 
 
(    377    ) 
 
 1  Joh.  iv.  3. 
 
 ua.)  TTctv  'ffiivj/.x  0  iji.r,  0/xoXoyer  rov  et  omnis  spiritus  g  qui  non 
 'IraSv  s  xpirov  iv  iracx)  l^»]At;-  confitetur  Jesiim  Christum  in 
 ^oT«,"  I/.  T«  065  a«  lri»     Buz,        carne  venisse,"  non  est  ex  Deo, 
 
 liaL  2. 
 
 t  des.  X^irov  iv  cra^H*  6^73^t;So7«.      g  qui  solvit  Jesum.    Ilal.  3. 
 Pa/.* 
 
 S.  Polycarp.  ad.  Philipp.  cap.  vii.  p.  188.  *  9rag  v<ip  S?  at 
 
 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- 
 nesses. And  this  example  is  so  firmly  sustained 
 by  the  external  testimony  of  the  vulgar  texts  of  the 
 Greek,  Latin,  and  Syriack'^'  churches,  and  by  the 
 
 ^'^  Viji,  supr.  p,  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- 
 iycarp,  Justin  Martyr,  St.  Irenaeus,  and  TertuUian, 
 speak  so  plain  a  language  with  respect  to  them,  ^s 
 not  to  leave  room  for  a  cavil  on  their  authenticity. 
 Two  testimonies  from  St.  Irenasus  have  been  indeed 
 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'^*.     I  do  not  long  delay 
 
 "*  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  v^ith  declaring  ihere  is  a 
 species  of  knowledge  which  is  communicated  only  to  the  ini- 
 tiated ;    Clem.  ub.  supr.  p.  682.  I.  24.   e'r**  ya?  ris  oC,  rsXeiW 
 
 y,  T.  i.  (2.)  He  expressly  prefaces  the  passage  before  us,  by 
 declaring  that  it  contained  knowledge  not  extended  to  every 
 one  ;  Id.  ibid.  p.  683.  1.  10.  eTz-i*  ort  »  Tid^flcov  v)  yvuiais,  ^tapfii^y^it 
 iTTiCpifn*  '  <7y//-^t^a!7^s«'Ts;*  X.  T.  i,  (3.)  If  he  does  not  here 
 admit,  that  the  apostle  *  openly  sets  forth'  ^iu^Ik^-ziv  l'jri(pspn, 
 what  he  proceeds  to  insinuate,  he  however  adds,  that  there  were 
 some  things  committed  also  to  the  Hebrews,  in  unwritten  tra- 
 dition ;  Id,  ibid.  1.21.  ?y  y^^^  r»x  ccy^xfpwr  ira^u.hhp^ivoi.   aur/v-a 
 
(    379    ) 
 
 to  anticipate  any  objections  which  may  be  made  lb 
 those  testimonies^  on  the  suspicion  of  their  being 
 interpolated  from  the  vulgar  edition.  As  the  pas- 
 sages involve  pecuHarities^  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 
 
 To<5  'E$^octoT^,  (4.)  It  is  observable,  that  the  reading  ly  xftru 
 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  tS  0«;y,  i^  Ualpoq  xj  t5  Xp»r5  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  Iv  Xprf.  For  this  phrase,  and  the  whole  of  this  expla- 
 nation, is  thus  confirmed  by  S.  Hilary,  in  referring  to  the  pas- 
 sage before  us,  de  Trinit.  Lib.  IX.  §  62.  col.  1025.—**  in 
 agnitionem  sacramenti  (|Mt;r*;^*a)  Dei  Christi,  in  quo  sunt  omnes 
 thesauri  saplentiae  et  scientiae  absconsi,  [Col.  ii.  2,  3.]  Deus 
 Christus  sacramentum  est,  et  omnes  thesauri  sapientiae  et  scien^ 
 tiae  in  eo  latent,  Portioni  vero,  et  universitati  non  convenit," 
 Clement,  of  course,  knowing  that  the  doctrine  was  h  Xpi-J,  or 
 IJiVT*iftov  £v  X^ifw  a,7rU^v(pQVf  properly  substituted  this  phrase  in 
 his  works,  which  were  published  among  the  Heathen,  for  the 
 true  reading  ts  0e5,  xj  rJarpoj  xj  tU  X^ir^y  which  his  religion 
 prohibited  him  from  divulging.  Conf.  S.  Hier.  Tom.  V.  p, 
 S75.  g. 
 
(     380    )  V 
 
 found,  that  they  cannot  be  removed  without  making 
 guch  a  rent  in  the  context,  as  would  directly  evince 
 their  removal.  Infinitely  greater,  and  indeed  insu- 
 perable, must  have  been  the  obstacles  with  w^hieh 
 any  sophisticatour  would  have  to  contend  in  insert- 
 ing such  passages  in  the  writings  of  those  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  best  and  earliest  wit- 
 nesses: to  their  decision  let  us  now  submit  the 
 determination  of  the  question.  The  following  col- 
 lection of  texts  constitute  the  whole  of  the  passages 
 of  any  the  smallest  importance,  w  hich  M.  Griesbach 
 lias  rejected  from  the  Gospels,  in  his  Corrected 
 Edition, 
 
 iMat.  vi.  19. 
 
 rrt  irS  Iriv  '^  ^acrtXsU  »^  rj  cv-     quoniam  luum  est  regnum  et 
 ya/xi?,  KJ  ^  ^c'l^t,  lU  ra?  al^mc,     virtup,    et  gloria,  in  sa;;cula* 
 
 Uyi.r,v,    VuJg,  It  ah  1 
 
 L.a-^. 
 
 |/  n  -^  \  V"^  ^oi  i|^    -??  ^^-io      quia  tuum  est  regnum  et  po- 
 y^'Xv  \   .•  ]AA.Q«o-»ii.o   \^^Q     tentia,    et    gloria    in    saecalii 
 .^-.^cl^-ii-     saeculorum.  Syr, 
 
(    381     ) 
 
 lb.  XV.  8. 
 
 3^i^£j  fxoi  0  Xao?  8T0S  tJ  i-oy.xrt      adpropinqnat  se  mlhl  populua 
 wyrwv  xa* — Viilg,  hic  ore  suo,  et — .    ItaL  1. 
 
 .  ♦  .  .  desunt.     S^r.  .  .  desunt.     Sj/r, 
 
 lb.  xvlii.  ^9. 
 W5  Ttf?  TToS'af  ayra.    Tw/o-.  ad  pedes  ejus.    Itai.  1, 
 
 wcio^^j  Wifc.     ad  pedes  ejus.   Sj/r* 
 
 Ibid.  35. 
 ^a  'jreipci'rrlkiiJi.ulcc  avruv.   Vvlg.         peccata  eorum.   ItaL  1. 
 o\Lr)\  n.£D      errata  ejus.    Syr. 
 
 lb.  xix.  17. 
 
 tI  ^i  x/yi»;  uyu^ov ;  aJfi;  «ya$o?,     quid  me  dicis  bonum  ?  nemo 
 it  /xr>  eTj  0  ^to,'.    Vulg,  bonus  nisi  unus  Deus.    ItaL  1. 
 
 AfcX.j^  i*Jl  Aj]  ]f.o  l-j-io      quid  vocas  me  bonum ;  nonest 
 .  joL^  ^^  J  \]j  }o..^     bonus  nisi  unus  Deus.    Syr, 
 
 lb.  XX,  22,  23. 
 
 »^  TO  ^uTflifffAu  0  lyk)  /?a7rli^o//a»,     aut  baptisma  baptizari  quo  ego 
 
 ^aiTTKr^nven ku)  to  ^utt et  baptisma  quo  ego  bap- 
 
 TJTjtAa  0  lyu  Bot7fli^o[Aa.iy  ^a'TrliO'.      tizor  baptizamini.     liaLl. 
 ^KcnaBe.     Vulg. 
 
 }jj   yialiN   Jj]»    jA*>QJal^  o]     aut  baptismate  quo  ego  bapti- 
 
 \^IQ  ViN.V^o .*    ^Oy  v>\  /-      zor  baptizabimini baptis- 
 
 ,  ^j^ai».Z.  (jj   r-V^  \^]l     mate  quo  ego  baptizor  bapti- 
 zabimini.   Si/r. 
 
(    383    ) 
 
 lb.  xxvii.  35. 
 
 tiflf.   vXt^u^^    to    gjjcji'    vTro    tS 
 
 fAH  lafTOK,  Kat  ewt  rov  t/xaTtc/xc;* 
 ^-tf  jj?56?^oy  iL7<.Y,fov,    Vulg» 
 
 V\:xo  ^ooiA, 
 
 ut  impleretur  quod  dictum  est 
 perprophetam;  diviserunt  sibi 
 vestimenta  mea,  et  super  ves- 
 tern  meam  miserunt  sortem* 
 ltd.  2. 
 
 ut  impleretur  id  quod  dictum 
 est  per  prophetam :  partiti 
 sunt  vestimenta  mea  inter  se, 
 et  super  vestem  meam  jecerunt 
 sortem.    5yr. 
 
 Mar.  iv.  24. 
 
 .    Vuk. 
 
 itai  t//x(v  rot;  axH" 
 
 ^U 
 
 ^orxl^ 
 
 et  adjicietur  vobis  credentibus, 
 ltd.  1. 
 
 et  adjicietur  vobis  ipsis  qui  aa« 
 ditis.   Syr, 
 
 Ib.vi.  11. 
 
 a/ATjy   y^iyo)   Vfjiiv   ecviKTortp^    tfoci 
 
 amen  dico  vobis,  tolerabiliu* 
 erit  Sodomis,  aut  Gomoris  in 
 die  judicii,  quam  illi  civitaft'. 
 ltd.  1. 
 
 et  equidem  dico  vobis  tranqui- 
 liorem  fore  Sedoum  et  Omouro 
 in  die  judicii,  civitate  ilia. 
 Syr. 
 
 Ibid.  33. 
 
 «i  op^Xoi   fxai  I'Trtyvw^ay]   avrov  et  COgnoverunt  COS  multi  ...♦. 
 
 ....  Ku)  'TFforiX^ov  avrtts  o^  et  praevenerunt  eos,  et  conve^ 
 
 cuyrtK^ov  TT^Qf  avroy,    Vdg.  Derunt  ad  eum.     ltd.  I. 
 
 ^1  [q^!o^*]o]  [et  agniti  sunt]  illi:  et , 
 
 .  .-io2\-2l  woiQ-io,.-©  coram  eo  illuc. 
 
I    383    ) 
 
 lb.  x'ui,  14. 
 
 TO  ^m^h  vTro  AxvtTih  t«  WfcCpnTti*      hiat.    Brix* 
 
 Vulg. 
 
 Ja3j  \3u}aJj.o  Ij-»2c|>  woi      quod  dictum    est  per  Daniel 
 
 prophetam.    Syr, 
 
 Luc.  iv.  18. 
 laa-xa^ui  ts?  crt;vT6Tpj^/Asv«;  ttjit     sanare  contritos  corde.  lia^,  L 
 xotfyiOiv,    Vulg, 
 
 \^^  w;.aoAJ:i  q^^}V;\      ad  sanandum  contritos  corde. 
 
 Syr. 
 
 lb.  ix.  55. 
 
 o  yup  v^oq  ru  uy^puva  wx  ??.Se  filius  enim  hominis  non  venit 
 ^vx»<;  av^puiruv  «'n■o^£(7a^,  aX^a  animas  hominum  perdere,  sed 
 cua-acu    Viilg.  salvare.   Ital,  1. 
 
 \L\  VJ  .•  ^-A-jji  ;^^  cn^^i  filius  enim  hominis  non  venit 
 .  ^^■-'-v^V  V^j  jZuiij  o,^->v^\      ad  perdendum  animas,  sed  ad 
 
 servandum.   Syr, 
 
 lb.  X.  22. 
 
 #^  Tfja^i*?  TT^c?  T«j  /Aa^isJ*?  itTre.      „,  desunt.    Brix, 
 Vulg. 
 
 wCio,nV^\i^    Zq-^    CAjaZjo     et  tonversus  est  ad  discipulos 
 <  ^01^  jj^jo     suos  et  dixit  eis.   Syr, 
 
 lb.  xi.  2. 
 •  «»  Torf  w^aic??  . .  , ,  ^sKn^JsTAf      qui  es  in  coelis  ....  fiat  volun* 
 To  ^ri'Kr.iA.at  ctij  «;  t»  tpatu  xul  It:)     tas  tua  sicut  in   coelo-,  et  ia 
 T??y??.    Vulg,  terra.    Jial.l* 
 
 ^(^«a«0.  joau  ,,,.,,  |^V)i>^?      qui  es  in  coelis  ....  fiat  volun- 
 *!^5f^  ca]  J*!saAQ»  4^j      tas  tua,    sicut  in  ccelo  et  in 
 
 terra.     Syr* 
 
(    38i    ) 
 
 Ibid.  4. 
 aA?i<x  fvaui  «f4as  »vo  t5  wofjjgS.     sed  erue  nos  a  malo.  IiaL  1* 
 Vulg. 
 
 .  |^«^  —io  ■  >oo^  V^j     sed  libera  nos  a  malo.  Syr. 
 
 Ibid.  44. 
 
 y^xfAiActreVq  x.ul  (pK^iaocVoi  ^Troxp-      Scrlbae  et  Pliarassei  hypocritae* 
 Tau    Vulg*  Ital.  1. 
 
 }  o^j^  u.ciau  }.A-**^o  j*;^^     scribae  et  perischaei  hypocritae'* 
 
 Syr, 
 
 lb.  xvii.  36. 
 Ho  scrovlai  h  rZ  aypw*  o  tl?  v«pa-      duo  in  agro,  unus  adsumetur, 
 
 >vi(p%(7iiai,  aaX  o   It£j5oc  a^sS^-     et  alter  relinquetur.  JtaL  1, 
 aiicti,    Vulg. 
 
 ^..^    \l  n.^-^  .oooi_j  ^~»5^     <^uo  erunt  in  agro,  unus  assu- 
 .wC-oAaj  jj;.**|o  ;jD!i\-j     metur    et    alter    relinquetur. 
 
 Syr, 
 
 Job.  i.  27. 
 
 04  i(j>.7rp<;^i>  ^H  yiyonv,    Vulg,         qui  ante  me  f'actus  est.  ItaL  1. 
 
 •*iCr-o  ol!^  joaio     et  fuit  ante  me.   Syr. 
 
 lb.  V.  16. 
 «tt»     e?i?T«»     a^Tov     wTroxIfr^a*.      et  quaerebant  eum  interficere* 
 Vulg.  ItaL  1. 
 
 cjuL^ii^^  ocoi  — fti^.00     et  studebant  eum  intexficepea 
 
 Syr, 
 
 Ib.vi.  22. 
 
 lx8r?o   £*?  0  fvi0v<yav  ol  (Ad^nTui      ....  desunt.   Ital  1 .  ?. 
 
 |j'.vo\^  OTu!iik  o'^^f^;  wci     earn  quam  conseendetant  dis- 
 
 cipuli.   Syr, 
 
(    385    ) 
 
 lb.  viil.  59. 
 
 ^iX^uv  Std  fji£0-8  uvTuv,  xj  wag-     transiens  per  medium  eorum 
 Syev  «Tw?.    Vulg.  et  ibat.    Ital,  1. 
 
 ,  Wijo  ^cnA-J-*-o  Ji£3l^o     transiitque  per  medium  eorum 
 
 et  abiit.    S^/r, 
 
 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- 
 timony 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. 
 xxvii.  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 
 
 '^3  Marg,  Vers.  Syr.  Philox.  Matt,  xxvii.  35.  Tom.  I.  p.  149. 
 cd.  Oxon.  1778.  "  Partitisunt)  Haec  Periocha  Prophetae  noa 
 inventa  est  in  duobus  exemplaribus  Graecis,  neque  in  illo  anti- 
 quo  Syriaco."  The  learned  editour  ingenioussly  observes ;  iijk 
 Praef.  Sect.  vi.  p.  xxix.  **  Ad  Matt,  xxvii.  35.  monet  criticus., 
 hanc  pericopen  non  inveniri  in  duobus  exemplaribus  Graecijs, 
 «eque  in  antiqua,  vel  Simplici,  Syriaca.  Nee  hujus  notes  auctor 
 Juit  Thomas :  quia  si  hanc  pericopen  in  textu  Polycarpi  inve-^ 
 nerit,  et  non  in  exemplaribus  suis  Graecis,  quomodo  non  obelc* 
 illam  daranavit.  Prof.  Adler  however  observes,  on  the  peris- 
 cope or  verse  before  us ;  Nov.  Test.  Syriacc.  Verss.  Lib.  ITw 
 p.  96.  "  Desunt  revera  haec  verba  in  codicibus  versionig' 
 Syriacae  antiquioris,  et  in  prima  editione  Viennensi,  ubi  tameji 
 inter  errata  supplentur,  e  quibus  deinde  in  sequiores  editioi.ies 
 irrepserunt.  Desunt  quoque,  a  voce  x>,rj^ov  ad  xAjj^ok,  in  pie- 
 risque  nisi  omnibus  probatis  codicibus  Graecis,  et  sine  d  ubio 
 fiunt  rejicienda. 
 
 CO 
 
(    3SG    ) 
 
 dissent  ot'  those  antient  versions  from  the  former  pas- 
 sages, does  not  in  the  least  impeach  their  authenti- 
 city. As  in  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  wc 
 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  in 
 t)he  sequel  to  prove ;  its  total  absence  from  the  pri- 
 iuitive  Italick  version,  and  partial  absence  from  the 
 Syriack,  is  of  course  accounted  for^  in  the  former 
 consideration.  But  its  partial  introduction  into  the 
 Syriack,  and  general  admission  into  the  Greek, 
 create  a  difficulty  which  is  not  so  easily  solved. 
 Oould  we  admit  the  truth  of  the  account  which  St. 
 
 •^•^*  Vid.  supr.  p.  357.  sqq. 
 '3»-  Vid.  supr.  p.  185.  n.'". 
 
(    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 '^^  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 
 
 "^  Vid.  supr.  p.  100.  n. '". 
 
 '"  Vid.  supr.  p.  157.  n. »°». 
 
 "2  Vid.  supr.  pp.  137,  138.  conf.p.  151, 
 
 '^  Comp.  Mar.  xv.  24.  Luk.  xxiii.  3'i. 
 
 c  c2 
 
(    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 
 
 '♦°  The  partial  propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Armenia,  Persia, 
 Arabia,  Ethiopia,  and  Moesia,  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.  \  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  of 
 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  ia 
 the  antient ;  those  readings  existing  in  such  parts  of  the  tran- 
 slation as  were  made  before  the  version  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  tlie  Greek  Vulgate,  on  every  poiht  of 
 
(    390    ) 
 
 th6  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.  to  xala  crapxa 
 
 «>ar^<r«t»  rov  X^iroy,  Byz,  ^g»  It,  2.  3.  lb.  ix.  6.  CK'kmfov  ffOi 
 vr^oq  xivlfoc  Xaxli^stf.  T^i[XU¥  T£  t^  Botjx^uv  itirt'  Kvpit  ri  yLt  ^/Xtif 
 ?roi2cra»  ;  xat  o  Kypjo?  Tpo?  avTov,  ByZ,  Syr.  2.  It.  3.  J^ltk,  Ar. 
 lb.  X.  6.  aro?  AaA^o-tt  <ro»,  T»'  at  ^sT  vtoieTv.  ByZ,  ^g»  It.  3. 
 Copt.  lb.  XV.  18.  hi  ru  ©£«  'Kotvlcc  toi  'ifyoc  uvtS.  Byz.  jEg. 
 Syr.  1.  It.  2.  3.  lb.  xxii.  20.  t*j  iyai^eVfit  avrS.  Byz.  Syr.  I. 
 Ar.  2.  Rom.  vi.  12.  avrj?  iv  r»7s  iTnSv^lcnq  ocvrS.  Byz.  Pal, 
 Syr.  1.  2.  It.  3.  Ibid.  viii.  1.  fA^  itala  <rapx«  ws^iwalacrtv.  Byz. 
 Syr.  1.  It,  2.  3.  Ar.  lb.  xi.  6.  tl  ^\  If  tpyuvf  «x£Tt  Ir*  x^gis*  lirit 
 TO  tfyov  ax£T»  InJ'  «fiyoy.  5^2.  Sl/r.  1.  ^r.  lb.  XV.  29.  t5  euajye^a 
 T».  ji5y2;.  jSj/r.  1.  /if.  3.  Ar.  1  Cor.  vi.  20.  »c)  If  to;  irvivixali  vfji,uv, 
 ctriva,  er»  t£  ©ta.  Byz.  Syr.  1.  Ar.  lb.  x.  28.  tS  yap  KypJa  v)  yn 
 x)  TO  'rr>,yif0iJt,ae,  uvr^q.    ByZ.  Syr.  2.  -4r.      Gal.  iii.  1.  rvi  aAijSeta  (ji.tt 
 
 veiBstT^aci ;  Byz.  Syr.  2.  JEM.  /if.  3.  Jra5.  Eph.  iii.  9.  ^»a  'l)?o-5 
 Xpjr*.  jB^2.  iSj/r.  2.  Arab,  Phil.  iii.  16.  xavov*  to  a^To  ^poȣri'. 
 Byz.  Syr.  1.  It.  3.  </4r.  Ibid.  21.  tU  to  ysvsVSa*  a^To.  ^^jsr. 
 Syr.  1.  2.  ^r.  Col.  i.  2.  xj  Kvgia  'l»3cr»  Xptaa.  %^.  S^r.  2.  /if.  3. 
 j4r.  ^<^.  1  Thes.  iii.  2.  xj  ^jaxovojr— i/Aw^.  Bysf.  Syr.  I.  Ar.  1.  2. 
 Heb.  ii.  7.  xj  xa1er»J<7'as  ayToi*  Iw*  rd  tpyoc  rUfii  %£»pwi'  era.  Byz.  Syr^ 
 1.  2.  /^.  2.  3.  Ar.JEth.  1  Pet.  i.  23.  «?  tov  «»^»a.  Byz.  Syr,  1. 
 /if.  2.  3.  Ar.  1  Job.  v.  13.  Tor^  nKivaffiv  z\q  to  lvo/<ca  t5  'Y»S  t3 
 ©4S.  Byz.  Arab,  Apoc,  i.  8.  «px*»  "«*  t/Xo?.  J5j/2:.  S[yr.  2. 
 /if.  3.  Cojaf.  Jbid.  10.  lyu  tlf^i  ro  A  x«*  to  H,  o  <nrpuro;  xxl  o 
 sa-xetloi'  Jta*.  Sys:.  Syr,  2.  ^4ra^.  lb.  v.  14.  ^wvlt  ek  t«j  «i<ypa? 
 vuv  aXuvm.  Byz.  Syr.  2.  It.  3.  lb.  xi.  1.  xat  5  »fye\oq  tUvKii. 
 Byz.  Syr.  1.  lb.  xiv.  5.  ^vu'Jr^ov  tS  ^^ova  ra  ©£a.  Byz-  Syr.  2. 
 /f.  3.  lb.  XV.  2.  ex  Ta  ya.fa,yiji.o[lo(;.  Byz.  Syr.  2.  ^r«^.  To 
 which  the  following  may  be  added  from  the  Gospels ;  Mar.  iii. 
 5.  yyiJ»?  <yf  n  aWn.  Byz.  Mg.  It,  2.  poene.  lb.  ix.  38.  o?  «>t 
 4<QXt?^«r  i/*r».  Byz.  Mg,  It,  2.  i%r.  2.    Luc.  vii,  31,  J^rr  ^e  4 
 
(    391     ) 
 
 That  no  other  text  of  the  Greek  but  the  Pales- 
 tine edition  has  had  any  influence  on  the  old 
 Italick  and  Syriack,  or  their  descendants,  the 
 versions  of  Philoxenus  and  St.  Jerome,  I  have 
 already  endeavoured  to  prove  *'^*.  The  corrections 
 which  the  Latin  Vulgate  received,  under  the  Em- 
 perour  Charlemagne,  may  be  indeed  conceived 
 to  invalidate  its  testimony,  when  adduced,  as 
 a  separate  witness,  with  the  Syriack,  in  favour  of 
 the  original  Greek '*^  But  when  we  observe  the 
 distinction  which  must  be  made  between  the  Byzan- 
 tine and  Palestine  texts ;  no  corrections  which  the 
 Latin  version  could  have  sustained  at  this  period,  or 
 antecedently,  can  affect  its  testimony,  when  adduced 
 on  the  side  of  the  former  edition. 
 
 From  the  fourth  to  the  eighth  century  inclusive, 
 there  were  few  persons  who  were  adequate  to  the 
 task  of  revising  the  Latin  translation ;  and  from  the 
 knowledge  which  we  possess  of  their  history,  it  must 
 be  inferred,  that  none  but  St.  Jerome  and  St.  Euse- 
 bius  engaged  in  this  undertaking.  In  the  fourth 
 and  fifth  centuries,  a  knowledge  of  Greek  was  a  rare 
 attainment  among  the  Latins  '^*.  Many  were  cer- 
 tainly able  to  read  it  '^^ ;  but  destitute  of  so  incon- 
 
 Kvfioi.  Bt/z,  It,  1.  lb.  vii.  44.  t??  xi^a^)??.  Bi/z.  It,  1.  lb. 
 ix.  1.  /xaSijTa?  ecvra,  Byz.  Pal,  It,  1.  2.  3. 
 
 '*^*  Vid.  supr.  p.  342.  sqq. 
 
 '♦3  Vid.  supr.  p.  21.  n.  ^^ 
 
 '**  Vid.  supr.  p.  57.  n.  *'. 
 
 **'  Not  only  S.  Hilary,  Eusebius  Vercellensis,  and  Lucifer 
 Calaritanus  possessed  so  much  knowledge  of  Greek,  but  Phi- 
 lastrius,  Ambrose,  and  his  friend  Gaudentius.  The  long  inter- 
 course which  the  former  maintained  ^ith  the  Greeks,  and  the 
 
(    393    ) 
 
 siderable  yet  necessary  assistance  as  a  Lexicon,  few 
 would  undertake  to  translate  it.  St.  Jerome  and  his 
 contemporary^  Ruffinus^  are  remarkable  exceptions ; 
 
 active  part  which  they  took  in  the  affairs  of  the  Eastern  church, 
 contain  a  sufficient  proof  of  the  above  assertion ;  vid.  supr.  p. 
 54.  n.  ".  Philastrius'  tract  on  Heresy  contains  much  informa- 
 tion, which  could  only  be  derived  through  this  source ;  St- 
 Ambrose  frequently  refers  to  the  Greek,  and  has  adopted  the 
 greater  part  of  his  treatise  o«  the  Holy  Spirit  from  St.  Basil's 
 treatise,  on  the  same  subject ;  which  he  could  only  attain 
 through  a  knowledge  of  the  language  in  which  it  was  written  j 
 vid.  Patrr.  Bened.  Monit.  in  Ambros.  de  Spir.  Sanct,  Tom.  IL 
 col.  596,  597.  Gaudentius,  as  appears  from  several  passages 
 in  his  works,  must  have  had  some  knowledge  of  Greek ;  as  he 
 sometimes  compares  the  readings  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  co- 
 pies of  Scripture,  and  corrects  the  one  by  the  other:  vid» 
 Orthodoxogr.  Tom.  H.  pp.  1835.  1844.  The  request  which  he 
 made  to  Ruffinus  to  undertake  the  translation  of  a  work  as- 
 cribed to  Clemens  Romanus,  contains  a  sufficient  proof  how- 
 ever that  his  skill  in  this  language  did  not  qualify  him  for  the 
 office  of  a  translator,  which  was  discharged  with  difficulty  even 
 by  Ruffinus;  Ruffin.  Peror.  in  Expl.  Orig.  sup.  Ep.  ad  Romm. 
 ap.  Orig.  Tom.  IV.  p.  689.  b.  Post  hoc  sane  vocat  nos  opus 
 quod  olim  quidem  injunctum  est,  sed  nunc  a  heato  Gaudentio 
 episcopo  vehementius  perurgetur,  dementis  scilicet  Romani  epis- 
 copi,  Apostolorum  ac  successoris  de  Recognitione  libri  ut  in 
 luatmum  vertantur.  In  quo  opere  bene  novi,  quod  laborem 
 labor  muhiplicaf,  si  sortem  suscipiat.  Satisfaciam  sane  in  ea 
 amicis  meis,'*  &c.  conf.  p.  688.  St.  Eusebius  of  Verceli,  and 
 St.  Jerome,  were  probably  the  only  persons  of  the  age  compe- 
 tent to  the  task  of  forming  a  literal  version  of  the  sacred  text ; 
 and  both  accordingly  devoted  a  great  portion  of  their  lives  to 
 that  undertaking.  The  former  owed  liis  knowledge  of  Greek, 
 to  his  having  been  banished  to  Cappadocia ;  the  latter  to  his 
 long  residence  in  the  East;  vid.  supr.  p.  237.  n.  "^.  conf.  S, 
 Hier.  Cat.  Scriptt.  Eccless.  in  Euseb.  Verc»  Tom«  I.  p.  130*. 
 
(    393    ) 
 
 but  the  reputation  which  they  acquired,  as  transla- 
 tors, the  latter  on  very  slender  pretensions  ^^^,  suffi- 
 ciently reveal  how  very  rare  the  endowment  was  at 
 this  period.  As  we  descend  below  this  period,  in- 
 stances are  still  more  rare  of  those  who  possessed 
 this  qualification.  The  subjugation  of  the  Western 
 Empire  by  the  Goths,  who  extended  their  arms  into 
 Africa  "'^^,  rendered  this  age  particularly  unpropi- 
 
 '**'  The  charge  of  unfaithfulness  in  translating  from  the 
 Greek  is  brought  against  Ruffinus  by  St.  Jerome ;  S.  Hier. 
 Apol.  adv.  Ruffin.  Lib.  II.  cap.  v.  Tom.  II.  p.  24-6.  And  some 
 fragments,  which  are  preserved  of  Origan's  Commentary  ou 
 the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  which  Ruffinus  undertook  to  trans- 
 late at  the  request  of  Heraclius,  fully  justify  the  charge  of  St, 
 Jerome.  The  Benedictine  editours  introduce  the  first  of  those 
 fragments  to  our  notice,  with  the  following  observation  ;  Orig. 
 Comment,  in  Ep.  ad  Romann.  Tom.  IV.  p.  462.  n. "".  "  Quam 
 infida  sit  Riifini  interpretation  liquet  ex  Graecis,  qua:^  Philocalise 
 cap.  XXV.  sic  repraesentantur,  &c.  Pliny  the  elder,  and  Euse- 
 bius  of  Ca^sarea,  were  the  most  learned  men  of  the  age  in  which 
 they  lived ;  yet  their  attempts  at  rendering  Greek  into  Latin, 
 and  Latin  into  Greek,  exhibit  some  curious  mistakes.  The 
 subjoined  passage  of  Tertullian  is  rendered  as  follows  by  Euse- 
 bius;  Tert.  Apol.  cap.  v.  p.  21.  **  Consulite  Commentaries 
 vestros.  Illic  reperietis  primum  Neronem  in  banc  sectam  cum 
 maxime  Romae  orientem  cassariano  gladio  ferocisse.'*  Euseb. 
 Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  II.  cap.  xxv.  p.  83. 1.  22.  lHv^ili  ro7q  vTroixti- 
 IMta-iv  vfji.uv»  ly.iT  tv^rjctle  v^uTov  Ns^wna  tSto  to  ooypta,  riViKOi  f/.a7\iftc 
 Iv  Pvixvi  rriV  dvaloXriv  Troiaoiv  vTrola^acy  u^o-,-  y;v  iU  iruvlai^,  ^tui^avla.. 
 The  use  of  to  Uyy^a.  and  ^vixa,  for  tviv  oci^iciv  and  ort,  not  to 
 speak  of  the  general  misconception  of  the  sense,  are  slight  er- 
 rours,  compared  to  the  shameful  mistake  of  rendering  orientem 
 by  rnv  avotloxh.  The  reader  who  would  see  similar  instances  of 
 mistranslation  in  Pliny,  may  consult  Salmas.  Piiniann.  Exercitt. 
 in  Solin.  Tom.  I.  p.  127.  d.  sqq. 
 !*^  Vid.  supr.  p.  296.  n.  3°'. 
 
(    S94    ) 
 
 tious  to  study.  Sedulius  HibernensiSj  who  im- 
 pelled by  an  insatiable  thirst  for  information^  tra- 
 velled as  far  eastward  as  Asia,  whither  literature 
 was  now  retiring  from  the  West' *^  is  a  singular 
 instance  of  a  person  acquainted  with  Greek  '*^  in 
 an  age,  when  the  light  of  science  had  nearly  set  in 
 the  western  hemisphere.  The  difficulties  with  which 
 Cassiodorus  had  to  contend  in  the  next  age,  in  pro- 
 curing a  competent  person  to  revise  the  Latin  tran- 
 slation'^*, sufficiently  proclaim  how  very  unusual 
 
 »*«  Sixt.  Sinens.  BIblioth.  Sanct.  Lib.  IV.  p.  219.  b.  ed.  1510. 
 *«  Velut  alter  Apollonius  Tyaneus,  [Sedulius]  fugientem  sapi" 
 entiam  toto  terrarum  orbe  perquirens,  Britanniam,  Hispaniam, 
 Galliam,  Italiam,  Grccciamy  et  Asiam,  miro  discendi  ardore  per- 
 lustravit,**  &c.  Honourable  mention  is  made  of  Sedulius  by 
 Cassiodorus ;  vid.  Usser.  Antiquitt.  Brit.   Eccles.  cap.  xvi.  p. 
 
 407.  sqq. 
 
 ^^  A  Greek  Psalter  transcribed  in  the  ninth  century  from 
 an  autograph  of  Sedulius  is  still  preserved,  and  is  described  by 
 the  learned  Benedictine,  B.  de  Montfaucon,  Palaeogr.  Graec. 
 Lib.  III.  cap.  vii.  p.  236.  On  the  execution  of  the  work,  the 
 learned  antiquary  observes ;  Jbid.  p.  236.  "  Etsi  vero  non  ita 
 perite  exaratus  sit  codex,  nihil  stupendum  in  Latino  scriba ; 
 nam  si  Graeci  calligraphi  ejusdem  aetatis  frequenter  vocalium 
 commutationes — admittunt;  quid  mirum  si  Latinus  scriba, 
 alnTraii  pro  alviTrt  dicat,  yemuxTKn  pro  yivuo-yiti  et  similia :  sed 
 tamen  non  ita  frequenter  sensum  interturbat :  quo  videatur, 
 Greece  non  imperitum,  ut  ilia  aetate,  Sedulium  Scotum," 
 
 *5°  Of  these  difficulties,  Cassiodorus,  who  had  been  at  infinite 
 pains  to  collect  not  only  books,  but  translatours  and  exposi- 
 tours,  out  of  all  parts  of  the  world,  [vid.  Cassiod.  de  Instit. 
 Divin.  Litter,  capp.  viii.  ix.  p.  544?.  ed.  Rptom.  1679.]  speaks 
 in  the  following  terms ;  Id.  ibid,  in  Praef.  p.  537.— gravissimo 
 fateor  dolore  permotus,  quod  scripturis  divinis  magistri  publici 
 ^essent .    NIsus  sum  ergo  cum  beatissimo  Agapito  Papa 
 
(    395    ) 
 
 the  same  qualification  was  in  the  age  when  he  flou- 
 rished; the  school  of  Nisibis,  situated  at  the  ex- 
 treme borders  of  Syria^  having  been  the  nearest 
 place  from  whence  a  person  qualified  to  discharge 
 this  office,  could  be  procured,  Junilius,  a  contem- 
 porary of  Cassiodorus,  mentions,  as  an  unusual  cir- 
 cumstance, his  having'  seen  one  person,  a  Persian, 
 who  had  been  educated  at  Nisibis,  and  possessed 
 this  rare  though  humble  endowment'^*. 
 
 Admitting  that  the  Greek  text  had  any  influence 
 on  the  Latin  Vulgate,  it  must  have  been  that  text 
 which  existed  in  the  Palestine  edition ;  for  with  it 
 alone  the  orientalists  were  acquainted.  When  we 
 are  therefore  informed,  that  the  correction  of  this 
 translation  was  undertaken  from  the  Syriack  and 
 
 urbis  Romae ;  ut  sicut  apud  Alexandriam,  multo  tempore  fume 
 traditur  institutum  nunc  etiam  in  Nisibi  civitate  Syrorum,  ab 
 Hebraeis  sedulo  fertur  exponi,  collatis  expensis  In  urbe  Romana 
 professes  doctores  scholae  potius  exciperent  christianae,  unde  et 
 anima  susciperet  aetemam  salutem,  et  casto  atque  purissimo 
 eloquio  fidelium  lingua  comeretur.  Sed  cum  per  bella  ferxieu' 
 Ha,  turbulenta  nimis  in  Italico  regno  cerfamitia,  dessederium 
 meum  nuUatenus  valuisset  impleri :  quoniam  non  habet  locum 
 res  pacis,  temporibus  inquietis ;  ad  hoc  divina  charitate  prober 
 esse  compulsus,  ut  ad  vicem  magistri,  introductorios  vobis  libros 
 istes,  Domino  praestante,  conficerem," 
 
 '^*  Junil.  de  Partt.  Div.  Leg.  in  Prooem.  ad  Priraas.  '*  Tu 
 autem  more  illo  tuo  nihil  ante  qucesisti  quam  si  quis  esset  inter 
 GrcBcos  qui  divinorura  librorum  studio  intelligentiaque  flagraret. 
 Ad  haec  ego  respondi,  vidisse  me  quemdam,  Paulum  nomine, 
 Persam  genere,  qui  in  Syrorum  sckola  in  Nisibi  urbe  est  edoc- 
 tus :  ubi  divina  lex  per  magistros  publicos,  sicut  apud  nos  in 
 mundanis  studiis,  Geometrica  et  Rhetorica,  ordine  regulariter 
 traditur.*'     Ap.  Max.  Bibl.  Patrr,  Tom.  X,  p.  34^0.  c. 
 
(    396    ) 
 
 Greek '^';  the  only  reasonable  inference  is^  that  the 
 Syriack  was  the  Philoxenian  version,  the  Greek  the 
 Palestine  text,  which  were  employed  in  the  revisaL 
 This  supposition  is  fully  confirmed  by  the  coinci- 
 dence which  exists  between  that  text  and  version, 
 and  the  affinity  which  both  possess  to  the  modern 
 Vulgate  *^^  That  the  readings  of  the  latter  version 
 were  more  than  collated  with  the  Greek  and  Sy- 
 riack texts,  and  the  true  readings  more  than  ascer^ 
 tained,  from  different  copies  of  the  translation, 
 which  was  originally  made  from  the  Palestine  edi- 
 tion, is  rendered  wholly  improbable  by  many  consi- 
 derations*^*.    To  recast  the  translation  by  a  differ- 
 
 "*  Vid.  supr.  p.  21.  n.  3*. 
 
 *5^  In  the  passages  quoted,  supr.  p.  380.  sqq.  from  theantient 
 Syriack,  the  Vulgate  dissents  from  that  version,  and  agrees 
 with  the  Palestine  text,  omitting  all  that  the  Syriack  retains,  but 
 Joh.  i.  27.  In  the  printed  editions,  Matt,  xxvii.  35.  Luc.  xvii. 
 36.  55.  which  occur  in  the  Syriack,  are  retained  also  in  the 
 Vulgate;  but  in  the  Roman  Corrections  subjoined  to  the  Bible 
 of  Sixtus  V.  they  are  marked  as  absent  from  some  manuscripts 
 of  the  vulgar  Latin  version.  It  is  extraordinary,  that  in  the 
 only  remaining  passage  of  any  length,  Luc.  vii.  31.  st-Tre  ^t  a 
 Ktgio?,  in  which  the  Greek  and  Syriack  Vulgate  differ,  which 
 otherv/ise  generally  agree ;  the  Latin  Vulgate,  differing  from 
 the  latter,  agrees  with  the  former.  As  it  is  highly  improbable 
 that  the  criticks  of  Charlemagne's  days,  attended  to  minute 
 verbal  differences ;  these  examples  will  abundantly  demonstrate, 
 that  the  Greek  text  and  Syriack  version,  by  wliich  they  cor- 
 rected the  Gospels,  could  not  have  been  the  vulgar  edition. 
 
 *^*  One  of  the  strongest  reasons  appears  to  be  this;  the  read- 
 ing of  the  Latin  Vulgate  might  be  thus  ascertained  with  great 
 precision  and  ease ;  as  this  version,  as  well  as  the  Philoxenian 
 Syriack,  was  made  from  the  Palestine  Greek,     Had  the  rcvi^ 
 
(    397    ) 
 
 cnt  text,  if  practicable,  would  have  been  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  orig-inal 
 readings.  And  thus  much  is  apparent  from  the 
 internd  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  curfB 
 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  quae  jampridem  universes  Veteris  ac 
 Novi  Testamenti  libros,  librariomm  imperitia  depravatos,  Deo 
 BOS  in  omnibus  adjuvante,  ad  amussim  correximus." 
 
 '55  Vid.supr.  pp.  S2,  33.  nn.  ^^  et  5^. 
 
 *5^  Vid.  supr.  p.  100.  n.  "®.  S.  Jerome,  in  declaring,  in  that 
 Preface,  "  cum  multarum  gentium  Unguis  Scriptura  ajite  tranS' 
 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  valg-ar  text  of  the  Syriack  and  Greek,  than  any 
 other  copies  of  that  translation. 
 
 Nor  is  the  integrity  of  the  Si/riack  Vulgate  less 
 ca|>ab]e  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- 
 
 '"  Such  is  the  celebrated  Vallicella  Bible,  mentioned  under 
 the  following  terms  by  M.  Blanchini,  Evangeliar.  Quadrupl. 
 P.  II.  f.  dciv.  Descriptio  insignis  Cod.  Vallacelani,  complec- 
 tentis  Biblia  Sacra  utriusque  Testamenti,  exarata  proprio  manu, 
 ab  Alchuino  Anglo,  Sancti  Bedae  discipulo.'*  This  MS.  ig 
 however  classed  by  M.  Blanchini,  among  those  which  are  de- 
 scribed under  the  following  title ;  Id.  ib.  dxcix.  "  Descriptio 
 aliquot  Codicum  Latinorum  Antiquae  Italae  purcB  putce  Hiero* 
 nymiancs,^*  The  subscription  of  the  MS.  Bible  of  St.  Germain 
 des  Prez,  which  has  been  already  quoted,  supr.  p.  32.  n.  '^ 
 contains  a  stronger  confirmation  of  the  above  assumption ;  that 
 t]ae  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. 
 '5*  Vid.  supr.  p.  343.  sqq. 
 
(    399    ) 
 
 mcnt  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 '^9      In  fact,  the  whole  of  the 
 
 *5*  Gabr.  Sionit.  Praef.  in  Psalt.  Syriac.  p.  iii.  Quamvis 
 linguae  Syriacae  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  Chaldceos  Mesopotamiae  populos, 
 Hceresi  Nestoriance  misere  obligatos  ;  turn  apud  Syros  Jacobitas, 
 qui  Dioscoridis,  Eidychetisy  et  Jacobi  Jalsa  dogmata  secuti, 
 Monothelitarum  nomine  dignoscuntur ;  tcrtio  apud  Maronitas 
 nostros,  etiam  Syros,  qui  ab  avita  fide  Catholica  Roraana  nun-_ 
 quam  descivernnt.'* 
 
(    400    ) 
 
 tircums lances  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, 
 requires  no  further  refutation.  Such  an  assumption 
 can  be  only  maintained  on  the  grounds  of  the  affi- 
 nity discoverable  between  the  Syriack  and  Greek ; 
 whrcli  affinity  must  be  thus  attributed  to  this  obvi- 
 ous cause ;  that  the  one  was  originally  made  from 
 the  other. 
 
 .  "50  jt  j^g  never  been  doubted,  that  the  later  version  has  been 
 formed  after  the  Palestme  text,  which  was  pubHshed  by  Euse- 
 bius,  and  which  accorded  in  the  Old  Testament  with  Origen's 
 Hexapla.  Walt.  Prolegomm.  in  Bibll.  Polyglott.  Sect.  xiii. 
 }  S.  p.  89. — versionem  hahent  [Syri]  ex  Hebraeo  antiquissimam, 
 quam  in  his  Bibliis  exhibemus,  et  ilia  quam  postea  hauserunt 
 ex  Gr^cOy  non  erat  ex  mixta  aliqua  editione,  sed  ex  ea  qiiam  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  MS. 
 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.  "  Modo 
 ad  Godicem  ipsum  redeamus,  qui  hac  epigraphe  explicit; 
 *  Descriptus  est  et  effictus  ex  exemplari  Eusehii  et  Pamphili. 
 Ad  ejus  scilicet  normam,  quod  ipsi  emendarunt  ex  hiblioiheca 
 Origenis,*' 
 
(    401     ) 
 
 Ab  these  considerations  seem  adequate  to  vindi- 
 cate the  integrity  of  the  Syriack  Vulgate;  they  in- 
 volve an  equally  strong-  argument  in  favour  of  the 
 antiquity  of  this  translation,  which  is  universally 
 admitted  to  be  the  most  antient  of  the  Oriental  ver^ 
 sions  *^'.  That  this  version  existed  in  its  present 
 mutilated  fornix  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 
 
 ""  Walt,  ut  supr.  §  8.  p.  89.  "  Quod  ad  utilitatem  hujus 
 linguae  spectat — addere  licet,  quod  in  ea  extat  vetustissima  trari' 
 slatio,  Vet.  Test,  ex  Hebraeo,  et  Nov.  Test,  ex  GrcBco,  qucB  omnes 
 post  Christum  factas  antiquitate  superat."  Renaudot.  ap.  Le 
 Long.  Biblioth.  Sacr.  Tom.  L  p.  i.  cap.  ii.  p.  93.  "  Versfo 
 Syra,  qua  vulgo  Syri  omnes  ntuntur^  ex  Hebraico  facta  est 
 omniumque  versionum  Orientaliilm  est  antiquissimaJ"  Conf. 
 infr.  n.  '^\ 
 
 *^*  Walt.  ibid.  p.  90.  §  15.  "  --Sionita  in  Psalm.  Syr.  ex 
 Saodedo  quodam  episcopo  Hadetbiensi,  antiquo  apud  Syrds 
 scriptore.  Fatetur  tamen  ibidem  Sionita,  quorundam  Syrorum 
 sententiam  esse,  totam  Vet.  et  Nov.  Test.  Versionem  factam 
 Juisse  tempore  S,  Thaddan  (quern  Addcsum  vacant)  et  reg.s  Ab' 
 gari;  priorem  vero  sententiam  probabiliorem  judicat,  quee  raihi 
 improbabilior  videtur." 
 
 ^^^  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  exera- 
 plari  Judffiorum.  At  Syri  Occidentales  duas  habent  versiones, 
 simplicem  illam  quse  e  lingua  Hebraica  in  S^riacam  translata 
 est  post  adventwn  Domini  Christi  tempore  Addcei  Apostoli,  vel 
 juxta  alios,  ante  eum  tempore  Salomonis  filii  David  et  Hirami ; 
 et  alteram  figuratam  juxta  LXX  seniorum  interpretationem 
 e  lingua  Grceca  in  Syriacam  traduciam  longo  post  Sakatoric 
 incarnationetn.^* 
 
 Dd 
 
(    402    ) 
 
 attention.  So  great  a  work  as  the  translation  of  the 
 whole  Bible  into  the  language  of  that  people,  must 
 have  been  effected  by  labour  and  time.  That  part 
 of  the  version  which  contains  the  Old  Testament 
 has  been  attributed  to  the  Jews*^*;  and  the  mere 
 circumstance  of  this  part  of  the  canon  having  beeii 
 the  first  that  was  translated,  seems  decisive  of  the 
 fact.  The  christians  possessed  no  knowledge  of 
 the  Hebrew,  from  which  this  version  was  made  ^*^ 
 and  were  not  €ven  in  possession  of  the  original;, 
 until  the  publication  of  Origen's  Hexapla'^^.     In 
 
 '*+  Author.  Synops.  Nov.  Bibll.  Polyglott.  p.  18.  <*  Syria 
 duplex  est  Bibliorum  versio,  ex  Graeco  una  facta  est — ex  He* 
 braio  altera — ,  Ebraica  verba  ita  presse  exprimit,  ut  a  JudcEO 
 potius  quam  ab  homine  Christian©  profectam  Juisse  crediderim* 
 Suspicor  illam  olhn  in  vsum  Judmorum^  qui  in  synagogis  sui& 
 Ebraice  et  Chaldaice  legebant,  conditam  fuisse,  et  ab  his  ob 
 Chaldaicse  et  Syriacae  dialectorum  affinitatem  ad  Syros  tran- 
 siisse.'*     Ap.  Le  Long.  ibid. 
 
 '*5  Vid.  aupr.  p.  401.  n.  ^^^»  &c.  It  is  mentioned  by  Euse- 
 bius  as  a  singular  instance  of  the  indefatigable  diligence  of 
 Origen,  who,  according  to  the  admission  of  the  Pagans,  was 
 the  most  learned  person  of  bis  times,  that  he  studied  Hebrew  j 
 fid.  supr.  p.  213.  n.  ", 
 
 '^^  Eusebius  represents  the  possession  of  a  copy  of  the  He- 
 brew Scriptures  as  peculiar  to  Origen  ;  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  VL 
 cap.  xvi.  p.  275.  1.  21.  To<rai;T»j  ^t  tla-ytytlo  rai  'fiptym*  t«»  ^bIu9 
 ^oyuv  aTTijHfi^uiAsvv  i^iroe.o-i<;y  us  *^  t>j»  "EBfot^cc  y7\.u'^a.}i  iKi^u^tTu 
 rds  re  tia^  toli  *IbS«»ois"  Efx^s^Ofxhaf  WftS\o\v7i8f  avroii  *E^fci\uf 
 rotx«*o'f  Tpa^a?,  x7r//xa  i'^tov  'JioiriOaa'hoii.  And  St.  Jeroai^ 
 speaks  of  him  as  learning  Hebrew  contrary  to  the  prejudice  of 
 his  country ;  S.  Hier.  Cat.  Scriptt.  Eccl.  in  Orig.  Tom.  I.  p. 
 126.  *'  Et  quod  tantum  in  Scripturas  divinas  habuerit  studii, 
 ut  Gtiam  Hebraeam  linguam  contra  cetatis  gentisque  suce  naturam 
 tdiscerct" 
 
(    40S    ) 
 
 compiling  this  great  work,  in  the  third  century, 
 Origen  probably  made  some  use  of  the  Syriack  ver- 
 sion, having  frequently  referred  to  it  in  his  mar- 
 gin '^^.  In  the  fourth  century,  it  is  noticed  by  Euse- 
 biu8,  Basil,  and  Ambrose  *^^ ;  and  is  expressly  quoted 
 
 '^7  Montfauc.  Praelimm.  in  Hexapl.  Origen.  cap.  i  §  vii. 
 p.  18.  **  Samaritani  et  S^ri  lectiones  in  marginibiis  vetudissi* 
 morum  exemplarium  quce  Hexaplorum  Jragmenta  exhibenty  per- 
 Baepe  observantur;  Syri  quidem  in  plerisque  Scripturce  libris  $ 
 Samaritani  vero  in  Pentateucho  tantum: — Cum  autem  illae 
 Samaritani  lectiones,  non  in  vetustis  codicibus  tantum,  sed 
 €tiam  apud  patres  quarti,  quinfi,  et  sequent! um  saeculorum 
 occurrant,  prohabile  sane  videtur  ipsum  Originem  lectiones  illas 
 Samaritani  in  margine  Hexaplorum  posuisse.  Idem  porro  dicen* 
 dum  de  Si/ro,  cujus  interpretationes  passim  reperiuntur,  in 
 Genesi  Exodo,"  &c.  Whatever  be  considered  protjable  on  this 
 subject,  it  must  be  inferred,  that  this  version,  which  is  quoted 
 in  the  Hexapla,  was  the  Peshito,  from  its  coincidence  with  the 
 Hebrew ;  vid.  infr.  d.  '""K 
 
 .  '"^^  Walt.  Prolegomm.  in  Bibll.  Polygll.  p.  91.  **  Quicquid 
 vero  sit  de  hoc  Hieronymi  testimonio"  (vid.supr.p.  897.  n.  *^^) 
 certum  est  Syriacae  versionis  apud  multos  veterum  Grascorum  et 
 Latinorum  fieri  mention  em.    Basilius  Magnus  Horn.  1.  in  Hex, 
 
 ad  Gen.  i»2.  ex  Syro  interprete  nsmo  exponit, .    Ambrosius 
 
 Hex.  Lib.  I.  cap.  viii.  in  eundem  locum  citat  Syrum — Procopius 
 in  Exod.  xxii.  memorat  Syrum  vertisse  *  excutite,  racuifacite,' 
 cv<riLtva,a-o[\i,  Theodoretus  in  cap.  iii.  Jonse  Syros  codices  citat, 
 ut  in  Ps.  civ.  cxiii.  cxvi.  Chrysostomus  in  Ps.  xciv.  et  Heb.  xi, 
 Syri   codicis  etiam   meminit   S,   Atigustinus   De   Civitate  Dei 
 
 Lib.   XV.     cap.    xiii.    -,      Ad    haec    saepissime    ra    Tv^a 
 
 mentionera  habemus  in  antiquissimrs  Scholiis  Graecis,"  &q, 
 Montfauc.  ibid.  p.  19.  **  Syri  porro  lectiones  adferuntur  ab  Eu' 
 sebio  Ccesariensiy  a  Diodoio  Tarsensi  frcquentifs ;  ab  E.sebio 
 JEmisenOf  Hieronymo,  Theodoreto  et  aliis.  Quodque  notandum 
 est,  iidem,  maximeque  Diodorus,  Syrum  cum  Hebrceo  jungunt 
 hoc  pacto ;  «  2^f of  t^  •  'E^g«r&c,  vel,  o  E/3f aro?  >c) «  2vfo«,  quatido 
 
(    404    ) 
 
 out  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  by  Ephrcm,  the 
 Syrian '^9  In  this  century,  of  course,  the  transla- 
 tion must  havie  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 
 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  pure  than  that  of 
 the  Acts  and  Epistles,  and  bears  internal  evidence  of 
 greater  antiquity  ^"^"i  but  by  the  absence  of  Eusebius's 
 sections,  which  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  existed 
 in  the  Palestine  text,  when  the  version  of  the  Gos- 
 
 ^cilicet  amhorum  interpretationes  convejilimt,  quod  scepe  contigit.*" 
 The  leai-ned  authour,  lb.  §  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  deduces  from  the  circum- 
 stance of  this  version  containing  some  Greek  terms.  But  no- 
 thing can  be  concluded  from  hence  against  the  existence  of  the 
 Syriack  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  quae 
 Iiulc  opinion!  adversari  videntur,  ut  est  illud  ex  Didymo,  Gen. 
 viii.  7.  0  2y§os"  8%  ofMoiojs  r'^  *KXXriVJKYi*  x/y"  7*Si    *  ixirir^t^s/ 
 
 '^?  Vid.  supr.  p.  25.  n.  *3* 
 
 *'®  Simon.  Hist,  des  Vers.  chap.  xv.  p.  187.  "  Au  rePtft 
 cette  Version  n'est  pas  tout-a-fait  si  simple  dans  les  Epttres  de 
 St.  Paul,  que  dans  les  Evangiles*  Comme  le  stile,  de  ces  Epi- 
 tres  est  obscur  et  embarrasse,  I'Interprete  Syrien  s'y  est  donne 
 plus  de  libertc,  s'eloignant  quelquefois  de  son  original.  II 
 s'emancipe  des  les  premiers  mots  de  PEpitre  aux  Romans,"  &c. 
 'Comp.  Marsh.  Michael.  Vol.  II.  chap.  vii.  J.  8.  p.  40.. 
 
(    405    ) 
 
 pels  was  made.     AH  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 
 ^vorld^  the  authority  of  the  Greek  language  simulta- 
 neously declined  '7*.     The  Syrians  now  began  to  cul- 
 
 "'  Euseb.   Hist.  Eccl.   Lib.  VI.   cap.  xxx.  p.  294.  1.  27. 
 
 TZ    ^\    'n^»7£vi»    sir*     Tvq    KctK7cx.fiia.s     Ta    avv^^vi    TrpxTiovltf    ttoXT^oI 
 y.vpiot   (poilr^cc)  'fay  fral^Qa^  uTToT^i'Trovliq. — sj — t?5  TTfoJigaj-  cTTrtfoJJj  T>)r 
 
 '^*  The  peculiar  attention  with  which  the  natives  of  Pales- 
 line  and  Syria  cultivated  Greek,  may  be  collected  from  the 
 writings  of  Justin  Martyr,  Tatian,  Theophllus,  &c.  who  wrote 
 in  that  language.  The  principal  writers  among  the  Jews  a» 
 well  as  Christians,  neglecting  their  vernacular  tongue,  devoted 
 themselves  exclusively  to  the  cultivation  of  that  language,  as  U 
 apparent  from  the  works  of  Josephus  and  Philo,  who  are  sup- 
 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.  IV.  cap.  xxx.  p.  194.  1.16 — 
 
 lxuvu)T0il6f  Tt?  uvr)ff  'iv  re  TY)  'Lvocov  ^cov^  ^laXziai'^uioaos^—^"-^ 
 eixMytjf  cTvrrioraiixsvoqf  Tr)  olxs/^  TiapB^ojKc  y7^c!/r]r]  rs  x^  7§a(p''J5f 
 f^fla.    xj    'K'Ki'ruv    Iri^uv   aini   cvfy^xiJif^oiruf*   «j   ol   yvufiixcn    {'jr'KiTroi 
 
C    406    ) 
 
 tivate  tBeir  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  vernacular  lan- 
 guage.   Bui  ihe  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  prooi  which 
 is  rendered  decisive,  by  the  wide  and  early  disper- 
 sion of  this  translation,  which  rendered  its  general 
 corruption  impossible  '^^     From  the  extraordinary 
 
 Tr,s  lu^eov  p.ila^i^'k'nitacat  (pwvyjr.     A  like  observation  may  be 
 made  on  the  works  of  Ephrem  Syrus,  who  wrote  in  the  fourth 
 century  ;  S.  Hier.  Cat.  Scriptt.  Eccless.  in  Ephr.  TonL  I.  p. 
 131.     **  Ephraem,  Edessenae   ecclesiae  diaconus,  mulia  Syro 
 sermo?ie  composuit : — Legi  ejus   de    Spiritu    Sancto  volumen, 
 quod  quidam  de  Syriaca  lingua  verterat ;  et  acumen  sublimis 
 ingenii  etiam  in  translatioue   cognovi."     As  translations   are 
 rarely  made  into  languages  which  are  not  more  generally  under- 
 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  different 
 appearance ;  the  translation  of  the  works  of  Ibas,  Theodorit, 
 Theodorus   Mopsuestenus,   Diodorus  Tarsensis,  &c.   into  Sy- 
 riapk  at  this  period,  sufficiently  declare,  that  this  language  had 
 already  begun  to  supersede  the  Greek:  vid.  supr.  p.  344.  n.  ^'. 
 A  fevisal  of  the  Syriack  Version  was  consequently  undertaken 
 about  this  time  by  Poly  carp,  under  the  auspices  of  Philoxenus; 
 probably  with  the  view  of  extending  the  Eutychian  heresy  in 
 Syria,  for  which  purpose  the  original  Version,  which  had  been 
 60  long  used  by  Paulianists  and  Arians,  was  little  calculated ; 
 vid.  supr.  p.  37L  D.  *".  p.  346.  n.  ^ 
 
 '^^  Walt.  Prolegoram.  in  Bibll.  Polyglott.  Sect.  xiii.  §  3.  p. 
 92.  "  Qui  vero  hac  lingua  [Syriaca]  sacra  sua  celebrant; 
 ut  a  doctiss.  Brerewood  recensentur,  sunt;  (1.)  Maronita  m 
 
(    407    ) 
 s^reement  of  the  primitive  Syriack  version  and  the 
 Greek  Vulgate,  we  of  course  deduce  a  like  conclu- 
 
 Monte  Libano.  .     Habent  isti  Maronitae  Patriarcham,  qui 
 
 «edem  Patriarchalem  plerumque  habet  in  monte  Libano,  ali- 
 quarido  in  Tripoli  ;*  Scripturas  vero'et  cultum  pubricum  lingua 
 Syriaca,  sive  Maroniticsi — lingua  scilicet  quaj  olim  omnibus 
 Vulgaris  et  adhuc  vicis  quibusdam  et  pagis  per  montem  Liba- 
 num  manet, — (2.)  Nestoriani  a  Nestorio  Heresiarcha  olim 
 dicti, — qui  magnatn  ;;ar/on  Orientis — hodie  occupant:  nam 
 praeter  regiones  Bahylonice,  Assyrice,  Mesopotamice,  Partliiw  et 
 Medice,  in  quibus  frequentes  dcgunt,  etiam  longe  lateque  e 
 parte  Septentrionali  ad  Cathaiam,  et  ex  Australi  Indos  versus 
 propagantur,  Patriarcham  habent  in  Muzal  ad  ripas  Tigridis 
 in  Mesopotamia.  (3.)  Jacobitce  dicti  a  Jacobo  Syro, — cujus 
 sectatores  multi  hodie  conspiciuntur  in  Syriam,  Cyprum,  Mesa- 
 potainianiy  Babylo7iiam,  Palccstinam  dispcrsi.  Patriarcham  ha- 
 bent, postquam  ab  Antiochena  jurisdictione  se  subduxerunt, 
 cujus  sedes  est  in  urbe  Caramit,  antiqua  Mesopotamiae  metro- 
 poli,  qui  se  Patriarcham  Antiochenum  vocat. — (4.)  Coptce  vel 
 Coptitae  qui  (in  religione,  Jacobitae)  per  JEgyptum  in  sacris 
 linguam  Syriacam  usurpant. — (5.)  Indi  sive  S.  Thomse  Chris* 
 tiani. — (6.)  Hisce  tandem  addendi  Christiani,  qui  insnlam  Zoco- 
 toram  extra  sinum  Arabicum  inhabitant :  utrum  Jacobitae  sint 
 an  Nestoriani  variant  autores.-- — Ex  hoc  calculo  liquet  prcc» 
 cipuas  per  totum  Orientem  Christianorum  Ecclesias,  longe  lateque 
 propagatas,  Scripturas  et  officia  sacra  lingua  Syriaca  legere  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  as  far  eastward  as  India  :  vid.  Beth-Arsem.  Ap. 
 
C    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  lb.  §  vli.  Tom.  I.  p.  204.  Hence 
 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.  III. 
 
 Ill  Trt  TocTrpo^stvY)  vYiau  iv  rn  tc-ulifo,  'IvJia  iv^a,  to  '\vffiKOv  weX»yo? 
 Iri,  iu  ExxXtjcrta  Xpirt^voJi'  Wiv  iv.iX  x^  KXt^^txgi  x^  •Trtroi,  hk  o\^a.  c\  x^ 
 Vicetnipu'  oi/,oiui  xj  «?<;  t^v  "KiyofAitrtv  M«^E,  eV^a  to  ^rgTre^i  y»»eT«t» 
 iu  iv  Tri  KaXjavat  o«  T^  itotXii[A,svv)f  kui  £w»o"xo7ro?  £r*v  ociFo  Tlt^^iooi 
 ^£»gOT«»a|M,£i'05.  o/:<co»«$  xa»  It  T^  vy,a-u  rr)  KScTiefjiivj)  Atocxo^j^as  K^Ta  t* 
 tcvro  'h^iKov  cr£^ayo^  Ap.  Montf.  Nov.  Collect.  Patrr.  Tom.  II. 
 p.  179.  e.  Montfauc.  Praef.  in  Cosm.  Topograph,  cap.  iii.  p.  x. 
 **  In  altera  Indiae  ora,  quam  hodie  Malabaricam  dicimus,  has 
 urbes  et  emporia  celebriora  erant,  Sindu,  Orrotha,  Calliana  : 
 eadem  ut  videtur,  quam  hodie  Calicutum  vocamus ;  Sibor  et  Male, 
 
 quinque  emporia  habens .     Ex  Male  baud  dubie,  Malabar 
 
 factum  est.  Nam  Male  barr  continens  Male  significat.'*  Id. 
 ibid.  §  vi.  "  Jn  Male  supra  memorato  emporlo.,  aderat  Chris- 
 tianorum  Ecclesia ;  gimiliter  in  Sielediva  Insula  Ecclesia  chris-^ 
 iianorum,  cum  presbytero  et  diacono  in  Perside  ordinatis. 
 Item  apud  BactroSy  Hunnos — ,  reliquos  IndoSy  Persarmenos, 
 MedoSy  Elainitas,  atque  in  iota  Persidis  regione  Ecdesice  injinitce 
 eranty  Episcopi,  christianique  populi  magno  numero,  martyres 
 jnulti,  monachi,  hesychastae.  Similiterque  in  insula  quae  Dios-« 
 f  oridis  vocabatur,  nunc  Zocotora  vitiato  nomine,  in  mari  Indico 
 cita — clerici  erant  ex  Perside  missi,  atque  Eccleda  christiauQ* 
 yum,  qui  ibidem  magno  numero  versabantur." 
 »7>  \  id.  supi*.  p.  \5h  &c. 
 
(    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 
 assured  were  received  in  the  age  where  the  testi- 
 mony of  Manuscripts  fails.  Supported  by  these 
 vouchers,  which  carry  us  up  to  a  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 
 jipon  his  contemporaries.  Observing  that  St.  Jerome 
 attests  the  prevalence  of  l^uciaaus's  text  at  the  ^ery 
 
(    410    ) 
 
 period  to  which  our  demonstrative  proofs  of  its  in- 
 tegrity extend  *^^ ;  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- 
 geUj  and  two  more  the  times  of  Origen  with  those 
 pf  the  Apostles.  Finally  observing,  that  amid  the 
 mass  of  evidence  which  has  been  adduced  by  mo- 
 dem 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  favour 
 of  tjhe  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  prasmus'^*^;  and  a  want  of  the  most  neces- 
 
 '"  Vid.  supr.  p.  71.  &c. 
 
 ''*  Griesb.  Pfolegomm.  in  Nov.  Test.  Sect.  I.  p.  xxxiii, 
 ':  •*  Liceat  jam  tribus  verbis  Recepti  Textus  genealogiam  repe- 
 '  tere.  Editiones  recentiores  sequuntur  Elseviriaoam,  &c.  ut 
 supr.  p.  1,  n.:\ 
 
(    411    ) 
 
 sary  helps  to  correct  the  text,  of  which  it  is  con- 
 ceived he  was  destitute,  has  been  urged  as  a  suffi- 
 cient proof  of  the  inefficiency  of  his  attempt  ^'7^ 
 Of  Manuscripts,  it  is  said,  he'kn^wUtde;  having 
 possessed  none  of  those  antient  copies  of  which  his 
 successours  have  made  so  much  use  in  amending  the 
 text  •7^     Of  Versions  he  was  even  more  ignorant; 
 having  been  wholly  unacquainted  with  those  of  the 
 Oriental  and  Western  Church '79.     And  of  Fathers 
 he  made  little  use,  having  merely  fallowed  Athana- 
 sius,  Nazianzen,  and  Theophylact,  without  being 
 conscious  of  the  valu^  of  Clement,  Origen,  and  Cy- 
 ril's testimony,  in  correcting  the  text*^**. 
 
 "'  Id.  ib.  p.  xxxiv.     **  Erasmus  vero  textum,  ut  potuit,  con- 
 
 stituit  e  codicibus  paucissimis  et  satis  recentibus,  omnibus  subsi- 
 
 diis  destitutus,  praeter  versionem  Vulgatani  interpolatam,et  scripta 
 
 nonullorum,  sed  paucorum  nee  accurate  editorum  Patrum." 
 
 *'3  Id.  ibid.  p.  viii.     "  Omnibus  psene  subsidiis  destituti  fue- 
 
 yu^t^  .     Nam  primo  nullum  habuerunt   ex   vetustissimis 
 
 illis  atque  praestantissimis  Codicibus,  quorum  excerptis  nos  janr 
 gaudem.us,  qui  innumeris  in  locis  genuinam  lectionem  exhibert, 
 eamque  contra  recentiorum  librorum  futile  testimonium  for- 
 tissime  vindicant.  '*  , 
 
 "»  Id  ibid.  **  Deinde  caruerunt  Versionibus  Orientalibus 
 omnibus,  Syriaca  utraque,  Persicis,  Arabicis,  Copticis, -^thi- 
 opica,  Armenica,  ut  Gothicam  taceam  et  Slavonicam.  Xatina 
 certe  usi  sunt  translatione,  fateor:  sed  partim  innumeris  gra- 
 vissimisque  mendis  corrupta,  partim  recentiore  tantum  ilia 
 Vulgata,  non  vero  longe  praestantiore  Antehieronymiana,  quae 
 Itald  vulgo  dicitur." 
 
 »3^  Id.  ibid.  **  Denique  caruerunt  libris  atque  Commen- 
 tariis  Patrum  Graecis  plerisque,  quorum  summa  est  in  re  crir 
 tica  utilitas.  Erasmus  in  secunda  edition.e,  Patrum  scripta 
 quibus  usus  est  enumerans,  Athanasium  nominat,  Naiianzenuia 
 atque  Theophylactum.    Quanti  vero  roomen^i  siut  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 
 lum  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  have 
 been  examined,  and  which   include  the  whole  of 
 those  of  any  importance  in  which  he  has  violated 
 
 Clemens  Alexandrinus,  Origenes,  Cyrillus  uterque,  aliiquc  per- 
 multi,  vel  tironibus,  notum  est.  Quid  igitur  exspectari  poterat 
 ab  editoribus  Novi  Testamenti  qui  tot  subsidiis  plane  iiecc*su- 
 riis  destituerentur  J** 
 
(    *13    ) 
 
 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  sliame  the  puny  efforts  of  those  who  have  vainly 
 laboured  to  improve  upon  his  design.  His  extraor- 
 xhnary  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, 
 in  his  own  words,  a  complete  refutation  of  the  ob- 
 jections on  which  he  has  been  condemned;  and  a 
 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  lie  was  acquainted  with  every  variety  which  is 
 known  to  us;  having  distributed  them  into  two 
 .principal  classes,  one  of  which  corresponds  with  the 
 y  Complutensian  edition,  the  other  with  the  Vatican 
 jnanuscript'*'.     And  he  has  specified  the  positive 
 
 .  *^'  Erasm.  Nov.  Test.  Prsef.  [p.  xviii.j  ed.  Basil  1546. 
 -"  Hie  obiter  illud  incidit  admoneudum,  esse  Graecorum  quos- 
 u3am  Novi  Testamenti  Codices  ad  Latinorum  exeniplaria  emen- 
 .datos. — Et  nos  olim  in  Jiujusmodi  Codicem  incidiaius,  et  talis 
 adhuc  dicitur  adservari  in  b.il>lioiheca  Potiiificicu-' Hoc  eo  vi- 
 
(    414    ) 
 
 rrotmcfs  on  ^Yhich  he  received  the  one  arid  rejected 
 the  other.  The  former  was  in  possession  of  the 
 Greek  Church,  the  latter  in  that  of  the  Latin ; 
 judging  from  the  internal  evidence,  he  had  as  good 
 
 gam  est  admonere,  quod  jam  nunc  quidam  jactant  se  trecenta 
 loca  notasse  ex  Codice  bibliothecce  PontificicB,  in  quibus  ille  cou" 
 sonat  cum  nostra  Vulgata  editione  LafinOy  cum  mea  dissonat. 
 Quod  si  nos  urgent  autoritate  Vaticanae  bibliothecae,  Codex 
 tptem  secufus  est  in  Novo  Testamento  Franciscus  Cafdinali^ 
 quondam  Toletanus,  non  modo  fuit  ejusdem  bibliotheccey  verum 
 etiam  a  Leone  X  missus  est,  ut  hoc  veluti  bonae  fidei  exemplar 
 imitarent.  Atque  is  pene  per  omnia  consentit  cum  mea  editionCf 
 dissentiens  ab  eo  quem  nunc  quidam  nobis  objiciunt  majusculis 
 descriptum  liieri§.  Ab  illo  enim  dissentiat  oportet,  si  consentit 
 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  the 
 celebrated  Vatican  MS.  will  not  admit  of  a  doubt,  after  turning 
 to  n.  ^^  supr.  p.  61.  This  MS.  was  examined  for  Erasmus  by 
 Paulus  Bombasius,  and  has  accordingly  had  some  influence  o» 
 his  edition ;  vid.  ^rasra.  Apolog.  ad.  Jac.  Stunic.  Op.  Tom.  IX, 
 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,  is  conceived 
 to  have  _bi|en  lost  with  the  other  MSS.  used  in  compi  ing  that 
 edition.  The  character  of  the  text  of  this  MS.  is  not  only 
 ascertainable  from  the  Complutensian  edition,  but  from  a  MS* 
 preserved  in  the  Bodleian  library,  (Laud.  .2.  noteJ  by,M» 
 Griesbach,  God.  51.)  which  harmonizes  with  it  in  an  extraor- 
 dinary manner:  vid.  Mill.  Prolegommi  in  Nov.  Test. nn,  1092. 
 1437.  As  the  Vatican  MS.  is  of  the  Piilestine  text,  and  the 
 Complutensian  Codex  of  the  Byzantine ;  Erasmus  in  being  ac» 
 qualnted  with  those  texts  seems  to  have  possesised  ample  mate* 
 dais  for  revising  the  New  Testament. 
 
(    415    ) 
 
 reason  to  conclude  the  Eastern  Churcli  had  not  cor- 
 loipted  their  received  text,  as  he  had  grounds  tosus^ 
 pect  the  Rhodians,  from  whom  the  Western  Church 
 derived  their  manuscripts,  had  accommodated  them 
 to  the  Latin  Vulgate'^*.  One  short  insinuation 
 which  he  hais  thrown  out,  sufficiently  proves,  that 
 his  objections  to  these  manuscripts  lay  more  deep  i 
 and  they  do  immortal  credit  to  his  sagacity.  In  the^ 
 age  in  which  the  Vulgate  was  formed,  the  Church, 
 he  W2^s  aware,  was  infested  with  Origenists  and  Ari- 
 ans  '*' ;  an  affinity  between  any  nianuscript  and  that 
 version,  consequently  conveyed  some  suspicion  that 
 its  text  was  corrupted.  So  little  dependance  was 
 he  incHned  to  place  upon  the  authority  of  Origenj 
 
 ***  Id.  ibid.  [p.  xxi.]  "  Si  Graecis  in  animb  fuisset  depra* 
 vare  Codices  suos,  his  potissmum  locis  depravassent,  in  quibus 
 a  nobis  dissentiunt,  veluti  de  processione  Spiritus,  de  aqualitate 
 ilium  Personarum,  de  Primatu  Romani  Pontificis,  de  ritu  con- 
 jSecrandi  et  tradendi  baptismum  et  eucharistiani,  de  cbnjugio 
 eacerdotum,  aut  si  quidaliud  est  ejusraodi:  at  in  his  nobis  con- 
 sentiunt.  Nee  ullus  locus  proferri  valet^  qui  hoc  nomine  szis- 
 pectus  haleri  possit.  Ego  magis  suspicor,  si  quid  mutatum 
 est  in  Graecorum  libris,  id  a  Latinis  exemplaribus  fuisse  pro- 
 fectura,  posteaquam  Romana  Ecclesia  ccepit  absorbere  Grae» 
 ciam.  Nee  tota  divulsa  est  a  nobis  Grsecia:  Rhodus  et  Creta 
 Christum  agnoscit,  agnoscit  Romanum  Pontificem  :  cur  horura 
 libris  diffidimus.  Et  ab  his  pot'issimum  nobis  veniunt  exetU" 
 plaria*J*  ':■.-, 
 
 '*'  Id.  ibid.  **  Risit  olim  Helvidlum  Hieronymus,  qui  sibi 
 stultissime  persuaserat,  Grcecos  codices  esse  corruptos :  ac  dic- 
 tum hominis  stultius  esse  piitat,  quam  ut  sit  argumentis  reM- 
 lendum.  Et  tamen  jam  tu7n  Orietis  Jerme  omnis  haeresibus  for" 
 vebat  Arianorum  et  Origenistarum,  Ab  iis  magis  timendum  erat 
 exemplaj  ibus,  quam  a  schismaticis,** 
 
(    «6    ) 
 
 who  is  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  Corrected 
 edition. 
 
 With  regard  to  VersionSj  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  woul^  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  unac- 
 quainted ;  but  I  yet  remain  to  be  informed,  of  what 
 other  use  they  could  have  been  made,  than  to  con- 
 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*^** 
 Of  these  he  made  the  best  use :  confronting  their 
 testimony,  and  estimating  the  internal  evidence  of 
 
 *^*  Erasm.  ibid.  [p.  viii.]  "  Nos  in  prima  recognitlone 
 quatuor  Graecis  [Codd.]  adjuti  sumus :  in  secunda  quinque  j 
 in  tenia  prseter  alia  accessit  editio  Asculana :  in  quarta,  prsesto 
 fuit  Hispaniensis.  Deinde  consultis  ium  pe/vetustis  turn  emeri' 
 datis  aliquot  Latince  linguce  volumhiibus :  nec  hoc  contenti  dis- 
 cussis  et  exploratis  probatissimis  autoribus,"  &c.  The  follow- 
 ing declaration,  while  it  proves  that  Erasmus  was  not  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,  ant  Amhrosiana  lectio^  quam  Grffici  Co- 
 dices. Et  tamen  consentientibus  omnibus  Graecis  exemplari- 
 bus,  quoniam  ilia  mutare  non  lictiit  Latina  accomodavimus,  n# 
 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. 
 
 '^5  Id.  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  li?i' 
 gu(£  vetustissimos  ac  ])^obatissimos  Codices ,  nee  eos  sane  paucos. 
 Excusissimus  veterum  ac  recentiorum  Commentarios,  turn  Gr£e- 
 cos  turn  Latinos.  Observavimus  quid  diversi  legant.  Pensi- 
 tavimus  ipsius  loci  sententiam,  atque  ita  demura  pronunciavi- 
 mus  quidem,  sed  lectorera  admonuimus,  suum  cuique  judicium 
 liberum  relinquentes. 
 
 ^^^  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.  1681 :  a 
 comparison  of  Erasmus's  readings  with  the  Corrections  of  L, 
 Brugensis,  p.  8L  will  best  illustrate  how  far  the  former  has 
 failed,  from  the  want  of  those  antient  versions.  I  shall  subjoia 
 a  short  specimen  of  texts  from  the  first  ten  chapters  of  St. 
 Mattl^w,  in  which  Erasmus  and  Lucas  Brugensis  agree  with 
 the  Greek  Syriack  and  old  copies  of  the  Vulgate,  against  the 
 authority  of  the  modern  copies  v/hich  contain  the  Received 
 Text  of  the  Romish  Churches.  Matt.  iii.  10.  excidetur — mit- 
 tetur.  Vulg.  exciditur — mittitur.  Erasm.  Brug,  lb.  iv.  6.  man- 
 davit.    Vulg.  mandabit.  Erasm,  Brag,     Ibid.  \Q.  umbrae,   Vulg. 
 
 E  e 
 
(    418    ) 
 
 In  using*  the  testimony  of  antient  Fathers^  it  ap- 
 pears never  to  have  entered  his  conception,  that  any 
 utihty  could  be  derived  from  collating  them  verba- 
 tim 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,  w  ere  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  w  ith  the 
 Corrected  Text,  by  which  it  is  now  supposed  to  be 
 wholly  superseded.     In  all  those  passages  in  which 
 
 et  umbra.  Erasm.  Brii^.  lb.  v.  24.  reconciliari.  Vulg.  recou- 
 ciliare.  Erasm.  Bnig.  Ibid,  offercs.  Vtdg,  oft'ei*.  Erasm,  Brug» 
 •lb.  vi.  22.  corporis  tui — oculus  tuus.  Vulg,  corporis — oculus. 
 Erasm.  Brug,  Ibid.  33.  quaerite  ergo.  Vtilg.  queerite  autem, 
 Erasm.  Brug.  lb.  viii.  9.  constitutus.  Vulg.  deest.  Erasm.  Brug, 
 Vid.  Erasm.  mi.  in  11. 
 
 '2^  Vid.  supr.  p.  417.  n.  '^5^  Erasm.  ibid.  [p.  xvili.]  *'  Illud 
 potius  spectandum  quid  legerint  veteres  Graeci,  Origenes,  Atha- 
 nasius,  Basiiius,  Gregorius  Nazianzenus,  Chrysostomus,  Cyril- 
 lus,  ac  Theophylactus,'*  &c. 
 
(    419    ) 
 
 the  integrity  of  the  sacred  text  has  been  defended, 
 the  vindication  of  Erasmus's  text  is  inseparable  from 
 that  of  the  vulgar  edition  *^^ 
 
 It  is  notj  however^  my  intention  to  assert^  that  I 
 conceive  the  text  of  Erasmus  absolutely  faultless  '^' 
 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- 
 
 *^^  In  those  passages  (Jf  which  a  vindication  has  been  offered,  ^ 
 supr.  p.  239.  sqq.  p.  251.  sqq.  p.  372.  sqq.  p.  380.  sqq.  p.  358. 
 n.  ^».   p.  359.  n.  ^°°.  p.  36 J.  n.  '°\  p.  390.  n.  '^'.  the  Received 
 Text  follows  the  reading  of  Erasmus's  edition. 
 
 *^'  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  Eras- 
 mus into  his  text,  though  destitute  of  the  support  of  the  gene- 
 rality of  manuscripts.  These,  however,  are  so  few  and  inconside- 
 rable, as  to  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.  tJJj 
 xag^/fltf.     Mar.  iv.  4.  re  «^av2.     lb.  vi.  44.  uitrsl*     lb.  xvi.   8. 
 rxx^'    lb*  X.  20.   iAoi»>ov.     Joh.  XX.  29.  ©w/xa :  to  which  we 
 may  add  the  following  instances  of  mere  expletives ;  Mat.  iv. 
 18.  0 'l»5o-y?.    lb.  viii.  5.  TO/ Ijja^S.     ^J).  xiv.  19.  *^*     lb.  xxv.  44. 
 avra,      Luc.  iv.  8.  yocq. 
 
 ^^^  Several  readings  of  this  kind  have  been  admitted  by  M, 
 Mattha^i,  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  ai'e  cou- 
 jBtantly  supported  by  the  following  authorities,  Byz,  PaL  ^g^ 
 
(     420     ) 
 
 tiire  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 
 defence^  that  their  testimony^  when  opposed  to  the 
 vulgar  Greeks  cannot  be  entitled  to  the  smallest 
 attention  '^'.     And  when  the  verbal  integrity  merely 
 
 It,  1.  Syr,  1.  The  principal  Greek  MSS.  in  which  they  are 
 founel,  are  the  Alexandrine,  Cyprian,  Vatican,  and  Moscow, 
 which  are  designated  by  the  letters  A,  K,  S,  Mt.  V:  tliey  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 
 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 ;  thai  they  may  have  been 
 thence  retained  in  the  revisal  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  government  of  the  Byzantine 
 Patriarchate,  on  the  suppression  of  the  Arian  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  is  certain  the  text  of  Eusebius 
 had  some  influence ;  as  must  be  collected  from  the  omission 
 of  some  remarkable  passages  in  those  translations  which  are 
 omitted  in  the  text  revised  by  Eusebius.  Conf.  supr.  p.  98. 
 n.  *°^  p.  92.  n.  ^°'.  And  this  notion,  it  may  be  observed  by 
 the  way,  is  strengthened  by  conformity  of  the  Alexandrine 
 MS.  and  the  Syriack  Version.  Conf.  supr.  p.  224-.  n. '°.  p.  350. 
 n.  ^^  Whatever  opinion  b^  formed  of  those  readings,  which 
 generally  consist  in  peculiarities  which  can  be  only  expressed 
 in  Greek,  they  are  scarcely  worth  contesting;  as  Ihey  may  be 
 retained  or  rejected  from  the  Received  Text,  without  affecting 
 the  Authorised  Version,  which  we  are  principally  concerned  in 
 defending.  Vid.  infr.  pv  424?,  n.  ^^\ 
 .*^*  A  number  of  those  texts,' which  are  supported  almost 
 
(  421  ) 
 of  the  sacred  text  is  concerned,  no  one,  it  is  pre- 
 sumed, will  set  the  testimony  of  Versions  and  Pa^ 
 thers  in  competition  with  that  of  the  vulgar  edition. 
 I  am  well  aware,  that  many  manuscripts  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  tliey  are  among 
 the  most  exceptionable  of  his  emendations. 
 
 '^^  Such  are  the  MSS.  marked  A,  K,  S,  Mt.  V.  &c.  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. 
 n.  ^^°. 
 
 **^  From  this  sentence,  the  Alexandrine,  Vatican,  and  Cam- 
 bridge MSS.  are  of  course  excepted;  as.possessing  claims  to 
 a  remote  antiquity,  which  cannot  be  reasonably  disputed.  It 
 has  been  indeed  urged,  as  an  argument  against  the  first  of 
 those  MSS.  that  it  approximates  to  the  Arabick  orthography  in 
 inserting  the  letter  po  in  cert-ain  words,  contrary  to  the  idiom 
 of  the  Greek  laniruage.  It  is  difficult  to  answer  this  objection 
 until  we  are  acquainted  with  the  extent  to  which  it  may  be 
 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 :  Mar.  xii.  4-0.  Luc.  xx.  47.  ^';?iw,4'0^/aj.  Job.  v.  43. 
 ?.y,lxA^Bo-^at.  lb.  xvi.  14,  15.  X'^/x^./Jau  lb.  xvi.  24.  Act.  i.  8. 
 ii.  38.  ^r.ij^EjBe^  &c.    But  I  apprehend  we  need  not  go  beyond 
 
(    423    ) 
 
 cial  character,  without  accents  or  spirits^  is  am6ng 
 the  most  decisive  mai'ks  of  antiquity.     But  I  would 
 
 the  Greek  radical  to  an  Arabick  root  for  a  solution  of  this  diffi- 
 culty.    That  /«  is  retained  in  >,r.-^{lai,  AryJ/Eo-Si,  ^^rj/ovlai,  I  con- 
 ceive is  simply  owing  to  its  being  found  in  XufM^oivu ;  which  was 
 regularly/  inflected  with  the  characteristick,  fji. ;  >Afji0uttf,  \ym." 
 iJ/o/>tat,  >^i'^rnji.(pu.     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.  T^r.^j.-^o^otu     lb.  xviii.  4.  7^vii/.(p%Tu,     Ibid.  5.  ^^/x- 
 -^oyLOU,     lb.  xix.  17.  (rv(x'rrcc^a,'hritJ^(p^ric.      lb.   xxi.  30.  37.  38.  40. 
 >.Y,lA.-^vi.     Vid.  Walt.  Bibll.  Polyglott.  Tom.  VI.  tract,  xi.    With 
 respect  to  some  other  objections  which  have  been  urged  against 
 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  accord 
 with  their  notions  respecting  it.     If  we  may  judge  of  the  Greek 
 by  other  languages,  its  orthography  could  not  have  been  fixed 
 until  a  late  period,  and  was  then  the  work  of  grammarians. 
 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  num- 
 berless instances.     Vid.  Gruter.  Thesaur,  Inscriptt.  Apend.  cap. 
 xix.  ed.  1516.     Before  some  standard  of  language  is  established 
 by  the  publication  of  a  Dictionary,  it  is  vain  to  look  for  uniform 
 mity  in  the  orthography  of  any  nation.     Among  the  Greeks  the 
 search  must  be  preposterous,  as  the  want  of  a  knowledge  of 
 printing  obliged  them  to  employ  a  number  of  young  persons  of 
 both  sexes  as  copyists,  besides  scribes,  who  took  down  \i:ha<j 
 
(    423    ) 
 submit  It  to  the  profound  in  antiquarian  researcli, 
 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  certamty  of 
 the  fact,  that  the  use  of  accents  was  well  known  ni 
 the  fourth  century,  previously  to  the  existence  of 
 almost   every   manuscript  with  which  we  are  ac- 
 quahited;  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  addpted  in  copies  of  the  sa- 
 cred writings,  in  the  age  when   he  flourished '94^. 
 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.  rcix^y('c(poi  yu^  uvt^  ^^^i»s  '^  ^i-l*  '»'°''  aF'V°»'  ^^e^Jaa^^ 
 
 «K  nM'  o.^^^  ^  ^opoc^'  ^-^^  ^'^  xaXXr/§a!pa?v  ^^KTj/xs'varr.  To  per- 
 sons  of  the  latter  description,  the  transcription  of  the  Alexan- 
 drine has  been  absolutely  attributed;  Grab.  Prolegomm.  m 
 Septuagint.  cap.  i.  §  5.  [p.  xxi.]  ed.  Oxon.  1707.  "  Huic 
 ergo  Theclae  ej^isqiw  in  vita  monastka  sociis  vel  soctabus  torn- 
 tern  nostrum  attribuere  nihil  vetat,**  &c. 
 
 '9+  S.  Epiphan.  de  Menss.  et  Pondd.  Tom.  II.  p.  158.  d., 
 
 -  Vid'supr.  n.  ■»'.  conf.  p.  367.  n.  '='.    Origen  speaks  m 
 the  fpllowing  terms  of  his  T«x'-Vf'«?".  f«  "•'»'^  ^^'""^  ""^'S*^ 
 
(    424     ) 
 
 Chrysostome'9^  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 
 b^  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  thesa 
 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 *5^ ;  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,  xj  ot  auvYi^cis  ^e  ra%vy^a(poi 
 
 '^^  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  iv.  p.  313.  1.  36.  o^jroToi 
 
 av%  vTCO  rouv  6^vyqd(pcov  kKXvi<p'^iv%Sy   oW?  T£  ^a/x7rfo<   x^  to   Iwa- 
 yuyov  {.-/(jViBq^  ri  hi"  vvv  7\iyt\v,  x.  t.  I. 
 
 ^*^  The  nature  of  these  deviations  from  the  Received  Text 
 may  be  appreciated  by  the  following  examples,  taken  from  the 
 iirst  ten  chapters  of  St.  Matthew;  Mat.  ii.  11.  ivgau  Rcc,  eUov, 
 
(    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  httle  doubt, 
 that  the  inspired  w^riters  could  find  no  difficulty  in 
 sanctioning  the  authorised  reading.  This  inference 
 is  clearly  deducible  from  their  practice  with  respfct 
 to  the  Septuagint'^^ :  and  indeed  the  variations  dis- 
 coverable 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 which  contain  the  vulgar  Greeks  we  have  fixed 
 
 jK".  S,  &C,  lb.  V.  44.  T8J  y.H7Sylac,,  ReC.  ro7q  aicrecriy.  K.  S.  &C. 
 lb.  vii.  2.  uvliy,{lpr,%a-{la,t,  Rec.  iJi,B\yiBi,crf.cn.  K.  S.  V.  &c.  Ibid. 
 14.  0T».  Rec.  Tt.  IC  S,  V,  &c.  lb.  viii.  8.  7.6yQv.  Rec,  >.iym, 
 K.  S.  V.  &c.  lb.  ix.  1 7.  a/A^oTsp.  Rec.  «/>o(por£^&<.  K.  G.  V.  &c. 
 Ibid.  18.  IxSwv.  Rec.  ilarB>.^up.  K.E.  V.  &c.     Ibid.  S6.  lK-Kt>.v^im, 
 
 Rec.  la-y.vXiA.ivoi.  K.  G.  S.  Ib.X.  8.  aett^h?  y.cK.^xp((sTe,  vsx^ii,  tysipfls. 
 Rec.  vitcphi;  lyvfilsy  ^e^rpiJ?  xaSapi^sTE.  K.  S.  V,  &C.  Ibid.  28. 
 ly.a.XiCuv — oly.nxy.iiq.  Rec.  iTrey.ciXsaav — ol-Knay.iie.  K.  S.  V.  &C.      Ibid. 
 
 28.  31.  cpo^r.^^.TB.  Rec.  (po^eTa^i.  K,  S.  V.  &c,     lb.  xi.  16.  tt^.sV 
 
 giOK.   Rec.   wrai^toK.    K.  S.   V.  &C. 
 
 '^8  Vid.  supr.  p.  310.  sqq. 
 
(    426    ) 
 
 on  the  worst,  any  advantage  which  would  arise  from  a 
 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  estabhshed  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  tlic 
 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. 
 
SECTION  VI. 
 
 xHE  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 
 least  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- 
 blishment 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 
 
 '  Comp.  p.  348.  n,  ^i.  pp.  334,  335,  nn.  '^  et  ". 
 
 *  The  origin  of  the  Byzantine  recension,  which  M.  Gries- 
 bach  considers  a  corruption  of  the  primitive  text,  is  referred 
 by  him  to  the  close  of  the  fourth,  the  fifth,  and  the  following 
 century ;  cpnf.  supr.  p.  348.  n.  «'.  p.  12G.  n.  '^°.  Of  the  whole 
 range  of  ecclesiastical  history,  this  is  the  period  of  which  ws 
 
(     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 ;  Ganier.  Praef.  In. 
 Liberat.  Diac.  §  ix.  Scio  scccula  duoj  quintmn  sexfumgiie  fera- 
 cissima  fuisse  scriptormn,  qui  res  easdem,  quas  Liberatus,  me- 
 moriae mandarint. Historiam  confecermit   praeter   nomina- 
 
 tissimos  tres,  Theodoretum  Sozomenum  et  Socratem,  Priscus 
 Panites  sub  Theodosio  juniore,  Joannes  -i^^^geates  sub  Zenone, 
 et  Candidus  Isaurus  sub  Zenone,  Eustathius  Syrus  sub  Anas- 
 tasio,  Theodorus  lector  sub  Justino  seniore,  Joannes  rhetor, 
 Basilius  Cihx,  et  Zacharlas  rhetor  sub  Justiniano,  aliinue  quo- 
 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  charge 
 of  sophisticating  the  writings  of  the  fathers,  against  thoge  who 
 engaged  in  the  controversies  of  the  Nestorians  and  Eutychians; 
 vid.  supr.  p.  32G.  n.  "^  We  accordingly  fmd  that  Liberatus, 
 whose  prejudices  certainly  lay  towards  the  party  of  Nestorius 
 and  Theodorit,  [vid.  Garner,  ibid.  §  iii.]  mentions  a  report, 
 which  was  propagated,  that  Macedonius  had  corrupted  the 
 celebrated  text,  1  Tim.  iii,  16.  A  more  convenient  opportunity 
 will  occur  hereafter,  to  examine  how  far  this  charge  is  founded 
 in  truth.  As  there  is  therefore  no  dearth  of  historical  informa- 
 tion at  the  period,  to  v.^hich  M.  Griesbach  has  fixed  the  cor- 
 ruption of  Scripture  ;  this  single  instance  will  fully  demonstrate, 
 that  there  was  no  disposition  to  suppress  even  a  report  on  this 
 subject,  which  had  the  smallest  foundation  in  probability. 
 
 3  Griesb.  Nov.  Test.  Praef.  p.  xv.  ed.  1777.  **  Nolumus 
 enim  Critices  Sacrse  theoriam  hie  delineare  id  quod  alio  loco 
 commodius  fieri  poterit."  Id.  ibid.  n.  *.  "  Primas  hujus  The- 
 oriae  lineas  duxi  in  '  Curls  meis  in  historiam  Textus  Epistola- 
 rum  Paulinarum  Gracci'  quarura  specimen  prius  nuper  Jenge 
 1777.  4.  \)\'odiit,  postcrius  ?nox  sequdur*'* 
 
(    429    ) 
 
 by  the  same  voucher*  His  acknowledged  incom- 
 petence to  substantiate  his  pointy  consequently  ren- 
 ders the  defence  of  the  Greek  Vulgate  complete ; 
 since  this  text,  v/hich  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- 
 vocates 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  I  am  not  altogether 
 deceived,  may  be  clearly  demonstrated,  and  traced 
 to  the  very  source  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- 
 stroy 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.  Crltt.  Prjcf.  [p.  xiv.]  "  Sed  ingenue  fateor, 
 deesse  mihi  adhuc  subsidia  nonnulla,  quibus  carcre  non  potest, 
 qui  discrimina  non  solum  ac  indolem,  sed,  quod  difficilius  est, 
 historiam  etiam,  origincs  ac  vicissitudines  Recenaionum  vete- 
 rum  omnium  ita  declarare  vult,  ut  asserta  sua  pcvitis  arbitris 
 probaturum  se  esse  sperare  baud  immerito  qucat."  The  de- 
 clining confidence'  of  our  authour  at  length  falls  to  the  ground, 
 and  in  his  last  declaration  he  states ;  *'  Origo  rarianim  textvs 
 Nov.  Test,  recensionum^  deficientibus  docunientis  satis  vetustis 
 ac  testimoniis,  histon'ce  dedari  nequ-it,'*  &c.-  ut  supr.  p.  337- 
 
C    430    ) 
 
 destitute  of  positive  support  from  those  who  hare 
 affected  to  uphold  it. 
 
 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  ^  Some 
 verbal  errours  probably  arose  in  particular  copies' 
 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  general 
 integrity  of  the  text  had  remained  uncorrupted. 
 His  silence  on  this  subject  might  be  construed  into 
 a  proof  somewhat  stronger  than  presumptive :  the 
 nice  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  is 
 true,  of  a  difference  existing  in  the  copies  of  his 
 times  ^.     But  this  opinion  he  offers  merely  as  a  con- 
 
 ^  Vid.  supr.  p.  123.  sqq.  p.  207.  sqq. 
 
 •*  Origen  notes  some  variations  of  this  kind ;  Comment,  in 
 ]Mat.  Tom.  III.  p.  532.  C.  d.  5  y.h  av  Mar-Saros  WETroj^jxs  y.uTa.  7kv» 
 
 Tuv  uvnypd^uv    to*    *  tots    ^»ErE»^aTo' Wsov    /ixsj'Tot    oVt    rmcc  ruv 
 
 uvnyfoiipuv  tuv  xctru  MocTBaTov  'i^si  t©,  *  swsTi/xjjafv.'  Conf.  lb* 
 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 
 vised  by  the  hereticks  as  well  as  the  orthodox ;  vid.  supr.  p.  330. 
 n.'^^  conf.  infr.p.  431.  n.  '°. 
 
 ^  Orig.  ibid.  p.  671*  t»  twl  ^t  ^tj^o^ot*  woXX-w  ysyoviv  w  rut 
 
{    431    ) 
 
 Jeciure^  grounding  it  on  the  diversity  observable  in 
 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  opinion  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  asra  of  Origen, 
 we  must  consequently  fix  the  first  change  which 
 took  place  in  the  received  text  of  Scripture.     And 
 
 d)iny^x<pctjv    Cix'^o^oi,    tVrs    utto    §a$f/A»aj    Tivuv    yfcctpiut^    tin    aTTd 
 
 ^  Id.  ibid.  p.  670.  a.  vTro-voEia^ai  ^u-joicki,  wq  ay.  Itfo  tS  SftflJjfoj 
 IvIaySa  9raf£t?i'^9'^«i,  aAA'  vtto  Tiyo;  tviv  u)i^i(3inx.v  /1/.19  voJjcraj^of  tut 
 ?^iyo|xe^cuV,  TToo^s'^sXa^xL'  o-vvccyo^ivait  ^\  trt  vTiovoYi'yii  t5  frpoali- 
 ^cHa^ai  £)/i(x.v^oc  to*    *  ayaTrrianq   rov  wXTjc-iov   ca   aq  ffiuvlovj*   h   tuv 
 
 rcc7<;   xuTcc    Tov    troTTov   i'jiO   Ta   'IviiT^   Trapa^'vjJpOiicrai?    hTQ>.KTq    x.  T.  s« 
 
 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.  bt 
 
 //.Blocy^a^cc^GcyloiS  Is  to  Kvxfyi'kiov  aAA«?  ax    ol^a,  -';  rnq  dvh  M«p- 
 
 hiyofA-tvoy  «  Ttf  Xoyn    Ir^iv    'iynXriiAO,'    aXKa.  ruM  To7.ur,advlcov  pa^tu^m 
 
 y^aaci  ra  zvocTyiXioc.     Conf.  D.  Bull.  Defens.  Fid.  Nic.  Sect.  11. 
 cap.  ix.  §  2.  p.  06. 
 
(    432    ) 
 
 of  such  a  change  we  have  an  explicit  account^  iit 
 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. 
 
 '*  Vitl.  snpr.  p.  72.  n.  "7. 
 
 '*  Vid.  supr.  p.  100.  n.  **°. 
 
 *^  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.  TO  ^i  'o[ji,oiov  TTEpt  rd  oiiofA(iia,  Gi^acXfAO.  HoXkoL'/ja  Ta  tiot^a 
 
 TOK  utliyfo^ois  avruv  rot  riyiin^ot  cvyy.pivaflsc,  [xoc^up'/i'^£i(7iv  J'K'o  toJv 
 
 Conf.  infr.  n.  '\ 
 
 **  Heracleon  followed  Valentinus ;  and  many  of  the  errourst 
 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.    Biawi  ^} 
 
 hsuvx  ^inyafASvov  TO*  *  vetvla.  St  awrS  tyitelo'  k.  t.  I.  Conf.  ibid, 
 p.  117.  e.  Id.  ibid.  p.  226.  woXy  ^i  Wi-v  vvv  va^xTf^esrBxt  t5 
 'H^ayJ\euvoi;    Ta    pTrt    utto    tS    Iw»y£y^a/w,ft6i'»    '   TJeTfH    Kn^vyfjkuloi* 
 
 *s  Id.  Comment,  in  Matt.  Tom.  III.  p.  747.  c.  y.(\a.  ruVrec 
 
 l^'^oiffa^iv  i^  TO*      *  na-avvot  ru  vtu  Aoc^to,  evMyvnAsvof  o  IfxpyLsyo^  iv 
 
 i»o(jt.otli   Kvpitf,  ua-avva,  h  Tor?  v-i^iroi<;* .  'htu  h  f^  eix^v  v)  'E^poiUh 
 
 XeIk*  otvv»   o(.^m»i  wamnoiv,   uvvoc   u^uvxX'  occrui'   uvuot  /3a^a;jj  u$$cic^ 
 
 £voc,fy&\ici  fA.r)  tl^oTuv  rriv  ^'taXsxIov  avyxsy^va^oci  Iv  toT$-  xalx  tov 
 TOTTOV— — .  £1  ^t  TO  «>j^i/3e?  ^a^£i  iJi,aBeTii  t??  >.i^tu<;  ukus  AKvXtt 
 i^lAV)»iv<j-uv\oq  uai*  '  ft  «  >cypt£  cuxrov  orj,  u  Si  xv^te  evu^uffop  ^^, 
 »vAoy»5/A«vo$  0  l^p^o/Aij'o?  Ev  ovo/xali  xvfla, 
 
 *®  Id.  ibid.  p.  671.  b.  t^  bI  (abv  (/.tj  xJ  ve^)  aT^TiVV  Trt^Tiuv  ^Kt^affe$ 
 9)9  wpi?   aXX»jXa  ruv  a.v\iyfu(puvy  ai^e   ra   7rav7a  ra,   xalx  J^ul^aXov 
 
 vt?  E^olsy  Etvat  0  v'ffovouv  iviav^a,  TF^oa-epp'KpBai,  «x  sl^9ifji.e»riv  v'jro  t5 
 £«T?§05  »go?  Tor  w^»c^»o»  Tnr   *  ayxvijctt^  To»   Tr^eo-ioi'  «rtf  *•?  crsairh* 
 
 Ff 
 
(    434    ) 
 
 rrripaiiTd  the  credit  of  the  vulgar  or  common  edition^ 
 as  well  in  the  New  as  in  the  Old  Testament. 
 
 The  object  at  which  Lucianus  and  Hesychius 
 aimedj  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  Hesychius  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  mentioned  as  a  reviser 
 of  the  version  of  the  Old  Testament  '^  and  as  Ori- 
 gen's  critical  labours  particularly  affected  that  part 
 of  the  sacred  canon  ^'^  it  is  more  than  probable  that 
 his  emendations  were  confined  to  it  alone  *°.     At 
 
 "  Vid.  supr.  p.  88.  n.  ^^ 
 '^  Ibid. 
 •   '^  Orig.  ibid,  p,  671.  c.  tJjv  [Ay  h*  tv  ror?  avliy^u^oif  xriS  va.Xaiu.f 
 
 lf.iVQi  TocVq  >.oifrccT<;  \y.}d<7iaiv,  x.r.t.  This  observation  is  immedi- 
 ately subjoined  to  that  quoted  sujir.  n.  *^  on  the  difference  of 
 the  copies  of  the  Gospels.  Origen,  in  continuation,  explainss 
 the  method  which  he  pursued  in  correcting  the  Septuagint. 
 Conf.  supr.  p.  432.  nn.  '^  et  '\ 
 
 ^  The  following  description  of  the  vulgar  edition  of  the  Sep- 
 tuagint is  given  by  St.  Jerome ;  Prooem.  in  Lib.  xv.  Comm.  Is. 
 Tom.  IV.  p,  .185.  h,  "  Denique  omnes  Graeciae  tractatores 
 qui  nobis  eruditionis  suae  in  Psalmos  commentarios  reliquerunt : 
 
(    435    ) 
 
 the  early  period  in  which  he  wrote,  the  Sepiuagliit 
 only  lay  under  the  imputation  of  being  corrupted*'; 
 and  no  possible  reason  can  be  assigned  which  could 
 induce  hint  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  repubhshed  the  com- 
 bos verslculos  [Rom.  iii.  13 — 18.]  veru  annotant  atque  praete- 
 reunt:  liquido  confitentes,  in  Hebraico  non  haberi,  nee  esse  ifi 
 LXX  interpretlbus,  sed  i?i  editione  Vulgata,  quae  Graece  y-tuvh 
 dicitur,  et  in  toto  orbe  diver sa  est,*'  It  appears  from  this  re- 
 mark, that  Ps.  xiv.  4.  was  interpolated  with  Rorh.  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  from  the  following  places,  Ps.  v.  10.  cxl.  3.  x.  7.  Is. 
 lix.  7.  Conf.  Orig.  Coram,  in  Rom.  Tom.  IV.  p.  505.  and  S. 
 Hier.  ibid.  The  following  observation,  which  must  be  referred 
 to  Ruffinus,  rather  than  Origen  [vid.  Ruffin.  Prsef.  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.  "  Illud  etiam  ne- 
 cessario  ducimus  admonendiim,  qiiod  in  nonnullis  Latinorum  ea 
 quae  siibsequuntur  testimonia  in  tertio  decirao  Psalmo  conse- 
 quenter  ex  integro  posita  inveniuntur :  in  Gravis  aiitem  poene 
 omnibus  non  amplius  in  decimo  tertio  Psalmo  quam  usque  ad 
 ilium  versiculum,  ubi  scriptum  est ;  *  Non  est  qui  faciat  bonum, 
 non  est  usque  ad  unum.*'  In  the  terms,  "  Graecis  autem  p^sne 
 cmnibus,"  the  Greek  Vulgate  is  plainly  intimated ;  in  the  phrase 
 *'  inveniuntur — non  amplius,  Sfc.'*  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  in 
 which  he  formed  his  revisal. 
 "  Vid.  supr.  n.  *°. 
 
 Ff2 
 
(    436    ) 
 
 mon  edition.  Setting  aside  the  authority  of  Origcn, 
 there  seems  to  be  no  conceivable  cause  by  which 
 Lucianus  could  have  been  swayed  in  corrupting  the 
 text.  Nor  can  he  be  convicted  on  this  head,  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  in  vindicating 
 Lucianus  from  the  charge  of  corrupting  the  Scrip- 
 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 
 wxre  favourite  texts  employed  by  the  Arians,  in 
 
 "  Vid.  siipr.  p.  72.  n.  K 
 
 *'  Vid.  supr.  pp.  71.  88.  sqq. 
 
 **  Vid.  supr. pp.  151.  160.  The  principal  passages  in  •which 
 the  Greek  and  Latin  Vulgate  difter,  may  be  seen  at  a  view,  on 
 turning  to  the  quotations  in  pp.  374—377.  p.  390»  n.  '*'.  and 
 on  comparing  the  quotations  pp.  380 — 385.  with  the  remarks  p. 
 396.  n. '".  In  these  references  the  Greek  Vulgate  is  denoted 
 by  Bi/z,  or  Vvlg,  the  Latin  Vulgate  by  It,  3. 
 
(    437    ) 
 
 sapporting  their  opinions  against  the  Catholicks  *' ; 
 it  is  of  course  inconceivable,  that  in  the  age  subse- 
 quent to  that  in  which  Lucianus  pubHshed  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 *7;  con- 
 
 *'  Such  are  Mat.  xix.  17-  Mar.  xlii.  32.  Luc.xxli.  43,  44-. 
 Job.  V.  3,  4.  Act.  XV.  28.  supr.  p.  372.  sqq.  besides  Mar.  xvl. 
 9—20.  Job.  viii.  1—11. 
 
 ^  Such  are  not  only  Act.  xx.  28.  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  1  Job.  v.  7. 
 Col.  ii.  4.  supr.  pp.  253.  276.  but  Luc.  xi.  13.  xxii.  43,  44.  Job. 
 V.  3,  4.  Act.  viii.  37.  supr.  p.  377.  sqq.  and  Mat.  vi.  13.  Luc.  xi. 
 %  4,  &c.  ut  supr.  p.  380.  A  more  convenient  opportunity  will 
 hereafter  occur  of  speaking  at  large  on  this  subject. 
 
 *^  The  Arians  have  laid  claim  to  Lucianus,  as  an  advocate  of 
 their  peculiar  opinions ;  Epiph.  Haer.  lxix.  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.  II.  cap.xiii.  §  4.  p.  144.  sqq.  It  is 
 indeed  true  that  Lucianus  agreed  with  the  Arians  in  rejecting 
 or  omitting  the  term  oixoio-tof,  in  his  confession  of  faith;  and  on 
 these  grounds  the  hereticks  founded  their  claims  to  him,  as  a 
 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  th© 
 
(    438    ) 
 
 siderable  difficulties  must  still  attend  the  suppo- 
 sition, that  they  would  be  admitted  into  the  cano-r 
 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  therefore  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  thq 
 Synod  of  Antioch :  vid.  Bull.  lb.  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  ioxij  imagined  the  integrity  of  the  other 
 was  redundant. 
 
 Under  this  view  of  the  subject,  the  various  read- 
 ings of  the  sacred  text  are  ukimately  traced  to  the 
 editions  of  Hesycliius  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  Nepos,  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 
 to  the  nature  of  the  body,  its  organization  and  en- 
 joyments, in  that  state  which  is  to  succeed  the  resur- 
 
 *^  Walt.  Prolegomm.  Sect.  IX.  p.  63.  §  25.  «  Quarts 
 [editio  Twv  O'j  fuit  Hesychii  Episcojn  JEgyptii,  in  eadem  per- 
 secutione  decima  martyrio  coronati :  de  quo  Euseb.  Hist.  Lib. 
 VIII,  cap.  xiv.  Hie  veterem  translationem  recognovit:  quac,^ 
 teste  Hieronymo,  per  JE^yptum  ei  Akxandriam  cekbris  erat  >? 
 jiovaiw  noj;i  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.  VIL  cap,  xxiv.  p.  34^9.  1.  27. 
 
 Err)  Tarotj  a.ira.a-i  cr-^a^a^elat  \_iyiovvarioq  iTrlcrxowo?  rut  xar*  A^e|«v- 
 ^g«ta>]]  uvru  k)  Tragi  iTrafye^^iuii  ^vo  ffvlyfcu/.^otiu,  i  ^*  vnrd^iais  avrUf 
 NfiVw?  riv    tmc^itovoi   ru»    aar   "Alywwlov,    'la^ctUursfov   rdq  IwjjJytX- 
 
 ta-tff^cKt  y^oTtSs/xgyoj.  Conf.  S.  Epiphan.  Haer.  Lxiv.  p.  527.  d. 
 528,  b.  c. 
 
 ^*  The  account  which  Socrates  has  given  of  this  controversy. 
 Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  VL  cap.  vii.  p.  319.  is  confused  and  contra- 
 dictory ;  it  having  been  obviously  his  desire  to  vindicate  Ori- 
 gen's  opinions,  of  which  he  was  undoubtedly  a  favourer :  Huet. 
 Origeniann.  Lib.  IL  cap.  iv.  sect.  ii.  §  25.  p.  278.  b.  Origenistas 
 vero  palam  se  produnt  Socrates  Scholasticus  et  Hefmias  Sozo- 
 menus  in  Historiis  suis,*'  &c.  But  St.  Epiphanius,  who  was  a 
 contemporary  of  Theophilus,  and  who  convened  a  synod  in 
 Cyprus,  for  the  purpose  of  condemning  the  Origenists,  about 
 the  same  time  that  Theophilus  convened  one  at  Alexandria  for 
 the  same  purpose,  refers  the  origin  of  this  heresy  to  the  monks 
 of  Egypt ;  S.  Epiphan.  Haer,  Origenian.  §  iv.  p.  527.  b.  *H  ^\ 
 $1  a^Ttf  ['flgtyEvasJ  ?''''5'<*  a*jp£<3"tj  'JT^u/lov  /X£V  Iv  t-^  toJv  'AlyfW- 
 Ti'wv  %cti§^  vTKx.Q^yjACsa.t  ru  yvv  ^\  va^  avrtiiq  slop^wTaroK  »C;  ^0X8<7J 
 Tov  /xov7j§7j  ^/ov  avaSep(,£ffS'ai,   wap    ror?  (piat%  xala   t»5    «§»5/*»aj 
 
 ^*  Independent  of  the  accommodation  of  the  Egyptian  text 
 
i    441    ) 
 
 We  have  only  to  compare  the  account  which 
 Origen  has  given,  of  the  method  in  which  he  pro- 
 
 to  the  principles  of  Origen's  criticism,  examples  of  which  will 
 be  adduced  on  a  proper  occasion ;  instances  occur  in  which  this 
 text  has  palpably  suffered  by  the  influence  of  his  peculiar  opi- 
 nions. An  example  presents  itself  in  one  of  the  first  passao^es 
 in  which  his  critical  canons  could  be  applied-  In  the  quota- 
 tion from  Deut.  viii.  3.  introduced  in  Mat.  ir.  4.  the  original 
 mn»  »Q  «yin  b  b  )D,  is  rendered  by  the  Septuagint  and  St. 
 Matthew,  a^^*  im  warn  pr.fj.an  SKTio^svofxiyu  ^i£c  ro/^caloj  e.-^. 
 This  deviation  from  the  Hebrew  was  of  course  marked  in  Ori- 
 gen's  Hexapla ;  there  was  consequently  room  for  a  correction 
 of  the  text  by  Hesychius.  Instead  however  of  removing  ^y,f^x\ 
 which  is  superfluous,  he  erased  ^»«  roVoJo?.  How  far  the  literal 
 interpreters,  inserted  in  the  Hexapla,  might  have  expressed  ♦a 
 by  p/xa]»,  as  this  term  may  be  sometimes  rendered,  (see  Deut, 
 xvii.  6.  xxxiv.  5.)  we  are  now  unable  to  discover ;  as  a  few- 
 words  merely  of  Deut.  viii.  3.  U.  17.  now  remain  out  of  the 
 %vhole  of  the  chapter  from  whence  the  verse  before  us  is  taken ; 
 vid.  Montfauc.  Hexapl.  Orig.  Tom.  I.  p.  180.  There  can  be 
 very  little  reason  to  doubt,  that  in  suppressing  ^^d  rV»%?,  the 
 reviser  of  the  Egyptian  text  had  respect  to  the  fundamental 
 tenet   of  the  Origenists.     S.  Epiphan.   ub.  supr.  p.  527.  c, 
 
 X/yE**,  Vpu%V  fxlv  0T»  0  'T»o?  0  [AQVoyovyjs  o^fr  Toi/  UuV^a.  «  Svvcclat, 
 fltXXa  are  to  nvsvf/,a,  7ov  'Y*o»  ^vvulaci  $£ao-aa-&at,  «t£  /ix^»  *AfyeXot  ri 
 TlnviAct,  lire  ol  «»$^<ywot  rt??  'AfysXa^,  To  this  single  point  the 
 difference  between  the  Monks  of  Egypt  and  the  Bishop  of 
 Alexandria  has  been  reduced  by  Socrates ;  the  former  having 
 accused  the  latter  of  being  an  Anthropomorphite,  or  person  who 
 ascribed  a  human  form  to  God,  because  he  denied  this  funda. 
 mental  tenet  of  the  Origenists ;  Socrat.  ub.  supr.  p.  S21.  1.  3, 
 o  yu^  ©eof,  [0£o^tAo?]  (pnfflv,  ko^cc  rnv^siav  Tpa(piiy,  ^  o(pSaXpt«s- 
 £X,et  ^  vrd,  K,  X^Tqcif  tC,  <n6^as^  kuBu  )^  ol  av^o-Troi.  oi  ^l  ^np) 
 Aioo-Ko^ov,  *n§i7EV£i  axoXb^hvVer,  ^"Koca-^nf^ov  ^oyf^x  tia-ayaa-iv,  toq  uccc. 
 0  ©cor  HT&  otfJ^aX/w-HJ,  «T£  aJra,  «ts  tiq^ols,  srs  y/i^a.s  'i'/j^i.    <■    ■ 
 
(    44^    ) 
 
 ceeded  to  correct  the  Old  Testament,  and  of  the 
 fancied  corruptions  which  he  conceived  had  crept 
 into  the  New,  with  the  internal  evidence  of  the 
 Egyptian  text,  in  order  to  discover  that  Hesychius, 
 by  whom  this  edition  was  published,  had  merely 
 undertaken  to  realize  the  plan  which  had  been  sug- 
 g-ested  by  Origen  for  its  improvement.  In  cor- 
 recting the  Old  Testament,  Orig'en  had  compared 
 the  different  copies  of  the  Greek  version,  and  had 
 admitted  the  authority  of  the  versions  made  by  the 
 hereticks^';  and,  in  insinuating  the  corruptions  of 
 the  New,  he  corrected  the  statement  of  one  Evan- 
 gelist by  tlie  accounts  of  the  other,  and  appealed  to 
 the  testimony  of  the  Gospels  compiled  by  the  here- 
 ticks  ^1  We  scarcely  discover  a  peculiarity  in  the 
 Egyptian  text,  which  may  not  be  directly  accounted 
 for,  by  conceiving  the  reviser  actuated  by  the  ambi- 
 tion of  giving  that  perfection  to  the  text  of  the  New 
 Testament,  Avhich  Origen,  following  similar  princi- 
 ples, had  given  to  the  text  of  the  Old, 
 
 With  respect  to  the  works  by  which  Hesyehius 
 was  assisted  in  entering  on  this  undertaking,  we 
 know  that  he  was  possessed  of  a  Harmony  and  seve- 
 ral apocryphal  works,  which  had  been  used  by  Ori- 
 
 3  J  Vid.  supr.  p.  432.  n.  ".  p.  434.  n.  '^ 
 
 3*  Via.  supr.  p.  433.  n.  \  p.  330.  n.  *'.  The  Critical  Ca- 
 nons by  which  Hesyehius  was  guided  in  revising  the  Egyptian 
 text,  lie  in  a  short  compass ;  being  contained  in  two  or  three 
 pages  of  Origen's  Cpminentary  on  St.  Mat,  Tom.  III.  pp.  670^ 
 671,  672, 
 
(    443    ) 
 
 gen  in  compiling  his  Commentaries.  Ammonius, 
 who  preceded  Origen  in  the  government  of  the 
 school  of  Alexandria^  had  constructed  a  work  of  the 
 former  kind^  in  which  he  disposed  the  coincident 
 passages  of  the  different  Evangelists  in  parallel 
 columns ^^;  and  it  appears,  from  the  writings  of 
 Clement  and  Origen,  that  ''  the  Gospel  of  the  He- 
 brews/- "  the  Acts  of  Paul/'  and  "  the  Preaching 
 of  Peter/'  were  well  known  to  the  disciples  of  that 
 schooP^  With  respect  to  the  authority  which  wag 
 ascribed  to  these  works,  it  is  certain  that  Origen  did 
 not  absolutely  reject  the  last^^,  though  he  did  not 
 receive  it  as  a  canonical  work.  A  very  slight  de^ 
 gree  of  attention  bestowed  on  the  Egyptian  text, 
 as  preserved  in  the  Cambridge  or  Verceli  manu^ 
 script,  must  convince  any  person,  that  it  has  suf- 
 fered  from  the  influence  of  these  different  works. 
 As  the  Gospels  of  that  edition  have  been  corrected 
 by  each  other;  the  deficiencies  of  one  being  fre- 
 quently supplied  from  the  fulness  of  another;  it  is 
 evident  the  text  must  have  been  corrected  by  some 
 reviser,  who  made  good  use  of  a  Harmony  '^     And 
 
 ■  ^'  Though  the  remains  of  Ammonius*s  Harmony,  which  ar« 
 preserved  in  the  translation  of  Victor  Capuanus,  are  disposed 
 in  the  form  of  a  Diatessaron,  it  appears  from  the  account  of 
 Eusebius  and  St.  Jerome,  that  the  original  work  was  arranged 
 in  the  form  of  a  Harmony:  vid.  Vales,  in  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl, 
 Lib.  IV.  cap.  xxix.  p.  194.  n.  ". 
 
 ^^  Vid.  Orig.  de  Principp.  Praef.  Tom.  I.  p.  49.  b.  Comment. 
 in  Joan.  Tom.  IV.  p.  322.  c.  Clem.  Alex.  Stromat.  Lib.  VI. 
 p.  759. 1.  24.  p.  764. 1.  47.  p.  804. 1.  35.  &c. 
 
 ^'  Vid.  supr.  p.  432.  n.  '\ 
 
 ^'  Such  precisely  is  the  account  which  Dr.  Mills  ^ives  of  the 
 
(     444     ) 
 
 several  extraordinary  passages  admitted  into  the 
 Gospels  and  Acts,  one  of  which  we  are  enabled  to 
 trace  to  ''  the  Preaching  of  Peter/'  very  sufficiently 
 evince,  that  the  apoci-yphal  writings  were  allowed 
 some  weight  in  compiling  that  edition ''. 
 
 text  of  the  Cambridge  MS.  ut  supr.  p.  160.  n.  *".  A  similar 
 obsen'ation  had  been  made  on  Hesychius's  text  by  St.  Jerome; 
 tliat  it  had  been  interpolated  from  a  Diatessaron ;  Vid.  supr, 
 p.  100.  n.  ^*°.  p.  155.  n.  *°*.  I  understand  St.  Jerome  as  mean- 
 ing a  Diatessaron,  by  **  unum-e-quatuor,"  in  the  subjoined 
 words,  which  are  taken  from  the  last  cited  passage :  "  Vel  dum 
 cundem  sensum  alius  aliter  expressit,  ille  qui  unum-e-quatuor 
 primum  legerat,  ad  ejus  exemplum  cseteros  quoque  existema* 
 verit  emendandos."  The  term  AiuiBo-crafUf  is  adopted  from 
 Musick,  and  signifies  the  Harmony  of  a  fourth ;  that  it  is  al- 
 luded to  in  this  place  by  St.  Jerome,  is,  I  conceive,  evident 
 from  his  having  adopted  a  like  term  in  rendering  this  word  in 
 the  following   passage   in    Eusebius's  Epistle   to    Carpianus; 
 
 l^a.ymxucy  to  5<a  rssaapuv  v^y-h  aarcO^i'KovTny  tvafyiXtov :  **  Ammo- 
 iiius  quidem  Alexandrinus  magno  studio  atque  industria  unttm 
 nobis  pro  quatuor  evangeliis  dereliquit."  As  this  Harmony 
 was  published  by  Ammonius  in  Egypt,  every  facility  was  thence 
 afforded  Hesychius  to  revise  the  Greek  Testament. 
 
 ^5  Such  are  the  passages  inserted  in  the  Cambridge  MS.  after 
 Mat.  iii.  15.  xx.  28.  and  quoted  supr.  p.  127.  n.  ^K  p.  177. 
 n.  »5'.  the  former  of  which  is  traced  by  S.  Epiphanius  to  the 
 Hebrew  Gospel,  supr.  p.  332.  n.  ^\  a  work  which  is  referred  to 
 frequently  by  Origen.  The  same  passage  occurred  in  "  the 
 Preaching  of  Peter,"  an  Apocryphal  work,  which  was  of  equal 
 authority  with  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews :  vid.  Auct.  de  Bap- 
 tism, int.  opuscc.  adscript.  S.  Cyprian,  p.  30.  This  writer,  who 
 quotes  from  the  Itahck  version,  and  is  supposed  to  have  lived 
 near  the  times  of  St.  Cyprian,  makes  tlie  following  observation 
 on  this  passage,  which  adds  an  additional  proof  to  those  which 
 have  been  already  adduced,  that  the  Greek  text  of  the  Cam- 
 
(    445    ) 
 
 But  the  Commentaries  of  Orig-en  afforded  still 
 greater  assistance  to  the  editour  of  the  Egyptian 
 text ;  as  in  them,  he  frequently  found  his  dillerent 
 authorities  combined  in  a  narrow  compass,  and  a 
 comment  added  by  Origen,  whose  sentence  on  this 
 subject  was  taken  as  oracular.  That  these  works 
 have  had  some  influence  on  the  Egyptian  and  Pa* 
 lestine  texts,  is  a  point  which  appears  to  me  to  be 
 capable  of  demonstration.  Of  the  passages,  con* 
 sisting  of  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  intro- 
 duced into  the  New,  in  which  the  Greek  Vulgate 
 differs  from  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine  editions, 
 
 bridge  MS.  and  the  Latin  version  of  the  Verceli  MS.  did  not 
 exist  before  the  close  of  the  third  century,  near  which  time 
 they  were  formed  by  Hesychius  and  St.  Eusebius ;  Id.  ib.  p.  30- 
 
 — **  Item  cum  baptizaretur  ignem  super  aquam  esse  visum* 
 
 Quod  in  Evangelio  nullo  est  scripticm,^*  Were  this  work  extant, 
 or  *'  the  Acts  of  Paul,"  which  are  mentioned  by  Eusebius, 
 8upr.  p.  206.  n.  ^-^.  I  make  no  doubt  that  we  should  find  in  them 
 the  following  passages,  and  most  of  those  of  the  same  character 
 which  occur  in  the  Egyptian  text  and  revised  Italick  trans- 
 lation. Act.  xi,  ^.  0  lAiv  av  Het^o?  ^»a  ixanS  x^ova  h^sX^as  voceu- 
 Sijvaj  tU  'li^oa-o?iVf/.st,'  >t)  'nrfoaCpoviia-uT  ra?  uhx^hg,  «J  e7r»r'5f»|«?  a^xas 
 woXyy  ^oyov  7ro»y|W,£yof,  ^i»  tut  yu^u\i  ^ioxay.ut  avrhq,  05  1^  KOtiv)!lna-sf 
 eUnoTq,  xj  uTTVifynXiv  avroTq  rr.v  %ap»v  tS  ©eS.  of  ^i  ik  7rif»1ou?j 
 «^l^(poi  ^uK^Uano   rp-poq  uvrov.      Ibid,  xviii.  27.   IV  ^\  T?  'Z(piau>  iTrtor.' 
 
 cvy  AvroTq  lU  t»}»  irotlpl^x  avruv,  a-vyxuiavBvaxyloi  ^t  avttiy  ot  'E^i<ticj 
 J'y^a^J,a»    Tor?    U  Kofti>^<o    /AaSrilaK,    oTruq    otTro^e^uvlcti    rov   uv^^cx.    0$ 
 
 As  these  extraordinary  passages  are  found  in  the  margin  of 
 the  Philoxenian  Version,  they  certainly  existed  in  the  Egyptian 
 text :  vid.  supr.  p.  77.  n.  ^° :  they  furnish  a  sufficient  specimen 
 from  which  we  may  form  a  judgment  of  similar  interpolations 
 in  the  Egyptian  edition. 
 
(    446    ) 
 
 the  most  remarkable  are  Matt.  xv.  8.  xxvii.  35- 
 Luc.  iii.  5.  iv.  18^^°:  as  in  these  texts  the  reading  of 
 the  latter  editions  is  apparently  supported  by  the 
 express  testimony  of  Origen's  commentary.  But  a 
 comparison  of  the  comment  with  the  documents 
 which  were  before  Origen/  Very  clearly  evinces^ 
 that  in  forming-  this  idea^  the  revisers  of  the  Egyp- 
 tian and  Palestine  texts  were  deCehed.  In  Matt. 
 XV.  8"^^  an  ignorance  of  the  Hebrew  led  them  into 
 
 ^  V'id.  supr.  p.  381.  conf.  p.  185.  li.  '^K  p.  369.  n.  "^ 
 
 Tifji.oiy  which  occurs  in  the  LXX  and  the  Hebrew  original,  in 
 Is.  xxix.  13.  and  in  the  Greek  Syriack  and  Italick  Vulgate,  in 
 Matt.  XV.  8i  is  omitted  in  the  latter  plaee,  by  the  Egyptian  and 
 Palestine  editions.  That  the  genuine  reading  is  preserved  in 
 the  Byzantine  text,  I  have  already  endeavoured  to  prove,  from 
 the  internal  evidence  of  the  Italick  version;  vid.  supr.  p.  185. 
 n.  '^' :  the  following  circumstances  will  account  for  the 
 yarious  reading  of  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine.  (1.)  This 
 passage  is  omitted  hy  St,  Marky  in  referring  to  Isaiah,  vid.  Mar. 
 vii.  6  ;  and  it  was  a  canon  of  Origen's  criticism,  by  which  Hesy- 
 chius  was  guided  in  revising  the  text,  that  the  Gospels  of  the 
 different  Evangelists  might  be  corrected  by  each  other  ;  vid.  supr* 
 p.  433.  n.  ^^  (2.)  It  was  equally  a  canon  of  the  same  criti- 
 cism, that  the  Evangelists  had  abridged  the  quotations  of  the 
 Old  Testament,  in  admitting  them  into  the  New ;  vid.  infr.  p* 
 4i9.  n.  ^"^ :  the  shorter  quotation  was  of  course  preferredy  as 
 supposed  to  contain  the  genuine  reading,  (3.)  Origen,  in  re- 
 ferring to  this  canon,  had  given  rise  to  this  emendation,  by 
 merely  quoting  part  of  this  verse  with  kou  toc  ii^<;,  generally 
 stating  that  Matthew  had  not  followed  Isaiah  verbatim  ;  Orig. 
 Comment,  in  Matt.  Tom.  III.  p.  492.  Tru^iBflo  frUov  a.ito  tS  'Haotia, 
 oiii?  (zvruT^  ?ve|sc7»v  «t«?  «p^£»'  *  xa<  etVe  Kvfioq,  IfyiXa  /*«»  5  Piao?  «to^ 
 tv  Tu  ^ojAcili  xvTuvy  yta-i  ra,  l^riS.  xa»  <7r(ios1<7roixsy  yz  ot»  hx  avTOiS 
 XsHeffiv  «yr/§a\j/6y  6  Ma7^«7oj  to  TTgo^r^VtHoy.      {5.)  By  this  de- 
 
(    447    ; 
 
 ah  ^rroiir  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  observation 
 may  be  likewise  extended  to  Luc.  iii.  5^"^,     A  repe- 
 
 claration,  liesychius?  was  deceived ;  for  irv  the  application  of  this 
 remark  to  the  passage  before  uSf  Origen  is  entirely  misrepre- 
 sented. This  passage  agrees  verbatim  with  Isaiah;  while  it^ 
 context,  to  which  Origen  certainly  alludes,  diners  from  the  exact- 
 words  of  the  prophet :  St.  Matthew  having  there  written,  lb.  9^ 
 
 itaTJjv   St    ai^Qviot'i  fjLSf    aiocttrx-ovleq    o^aot7^y.aX1cx■q,    iC\a>\^xxta,   ocuBfjoirut, 
 
 but  Isaiah,  lb.  13.  niDba  C3'a^j«  nivo  m^  od^']>  ^m:  the 
 former  of  which  is  properly  rendered  in  the  Authorised  Ver- 
 ;5ion,  "  but  in  vain  the//  do  tvorship  me  teaching  for  doctrines 
 the  commandments  of  men,"  the  latter  somewhat  more  freely, 
 **  and  their  Jear  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.  4-93.  e.  tots  u-Trtv  I  K^pof, 
 
 *  ^ow  tu  ro[Asilt  ifyl^eiv  toJ'  ^aov'  tu»  'Iy^«.l&;v,  *  ru  0£«,  xai  TOig 
 ^iiMffi  rifjiiiv  avrov'  (pr,^i,  otoT»  *  h  Kupaix  avruv*  ^»a  tt,v  tlq  tl» 
 'lucr^v  «7r*r»av,  *  •ndf'fu  er»v  utto  Kvpi»:'  though  by  prefacing 
 these  words  with  tot£  ilirsv  h  KtJpjo?,  he  was  conceived,  by  the 
 •revisers  of  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine  texts,  to  allude  to  Isaiah; 
 while  it  is  evident,  from  the  context,  hcc  ri*  tk  rov  Ucr'ev  ontir^av, 
 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  ot  the  corruption  of  the 
 Egyptian  and  Palestine  editions,  in  one  of  the  most  remarkable 
 passages  in  which  they  differ  from  the  Greek  Vulgate. 
 
 *tj  ?ra*  rd  axoKkci  tU  et'S'sTav,  which  occurs  in  Luc.  iii.  4,  5.  is 
 found  also  in  Is.  xl.  3,  4:  but  in  the  first  clause,  iv^cias  vonnt 
 Tus  t§//3b5-,  is  expressed  by  n^DO  nu*',  !•  e.  e:'^6<«v  vrQiv-n  r-y.^ 
 
(    448    ) 
 
 tition  of  the  same  word  in  Origen's  comment  on  this 
 passage,  led  to  an  ambiguity,  which  a  reference  to 
 
 TPt^ov,  and  uvth  by  iJinV«V  tS  ©eS  yifAuv*  in  the  second-  In  the 
 last  clause,  however,  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine  texts  read 
 X  trat  ra  ay.oXicc  s'ls  Eu^eias ;  directly  contrary  to  the  reading 
 of  the  B3'zantine  text,  y.ctl  £ra»  rcc  c^>;o^^a  zis  tv^sixVf  and  the 
 prophet  Isaiah,  iiht'dV  iprn  n>m.  This  various  reading  has 
 plainly  originated  from  a  misconception  of  the  following  pas- 
 sage of  Origen.     Com*  in  Joan.  Tom.  I.  127.  d.   o/Aowa?  ^l  t3 
 
 Ma^JiW  xat  «  Aaxa;  tS,  *  (puvv)  jSowvIo?  If  T»!  ep^/AW*  /ae/avdIoH — '  a?c 
 yey^aTrlai  Iv  010^0  hoyuy  *H(7Ci't8  t5  Tr^o^ijTa— lTo»/xao"a1e  T»!v  oJor 
 Kfpa,  E^Sita?  Treierre  ra?  T^'/Sar  ayra.'  '7r^o£^»s;tE  £1.  WfocrE^jjxj]]  oe 
 o  Aaxa?  xa«  ra  e|>5$  t5?5  wpo^>jTi»a5 — *  >e^  a'ra*  ra  crxo^ta  «»f  euSnaj 
 [1.  fySjIa**] — 0|U,oift;5  ru  Mapxw  a^aypa-vj/a?  to,  '  tv^tiuq  9ro»£?Tt  T«j 
 •r^i^a?  acTa*  g7r/l£//>o/x£»o5  to,  '  efrSeta?  ffoiem  rocq  Tpii?a?  t5  0£5 
 Vili.wVy  a>]*  ^s  Ta,  '  xj  sra*  'TToivloc  crxoXta  e»s  £y$«»»?'  [1.  eySelav], 
 ywcK  Ta,   *  TravW  T'i»  ^£|t»  eS>jHE,  jtA/Ia  tS,  a*)*  Ivtxa  [^£iq]   *  sv^iixv/ 
 
 'nt'jroiYiyJvcti  TT^jjSyvltxo*  '  s^^sia,'.'  This  last  remark,  that  St.  Luke, 
 »'  instead  of  the  singular  il^uocv,  made  the  plural  e^Seia?,**  appa- 
 rently refers  to  the  former  etSaia?,  in  the  phrase  ay^slay  wattrrf, 
 and  not  iAe  ^a^^er  trxoAia  iU  zv^i^au  (1.)  There  is  a  difference 
 m  the  former  phrase  between  the  Prophet  and  Evangelist ;  the 
 latter,  as  Origen  observes,  *'  instead  o?  the  singular  (n!?DD  1"Jtt^0 
 having  made  the  phrase  in  the  plural  (et^siaj  Trotsm)."  (2.) 
 If  Origen  be  not  conceived  to  allude  to  the  former,  he  makes 
 an  unaccountable  omission,  which  is  wholly  irreconcilable  with 
 the  minuteness  of  his  criticism,  where  he  undertakes  to  point 
 out  the  difference  between  Isaiah  and  St.  Matthew.  (3.)  The 
 reading  of  the  LXX,  which  St.  Matthew  followed,  is  bU  tlBsiuv, 
 conformably  with  the  Greek  Vulgate ;  it  is  therefore  as  incon- 
 ceivable, that  the  Evangelist  would  have  deviated  from  the  re- 
 ceived version  in  this  place,  as  that  Origen  would  have  omitted 
 to  mention  his  deviation  from  the  original  text  in  the  former, 
 (4? )  The  main  object  of  Origen  was  to  illustrate  his  favourite 
 position,  that  the  Evangelists  abridged  the  words  of  the  Pro- 
 phets, in  quoting  their  writings;  Id.  ib.  p.  127.  e.  p^f^o-j/*©*  Tt 
 
(    449    ) 
 
 the  Hebrew  would  have  directly  cleared  up;  biit 
 the  reviser  not  having  possessed  even  learning  suffi- 
 cient to  collate  the  Greek  with  the  original,,  under- 
 took to  determine  Origeti's  meaning  by  his  context ; 
 in  choosing  between  the  two  words  which  were  set 
 before  him,  he  unfortunately  fixed  on  the  wrong 
 one,  and  has  thus  left  his  errour  subject  to  an  imme- 
 diate detection,  on  confronting  the  testimony  of  the 
 Greek  version  with  the  Hebrew  original.  In  omit- 
 ing  Mat.  Xxvii.  35.  the  reviser  of  the  Egyptian  edi- 
 tion has  laid  himself  equally  open  to  detection ''^'. 
 
 •t   vrapatvifTjffuq  itpoq  a7^oh^^^v   wept    t2   i'jrile(A,ve<7^M  rat  *E^«|y£?^»fa5 
 T«  ffpo^Tixa,     His  allusion  to  the  former  is  therefore  made 
 in  the  regular  order ;  as  it  is  immediately  made  after  observing 
 that  St.  Luke  "  having  curtailed  UBeiaf  wouTts  rcis  Tp4/3»?  tS 
 ©68  rtyi.uvy  sets  down  the  phrase  ivithout  fratrot."     Hence  it 
 appears,  that  some  officious  scribe,  equally  ignorant  of  Origan's 
 object,  and  of  the  true  reading  of  the  prophet  Isaiah,  under* 
 stood  the  concluding  remark  as  meant  of  the  last  si;  evBsiav,  and 
 in  order  to  point  the  observation,  consequently  corrected  this 
 phrase,  in  the  context,  into  ei^  ev^tia;.    As  Origen's  testimony 
 is  thus  virtually  on  the  side  of  the  Greek  Vulgate,  there  can 
 be  no  doubt  of  the  genuine  reading ;  particularly  as  it  is  con- 
 firmed by  the  Hebrew  and  Septuagint,  and  by  the  concurrence 
 of  all  versions,  except  the  revised  Italick  ;  which  has  no  voice 
 in  the  present  case,  as  it  has  been  corrected  by  the  Egyptian 
 edition.     And  it  must  be  observed  as  a  singular  confirmation 
 of  the  received  reading,  that  it  is  supported  by  the  Latiii  of  the 
 Cambridge  MS.  against  the  testimony  of  the  Greek,     These 
 circumstances  being  all  taken  into  consideration,  there  can  be 
 little  reason  to  doubt,  that  the  reading  of  Origen's  text  was 
 that  which  exists  in  the  vulgar  edition ;  and  that  the  misconi. 
 ception  of  Origen's  comment  produced  the  reading  of  the  Egyp- 
 tian and  Palestine  editions. 
 4J  The  Commentary  of  Origen  on  Matt»  xx^i,  35.  vi4  supr. 
 Gg 
 
(    450    ) 
 
 The  allegation  of  this  passage  from  the  Psalms,  by 
 St.  Matthew,  introduced  an  apparent  contradiction 
 
 pr  382.  runs  as  follows;  Tom.  III.  p.  920.  e*  "  Postquam 
 autem  crucifix erimt  eum  cliviserunt  vestimenta  sortem  mit- 
 tentes :  et  sedentes  servabant  eum.'  Et  sunt  usque  nunc  qui 
 ipsum  non  habentes  vestimenta  autem  verba  in  scripturis  posita 
 habent,  nee  ipsa  ad  plenum,  sed  ex  parte,  nihilominus  hoc  ipsum 
 Propheta  dicente  mysterium  quod  nunc  est  impletum.*'  I.  It  is 
 clear  that  Origen  found  some  mystery  in  this  passage,  and  that 
 his  exposition  must  be  understood,  according  to  his  usual  mode 
 of  interpretation,  in  an  allegorical  sense.  His  allusion  is  obvi- 
 ously to  those  who  crucified  our  Lord ;  whom  he  represents 
 as  having  the  Scriptures,  in  the  letter  or  outward  part,  not  in 
 the  substance,  which  was  Christ :  notwithstanding  the  clearness 
 of  the  prophecy,  and  the  mystery  which  it  shadowed.  Accord- 
 ing to  the  expositions  of  the  Allegorists,  who  considered  the 
 garments  of  Christ  typical  of  the  unity  of  the  Church,  it  is  clear 
 that  Origen  considered  the  outer  garments,  which  were  rent, 
 the  Jewish  church  ;  but  the  inner  vesture,  which  was  preserved 
 vintorn,  the  Christian*  Such  is  obviously  Origen 's  meaning, 
 from  which  it  would  be  difficult  to  prove,  that  he  did  not  find 
 the  disputed  passage  in  his  text :  or  that  he  meant  any  thing 
 more  than  that  tlie  Jews  did  not  find  out  the  mystery,  which 
 was  plainly  foretold  in  Ps.  xxii.  19.  On  the  contrary,  it  ap- 
 pears to  me  to  be  plainly  deducible  from  his  comment,  that  the 
 disputed  passage  existed  in  his  text.  (1.)  He  alludes  to  the 
 prophecy,  as  if  it  was  before  him,  without  the  smallest  refer- 
 ence to  the  Psalmist ;  which  he  could  not  have  done,  without 
 an  expi'ess  reference,  had  it  been  deduced  by  him  in  explanation 
 of  St.  Matthew.  (2.)  He  not  only  refers  to  it  under  a  title  by 
 which  it  could  not  be  even  known  to  exist  in  the  Psalms,  but 
 the  extraordinary  title  by  which  it  is  quoted  in  the  disputed 
 passage :  the  Psalm  being  there  referred  to,  not  under  the  title 
 '^a,'K^h  or  7p<p»?,  as  we  find  in  St.  John  ;  but  under  the  unusual 
 title  0  7rpo<p59T»3s.  Of  this  most  remarkable  part  of  the  contested 
 passage,  there  is  a  full  acknowledgment  in  Origen ;  tVa  9rX»3^«S^^ 
 ^5r»  ra  'Tigo'^ri'tH  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  irapletum."  (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  pas- 
 sage in  his  words,  and  an  imphed  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  v»'as  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.  n,  4-^-,     It 
 
(    452    ) 
 
 obliteration  of  the  disputed  passage  removed  the  coti- 
 tradictOt»>  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  of 
 the  revisers  was  consequently  adopted ;  and  the  pas- 
 sage omitted  accordingly.  But  the  partial  quota- 
 tion of  the  wards  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  corruption 
 of  the  Egyptian.  In  the  abridgment  of  the  pro- 
 phecy>  cited  in  Luc.  iv.  IS''^^  we  discover  a  still 
 
 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  of 
 ike  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,  ut  supr.  p.  921.  c. 
 
 ■++  'loiaaffBui  ra?  o'y>TSTp»/Af>c£ya?  Triv  xap^'tar,  which  is  Omitted  in 
 the  Egyptian  and  Palestine  text,  is  retained  in  the  Byzantine. 
 This  passage  was  omitted  by  Origen,  Comment,  in  Joan.  Tom. 
 IV.  p.  13.  d.  Comment,  in  Luc.  Tom.  III.  p.  970.  a.  b.  But 
 we  cannot  conclude  from  hence,  that  it  was  absent  from  Ori- 
 gen's  copy.  In  the  former  place  he  omits  also  avorti^ai  tj^- 
 fdv<riA.ivtiS  i¥  u,^£cn'  Tin^v^oLi  iyioLVToti  Krpia  ^ty.rovy  Connecting  xat 
 ry^AoK  avajSxtiJ'"*  »j;  wlt/la?  To  /3»/3x»ov ;  in  the  latter,  the  transla- 
 tion tnerely  of  his  works  agrees  with  the  received  version  of  the 
 Latin  chiifch  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.  aV  »')ar:V  ifanV,  St.  Jerome  observes 
 Comment,  in  Is.  Tom.  lY,  p. ^04-.  a,     "  Sivejwxfa  Symmachwn 
 
(    453    ) 
 
 «tronger  proof  of  the  corruption  of  the  Egyptian 
 text,  and  of  the  integrity  of  the  Byzantine.  While 
 the  disputed  passage  is  indispensably  necessary  to 
 
 et  Theodotionemf  *  ad  alliganda  vulnera  peccatorum :"  we  ac- 
 cordingly find,  that  while  the  Septuagint  render  )Oirh  ta<rao-Sat, 
 Symmachus  renders  wixv  ivi^iiffn.   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- 
 lation 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  laecessary  to  the  fidelity  of  the  Evangelist's 
 narrative,  that  it  should  form  a  part  of  his  context ;  as  it  is 
 tibsurd  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  witli  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  circumstancft 
 must  be  eternally  irreconcilable  with  the  notion  that  this  pas- 
 sage could  have  made   its  way  into  the  sacred  text  ajier  the 
 publication  of  Origen's  Hexapla ;   the  difference  between  the 
 Hebrew  and  Greek  version  having  been  there  fully  set  fortl^ 
 and  its  remedy  suggested,  in  a  faithful  translation,  the  suppo- 
 sition that  this  passage  could  have  been  foisted  into  the  vulgar 
 text  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 
 tiere  another  positive  proof  of  the  corruption  of  the  sacred  text, 
 (fiiUi  the  authority  of  his  writings. 
 
(    454    ) 
 
 the  fidelity  of  the  Evangelist's  narrative;  a  slight 
 verbal  difference  between  it  and  the  original  He- 
 brew^ which  was  first  revealed  in  the  Hexapla, 
 clearly  discovers  the  grounds  of  offence  which  occa- 
 sioned its  suppression  in  the  Egyptian  text,  and 
 points  out  the  authority  on  which  the  Vulgar  Greek 
 w^as  corrected.     In  Mat.  v.  4,  5*^  to  which  we  may 
 
 *^  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  follov/ing  passage  of  Origen,  Comment,  in  Matt. 
 Tom.  III.  p.  74-0.  Bwoiuv  ^g  tS  To»8Ti?  T^otfjL^avu  Imr^ffot^  rri  rdzfit 
 
 o\  ulcoyo)  ru  'rryiv^ocnri,  on  avTuv  erm  v  ^cca-t>.Eiat  ruv  epuvuv/  i^ajS" 
 fyiypci-Tilcci  70,  *  jw,axapiot  o]  TrqocsXs  x.  t.  I.  But  into  this  opinion 
 Origen  was  led  by  the  endeavour  to  find  out  an  artificial  con- 
 nexion between  the  beatitudes ;  or  a  regular  gradation,  in  the 
 course  through  which  the  heirs  of  glory  pass  to  a  state  of  final 
 beatitude ;  Id.  ibid,  t^^s*  ya^  tv  tbto*?  on  v^utov  (/.h  ruv  iJi,ot}iot.' 
 ci^Q^ivm  *  «  ^uaiMicx,  rZv  a^avuif'*  ^ivrepov  5'e  *  y.}^yi^ovo[Ayio-8ai  t^»  y55v** 
 av  (Oft  rov  m-uvTx  aluvcc  tUui  Itt  uvTri^'  *  wafax^vjStKTss'  yap  x^  ha 
 TO    '  ViTtuvftx-ivai   xj   ^i^i^Kivui    5'txatocrt;v*j5,'    ^  no^EaSsi/TEs'    aurijj^    t^ 
 
 •   liri  TViv  ^aai'Kz'ia.v     uvoy.aBirctvla.i    *  ruv  e^avuvJ*      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.  3 : 
 vid.  Horn.,  xix.  in  Jer.  Tom.  III.  p.  269.  d.  A  third  attempt 
 crives  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,  comes 
 somewhat  nearer  to  the  sense  of  his  text,  and  thus  gives  it  in 
 its  proper  order ;  Hom.  v.  in  Jes.  Nav.  Tom.  II.  p.  407.  c. 
 "  Transeundum  nobis  est  quod  sequitur,  ut  in  hoc  mundo  luge* 
 araus.  Cito  etiam  reliqua  iranseunda  sunt,  ut  mansueti  effici- 
 amur,  et  ut  pacifici  maneamus,  ut  per  hoc  filii  Dei  vocari 
 
(    455    ) 
 add  Mat:  xxiii.  14^*.  we  plainly  discover  the  source 
 
 possimus.  Festinandum  q\ioque  nobis  est,  ut  persecutionum 
 tempus  virtute  patientiae  transeamus.  Cumque  haec  singula 
 quae  ad  virtutis  gloriara  spectant  non  segniter,  nee  remisse,  sed 
 cum  omni  instantia  et  celeritate  conquisierimus,  hoe  mihi 
 videtur  esse  cum  festinatione  transire  Jordanem."  Nor  can  it 
 be  objected,  that  this  inconstancy  of  Origen  is  to  be  ascribed 
 t&  his  translatour,  for  (1.)  The  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,  Orig. 
 
 Tom.  IV.  p.  689.  a.     "  Ilia  quse  in  Jesu  Nave scripsimus, 
 
 simpliciter  expressimus  ut  invenimiiSy  et  non  multo  cum  labors 
 transtuliraus.''  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.  Jcf 
 rome,  there  can  be  as  little  reason  to  doubt  the  corruption  of 
 the  Egyptian  text,  as  that  it  has  proceeded  from  the  authority 
 of  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  exposltour  had  disco- 
 vered 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 
 autera  regnum  ccelorum  Scribae  et  Pharisaji  duo  ad  semel  de- 
 
(    456    ) 
 of  the  various  reading  of  the  Egyptian  text,  in  the 
 
 linquunt.    Unum  quidem,  quod  *  ipsi  non  ingrediuntur  in  reg- 
 num  ccelorum.*     Secundum  quod  *  intrantes  introire  non  si- 
 nunt.*     Hoec  duo  peccata  naturaliter  inseparabilia  sunt  ah  invi' 
 cent.    Qui  enim  alterum  ex  iis  peecat,  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  wiih  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,  h^s  had  some  in-? 
 fluence  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.   in  all  instances  together  7   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 
 Btrong  presumptive  proof  of  its  integrity ;  as  it  is  impossible  to 
 conceive  how  this  ver?e,  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  to  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  httle  reasoa 
 to  doubt  of  the  corruption  of  this  edition,  as  that  it  has  prQ- 
 ceeded  from  the  influence  Qf  Origen, 
 
(    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 
 readings  of  Origen"*^^,  they  afford  us  ample  grounds 
 
 *'  Of  the  express  testimonies  of  Origen,  which  have  beei^ 
 already  cited ;  supr.  p,  354.  n.  ^\  the  following  are  the  only 
 examples  not  found  in  the  Cambridge  MS.  ly.aTovTa'jr^a^iovacp 
 Mat.xix.29.  a  ^xsj-arE,  Joh.  viii.  38,  riva?.  Ib.xiii.  18.  /3«-J/<u. 
 Jb.  26.  To  which  we  may  add  the  following,  mentioned  by 
 M.  Griesbach,  [Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  I.  p.  cxxvi.  n.  **j  as  a 
 proof  that  the  Cambridge  MS.  has  not  been  interpolated  from 
 Origen ;  Mar.  i.  7.  kv-^'cc^,  lb.  vi.  3.  o  rUrav,  lb.  ix.  2.  h  ra 
 mfo(7ivxjt(r^cn  Kvrov,  Luc.  ix.  3.  xaf7r«f  a|i»f.  When  we  consi-i^ 
 der  the  insuperable  difficulties  with  which  any  scribe  of  the 
 fourth  century  must  have  had  to  contend,  in  introducing  everyi 
 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.  vidU 
 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  Origeh 
 ^nd  the  Cambridge  MS.:   Symbb^  Critt,  Tom.  I.  p.  cxxiif. 
 
(    45S    ) 
 
 for  concluding^  that  this  edition  has  been  systema- 
 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.  X^trov  re  QeS, 
 Vulg,  XpiTon  inhv  rS  QtS.  Cant,  Orig.  sys^^TJfon.  Vulg,  lb.  22'» 
 ayecrnvca.    Caiit,   Or,    uTTa.^vma'oi.a'^a.     Vulg.      lb.   23.    ci^VYia-aa-^u, 
 
 Cant'  Or.      Ibid.    >^   apa.TU    rov    s-uv^ov    avra xuB'   vifj^i^etu 
 
 Vulg.  desunt.  Cant.  Or.  lb.  26.  o>  y«^  lironer^wBri  y.i  xj  ra? 
 ijxif^  ^oytff,  Vulg.  0?  7«^  siraicr^vBn  /*«  xj  raf ,  lfj(,ai.  Cant.  Or, 
 lb.  27*  ^^yoJ  ol  i/fji'tv  aAjjSw^y  slarl  riviq  rav  u&e  ir'ny-OTuv,  oi  a  fAi) 
 ^EptrwTat  Sawara  taq  a,v  'l^uo-i  rm  jiccaiT^eloiV  T«  ©£«.  Vulg,  Kiyca 
 "Si  vuTt  on  oKm^as  slcri  riHi  uh  s^MTcoVt  ol  a  /^r?  ysuaojvrixi 
 B-etvATy  Si's  ^v  t^iWfn  Tov  vlov  t«  dv^pufTra  £py(^6(MBV0v  sv  rrii  ^o^ip 
 «^S.  Cant.  Or,  lb.  29.  to  bI^os  tS  v^oauira,  Vulg.  ri  l^ioc  tS 
 9r^o<7iyfftf.    CflH^.  Or. 
 
 "^^  I  shall  mention  but  one  additional  example;  heX^i^v  ^»* 
 fjiiffn  avruv  xj  wa^^^Hv  aTwfj  Joh.  viii.  59.  is  omitted  in  the  Egyp- 
 tian text,  though  retained  in  the  Byzantine  and  Palestine ;  vid. 
 supr.  p.  285.  conf.  Griesb.  n.  in  h.  1.  This  varipus  reading  may 
 |>e  clearly  traced  to  the  extraordinary  notion  which  Origen 
 entertained  of  our  Lord's  pei*sonal  appearance,  which  he  be- 
 lieved was  varied  according  to  circumstances.  This  notioiji 
 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.  IL  cap.  Ixiv.  Tom.  I.  p.  435.  f.  us  ^spi  T>3^^xaT'  a> 
 ^B^oftevoi  n/xEK  Ta  I)jcra,  a  fxovov  y.ocra.  rn»  '^v^oi  t^  ocKOKiy.fv^/.^/.iyrtv  Teti 
 woPiXo??  0£KjT>}Ta,  aXKx  i^  )t«7a  to  /xe7a/xo§(pa/xsvov  aufxay  or* 
 t^«Xc7o  ^  ots  £/3«?w£7o.    Conf.  Tom.  IIL  p.  906.  e.  £ 
 
(  459  ) 
 conformity  from  evincing  the  antiquity  of  the  Egyp- 
 tian text^  that  it  deprives  it^  when  considered  sepa-t 
 rately^  or  merely  in  conjunction  w^ith  Origen^  of  any 
 the  least  authority  in  determining  the  genuine  text 
 of  Scripture. 
 
 Eusebius  of  Gaesarea,  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  Caesarea^^.  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 
 
 "*'  Thus  much  may  be  legitimately  collected  from  the  follow- 
 ing declaration  of  Eusebius ;  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  xxxii, 
 
 p.  296.  1.  19. — rr,v  TTEfi*  Ta  QbTsc  a-TtU^yiv  t£  Fla/A^/Aa  ottocj*?  tk  yiyovu 
 cra^ifwi'TEj,    T))5    avvat^^iiavjg    ctvru    tS    re    <i2^t7£V«s    «;    tuv   ccT^uv 
 
 *|    uv   ofu    (piXov   TTApii-iv    il/TiTsU-C(T<X.    T6/V    D-Piyivtis   VOVUV    TU   elf 
 
(    460    ) 
 
 Palestine  text ;  to  the  use  which  has  been  made  of 
 them  we  may  indeed  attribute  most  of  the  pecuHa- 
 rities  discoverable  in  that  edition.  Of  the  Harmony 
 c^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- 
 rome*', 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 
 
 ^  Euseb.   Epist.   ad   Carpian.  Nov.  Test,  praef.   ed.   Mill, 
 
 'AuLjjLiJHoq    fMv   0    A>^i^aiv^fcVf    woX^vjv    ui    eUoi  ^i^ovoviav  »ej   ave^'nv 
 
 je«»o><s6?  ^£«a  rlv  a§»^/xo»  hu,y(^u,^a^x  aoi  raj  vvoTiTetyfAsvaq  x.  t.  I, 
 
 51  Vid.  supr.  p.  172.  n.  '*K 
 
 "  Such  in  particular  are  Mat.  xv.  8.  xxiii.  14.  xxvli.  35. 
 I^uc.  iii.  5.  iv.  1 8.  which  have  been  already  described ;  supr. 
 p.  4-4:6,  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  i>ew 
 section,  and  have  been  designated  by  a  particujctr  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  inverting 
 them ;  vid.  supr.  p.  63.     The  Greek  copies  of  Eusebius's  Cur 
 
(  461  ) 
 sacred  text,  while  the  testimony  of  Origen  bec^rft6 
 sufRcient  authority  for  him  to  retain  them  as  ge- 
 nuine. But  the  edition  published  in  Palestine  by 
 the  elder  Eusebius^  had  its  peculiar  readings.  Tlie 
 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  5^  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.  13  ^^  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 
 «acred  criticism.  But  it  is  particularly  deserving 
 of  remark,  that  the  Palestine  text,  in  coinciding  in 
 these  passages  with  Origen,  also  corresponds  with 
 
 Bons  agree  with  the  former  texts,  while  the  Latin  copies  have 
 been  accommodated  to  the  latter, 
 
 5'  Vid.  supr.  p.  35.  sqq. 
 
 **  Of  these  texts,  Mat.  xix.  17.  Luc,  xi.  2.  4.  IS.  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  inculcates  hete- 
 rodox notions^^^  and  quotes  other  apocryphal  texts  ^''; 
 
 .  ^5  The  following  account  of  Marcion*s  text  is  given  by  St, 
 Irenaeus,  Adv.  Haer.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xxvii.  p.  106.  "  Et  super 
 haec,  id  quod  est  secundum  Lucam  Evangelium  circuracidens 
 • semetipsum  esse  veraciorem,  quam  sunt  hi,  qui  Evange- 
 lium tradiderunt  Apostoh*,  suasit  discipulis  suis ;  non  Evange- 
 lium sed  particulam  Evangelii  tradens  eis.  Similiter  et  Apos<^ 
 toll  Pauli  Epistolas  abscidit,  auferens  qusecumque  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.  Marc.  Lib. 
 IV.  cap.  i.  p.  403.  S.  Epiphan.  Haer.  xlii.  p.  310.  c.  d. 
 
 ^^  The  most  exceptionable  of  Origen's  notions,  respecting 
 tlie  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  following  terms  j 
 Orig.  de  Orat.  Tom.  L  p.  222.  b.  'Ea»  ^l  uyMa^iv  or^  irore  Wk 
 '^(0<rsvp(vj,  f^'/jTrore  e^sv)  tuv  yeniTuv  'rrpoa-iVKTsoi  lr)vy  tt^s  auft)  Tea 
 X^JS'W,  uX^u  [xovcj  7u  Qecj  ruv  qT^uv  t^  IlaTp*,  a  t^  uviog  o  EwT^jp  ^/-tw» 
 
 «  Tm  T8  YIuJ^os  K*  T.  I.  Conf.  Huet.  Origeniann,  Lib.  XL 
 quaest.  ii.  ^  1.  sqq. 
 
 ^'  One  of  the  first  quotations  in  Origen's  tract  on  Prayer,  is 
 the  following,  Orig.  ibid.  §  2.  p.  197.  f.  ul-viXn  tu  fAiya'Kuy  «J  7a> 
 fUKfoc  y/L«r»  Trpors^ria-sruk*  xj  ainTre  toc  tTrypavix  k^  ru  imyna,  vyJv 
 TTporE^jjcTfTai-  vid.  supr.  p.  330.  n.  44.  This  text  is  joined,  in  the 
 same  sentence,  with  Matt.  v.  44.  ix.  38.  &c. ;  is  again  repeated 
 lb.  p.  219.  d;  and  is  quoted  as  the  language  of  the  Gospel, 
 lb.  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'l 
 
 The  peculiar  doctrines  of  the  Marcionites  are 
 summed  up  in  a  narrow  compass,  by  St.  Irenaeus 
 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- 
 ceiving 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  Christy 
 who  first  revealed  him  to  the  world ;  the  latter  thej 
 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.  xviil.  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.  ^°. 
 
 5'  S.   Iren.  adv.  Hasr.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xxvli.  p.   106,    'Mx^t 
 
 []Kspd*«v3  70V  VTTO  tS  vcixa  )^  "TTpCpviTurt-  asKrifvyf/Jvou  Qioi/f  (av  tlvxi 
 TlaTBpcc  ra  Kvpiei  h^Jiuv  Itcrn  XptfS.  tov  ^\v  yaq  yvupitzfSui,  rov  ^« 
 afvuroc  slvcci'  xj  roy  fA.lv  ^iV.ajov,  rov  ^e  afaSoy  i/Trap^eiv,  ^tcch^»fjL£ifO^ 
 Si  avrov  Ma^yAuv    o   UofTiy.o^,   riv^rjui   to    ^i^ota-KCi?\£ioy  x.  r.  e,      Conf* 
 
 S.  Epiphan.  Haer.  xlii.  p.  304.  a. 
 
 *°  S.  Iren.  ibid.  p.  106.  **  Jesum  autem  [Marcion  docuit] 
 ab  eo  Patre,  qui  est  super  mundi  Fabricatcrem  Deum,  •  veni- 
 entem  in  Judaeam  temporibus  Pontii  Pilati — in  hominis  forma 
 manifestatum  his  qui  in  Judaea  eraut,  dissolventem  Prophetas  et 
 
(    464    ) 
 
 sonages  they  conceived  that  there  was  some  oppd^ 
 sition  of  will  and  nature ;  the  one  presiding  over  the 
 immaterial  spiritual  world ;  the  other  over  the  ma* 
 terial  visible  creation.  Christy  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  fleshy  but  appeared  merely  in  the  like* 
 ness  of  man^* ;  the  object  of  his  appearance  on  earth 
 Laving  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  order 
 to  justify  these  notions^  the  founder  of  the  sect  had 
 framed  antitheses  between  the  Law  and  the  Gospel, 
 in  which  he  endeavoured  to  show,  that  the  one  was 
 contrary  to  the  other  ^'^. 
 
 These  opinions,  which  had  been  broached  by 
 Marcion,  near  the  times  of  Hyginus,  bishop  of 
 
 Legem  et  omnia  opera  ejus  Dei,  qui  mundum  fecit,  quem  et 
 eosmocratorem  dicit." 
 
 <^'  S.  Epiphan.  ibid.  p.  305.  a.    Xp»ror  Si  \iyn  a»«S£»  »%%  t3 
 
 7oitiTk)v.     Conf.  S.  Iren.  ibid.  §  2.  p.  106 
 
 **  Vid.  S.  Epiphan.  ibid.  p.  322.  b.  conf.  339.  c.  340.  b. 
 
 *^  S.  Epiphan.  ibid,  p*  305.  c.  «>«r<*c^«»  St,  uq  tlvov,  wto?  Xiy** 
 ev.  ffV[ji.a,ru9  ciTsXoi.  "^v^uv,  xxi  ffunfi^'tut  ralruis  ifi^iTatf  «^*  roT^ 
 ffufAuau    Conf.  supr.  nn.  ^°  et  ^^ 
 
 *♦  Tert.  adv.  Marc.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xix.  p.  359.  **  Separatio 
 Legis  et  Evangelii  proprium  et  principale  opus  est  Marcionis., 
 — Nam  hae  sunt  Antitheseis  Marcionis,  idest  centrariae  opposi- 
 tiones  quae  conantur  discordiam  Evangelii  cum  Lege  commit* 
 tere,  ut  ex  diversitate  sententiarum  utriusque  Instruraenti  diver- 
 Bitatem  quoque  argumententur  Deocum." 
 
(  m  ) 
 
 Roine*^^  until  those  of  Pope  Damasus;  had 
 maintained  their  ground  against  the  opposition  of 
 Justin  Martyr,  Irenaeus,  Tertulliaii,  Rhodon,  Ori- 
 gen,  andEpiphanius^%-  and  had  produced  the  dif- 
 ferent sects  of  Lucianists^  Tatianists^  and  Apel- 
 leians*^  The  Valentinians  were  a  kindred  sect 
 Which  sprang  from  that  common  source  of  heresy, 
 the  school  of  Simon  Magus ^%-  agieeing  in  thei? 
 fundamental  tenets  with  the  Marcionites,  though 
 they  differed  essentially  from  them  in  their  notions 
 of  celibacy,  which  they  held  in  no  high  estima- 
 tion ^9.     Of  the  important  light  in  which  they  were 
 
 ^  1§.  %iphan.  Haer.  xtiu  p,  302.  d*  ii'Tro^t^puay.Bi  [Map^^v] 
 
 yt,tr»   to  7i7^evTyi(7ui    'TyTvov    tov    liriffKO'Kov    PufjLviq,      Conf.  S.  Iren. 
 
 adv.  Mser.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xxvii.  pp.  105,  106.  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl. 
 Lib.  IV.  capp.  X.  xi.  p.  154. 
 
 ^  Conf*  Euseb*  Hi^t.  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. 1. 12.  Famph. 
 Apol.  pro  Orig.  cap.  i.  p.  20.  d.  sqq.  Orig.  de  Principp.  Lib. 
 IT.  capp.  iv.  v.  Tom.  I.  p.  84.  sqq.  S.  Epiphan.  Haer.  xm. 
 p.  302.  sqq. 
 
 "  Vid.  infr.  u.  ^\  Conf.  S.  Iren.  ut  supr.  pfp.  106,  107* 
 S.  Epiphan*  Haer*  xtiii.  p.  378*  b.  Hajr.  XijV.  p.  380.  c. 
 Haer.  xlvi.  391.  d. 
 
 *»  Vid.  supr.  p.  267.  n.  *". 
 
 '»  S.  Iren.  adv.  Haer.  Lib.  I.  cap.  vi.  p.  30.  o*  ^)  xj  [  oYaAEr- 
 
 xcti  ci  fi,\v  avruv  Xu^qot  toLS  ^i^ecffTCOfxevoi^  vv*  avrcur  ^i^txx'nf 
 ravrrtv  yvvouKocs  Jta(p9"cj§8(7iy,  x.  t.  I.  It  must  be  however  ob- 
 served, that  this  difference  between  the  Valentinians  and  Mar* 
 cionites  was  founded  on  a  distinction  of  the  former,  who  mcrel/ 
 
 Hh 
 
(    466     ) 
 
 held^  we  may  form  some  idea  from  the  Rule  of 
 Faithj  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 
 
 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.  Haer. 
 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. 
 i/xaj  Ka^sf  •<l>uy^i)t»s  ovopta^bffi,  )^  ix  xocr/xa  mat  TiEyscrj,  >^  avay- 
 xa/av  TifMV  rrjv  sfH^drsixv  xj  etfac^v  7rf»|tf  x.  t.  I.  Conf.  ibid.  p. 
 29.     S.  Epiphan.  ib.  p.  189.  a. 
 
 '"  Vid.  Pamph.  Apol.  pro  Orig.  cap.  i.  p.  20»  sqq.  Orig. 
 Comment,  in  Epist.  ad  Tit.  Tom.  IV.  p.  695.  d.  *'  Quid  vero 
 sit  haereticus  homo,  pro  viribus  nostris,  secundum  quod  sentire 
 possumus,  describamus.  Qmnis  qui  se  Christo  credere  confi- 
 tetur,  et  tamen  aliufti  Deum  Legis  et  Prophetarunif  alium  Evan' 
 geliorum  Deum  dicit  et  Patrem  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi 
 non  eiim  dicit  esse  qui  a  Lege  et  Prophetis  prccdicatuvy  sed  alium 
 nescio  quern  ignotum  omnibus  atque  omnibus  inauditum,  hujus- 
 modi  homines  hccreticos  designam^is,  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  hcereticus  designatur^  quoniam 
 Dominum  hunc  qui  mundum  edidit,  ad  gloriam  alterius  ingeniti 
 et  boni  Dei  eura  construxisse  pronunciat/*  &c.  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  7*.  Though  he  very 
 successfully  combated  the  fundamental  errours  of 
 his  opponents 7*;  their  reasonings,  particularly  when 
 seconded  by  the  speculations  of  Plato  7^,  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.    oUrcc^  yuq   [5  'H^axX/^v] 
 
 Tov  A»j/Xi8gy9V   T8  KOff/xa   sK(xr%))<x,  ovId  r«   X^ifS, o-rre^  sr* 
 
 vunuv  uat^iTOctiiy*   o    yu^  iri^A.^aq   avrov  IlaTvip,   o  tup  ^uvruv  Geo?, 
 
 •Ti  -TTivolyixsy  avTUf  sros   ^  /xovor   oyaS-or,  ^  t^si^uv  tS   ^g/:x(p- 
 ^iv%f,     Conf.  infn  n.  '*. 
 
 ^*  One  of  the  most  pernicious  opinions  of  the  Valentinians 
 respected  the  doctrine  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. 
 Iren.  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;  Orig. 
 IDla.  p.  Zoo,  a.  £(  &i  ISi^ciTQ  TO  'no^ysvcrui  ri  irvtv^iuTiiOi  (pvtrK;,  optofei- 
 Cios  Hda.  Tip  aysvviQTW  a.voa^ct  t^  u^tx  xj  uai^^  otKohti^u  ta  T^yu 
 ru  xar  avrni  irtfl  ©eS^  «Je  (pa.vrutTiu^vtva,i  umv^viov  lr»  a^X^AoK. 
 w«»Sofc£»ot  Tu  ZwTrlpi  y^iyoni'  *  o  IlaT^p  o  ite/a-^"*?  /*«  y-it^uv  [ji-^  £r»>* 
 Kstt  Oka.   tSto  ftJj   inhovn  fAJj^e  r^f   *  ocya^oc,'*    ir^oa-r^yofiav  tt.v   xv^iut 
 
 ^m^spovri  eivTt,¥  iv^xpiruq  ru  UuTfl  ^tr    imTifji.ri<T(u(i  w^o<  to»  /3«Ao- 
 /AEKO*  vvef^o^aQnp  Tof   tio*  x.  t.  I. 
 
 '^  Huet.  Origeniann.  Lib.  II.  cap.  i.  ^  4.  p.  1 05.     "  Unt^n 
 autem  prae  reliquis  [Origenes]  Platonem  admiratus  est ;  sia  ut 
 
 Hh2 
 
(    468    ) 
 
 have  had  SO  far  an  influence  upon  hig  sentiments 
 as  to  induce  him  to  embrace  some  very  extraordi- 
 nary notions  relative  to  the  constitution  of  CferieV* 
 body'^  and  that  of  the  human  frame,  after  the  re* 
 surrectiott  ^^  Some  of  these  notions  he  adopted  from 
 Tatian  ^^  by  whose  peculiar  opinions  he  confesses 
 himself  to  have  been  once  influenced  ^^ ;  and  from 
 whom  he  obviously  imbibed  that  extraordinary  at*- 
 tachment  to  a  state  of  celibacy,  which  he  professed 
 in  numberless  places  "^. 
 
 As  the  founders  of  those  different  sects  had  tam- 
 pered w  ith  the  text  of  Scripture  ^,  and  the  Mar- 
 
 Christians  dogmata  ad  Platonicte  doctrince  teges^  non  ipsam  Pld' 
 
 tonis  doctiinam  ad  Christi  effata  accommodaret,**     Conf,  cap,  ii. 
 
 quaest.  ix.  ?  9.  p.  213. 
 7*  Vid.  supr.  p.  458.  n. -^^ 
 
 75  Vid.  Huet.  Origeniann,  Lib.  II.  cap.  ii.  quaest.  ix.  p.  209^, 
 ^^  S.  Iren.  adv.  Haer.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xxviii.  p.  167.  aJohra?  rtna; 
 
 aopaTS?,   l^/ioiuq  foX<;  ftTri    0TaA£»T»w,  [[TaTia*^?]   /cty^oXoyfltfU?,  rS^ 
 
 vUti^  ctv»yo^iv<rcci,     Conf.  S.  Epiphan.  Haer.  xlvi.  §  ii.  p.  391  • 
 d.  sqq. 
 
 "  Orig.  de  Orat.  }  24.  Tom.  L  p.  238.  c.   avocTxcclu^  U  /^a» 
 
 viTTxr-n^ivB;,   x«»   va.^cth^uiJi,itii(;  rrjv  offt^n  ^i^a.ffy.a'Kmv  air's,  uiv  ^ 
 
 78  Vid.  Orig.  Comment,  in  Mat.  Tom.  III.  p.  649.  sqq. 
 Conf.  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  viii.  p.  264. 1.  20. 
 
 ^5'  The  testimony  of  Origen  has  been  already  produced 
 against  the  followers  of  Marcion,  Lucianus,  and  Valentinus^, 
 vid.  siipr.  p.  431.  n.  *^  A  like  charge  has  been  urged  against 
 Tatian,  who  appears  from  the  following  account  to  have  pub- 
 lished an  Apostolicam,  as  well  as  a  Gospel  or  Diatessaron ! 
 Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  xxix.  p.  193.  1.  20.— 5  Tan. 
 
(    *^9    ) 
 
 cionite  heresy  had  extendecl  itself  through  the  Egyp- 
 tian, Palestine,  and  Italick  dioceses^',  it  cannot  bq 
 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  ^''-itions.  In  one  diocese  of  the  Oriental 
 Church,  the  Diatessaron  of  Tatian  had  been  gene- 
 rally received  to  the  exclusion  of  the  vulgar  edi- 
 tion^'. As  it  had  been  customary  with  the  dispu:- 
 tants,  who  were  engaged  in  defending  the  orthodo}^ 
 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 
 
 TO  Ata  rtvo-dfav  t5to  vrfoa-mofxeiaty,  t  nut  wapa  7»o"*»  tlcrsrt  vv»  ^/geraj. 
 
 8°  ^.  Epiphan.  Haer.  xlii.  p.  302.  a.  i  Tt.  at'fccrij  £tS  vfoeifyiyi.iyn 
 MacpyAuvcx;']  in  x^  vuv  Iv  rji  PufjLrt,  y.ecl  h  rn^  *\raXigty  Kj  ^Alyv'Kiu 
 Ts  jc  £V  naXaif/vr},  tv  'Apa^wt  rt  nxi  U  t>5  £t/^wt,  *v  Ki/Wfw  re  xa» 
 
 St.  Epiphanius  declares,  that  he  had  some  conferences  with 
 those  liereticks ;  conf.  ib.  p.  343. 
 
 »'  Theod.  Haer.  Fab.  xx.  Op.  Tom.  IV.  p.  208.  c.  Par.  1642. 
 
 iZ^o^i  ^\  7(.xyu  ff^gta?  5^  ^»axocr»a?  /Si/S^as  Totctvra?,  {rot.  t5  Tartava  ci» 
 'Tiarffa.^uv  iva^yif>\ia.~\  h  ruTq  ^tc^  i^tAV  sxnXistriaK  T£TtjM.>i/*Efa»?,  x^  Trao-ac 
 e-'jiccyayuv  a%iBifJi.n»s  *^  "T*  '^'^^  nrior^uv  Eta/yt^jrw*  a,)irtiffr,yayof 
 'EvafyiMac, 
 
 «*  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.  II. 
 cap.  V.  5  4.  Tom.  I.  p.  68.  d.  Tert.  adv.  M»r.  lab,  I,  CJip. 
 ii.  p.  351. 
 
(    470    ) 
 
 rcvisal,  were  at  length  wholly  confounded  in  their 
 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.  The 
 works  of  approved  writers  furnished  the  only  stand- 
 ard by  which  they  could  be  tried ;  but  they  now 
 afiforded  but  a  fallacious  criterion^  as  containing  quo- 
 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  object 
 was  to  amend  the  text  by  accommodating  it  to  the 
 quotation. 
 
 On  the  most  cursory  view  of  those  passages  in 
 which  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine  texts  differ  from 
 the  Greek  Vulgate^  it  must  be  evident  that  the  Mar- 
 cionite  and  Valentinian  controversies  must  have  b^d 
 considerable  influence  on  the  former  editions.  Hav- 
 ing already  laid  those  passages  before  the  reader^, 
 
 83  Vid.  supr.  pp.  371,  372.  et  n.  "».  p.  344.  et  n.  ^'.  conf; 
 
 supr.  n. '°. 
 
 ^*  A  distinction  is  thus  made  respecting  the  true  and  genuine 
 copies  by  St.  Epiphanius ;  Haer.  xlji.  p.  373.  d.  wavra  ^l  ra. 
 
 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.  ^^.  Id.  Haer.  XLiy.  p.  386.  C,  atu  ^l  avro  to  »yto9  cvyLO,  <rv* 
 rn  0£OT7}T»  oXo?  0eos — *  xaSt^o/xtKo^  iv  ^t|ta  tS  nar^o?.*  ws  ejdSi 
 ?C  TO  T8  Maox«  Y.vxfyi'kioVf  y.al  tuv  oiXKav  Et«/yiX»r&?»'. 
 
 85  Vid.  supr.  p.  330.  n.  *n  p.  367.  n.  '»-. 
 
 «"*  Vid.  supr.  p.  372.  sqq.  p.  380.  sqq. 
 
(    471     ) 
 
 I  shall  now  proceed  to  point  out  the  particular 
 njanner  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  ^^7.  which 
 
 •'  In  the  Vulgar  Greek,  we  read  Mat.  xix.  17.  t»  ^i  a»V«w 
 •yoSov  e^e)q  afaSoj,  tl  fjuri  iT?  o  0foj.  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  substance  with 
 the  Father ;  vid.  supr.  p.  467.  n.  ^*.  The  term  Qioj  was  of 
 course  expunged  as  limiting  the  attribute  of  goodness  to  the 
 Supreme  God.  Clem.  Alex.  Strom.  Lib.  II.  p.  409.  I. 
 nWcc  xat  'OfaXtvrTvoi,  9rpoi  Ti»as  i7i'ts-i><Xuv  avTuTq  Xtlecrj  y^ot^n  irsft 
 ru¥  ir^oa-ci(ir*>iJt.»rur  'sis  2>e  ES"iv  dya^os'  x.  t.  «.  We  have  here 
 evidently  the  jsource  of  the  reading  of  the  Egyptian  and  Pa- 
 lestine- texts ;  T»  /xs  s^cJJacs  9rE§t  t»  ««)/*95,  eTr  &s-iv  o  dfct^oSf 
 vid.  supr.  p.  372.  The  Marcionites,  on  the  other  hand,  find- 
 ing the  term  ©eo?  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  o  llcnr,^;  S.  Epiphan. 
 
 Haer.  XLII.  p.  339.  d. — *   o   ^l  /x^   /*«   x/y^    afa^ov'    tl;   Ij-tv   aya^oi 
 
 0  ©£05.*  fr^oa-iBiro  UtTvof  [Moifxiwv j  *  6  Tlalrtq,^  Both  readings 
 are  found  in  Origen;  the  former  in  Comment,  in  Mat.  Tom. 
 
 III.  p.  664.  C.  »  vo/Aif/ov  Zv  fjicix^tj-^xh  TO*  *  TToisjo-sv  aya$o>'  Wfpj 
 TO*  '  Tt  fA«  sqiJl^s  TTEgi  «yaS« ;  £is  es"*v  6  ayaS'of/  >*i>.iyy,itQy  w^oc 
 fun  Vii^OfAtyov  >cj   slTTonc*   *  h^okcrna'Ki  t»  ayaSoy   7ro»^(r6» ;    the   latter 
 
 in  Comment,  in  Joh.  Tom.  IV.  p.  41.  d. — ^rfi?  rlv  /woMy£»») 
 
 "KiyoviK  *  ^t^aaxotAt  ayaSt*'  [o  Hutr,^^  ^'/,a-),  *  Ti  /xs  Xeynq  ufa^Cr ; 
 vJtK  ay<»9o5  »»  M-M  «»?,  0  010?  0  na7a3§''  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  thft 
 first  part  merely  of  the  verse  with  x^'  ra  l|5f ;    lb.  p.  664.  a. 
 
 '  x^    id«    £»?    v^(i(ri7\B(ti¥    tlirtv   avru   ^t^acrxaXs   Tt    ayaBo*    Troiricra/f    tta$ 
 
 ayu)  t^ur^^i  aliiinQii'*  )^  ru  l^ni. —  (2.)  The  whole  of  kis  comment 
 containing  the  reading  of  the  Palestine  text,  is  not  only  want^ 
 ing  in  the  old  Latin  translation  of  Ovigen  ;  but  the  reading  of 
 
(    472    ) 
 
 constituted  a  principal  text  of  the  Marcionites ;  as 
 relating  to  their  fundamental  tenet  respecting  the 
 
 the  Byzantine  text  is  set,  in  place  of  it,  at  the  head  of  the  lec- 
 tion; Ibid.  p.  664!.  d.  <*  Interrogavit  Jesum  unus  de  turha 
 dicens,  *  Magister  bone,  quid  boni  fUciam  ut  habeam  vitam 
 seternam  ?  Qui  dicit  ei ;  Quid  me  dicis  honum :  Nemo  bonus 
 nisi  unus  X)eus"  And  an  indisputable  interpolation  of  the 
 Greek  of  Origen  occurs  in  the  Comment  on  the  part  of  Scrip- 
 ture before  us:  vid.  p.  670.  c.  et  Huet.  not.  7*  (3.)  It  is 
 merely  to  ri  uya^v  Troiricrvy  which  is  found  in  the  Vulgar  Greeks 
 that  Origen  refers,  in  expressly  referring  to  St.  Matthew ;  Ibid, 
 
 p.  664".  C,  0  y^iv  ^K  M«TS»io{,  ui  TTE^*  ayaStf  tfya  i^wT^Bwras  t£ 
 X4^T?pof  6V  Tw'—- *  Ti  aya&ov  volviaa} ;'  MiyfCL^tv"  0  ^i  Mapo?,   k) 
 
 {!  (4.7)  CK  0  0*0?.'  In  fact,  the  reply  of  our  Lord  was  dictated 
 in  St.  Matthew,  by  the  question  t*  ayu^ov  itQUaUf  which  is  wanti 
 ing  St.  Mark  and  St,  Luke ;  but  was  dictated,  in  the  last-named 
 Evangelists,  by  the  epithet  MoitrzotXe  oiya^i;  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  object 
 tour ;  Id.  ibid.  p.  666.  a.  \iyoiro  S'  av  vito  nvos  ui  apx  y^vuaKuv 
 
 •  2«T»!p   Tiii»  T»   vrvvBuvQiJi.iv8  i^toj siTTt)/  uvTf  nvv^xvoixitu*    *  rt 
 
 eiyci^Qv  Ttoiv^u,'*  TO*  *  Tt  /xe  k'RzgcJlc/is  Tre^I  rS  ayot^H*  As  this 
 passage  is  acknowledged  by  the  old  Latin  version  of  Origen, 
 it  fully  vindicates  the  translatour  from  any  suspicion  oi  accom- 
 modating his  authour's  text  to  any  particular  version.  The 
 whole  of  tlie  ciixumstances  of  the  case  compel  us  to  conclude, 
 that  the  disputed  passage  is  a  text  which  Origen  merely  quotes 
 xn  the  manner  in  which  it  had  been  corrupted  by  the  hereticks. 
 (1.)  It  is  his  constant  practice  to  quote  texts,  on  similar  autho- 
 rit)'^;  as  we  Iiave  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 
 dac^ine  respecting  the  attribute  of  tlieir  Good  God,  they  were 
 
(    473    ) 
 
 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.  ^'^,  (S.T 
 We  consequently  find  that  the  Marcionites  are  positively  ac- 
 cused 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.  Irenseus ; 
 adv.  Haer.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xx.  p.  92.     E>.a  ^i  ^  rm  Iv  'ECccfyixC 
 
 xtifAuuv    bU   tSto   rov  ;^ap>tTJjpa  [o»  Ma^xw^-jot]   f^Sa^|J^6^yJ■^y^ 1 
 
 AyaBov    Giov   w^oXoyuzepai    BivoncCy    <   t'  fxf   >.Bynq   a.y»^ov ;   elg   Ij-,^ 
 iyaScf,  0  Ylcclrip  £V  rois  A^oivo7r'  i^a^aj  ^$  vvv  tk^  *AI^vaf  tl^ija-^ai 
 hsyaa-i'     Here,  by  the  addition  of  iv  to??  apumij  in  the  sense  of 
 iv  roTi  ftlu<7iy  the  hereticks  took  in  the  whole  of  those  beingt 
 whom  they  included  in  their  notion  of  the  Divine  Nature ;  vid. 
 S,  Iren.  ibid.  cap.  xi.  p.  77.  sive,   S.  Epiphan.  Hser.  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,  ri  /*£  Ifurui  ws^l  uyaBey  or  t5  «yaSs, 
 and  the  answer,  eh  iriv  uyaBo^,  Jhvours  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  is  expressed 
 in  the  very  language  used  by  them ;  J?  W^t  ciyoS6<;,  which  i§ 
 substituted  for  ts^sU  uyuBo^  el  /^^  al?,  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 
 it  found  in  Origen,  ^voin^rov  iyoc^ov,'  supr.  p.  471. 1.  24.  was  sub- 
 stituted,   by  the   same  hands,  for  rnpwro^  rug  ImXa?,  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.)  It  introduces  an  antithesis,  or  a  contradiction  betxveen 
 the  Lata  given  by  Moses,  and  that  revealed  by  Christ;  as  the 
 person  vi^o  i$  represented  as  *<  having  kept  all  the  ctmimandments'* 
 
(    474    ) 
 
 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. 
 
 d.  *  hT;  ifiv  ayx^o^f  o  0(o;.'  w^oasSiTO  l;t£<Vo?  [|o  Mafniuv'],  *  • 
 JJlaTijp.'  1^  a»Ti  t5*  *  ret;  svTo>a$  Oi'Sar,'  ^^h^h  *  Ta;  e«ToXafc{  olJa. 
 (7.)  Origen  not  only  cites  it  as  he  does  other  heretical  texts  ; 
 conf.  supr.  p.  330.  n.  ^K  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.  C.  ^r.Tfiam;  ^l  "Jrui  aJaSoT^jTo?  avte  'rrtiX  kJ  ra  fc»i  i>o«;ai»* 
 Jiro  To/v  aera*  i^'  iatvToTq  avy.o^(XV%)ilaJV  t©»  tS  No^»  0eo>,  n^  xaJn-. 
 7ogMv7^v  auiS,  »'  T.  I.  In  which  sentence  Origen  offers  a  stiffi* 
 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. 
 570.  n.  *" :  the  whole  weight  of  evidence  which  is  cited  against 
 5t  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  Syrfack 
 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  thii 
 primitive  father  derives  additional  weight  from  the  explanatory 
 gloss  with  which  he  closes  his  testimony,  «5'eK  dya^Uy  d  t^n 
 fiovos  0  0£o?'  0  <jToiri9as  'Koc^icc.  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-* 
 jsess,  clearly  proves  that  the  passage  before  us  ha^  l^een  tasu* 
 
(    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  guarantee  that 
 Justin's  testimony  has  not  been  accommodated  to  the  Greek 
 Vulgate.  As  in  this  view  of  the  subject,  every  variation  of  the 
 passage  before  us  is  adequately  accounted  for,  on  considering 
 the  Byzantine  text  retains  the  genuine  reading;  while  it  seems 
 impossible  to  account  for  the  corruption  of  the  vulgar  Greek, 
 not  to  mention  that  of  antient  Italick  and  vulgar  Syriack,  on 
 conceiving  the  Palestine  text  preserves  the  authentick  reading: 
 I  conceive  we  may  as  confidently  pronounce  on  the  purity  of 
 the  former  text  as  on  the  corruption  of  the  latter. 
 
 ^*  In  place  of  the  vulgar  reading,  Luc.  ii.  38.  ^lua-fip  i^  i 
 fArirvf  ocvr^i  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine  texts  read,  5  warrif)  ayw 
 kJ  y)  fAriTnf ;  vid.  supr.  p.  373.  The  authority  for  this  variou* 
 reading  is  contained  in  the  following  observation  of  Origen, 
 Hom.  XVII.  in  Luc.  Tom.  IIL  p.  951.  c.  **  Lucas — qui  raani- 
 feste  nobis  tradidit  quoniam  virginis  filius  Jesus  est,  nee  de 
 humano  conceptus  est  semine,  iete  patrem  ejus  Joseph  testatus 
 est  dicens ;  *  Erant  pat&r  Hints  et  mater  admirantes  super  his 
 quae  dicebantur  de  eo.*  Quae  igitur  causa  extitit,  ut  eum  qui 
 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,  quia  generationis  ordo  a  David 
 usque  ad  Joseph  deducitur,  et  ne  videretur  frustra  Joseph  no- 
 luinari,  qui  pater  non  fuerat  Salvatoris,  2/^  generationis  ordo 
 haberet  locum  pater  appellatus  est  Domini.^*  There  are  few, 
 I  trust,  who  will  be  of  Origen's  opinion,  that  the  various  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  vindicated, 
 from  the  internal  evidence,  and  from  the  unvarying  testimony 
 
(    476    ) 
 
 this  text  having  originated  with  the  Origenists^  who 
 endeavoured  to  strengthen  the  argument,  deduced 
 
 of  the  old  Italick  version,  to  which  we  may  add  that  of  the 
 antient  Syriack ;  vid.  supr.  p.  169.  n.  "'.  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  intin»ating,  that  it  arose  from  the  Marcionite  contro- 
 versy ;  having  been  opposed  to  the  errours  of  those  hereticks, 
 who  rejected  the  genealogy,  because  they  objected  to  the  in* 
 carnation ;  vid.  S.  Iren.  ub.  supr.  p.  462.  n. ".  Orig.  ib.  p.  952.  d, 
 **  Virgo  mater  est,  signum  est  cui  contradicitur.  MarcionHa 
 contradicunt  huic  signo,   et  aiH7it  pcnitus  eum  de  muliere  non 
 
 es^e  generaftim. Alii  enim  dicunt  eum  venisse  de  ccelis:  alii 
 
 tale  quale  nos  corpus  habuisse,"  &c.  As  either  the  reading  of 
 the  Palestine  or  Byzantine  text  must  be  false,  there  can  be 
 rew  little  reason  to  doubt,  that  it  is  the  former  which  has  been 
 corrupted.  That  the  reading  of  both  editions  is  of  great  anti^- 
 quity,  must  be  inferred  from  tlie  testimony  of  Origen,  and  the 
 old  Italick  translation.  And  tliis  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  Pa- 
 lestine, of  the  Latin  Vulgate,  the  Sahidick  and  Coptick  ver- 
 sions, &c.  admits  of  the  same  explanation  as  in  the  last  exam- 
 ple ;  supr.  p.  47 1.  n.  *^ :  and  as  to  the  testimony  of  Cyril,  it 
 mtist  follow  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. 
 
(    477    ) 
 froKi  the  genealogy  in  favour  of  our  Lord's  incar- 
 nation, by  deducing  the  line  of  descent  at  least  no- 
 minally through  Joseph.     Nor  is  the  case  materi- 
 ally different  witli  respect  to  Luc.  xi.  13  ^9,  relative 
 
 '9  The  Byzantine  text  reads,  Luc.  xi.  13.  el  5*  lusT<;  oVJ«ti 
 «ya3"«  ^ofAGtla  o»^o»«i  7&T^  t«xvoj$  vfAuVf  jroVw  ^iWu)*  9  UxryiP  •  i| 
 i^atvS  ^aurn  'Trnvijuz  ciyiov  rati  aWea-iv  altov,  but  the  Palestine 
 text  substitutes  vttv^ot  dyx^ovy  and  the  Egyptian  «ya$ar  ^/a*, 
 for  TrnvfAo.  uytov ;  vid.  supr.  p.  373.  These  various  readings  must 
 be  plainly  referred  to  Marcion,  who  stands  at  the  head  of  those 
 who  had  corrupted  the  Scriptures  in  the  age  of  Origen.  Hjb 
 reading  of  this  verse  is  preserved  by  S.  Epiphanius,  Haer, 
 XLir.  pi  313.  C,  il  iif  IjAiiq  9ro*>)§o<  evT«;,  ai^arf  ^o^ara  elyxBa:  7r6<r»i 
 fnahXot  0  riar^p :  the  final  clause  being  expunged  according  to 
 Marcion's  practice,  vid.  supr.  p.  462,  n.  ".  As  Origcn  pos- 
 sessed an  early  bias  to  the  ojiinions  of  the  Encratites,  {]vid. 
 supr.  p.  468.  n. '^  conf.  n.  '^j  the  first  founder  of  which 
 »ect  was  Marcion  [vid.  S.  Iren.  Lib.  L  cap.  xxviii.  p.  J07.3 
 he  has  interpreted  this  text  according  to  their  notions ;  Orig, 
 Comment,  in  Mat.  Tom.  IIL  p.  650.  d.  xj  to,  '  t^  ^e  e|  vy.uf 
 
 TOJ*  irctripa  uloi;  ulrvcru  l^^vt,  /x^  uvrl  i^^voi  o^nt  ivt^^ffn  mirZ^ 
 t^  T«  «|t?.  ^^cei  an  TO  ayaSrov  5d/x«,  Tr,»  irxvin'Kr,  xaSai^scrj*  bv 
 iyupKifi  J^  tiyvux  0  ©lo?,  to7<;  i^  o\i^q  ^i^^f>  >««*  ftfxa  nrtfeui,  4«sm 
 «^*rtXe»9rTft??  iif  'KfO!Tivxa7<i  xWbjiv  uvrcv.  Anothet  attempt  at  ex- 
 planation by  our  critick  gives  us  a  little  more  of  the  reading 
 which  exists  in  the  Greek  Vulgate ;  Orig.  de  Orat.  Tom.  I, 
 p.  213.  c.  ItteI  •  ;tp»!ro?  n^rip  ro'j  tuvrtt  a^r'n  ^loaa-t  roTf  '  ro 
 mvtVfJiU  T?$  vlo^iffix(;*  BlXv,(pOffiv  otVo  t5  UuTpoi*  xal  ^>^uirtp  «  HoJi^ 
 TO  dyccBlv  ^ofxcc.  vtov  e|   K^avS  roTq  aWScrtv  ecvTov,      The  cause  of  thi.-? 
 
 inconstancy  in  Origen's  reading  is  fully  explained  by  himself 
 in  the  tract  which  contains  the  last  extract ;  in  the  course  of 
 it  he  signs  a  recantation  of  his  former  opinions,  and  abandons 
 Tatian  and  the  Encratites;  vid.  supr  .p.  468.  n.  '\  ilis  differ- 
 fcnt  expositions  are  consequently  perfect  contrasts  to  each 
 other ;  "  the  good  gift"  in  the  one  being  "  perfect  purity,  in 
 edibacy  and  chastHi/"  for  which  Marcicra,  contanded ;  but  in 
 
(    478     ) 
 
 to  the  gift  of  the  Spirit ;  Origen  having*  originally 
 adopted  this  text,  as  it  was  understood  by  the  Mar- 
 cionites,  furnished,  by  his  different  explanations  of 
 it,  the  various  readings  of  the  Egyptian  and  Pales- 
 tine editions.     In  Luc.  xxii.  43^  449*.  yy^  discover 
 
 the  other^  "  those  temporal  blessings  which  God  grants  as  the 
 rain  frmi  hea'oeny*  which  Marcion  abjured,  as  denying  the 
 goodness  and  providence  of  the  Creatour,  vid.  supr.  p.  463. 
 n.  '^  Thus  far  a  plain  account  is  given  of  the  various  read* 
 ings  of  Marcion  and  Origen.  And  in  the  testimony  of  the 
 latter  we  have  as  satisfactory  an  account  of  the  various  readings 
 of  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine  texts  ;  the  reviser  of  the  former 
 having  followed  Origen's  earlier  notion  in  adopting  uyx^ht 
 ^o(j>,ci,  and  the  reviser  of  the  Palestine  having  followed  his  later 
 opinion  in  adopting  wsvijict  uyuBov*  Nor  was  their  respective 
 choice  the  effect  of  accident.  The  Egyptian  monks  naturally 
 gave  the  preference  to  the  reading  which  favoured  their  habit 
 of  life ;  and  the  bishop  of  Caesarea  as  naturally  gave  a  prefer- 
 ence to  that  which  agreed  with  Origen's  amended  opinion. 
 Both  likewise  had  their  reasons  for  preferring  Origen's  reading 
 to  that  of  the  vulgar  Greek ;  Eusebius  having  been  addicted  to 
 the  Arian  heresy  [vid.  supr.  p.  39.  n.  ^^.3  and  Hesychius  to  the 
 Origenian  [vid,  supr.  p.  439.  n.  *^]  whose  opinions  were  at 
 variance  with  the  doctrine  inculcated  in  the  received  reading : 
 vid.  S.  Hieron.  Pam.  et  Ocean.  Ep.  lxv.  cap.  i.  Tom.  I.  p.  229. 
 Without  insisting  on  the  authority  of  the  antient  witnesses 
 -which  support  the  reading  of  the  vulgar  Greek,  and  the  diffi- 
 <:ulty  of  shewing  how  they  could  have  been  corrupted ;  these 
 considerations  seem  fully  adequate  to  vindicate  the  integrity  of 
 this  edition. 
 
 *°  The  agony  in  the  garden,  described  in  these  verses,  it  is 
 next  to  certain,  was  first  suppressed  in  the  Gospel  of  Marcion : 
 and  was  thence  omitted  in  some  copies  of  the  Palestine  text, 
 and  on  the  authority  of  it,  in  some  copies  of  the  Philoxenian 
 and  Armenian  versions ;  vid.  Griesb.  n.  in  Luc.  xxii.  43.  y. 
 The  following  reasons  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  our  Saviour,  conceiving  his  body 
 merely  a  phantasm;  Tert.  de  Anim,  cap.  xvii.  p.  271.  "  Sic 
 cnim  et  Marcion  phantasma  eum  maluit  credere,  totius  corporis 
 in  illo  dedignatus  veritatem,"  (3.)  St.  Epiphanius  was  well 
 acquainted  with  this  passage,  rid.  supr.  p.  93.  n.  *®^  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.  Haer.  xlii.  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 
 T  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 
 defalcation  of  the  heretick;  conf.  Epiphan.  User,  xlii.  p.  373. 
 a.  b.    Tert.  adv.  Marc.  Lib.  V.  cap.  xxi.  p.  479.     (2.j  The 
 
(    480    ) 
 
 to  the  same  subject :  in  these  examples  a  degree  of 
 eoiricidence  between  the  Marcionite  and  Origenian 
 
 passage  before  lis  is  more  decidedly  opposed  to  Matcitm'g 
 errours,  than  any  which  exists  iti  the  text  of  the  vulgar  edi- 
 tion, and  as  such  was  peculiarly  obnoxious  to  him ;  Tert,  d<? 
 Cam.  Christ,  cap.  ii.  p.  298.  **  His  opinor  consiliis,  tot  oti* 
 ginalia  vistrwrtenta  Christi  delere  Marcion  ausus  es;  ne  earo 
 ejus  probaretur.  (S.)  St.  Epiphanius  reasons  from  Marcion'S 
 concessions  in  this  chapter;  Ibid.  p.  373.  b.  He  was  well 
 acquainted  with  the  disputed  passage  as  it  is  expressli/  opposed 
 to  the  Marcionites  by  St,  Irenaeus,  adv.  Haer.  Lib.  V.  cap.  n* 
 §  2.  p.  293.  with  whose  works  St.  Epiphanius  was  thoroughly 
 acquainted,  vid,  S.  Epiphan.  Haer.  xxxi.  p.  173.  a.  But  he 
 has  deduced  no  argument  from  this  passage  j  it  must  have  been 
 consequently  obliterated  in  Marcion's  Apostolicum.  Admit- 
 ing  that  this  passage  was  wanting  in  Marcion's  text,  it  becomes 
 little  wonderful  that  it  was  omitted  in  the  Egyptian  text,  and 
 on  the  authority  of  it,  in  the  Palestine  edition.  The  notions 
 of  the  Origenists  relative  to  the  body  of  Christ,  differed  but  d 
 shade  from  those  of  the  followers  of  Valentinus  and  Apelles. 
 'J-hey  considered  our  Lord's  body  a  kind  of  spiritualized  sub- 
 st^ice,  which  was  capable  of  different  appearances  or  meta- 
 morphoses ;  vid.  supr.  p.  452.  n.  ^\  conf.  inflf.  p.  482.  n*  '*• 
 The  following  testimony  of  Origen,  in  which  the  orthodox  no- 
 tion of  the  incarnation  is  tacitly  censured,  furnished  sufficient 
 authority  for  the  adoption  of  Marcion's  reading ;  Orig.  Hont. 
 in  La«.  Tom.  IIL  p.  952.  d.  **  Habuit  corpus  humanum,  et 
 hoe  signum  est  cui  contradicitur.  Alii  enim  dicunt  earn  ve- 
 nisse  de  ccelis ;  alii  tale  quale  nos  corpus  habuisse,  ut  per  simili* 
 tudinem  corporis  etiani  nostra  corporis  *  redimeret  a  peccatis, 
 et  daret  nobis  spem  resurrectionis.'  And  in  explaining  1  Cor. 
 vii.  23.  he  expressly  denies  that  either  the  body  or  the  soul  of 
 aur  Lord  was  offered  as  the  price  of  our  redemption ;  vid. 
 Camm.  in  Mat.  Tom.  IIL  p.  726.  c.  In  exact  conformity  with 
 the  former  reference,  **  redimeret  a  peccatis,"  is  the  reading 
 ©f  the  Egyptian  text  and  revised  Italick  version,  as  preserved 
 B»  the  Cambridge,  Clermont,  and  St.  Germain  MSS. ;  which 
 
(    481     ) 
 
 tenets^  led  to  the  adoption  of  the  various  re^ding^ 
 of  the  texts  of  Egypt  and  Palestine.  The  causes 
 were  of  an  opposite  character,  which  produced  the 
 various  reading  of  1  Joh.  iv.  3  9*.     Origen's  endea- 
 
 differ  from  the  Palestine  text  in  omitting  r^v  a,(psa-ir,  as  well  as- 
 ^ia  7^  ai/*«To?  uvtS  ;  vid.  supr.  p.  376.  conf*  Griesb.  n.  in  h.  I. 
 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;  iv  u  '^x^iJisv  triv  diroT^vT^ucn  ruv  ccfjt.cc^' 
 Ti^y;  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,   iv    a    t^ofa*  rv)v   aTroXvTpucriv,  TYiv  a^sciy   ruv  «(jLocpiiuv  i 
 
 admitting  the  remission  of  sin,  though  he  suppressed  the  meri- 
 torious price  of  it.  But  St.  Irenseus,  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  ^^ci  re  oti^%%<;  olIt^.  vid.  supr.  pp.  376* 
 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  ancl 
 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- 
 
 I  i 
 
(    482    > 
 
 voiir  to  avoid  the  peculiar  errours  of  the  Vdlenti- 
 nians  respecting  the  person  of  Christy  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 
 miited;  S.  Iren.  adv.  Haer.  Lib.  III.  cap.  xvi.  p.  204.     "  Sal- 
 vatorem  quidem  qui  desuper  descendisset,  quem  et  ipsum  recep- 
 taculum  Chrkti,  et  universae  Plenitudinis  esse  [ Valentinian i] 
 dicunt,  linguae  quidem  iinum  Christum  Jesum  coTifitentes,  divisi 
 vero  sententia :  etenim  haec  est  ipsorum  regula,  quemadmodum 
 praediximus,  ut  alterum  quidem  Christum  Jidsse  dicant,  qui  ab 
 Unigenito  ad  correctionem  Plenitudinis  praemissus  est;  alterum 
 vero  Salvatorem  esse  in  glorificationem  Patris  missum.'*     Mar- 
 cion  agreed  with  Valentinus  in  this  notion,  which  was  adopted 
 from  the  Gnosticks ;  Tert.  adv.  Marc.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xv.  p.  357. 
 «'  Atque  ita  tres  mihi  deos  numera  Marcionis«- — .     His  quum 
 accedunt  et  sui  Christi,  alter  qui  apparuit  sub  Tiberio ;  alter 
 qui  a  Creatore  promittitur,"  &c.  conf.  supr.  p.  266.     There 
 wasTiothing  in  these  notions  which  accorded  with  the  doctrine 
 of  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. — a-yi[jt.e^ov  »  T^vcj  tqv  'I-yjabv  «7ro  t5 
 X^tfS,    uXhcc  woXXw    TrXiov  ol^a  tv  Eivat  'lyjffSv  Tov  X^ifov,    t^  t^j 
 ^.yp^vji/  ojvtS,   wpci?   TOV  *  "Tr^cJloroxov  'TTcia-^g  y^taiuiiJ  uXT^cc    >^    to  GuufJiOC 
 avTe,    «s    wXeoi',    bI    hT   stwj    ovo/Accs-ai,    eivui    tv    oXov    Thro,    oTTe^ 
 *  0  KoTO^u^Avoq  Tw  Kt^Iw  £v  'n\zvixx  Efiv.      TIic  studicd  purpose  of 
 Origen  to  avoid  the  en-our  of  the  Valentinians,  drove  him  into 
 the  opposite  extreme;  and  led  him  to   adopt  this  notion  re- 
 specting our  Lord's  body,  which  was  afterwards  improved  upon, 
 by  the  Eutychians.     At  how  early  a  period  the  reading  af 
 Origen  was  adopted  in  some  MSS.  of  the  Egyptian  text,  must 
 be  apparent  from  the  testimony  of  Socrates,  vid.  supr.  p.  303<r 
 n.  ^'^ ;  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.  4^40.  n.  ^.' :  as  might  be 
 
(    483    ) 
 
 duced  that  exposition  from  whence  his  followers  have 
 corrupted  the  reading  of  the  vulgar  edition. 
 
 Collected  from  the  fbreclted  reference  to  the  disputed  verscj 
 ivhich  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  Irenseus ;  after  referring  to 
 Joh.  XX.  31.  he  observes,  Id.  adv.  Haer.  Lib.  III.  cap.  xvi.  §  5* 
 p.  206. — "  Joannes  Domini  discipulus  confirmat — prajvidens 
 has  blasphemas  regulas,  quas  dividunt  Dominum,  qiiantum  ex 
 ipsis  attinet,  ex  altera  et  altera  substantia  dicentes  eum  factum : 
 
 propter  quod  et  in  Epi&tola  sua  sic  testificatus  est  nobis 
 
 *  Quis  est  mendax  nisi  qui  negat  quoniam  Jesus  non  est  Ckristiis? 
 hie  est  Antichristus.*  This  sentiment  was  adopted  by  Origen 
 vid.  supn  and  Tertullian;  adv.  Marc.  Lib.  V.  cap.  xvi.  p.  473. 
 But  the  particular  reference  of  S.  Irenaeus  to  1  Joh.  ii.  22.  in 
 this  place,  as  the  chief  tex^  opposed  to  the  Valentinian  and  Mar- 
 cionite  heresies,  and  of  Tertullian  to  the  vulgar  reading  of  the 
 disputed  text,  clearly  evince  that  they  tvere  Unacquainted  with 
 the  reading  of  Socrates,  Tert.  de  Carn.  Christ,  cap.  xxiv.  p. 
 311.  "  Certe  *  qui  negat  Christum  in  carne  venisse,  hie  Anti- 
 christus est :'  fiudam  et  absolutam,  et  simplici  nomine  naturae 
 SU85,  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.  3.  proves 
 that  Tertullian  found  in  his  copies  all  that  is  retained  in  thei 
 vulgar  Greek  ;  the  inference  from  it  proves,  that  he  did  not  find 
 the  various  reading  of  Socrates ;  as  it  is  perffectly  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  August 
 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.  Irenaeus; 
 lb.  cap.  xvi.  p.  207.    What  adds  the  strongest  confirmcitioa  to 
 
{    481    ) 
 
 The  various  readings  of  Luc.  xi.  2.  4^^  are  of 
 the  same  character^,  as  relating'  to  the  fundamental 
 
 this  assertion,  is,  that  St.  Irenaeus'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  rismg  heresies  of  Nestorius  and  Eutyches, 
 to  depart  in  this  instance  from  the  authorised  Latin  version. 
 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.  (L)  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.  Job.  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,  and  of  the 
 Oriental  Versions. 
 
 ^^  The  extraordinary  omission  of  the  following  clauses  of  the 
 Lord's  prayer,  in  St.  Luke,  have  been  already  specified  ;  supr. 
 
 p.  383.   v][/.uiv   0   iv   To7q  tf^ayo?? yEVjjS^Tft?   to  ^ihvitA.oc.  ctf,   Ui    Iv 
 
 ipotvu  iC)  Im  TTiq  5^55?  ....  aXAa  ^vaoci   tijaxi;  utto  t«  orovjj^e.      It  Is  not 
 
 to  be  denied,  that  Origen,  in  composing  his  tract  "  On  Prayer," 
 believed  these  passages  not  written  by  St.  Luke,  as  he  ex- 
 pressly states  that  they  did  not  belong  to  the  Evangelist's  text ; 
 Orig.  de  Orat.  Tom.  I.  p.  232.  a.  210.  c.  256.  c.  But  it  does 
 not  follow,  that  they  did  not  exist  in  Origen's  copies,  much 
 less  in  the  received  text  of  the  orthodox.  On  the  contrary  it 
 appears,  even  on  his  ov/n  testimony,  that  those  passages  ex- 
 isted.in  the  copies  v/hich  were  before  him;  and  that  in  assert- 
 ing that  they  formed  no  part  of  St.  Luke's  text,  he  was  misled 
 by  copies  of  the  most  equivocal  character,     (1.)  Where  he 
 
(    485    ) 
 tenets  of  Marcion,  relative  to  the  abode  of  his  Good 
 •God  above  the  heavens^  and  to  his  special  provi- 
 
 professes  to  detail  "  the  entire  context  and  series  of  St.  Luke's 
 words,*'  the  Lord's  prayer  is  wholly  omitted,  a  blanJc  space  ex- 
 isting in  the  MS.  where  it  should  have  been  inserted  :  Orlg.  lb. 
 p.  200.  a.  oXos  OS  0  sl^ixos  T8  ^»i]a  ^ruq  '^X^^*  *  "*'  lyivflo  tv  rZ 
 liven  avTov  TT^oa-iv^ojAetoy'  k.  t.  I.  Luc.  xi.  \.  Having  merely 
 completed  the  first  verse,  to  the  beginning  of  the  Prayer,  the 
 context  is  broken  off;  on  which  the  Benedictine  editours  ob- 
 serve, lb.  p.  200.  n.  «.  "  In  Codice  ms.  Jioc  loco  est  hiatus,  ad 
 sj)atium  trium  circiter  linearumy  licet  nihil  ad  sensum  deside- 
 rari  videatur  !*'  (2.)  As  it  is  indisputable  that  this  blank  was 
 intended  for  the  Prayer,  nothing  being  wanting  to  complete 
 the  sense  of  Origen's  context,  it  seems  impossible  to  assign  any 
 reason  for  its  omission,  but  that  it  differed  in  this  place  from 
 Origen's  subsequent  statement,  and  consequently  contained  the 
 disputed  passages.  (3.)  In  referring  to  the  prayer  as  previ- 
 ously quoted,  Origen  having  cited  part  of  Luc,  ibid.  1.  adds  the 
 beginning  of  the  Prayer  as  contained  in  that  Evangelist,  and 
 includes  a  part  of  the  disputed  reading,  with  t^  ra  £|?j.  I  have 
 already  cited  the  passage  of  Origen  at  length  supr.  p.  462, 
 n.  ^^ :  and  it  not  only  positively  contradicts  the  assertion,  that 
 the  first  clause  tiixuv,  5  Iv  fo7i  isnvoif  was  wanting  in  St.  Luke's 
 text ;  but  implicitly  declares,  that  the  whole  of  the  prayer  ex- 
 isted in  that  Evangelist,  as  it  was  generally  repeated:  Orig. 
 ibid.  p.  222.  a  ^j^acrxgj  avru  irfoutvxic^^ai,  dxT^a.  tu  Ila?^*  Xiyovlas* 
 *  Uaire^  rijxouv,  ©  £V  ToTf  w^avoTf/  xj  ra  l^nq.  (4'.)  Orio-en  eX' 
 pressly  admits,  that  most  people  supposed  the  same  form  of  prayer 
 had  been  delivered  by  St.  jMatthew  and  St.  Luke ;  although 
 he  proceeds  to  offer  three  reasons  which  induced  him  to  be  of 
 a  different  opinion ;  Id.  ibid.  p.  226.  e.  xj  sr^o  iro^^uv  ye  Trafd- 
 rn^r^sov  oT»  0  MulBafof  ?^  6  Aaxoif  Zo^aisv  olv  rois  TioWois  rr,v 
 ccvTYiV  a.^a.isy^cc'pivcci  v7iQli%T:coiJLhr,v  "rr^oq  to  ^sTv  aruq  '^pocrevxea-Bxi 
 ^fQSBv%viy.  In  the  passage  which  follows  this  declaration, 
 Origen's  text  is  palpably  interpolated,  as  must  be  apparent  to 
 any  person  of  moderate  penetration  ;  the  whole  texture  of  hiai 
 giibject  being  disjointed  by  the  insertion  of  the  Lord's  prayer, 
 
(    4S6    ) 
 
 dence,  as  extending  to  the  affairs  of  this  lower  world. 
 The  reading^  of  the  heretick's  Gospel  having  been 
 
 as  conceived  to  be  read  In  St.  Luke,  which  was  plainly  omitted 
 in  this  place,  as  the  following  circumstances  sufficiently  demon- 
 strate. (1,)  It  was  certainly  inserted  previously,  in  Origen's 
 autograph,  as  appears  from  the  blank  already  specified.  (2.) 
 Its  insertion  in  this  place,  together  with  the  two  sentences 
 which  are  used  to  qualify  its  introduction;  (lb.  p.  226.  f. 
 Ix^^^  ^^  <**  >^£|ek  .....  Toy  TpoTTov  civrov,  lb.  p.  227.  b.  iv  y»^  tu 
 slfixco  ....  a,tct.ysypafjL[A.£vvi  ivfiaxficti)  SO  completely  disjoint  the 
 contexture  and  suspend  the  sense  of  Origen's  text,  as  to  leave 
 him  scarcely  intelligible.  (3.)  The  introduction  of  Ihese  pas-» 
 sages  reduces  the  context  of  Origen  to  perfect  nonsense ;  as 
 he  declares  it  to  be  his  intention  to  search  and  point  out  the 
 places  in  which  the  words  of  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke  seeme4 
 to  diflfer,  (as  he  accordingly  does,  pp.  251.  e.  f.  252.  a.  &c.) 
 but  which  are  here  forcibly  pointed  out  by  contrasting  the 
 difievent  statements  of  the  Evangelists;    Id.  ibid.  p.  227.  b, 
 
 TO.  p-nixc^cc  el  t^  yitlviuvroi  Tivce,  lyti  a^^J3^o^JJ,  (%XAa&  xj  £v  aXXoiy 
 ^ia(f)e'§civ  (pa/vETaf  us  E^ci/vwvrey  avra,  ^a^as-o^ffoptev.  On  dis- 
 carding those  ridiculous  passages  which  have  been  foisted  inta. 
 ^he  text,  Origen'5  context  may  be  thus  connected;  Ibid.  p. 
 226.  e.  x^  iT^o  TTuvluv  Tfo-^xinpiniiov  on  o  MalSaro^  »<J  0  AsxSs  ^o|a»£r 
 ffrV  ToTf  7ro?;Ao»s  Trji*  atnYiV  oivuyty^oc^ivui  vfFolilvffai/.evvjv  wgoj  to  oeTif^ 
 siTUi  w§oo"£y%£crSai  v^oaiv^nv  [3  *  Tlurs^  rtfum,*  (x«t  rot  l^-nq 
 l^aq  tS,)  ...  *  «^^i  ^vffXi  vfAci';  o(.7ro  tS  wovijps.*  []  "J  XskHov  ol  wgoj 
 nrhi    i^raq    v'rco'Ka.^ji.^avo^ccq,    oVt   itquTov    fjXv   tx  fLT^fjt.ot\a,  zl  kJ   yiCltiuvoi 
 
 ^tira  irccpctfrjffoijm'  ^ft^TEpof  ^l  oVt  «;(;  oTov  Te  try  inv  uvfnv  wpoo-typ^JiR 
 iC,  iv  fZ  op£»  ^iysa^oii*  Udoc,  '  louv  Tay  o%^«s  ani^rtf  ore  xa^ij-ocfh^ 
 ayra  Trpocrjj^^ow  avr^  ol  /xaSjjIa*  ayra  x^  dvoi^xi  to  ro/xa  etvT^ 
 S^/t^affxEi»''    E  il   'i?   ^''    '''?    s'***'    uvTov   h  ro'^ru   TJ^»    vpoatv^o^zvoVf    aq 
 
 7rpc£7£yp(j£o-^aj  X,  T.  6.  The  places  of  the  interjected  passages 
 are  here  marked  by  brackets.  That  they  are  interpolations 
 must  be  apparent  from  the  connecting  particles,  by  which  the 
 sentence  is  held  together  ;  wfoj  to  h7»  '^rcus  ^rf oafv^E^^aj,  being 
 
(    487    ) 
 
 admitted  into  the  Commentary  of  Origen^  thence 
 made  its  way  into  the  Palestine  text;  the  opinion  of 
 
 inseparably  conjiected  with  iloire^  h^Kuv  «.  t.  I :  wpo?  rh  «Twr 
 vTToXuix^utiovlai  being  as  inseparately  connected  with  its  antece- 
 dent ^o^cniv  a,v  Tore  TroAAor? :  and  ^  iv  ru  o^u  being  as  insepa- 
 rately connected  with  ^  h  -vZ  «?»ai  h  imu  Ti^f.     Thus  far,  of 
 course,   Origen  affords  us   no   countenance  in  believing  that 
 the  contested  passages  were  wanting  in  the  text  of  St.  Luke, 
 as  read  in  his  copies.     And  whatever  be  thought  of  the  above 
 eraendaiion,  no  more  is  fairly  deducible  from  his  concluding 
 remark ;  as  he  there  submits  it  to  his  readers,  *'  n^hether  it  were 
 not  better  to   consider  the  prayers  different  which  had  some 
 common  parts;"  Ibid.  p.  227.  d.  ptvj^j-ors  ^\  ^sXrioy  r,  hoc<p6^sf 
 vofA-i^ta^cci  Taj  v^ocivxtif  noivd  rivei  ix'^fftn^  fJLSfr,,      This  COncludino* 
 remark,  added  to   his  first  observation  on  the  subject,   that 
 "  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke  appeared  to  many  to  have  deli- 
 vered the  same  form  of  prayer,"  I  Mc^l^uXoq  «;  5  Ai^Kus  Jogaiev 
 ay  Tors   'TToXKoT^  rr,v  avrr,v  dvocfty^acpivui   vTroTErvTrMfjLivnv  ir^off^ 
 svx^v,  prove  to  my  entire  satisfaction,  that  the  generality  of 
 copies  retained  the  disputed  passages,  as  they  exist  in  the  Vul- 
 gar Greek.     II.  Our  next  object  is  to  enquire,  where  Origen 
 had  the  first  intimation,  that  the  disputed  passages  were  not  a 
 part  of  St.  Luke's  text.     And  this,  I  am  of  opinion,  he  pro* 
 ceeds  directly  to  specify  in  the  following  words.  Id.  ibid.  p. 
 227.   d.   ^-nlia-avlsq    ^c    ^   ^ap«    tw   Mu^xif,    |t*Wole    XavBuvr)   ^^«5   ^ 
 ToiavTYi    tVooy»a,uSafl6    Iv^ocnvx^]    umyty^afA,fjt.iv„,    a   ^'    'l^^o^    tyKt\^ 
 y,svov  TTfocEvx^^  iv^of^sv.     Thc  absurdlty  of  this  assertion  affords 
 a  sufficient  proof  that  the  passage  is  corrupt :  for  how  is  it  pos* 
 sible  that  Origen  should  deem  it  necessary  «  to  search"  in  St. 
 Mark  for  the  Lord's  Prayer,  and  believe,  that  when  he  com- 
 pleted his  search,  "  no  trace  of  such  a  prayer  as  he  required 
 could   have   escaped    him:"    particularly    when   Ammonius'S 
 Harmony  had  been  some  time  in  use,  and  Marcion  had  pub- 
 lished the  Gospel  of  St.  Luke,  containing  the  very  object  of 
 Origen's  search  ?     For  Trapa  rZ  Mapy.cf,  1  must  therefore  sub- 
 stitute irapa  rZ  MapxiuHy  and  understand  Origen  as  meahirig, 
 tliat  "  having  searched  in  Marcion's  edition  of  St»  Luke  for  a 
 
(    488    ) 
 
 that  early  critick  having  been  clearly  in  favour  of 
 the  notion^  that  the  vulgar  text  of  St.  Luke  was  in- 
 
 prayer  agreeing  with  that  contained  in  St.  Matthew,  that  he 
 might  leave  no  source  untried  in  wliich  he  might  be  likely  to 
 meet  it,  he  found  no  trace  of  it;"  such  indeed  must  have  been 
 the  result  of  his  search,  as  Marcion's  prayer  differs  in  every 
 petition  from  St.  Matthew's.     The  emendation  however  which 
 ^s  thus  confirmed  (1.)  by  the  internal  evidence  of  Origen's 
 text,  and  (2.)   by  the  circumstances  of  the  case  before  us,  is 
 finally   established  by   these   additional   considerations.     (3.) 
 Origen,  in  the  course  of  the  tract  before  us,  quotes  one  of 
 ihe  principal  texts  of  Marcion,  as  read  in  that  heretick's  Gos- 
 pel: vid.  supr.  p.  471.  n.  %     (4.)   What  lays  the  question  at 
 rest,  he  quotes  the  Lord's  prayer  itself  in  the  very  form  in 
 which  it  was  used  by  Marcion.     This  is  apparent  from  the 
 testimony  of  TertulUan,  who  gives  us  the  Lord's  prayer,  with- 
 out the  disputed  passages,  in  the  very  form  in  which  it  appear- 
 ed in  that  part  of  Origen,  where  St.  Luke  and  St.  Matthew's 
 texts  are  contrasted ;  vid.  Tert.  adv.  Marc.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  xxvi. 
 p,  432.     Nor  can  there  be  a  doubt,  that  TertuUian  quotes  in 
 the  place  referred  to,  from  Marcion's  Gospel.     (1.)  Such  was 
 Jiis  professed  object,  in  opposing  that  heretick;  Tert.  ibid, 
 cap.  i.  p.  403.     **  — Ad  ipsum  jam  Evangelium  ejus  [Marci- 
 pnis]  provocamus,  quod  interpolando   suum  fecit."     Id.  ibid* 
 cap.  vi.  p.  407.     "  Sed  alium  jam  hinc  inimus  gradum,  ipsum, 
 ut  professi  sumus,   Evangelium   Marcionis  provocantes,"   &c. 
 (2.)  Unless  the  Lord's  prayer  was  found  in  Marcion's  Gospel, 
 any  inference  made  from  it,  by  TertuUian,  on  any  other  ground 
 tihan  that  of  its  having  been  obliterated  by  that  heretick,  was 
 not  only  beside  that  writer's  purpose,  but  wholly  nugatory. 
 In  Marcion,  pf  course,  Origen  had  the  first  intimation,  that  the 
 prayer  of  St.  Luke  differed  altogether  from  that  of  St.  Mat- 
 thew.    The  reasons  which  inclined  him  to  be  rather  of  this 
 opinion,  than  that  of  the  generality  of  persons,  who  considered 
 that  the  Evangelists  had  written  the  same  form,  are  specified 
 by  him,  at  large,  lb.  p.  227.  a.  sqq.     (1.)  The  prayers  contained 
 sotne  dissimilarity  in  the  language,  even  admitting  them  to  be 
 
(    489    ) 
 
 terpolated  in  those  places  in  which  it  differed  from 
 Marcion's  Gospel,  and  agreed  with  the  text  of  St. 
 
 equally  full  in  the  expression,  and  adequate  In  the  sense,  Ibid, 
 b.  (2.)  They  were  delivered  at  different  places,  and  to  differ- 
 ent persons,  Ibid.  c.  (3.)  Though  Origen  saw  that  this  state- 
 ment was  liable  to  some  objection,  Ibid,  d :  yet  he  saw  some 
 propriety  (which  I  trust  no  other  person  will  be  likely  to  dis- 
 cover) in  our  Lord's  delivering  himself  more  fully  to  the  mul- 
 titude, than  to  his  disciple,  who  asked  him  apart,  lb.  p.  365.  a. 
 And  as  these  differences  more  fully  evinced  that  St.  Matthew 
 and  St.  Luke  alluded  to  totally  different  incidents,  which  was 
 the  main  object  that  Origen  undertook  to  establish,  he  rea- 
 dily acquiesced  in  the  latter  conclusion ;  having  had  some 
 strange  notions  relative  of  the  interpolation  of  the  Evangelists 
 from  each  other,  when  he  was  unable  to  reconcile  their  differ- 
 ent statements,  vid.  supr.  p.  433.  n.  *^  III.  The  testimony  of 
 Origen  being  disposed  of,  there  will  be  now  little  difficulty  in 
 evincing  the  corruption  of  the  Palestine  text ;  and  in  ascer- 
 taining the  genuine  reading  of  tlie  passages  before  us.  In  order 
 to  accomplish  this  object,  it  may  be  observed;  (L)  There 
 seems  to  be  no  possible  cause,  that  can  be  suggested,  which 
 will  be  adequate  to  account  for  our  Lord's  varying  at  one  time 
 from  his  practice  at  another,  while  he  had  the  same  object  in 
 view ;  as  we  must  conclude  to  have  been  the  case,  as  the  sub- 
 ject, order,  and  expression  of  the  different  prayers  which  lie 
 dictated,  are  nearly  the  same.  (2.)  Admitting  that  he  deli- 
 vered the  same  form  of  prayer,  it  is  wholly  inconceivable  that 
 St.  Luke  could  have  mutilated  it  in  the  manner  in  which  it 
 occurs  in  the  Palestine  text ;  not  only  omitting  some  of  the 
 solemn  forms  of  supplication  which  had  been  long  consecrated 
 by  the  observance  of  the  Jews,  but  reducing  the  prayer  to  the 
 compass  of  an  ejaculation.  (3.)  It  is  infinitely  more  difficult  to 
 assign  any  plausible  reason  for  the  fact;  that  our  Lord  should 
 omit,  or  the  Evangelist  overlook,  just  as  mucli  of  the  form  of 
 prayer  which  was  delivered  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  as 
 adapted  it  to  the  peculiar  opinions  of  the  heretick  Marcion. 
 This  consideration  alone  seems  to  set  the  question  at  rest,  and 
 
(     490    ) 
 
 Mattliew.  Together  with  the  above  passages,  which 
 relate  to  the  Lord's  Prayer,  we  may  join  that  con- 
 to  identify  the  true  authour  of  the  corruption  of  the  text  ia 
 question.  That  the  Lord's  prayer,  as  read  in  the  Palestine 
 text,  was  accommodated  to  Marcion's  opinions,  is  apparent 
 from  more  than  the  testimony  of  Tertullian,  who  declares  that 
 it  was  admitted  into  Marcion's  Gospel  in  that  mutilated  form 
 in  which  it  appears  in  the  Palestine  edition.  It  is  rendered 
 evident  by  the  fact,  that  the  suppressed  passages  were  irre- 
 concilable with  Marcion's  peculiar  tenets.  (1.)  The  "  Fa- 
 ther,'* who  is  supplicated  in  this  prayer,  was  addressed  as 
 *'  in  heaven ;"  the  Father  whom  Marcion  assigned  to  Christ, 
 had  his  abode  above  the  heavens  ;  vifxuvy  o  Iv  rot'^  BpavoTq  was  con- 
 sequently discarded,  as  designating  the  Creatour  whom  Mar- 
 cion did  not  acknowledge  as  the  Father  of  Christ;  vid.  S. 
 Ilpiphan.  Heer.  xlii.  p.  328.  c.  S.  Iren.  adv.  Haer.  Lib.  IV. 
 cap.  iii.  ^  !•  P'  230.  (2.)  The  Father  of  Christ  was  also  iden- 
 tified in  the  description  of  the  God  who  resided  "  in  heaven, 
 snd  whose  will  was  done  on  earth ;"  for,  under  this  character, 
 the  Creatour  was  likewise  designated ;  ytvvt^riTa  to  ^iMfxa,  ca, 
 v;  tv  ti^av^  xj  ETTi  T)5s  yvgy  was  consequently  rejected  as  incon- 
 sistent with  the  notion  of  Christ's  mission,  who  came  to  abolish 
 the  power  and  dominion  of  the  Creatour ;  vid.  Tert.  adv.  Marc. 
 Lib.  I.  cap.  xvi.  p.  357.  conf.  supr.  p.  433.  n.  ^°.  (3.)  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  ; 
 itXAa  fva-ai  hy^oii  airo  tS  irovrif^  was  Consequently  omitted  in 
 Marcion*s  prayer,  as  unsuitable  to  the  God  whom  that  here- 
 tick  exclusively  acknowledged  as  the  object  of  worship,  vid. 
 Tert.  ibid.  Epiphan.  ibid.  p.  329.  b.  It  is,l  trust,  unnecessary 
 to  otFer  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  heretick  Marcion ;  that  they  were 
 prepared  for  admission  into  the  sacred  text  in  the  writings  of 
 Origen ;  and  were  transferred  from  his  writings  into  the  Pales- 
 tine text,  in  tliQ  library  of  Caesarea.    Here  they  were  found  by 
 
(    491    ) 
 
 talning  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  io 
 the  second  and  third  edition  of  the  Italick  version:  vid.  supr- 
 p.  380.  conf.  Griesb.  n.  in  h.  1.  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  mvst  rather 
 conclude  from  his  testimony,  that  he  was  aware  of  its  exist- 
 ence in  the  sacred  text.  (L)  That  he  omits  it  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  Ori- 
 gen's design  to  expound  it :  after  having  dispatched  the  last 
 petition^  he  observes;  Orig.  de  Orat.  Tom.  I.  p.  271.  a.  ^y.iT 
 
 7.670V.  (2.)  He  plainly  intimates,  that  something  more  not 
 only  existed  in  his  text,  but  that  some  doxology  was  to  close 
 the  prayer  which  he  expounded.  Id.  ibid.  d.  kJ  e^r*  maai,  rr.v 
 ivyjiv  gis"  ^o^oXoyj'av  ©eS,  <^ta  Xp»j-S  1<j  uy'iu  Tlvsvixocriy  xalccTTuViBOv. 
 (3.)  He  proceeds  if  not  to  expound  yet  to  illustrate  the  doxo-« 
 lQgy»  by  a  reference  to  the  Psalms,  which  is  wholly  irrelevant,, 
 if  we  do  not  consider  the  common  doxology  before  him;  Id. 
 ibid,    d,    T»T»s    ^e    Ttfs    roVy?,    ui    irfoiiTro^tv    ^iscrvu^fj^svui   tvp^^u 
 
(    492    ) 
 
 have  nothing  to  answer  for,  on  the  score  of  can- 
 celling this  verse^  as  they  rejected  the  entire  Gospel 
 
 Iv  roui  ypoi^ccis*  Tof  /aev  rris  ^o^o\oyia.s  ^»a  rarcov  h  halorf  Tpirw 
 
 yh  E7ri  T^v  »<T(pa>iBi<zv  uvT^q,  u   x>.iBr,a-floci  s\s  Tov  alwva  T»  alftJvos** 
 
 x^  Ta  w^£<^a  Js  rary  t5  4'aX/i/5  ^o^oXoylav  'nzptiy^zi  t«  lia/^or. 
 
 As  these  considerations  render  Origen's  testimony  at  least 
 neuter ;  the  following  circumstances  are  fully  adequate  to  esta- 
 blish the  authenticity  of  the  disputed  passage.  (1.)  Had  the 
 doxology  been  interpolated  in  St.  Matthew,  there  can  be  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  sitppression  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 
 omisuion  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- 
 mularies of  that  Church,  a  doxology  was  subjoined  by  our  Lord 
 to  the  jmblick  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;  vid, 
 Lightf.  Hor.  Hebr.  in  Mat.  vi.  13.  Tom.IL  p.  303.  ed.  Amst.— 
 "  hoc  potius  in  causa  fuisse,  cur  secundo  formulam  orationis  fla- 
 gitarent,  nempe  quod  primam  istam  pro  piiblica  reputarent,  cum 
 et  ex  adjectione  Coronidis  Antiphono  publico  in  Templo  adeo 
 similis,  prsesertim  vero  ex  adjectione  Amen  non  nisi  in  coctibus 
 usitati,  hoc  facile  argueretur:  oratur  ergo  iterum,  ut  privatim  eos 
 orare  doceat ;  et  ille  eandem  repetit  formulam  omissis  vero  Coro- 
 nidc  et  Amen^  quae  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  sub- 
 
(    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  dehvered  by  Christ  himself, 
 must  have  been  deemed  absolutely  perfect,  must  for  ever  baffle 
 the  ingenuity  of  criticks  or  casuists,  to  discover.  (5.)  In  four- 
 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  thi^  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  th^ 
 avowed  enemies  of  the  Church,  and  one  which  favoured  their 
 Anti-trinitarian  prejudices  against  Christianity,  is  a  supposition 
 which  I  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  such  a  doxology  in  the  following  terms ;  Lucian. 
 Philopatr.Tom.n.  p.  1011.  e.  ed.  1619.  e«<7ov  t«toi?  T>3f  ^vx^*  «to 
 Il<x7§of  ap^o:.f/.Bi>oq  >tj  rr,v  'TToXvdivvfjf.ov  cJ^w  £»V  TeAo?  ETrj^iif.  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  Aposto- 
 lical Constitutions,  and  is  acknowledged,  if  not  impHcitly  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,  aftbrded  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. 
 
C    494    ) 
 have  been  specified,  Joh.  i.  27 '^  relates  to  the  pre* 
 
 5^  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  opinions,  or  more  probably 
 the  desire  of  discountenancing  the  notion  of  Origen  respecting 
 the  pre-existence  of  the  sou),  having  induced  him  to  cancel  it 
 in  his  edition.  But  Eusebius  is  here  vi^holly  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. — acc<piq  TO   ra  eTp/aS  rni  ^e'Ieo;?*   *  stoj   viv  o*   ttirov    o  oTCiffit 
 
 BawTtri?  'Ticos  *  s/x^^offS'ev  aurn  yiyovsv'  'InaSi  tw  ^^wto?  avrSf 
 %Tttt  *  TTpuToroy.os  irotyriq  tiliasaq*  Jyat,  ^i*  t5>  ot»  *  h,  tS  w^jj^wj^aro? 
 avrS  v(^e~i  7rai/TE5  l>^cc^o{xsv»*  ^ta  tSto  yag  (P'noiv,  *  SfXTrqoa^iy  /X8 
 7£70V£v,'  on  TTpuros  /x«  ^v.  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 
 Gyril,  Nonnus,  or  Chrysostome.  A  difficulty  in  reconciling 
 ^syovEv,  in  vers.  3.  and  27.  afforded  sufficient  grounds  for  its 
 omission  by  those  antient  fathers ;  since,  if  taken  in  the  same 
 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 
 in  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  ifc 
 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. 
 
(    495    ) 
 
 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.  To  some 
 vague  notions,  which  the  hereticks  held  respecting 
 the  object  of  our  Lord's  descent  into  hell,  we  pro- 
 bably owe  the  suppression  of  Mar.  vi.  IV^.  which 
 
 ^*  This  passage  has  been  given  at  length,  supr.  p.  S83.  As 
 it  represents  the  salvation  of  the  soul  as  having  been  the  object 
 of  our  Lord's  advent,  without  any  mention  of  the  hcdy^  it  ap- 
 parently favoured  the  notion  of  the  Marcionites,  who  main- 
 tained this  doctrine  exclusively :  vid.  supr.  p.  464^.  n.  ^^  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  couree  remains  un- 
 affected ;  while  it  is  abundantly  supported  by  the  internal  evi- 
 dence, and  the  testimony  of  the  best  and  earliest  witnesses. 
 (i.)  It  is  inconceivable  that  this  passage  could  have  been  in- 
 serted in  the  text  of  the  orthodox,  during  tlie  prevalence  of  the 
 Marcionite  heresy,  which  continued  till  the  close  of  the  fourth 
 century,  vid.  supr.  p.  4-69.  n.  ^°.  But  as  it  exists  in  the  old 
 Italick  and  Syriack  versions,  it  must  have  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,  v*e  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  V/estern,  it  seems 
 idle  in  the  extreme  to  question  its  authenticity, 
 
 *'  -This  passage  has  been  already  given  at  large  iUpr,  p.  382, 
 
C    ^^96    ) 
 
 may  be  joined  with  the  preceding  texts,  as  not  uti^ 
 connected  with  them  in  subject. 
 
 Of  the  remaining  passages  in  which  the  Greek 
 Vulgate  differs  from  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine 
 texts^  Job.  V.  3, 4^^  refers  to  the  angehcal  hierar- 
 
 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. 
 Haer.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xxvii.  §  3.  p.  106. — "  Sodomitns  et  ^gyptios 
 fMarcion  docuit],  et  omnes  omn'mo  gentes^  quae  in  omni  per- 
 inixtione  malignitatis  ambulaverunt,  salvatas  esse  a  Dom'mOf 
 cum  descendisset  ad  hiferos^*  &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.  J  7. 
 p.  190.  "  Qui  autem  Jesum  separant  a  Ckristo,  et  impassibi- 
 lem  perseverasse  Christum,  passum  vero  Jesum  dicunt,  id  quod 
 secundum  Marcum  est  'prceferentes  Evangeliiim ;  cum  amore 
 veritatis  legentes  illud  corrigi  possuntj**  As  these  considera- 
 tions account  for  the  negative  testimony  of  the  Egyptian  texty 
 and  its  derivatives ;  they  add  the  strongest  confirmation  to  the 
 reading  of  the  Byzantine,  which  is  supported  by  the  primitive 
 Italick  and  Syriack  versions;  since  the  same  circumstances 
 must  have  created  equal  obstacles  to  prevent  the  interpolation 
 of  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. 
 
 ^^  This  passage,  relative  to  the  descent  of  the  angel  in  the 
 pool  of  Bethesda,  has  been  already  laid  before  the  reader,  supr^ 
 p.  374.     Sufficient  grounds  for  its  suppression  in  the  Egyptiaa 
 
(    497    ) 
 
 cliy.  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  remissiori  of 
 sins,  and  redemption  to  perfection,  and  ascribed  the  former  to 
 the  visible  Jesus,  but  the  latter  to  the  invisible  Christ;  S.  Iren. 
 adv.  Ha2r.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xxi.  §  2.  p.  94?.  to  imv  Se  (iJ,7ili(Tfjt.cc  t5 
 <pxnio[A.svii  'l»3<7-tf,  oi(pi<3BCiJS  ufxciql HMV ,  fv)*  ^i  aTtoKurquaiv  t5  h  airid 
 X§iS"»  xoIsaSovJo?,  sU  rs7ielaa-iv.  The  latter  they  termed  not  only 
 airo^^vT^aa-K;  slq  tthiibxrivy  but  Xvrpuiri?  'A/ygX»xr),  **  the  angelick 
 redemption ;"  supposing  that  the  persons  who  received  it> 
 were  made  partakers  of  the  Divine  nature,  like  the  angelical 
 hierarchy ;  conf.  Iren.  ibid.  §  3.  p.  95.  As  the  Catholicks  con- 
 sidered the  Angel  descending  in  the  pool  of  Bethesda,  a  type 
 of  the  Holy  Ghost,  descending  on  the  laver  of  regeneration ; 
 vid.  Tert.  ut  supr.  p.  374^.;  the  Marcosians  confounded  the 
 Angel  Gabriel  with  the  Divine  Logos  mentioned  by  St.  John, 
 vid.  S.  Iren*  ibid,  calpi  xv.  §  3.  p^  77.  As  the  passage  be- 
 fore us  might  have  been  perverted,  or  was  really  quoted  by  the 
 hereticks,  to  favour  their  superstitious  practices ;  it  is  highly 
 probable,  that  the  reviser  of  the  Egyptian  text,  who  certainly 
 cancelled  Mat.  xx.  20.  on  similar  grounds,  also  obliterated  Joh^ 
 v.  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  thp 
 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,  tjiey  confirm  it 
 by  tlieir  separate  testimony. 
 
 Kk 
 
(    498    ) 
 
 verted  the  doctrine  relative  to  that  order  of  beings, 
 to  many  superstitious  purposes.  The  causes  which 
 occasioned  the  suppression  of  Mat.  xx.  23^',  are 
 
 ^  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  the  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.  Haer.  xlii.  p.  304.  c. 
 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,  Mattkexv,  as  well  as  St.  Luke,  they  appealed 
 particularly  to  the  former,  in  confirmation  of  their  opinions, 
 citin"-  the  disputed  passage^  S,  Iren.  adv.  Haer.  Lib.  L  cap.  xxJ, 
 §  2.  p.  94.  kJ  ro  /XEV  l^d.'Tili'JfMa  vira  'luJciifVH  KCtii^fysX^cn  eJ?  /aeIos- 
 »oJ«y,  TW  Se  a.7io}<VTqMUiM  virh  'Irtffe  x£KDf*i<r^or»  si?  n^^iiua-iv,  kJ  tSt 
 tT»a»    TTtg*   a   Uyn'    '  xj  u?^M   /SawlKrfAa    £%<*?    |3a9r]taSKX»,    t^   iravv 
 
 ai^,alT8/vtEvr/f  to  xa$icr«»    ayra?    iy.  hhoiv  kJ   a^\Ti^uv   fjcer    avrS,  tU  rnv 
 
 liQEiTToylx'   '  hvoca^B  TO  ^ocnlio-iJLa,  ^xTrlia^hc^^  o   lya  /xeXXw  ^aTrJt'^ecrSa..* 
 mi  As  this  quotation  cannot  be  referred  to  St.  Mark,  the  latter 
 of  Evangelist  not  mentioning  '*  the  mother  of  Zebedee's  children," 
 At  [comp.  Mat.  xx.  20.  Mar.  x.  35.]  we  hare  here  an  express  tes- 
 tb  timony  from  St.  Irenseus  and  the  Marcosians  in  favour  of  the 
 ec  disputed  passage ;  and  the  true  source  pointed  out  which  occa- 
 q    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. 
 
 ve 
 
(    499    ) 
 
 much  more  apparent ;  the  influence  of  the  Marcl- 
 onite  tenets  on  Origen*g  Commentaries,  having  ob- 
 
 he  supplies  the  present  mw,  for  the  future  y.iy^u  «•»£»»,  contrary 
 to  the  text  of  St.  Matthew ;  Orig.  Exhort,  ad  MartjT.  Tom.  I. 
 
 p.  291.  b.  ^HKct,  ya^  fAti^ovoi  upeyovlo  Tt|tA?5  ol  ^eAovlsj  Ik  ^i^tuv  t^  s| 
 svuv6fAUf  KU^ecr^rivon  rZ  'l>}cr5  ly  rn  &lx.aiKi\a,  avrtij  (pner)  Tr^oq  avrhi 
 9  K&^»05*  '  ^vvoca-^e  'TTiut  to  itolri^iov  o  lyw  ttivco  ;'  irormov  heyav  rh 
 [KaflC^iof*  St.  Matthew  however  reads  ^vma^i  mtTy  to  ^oI^^ioV 
 S  "tyu  (AiK\M  Irish.  In  the  other,  he  corrects  himself,  fully 
 acknowledging  the  vulgar  reading  to  be  genuine,  while  he  qua* 
 lifies  it  bjr  referring  to  St.  Mark,  who  had  written  mva  for 
 /^£XX«  TrmTy;  Id.  Comm.  in  Mat.  Tom.  III.  p.  717.  c.  uvoK^t^iU 
 L©  lite-vg2  sjVe  {/.sra,  ri'  *  ^vtaa^t  -TruTt  rh  TroTsjpjoy,  o  syco  fAiKXeo 
 VIbTm;*  S  w?  0  Mu^Koq  uny^u-^s*  *  ^vvaa-^s  to  ttotv^iqv  'nuTv  o  eyed 
 'nivdi''*   ri    TO    ^ocTrlta-fAa,    o   lyu    ^apli^oy.aif   /?a7r1<er$^rat.'      The    dlf* 
 
 ference  between  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark  consequently  lay 
 not  in  the  one  having  omitted,  and  the  other  retained,  to 
 ^a,7f\i(T^a,  0  \yu  iS*7r!iJojtAa»  |3a9rIt5-S?<'at ;  but  in  the  One  having 
 read  lyi^  ^Uu,  the  other  lyw  [jL£?,Xa  mtTv,  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  misrepresented.  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  6n  Origen*s  authority  misunderstood,  it  was  conse- 
 quently omitted,  on  the  strength  of  the  same  authority  in  the 
 
(    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  beneficent  character  of  the  first  prin- 
 ciple, and  the  severe  character  of  the  second,  in 
 his  religious  system '°°.  Many  of  the  corrections 
 of  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine  texts  have  conse- 
 quently originated  in  attempts  to  destroy  the  force 
 of  those  antitheses  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 
 omitted  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  Irena^us. 
 
 *^  Vid.  supr.  p.  464.  n.  ^*, 
 
 '°*  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. 
 
(     501     ) 
 endeavours  to  amend  his  gross  perversions '°^  or 
 
 hroUcre,  rf»^8«?  ^«  IviTtixYtO'tv  avroT^,  xj  sitth**  Ovk  ol^un  ola  vni- 
 fAoiroi  Irs  y/xEK.  0  ya^  vlo<;  a.  T.  e»  The  Opposition  in  this  passage 
 between  the  mild  spirit  of  the  New  Covenant  and  the  severe 
 character  of  the  Old,  is  forcibly  pointed ;  the  passage  was  con- 
 sequently taken  by  Marcion  as  an  example  of  his  antithesis  ; 
 Tert.  adv.  Marc.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  xxiii.  p.  429.  Repraesentat 
 Creator  ignium  plagam,  Helia  postularde,  in  illo  pseudopro- 
 pheta.  Agnosce  Judicis  severitatem :  e  contrario  Christi  leni- 
 tatem  increpantis  eandem  animadversionem,*'  &c.  By  the  sup- 
 pression of  w?  xj  H^»«j  l-jFoUaB,  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  Jtalick  and  Sy- 
 riack  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  in  the  desire  to 
 destroy  the  antithesis  of  Marcion. 
 
 *°*  St.  Paul,  referring  to  Deut.  xxv.  4.  expresses  himself  as 
 follows  ;  1  Cor.  ix.  8,  9.  y)  axi  ^  o  moii.os  TCCVTx  T^iyu ;  \t  yaq 
 'fu  Mua-iUi  vduLco  yeyfOfrrlcti*  Ov  (pi[A,uersiq  /3Sv  aXowfra.  /!x>}  ruv  Qouv 
 y.t>,si  ru  Qtu,  But  Marcion,  not  admitting  the  authority  of  the 
 Law,  corrected  the  passage  as  follows  ;  S.  Epiphan.  Hasr.  xlii. 
 p.  355.  d.  jxeTviXecytASVui  avr)  yd^  t«  Iv  nru  {\,  }ji.trvi\etyiji.iyu<;  am 
 tH'  *  \v  yoip  Tw3  yo/Aw,*  y^zyi\  []o  Ma^xiwj']]  *  Iv  tw  \Auv(xiu(;  voyLUi 
 \iyi\  ^i  w^o  rartf,  *"  z\  KjO  vofxos  ruvrec,  «  Xiysi''  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  correction  made  with  a  view  to  the  primitive 
 reading,  and  the  alteration  of  Marcion.  In  the  Augean  and 
 Boenerian  MSS.  we  find,  yj  eI  zu\  5  v6[xoi  ravrot'Keysn  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  o  yo^cos  ravra  AiV«»,  and  introduces  the  following 
 
(    50^    ) 
 
 his  foul  aspeFsiqns  of  the  Law'°M  and  some  in 
 
 quotation,  not  by  appealing  to  its  testimony,  but  by  proposing 
 it  as  a  dovibt ;  yy  €<  x^  o  vofAOi  tavrcc  hiyn.  The  same  difficulty 
 seems  to  have  struck  Origen,  but  he  disposes  of  it  in  a  diiFerent 
 way.  Adhering  more  closely  to  the  original,  he  preserves  the 
 hole  of  the  words ;  but  he  alters  the  position  of  the  particle 
 4k,  after  the  example  of  Marqiouy  and  thus  leaves  the  point 
 ambiguous,  of  which  he  was  doubtful ;  Orig.  contr.  Cels.  Lib. 
 II.  cap.  iii.  p.  388.  e.  ^  xa*  o  »o/*o?  Tecvrx  «  Aiy** ;  «y  y'*9  *»"? 
 Mm^vf  »»f<y  ysyp»w1^^.  This  reading  has  been  adopted  in  the 
 Palestine  tej^t,  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  of 
 St.  Paul,  that  the  Greek  Vulgate  preserves  the  genuine  read- 
 ing, particularly  as  it  is  confirmed  by  the  testimony  of  the  old 
 Italiek  and  Syriack  versions;  there  can  be  little  reason  to 
 question  that  the  various  readings  of  the  passage  before  us 
 have  oi-igin^ted  from  the  first  disturbance  of  the  sacred  text  by 
 Marcion. 
 
 ^^  A  remarkable  reading,  in  which  the  Byzantine  and  Pa- 
 lest:ine  texts  differ,  occurs  1  Cor.  x.  19.  ri  h  ^u/x*;  oVt  aVJwXov 
 
 jjtoi?  Bvsi  xa)  «  ©sw.  Bj^z.  thus  corrected  by  Marcion,  accord- 
 ing to  St.  Epiphanius,  lb.  p.  320.  d.  ri  h  (pt^n  otj  £i^a^Xo3'i>7ov 
 
 The  c^use  of  this  disturbance  of  the  received  reading  is  speci- 
 fied by  St.  Epiphanius,  lb.  p.  359.  b.  cv  Ti  u  Ma^xiw*,  wfocr«« 
 S.«x«j?    -so*    '   *£§9vi/]o.v,'    vo^^ffcca    kitl    tS    t4,ifx,ix,^at    ra,    ^vo    hv6 fiction 
 
 *  4|f£*  T^  »^    *  st^wi^tf,'  cryva.'Jrli^^oti  tat  Uq  TfOTrmu  t/<»  cr^ia-iv," . 
 
 ^iSavov  ccv  c■Q^  Yiv^'iaxilo  to  t??  crvxo^a»Iia5  -^tvffoq'  w?,  twv  vv»  Bt^ 
 ^vQyl<f)yy  ToJv  5g  role  ^:VO»v%v  h  ^^w  Upc^  'IsqoaoXvfAcoVf  xm)  ru» 
 T^r?  €>^^04s  Bvoflm  o/Att  c^tiyaiilofASVuy  xcd  hiiocisvovlvv  [1.  ^a»/<60<74 
 Syevlw*]  xa*  a;)^;  ©tw.  Thus  ttX^ov  was  Superseded  by  if^Sfloy, 
 in  order  to  bring  disrepute  on  the  Jewish  Law,  which  Marcion 
 held  in  »o  estimation ;  ra  e^vn  having  been  consequently  sup- 
 pressedj,  ^s  inconsistent  with  this  application  of  the  passage. 
 The  reviser  of  the  Egyptian  edition  having  made  use  of  h^re- 
 
C    503    ) 
 
 attempts  to  correct  his  false  notions  relative  to  the 
 nature  and  attributes  of  God  '°^,  the  person  of  Christy 
 
 tical  texts  in  compiling  that  edition,  very  closely  follows  the 
 reading  of  Marcion.  Deviating  however  from  the  principal 
 emendation,  h^  read,  ny^  on  si^o/Xov  irt  ri,  instead  of  ri  oV» 
 Uq6bu%v  ri  is-i:  and  thus  removed  the  heretical  tendency  of 
 the  text,  while  he  obviated  the  inference  which  might  be  drawn 
 from  the  true  reading  ot»  eVSo^Xov  rt  Ir** ;  as  implying  that  ido- 
 latry was  an  indifferent  matter.  The  reviser  of  the  Palestine  text 
 having  thas  a  ehoke  between  the  Byzantine  and  Egyptian  edi- 
 tions, 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  r!  h  (p>)/x» ;  ot»  sI^qXo^uIov  t*  ir» ;  ^  en 
 iiZcoXov  ri  tri ;  aAA'  on  a,  ^vam  ^a»/*o>»o»?  h'vaai  ^  Gnuj,  Some 
 copies  however  of  the  Palestine  text  omit  on  sl^o:^6Bv%9  ri  Irtv ; 
 and  others,  r)  on  s'^Suho*  ri  Ir* ;  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  retam  the  genuine  readhjg,  every  corruption 
 of  the  text  may  be  traced  from  the  first  correction  of  Mar- 
 cion ;  the  various  readings  obviously  destroymg  the  credit  of 
 one  another,  while  th^  add  some  confirmation  to  the  received 
 reading :  of  its  authenticity  there  cannot  of  course  be  any  rea- 
 son to  doubt. 
 
 *°+  In  the  Byzantine  and  Palestine  texts  we  read,  Mat.  xxv. 
 41.  "TFo^tvea-Bs  uTT  Ifxa  ol  Holn^uiiivoi  tt?  to  wy^  to  cclvviov  TO  ^jTOJ^taff- 
 /xs'vov  ru  ^iu^oT^u'  but  in  the  Egyptian  text,  to  iToi/^aa/^iej'oi'  is 
 superseded  by  o  ^Toi/^acrev  o  Yla%^  //.a.  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.  8S5.  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  Christy 
 
(     504    ) 
 and  the  character  of  the  legal  dispensation  '°K     In 
 
 to  whera  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,  cum 
 Tryph.  p.  301.  d.  From  Justin  Martyr,  it  descended  to  Ire^ 
 nseus,  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- 
 J;ion;  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 
 Latin,  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, 
 
 *°^  The  following  examples  may  be  offered  in  support  of  the 
 above  assertion.  In  the  Egyptian  text,  the  following  interpo- 
 lation occurs,    Luc.  vi.  5.  rj?  av'^ij  VfAS^oc,  Bta,o'ei[Asvo^  r^vx  i^ya^o^ 
 
 IJi.UKci(ioq  iT*   ^l   ^e  (ji,r)   oi^a?,    |7r»>ta]apa]o{   not)    7rccfcc^ccit3<;   it  tS   »o/x»« 
 
 And  the  following  occurs  in  the  Palestine,  Mat.  xxvii.  49. 
 
 «?k?vo5  OS.  ha^uv  "^dyyriVy  hv^iv  uvth  t^v  7r^£ygav,  noti  l|^xSev  v^uq  kou 
 
 alfAcc.  The  latter  passage  is  plainly  taken  from  Joh.  xix.  34. 
 and  is  here  probably  opposed  to  the  Marcionites,  or  other 
 Docetae,  who  denied  the  Incarnation,  and  rejected  the  testi- 
 mony of  St.  Jphn ;  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  conceive^  that  Christ  came  to  destroy  it, 
 vid.  supr.  p.  463.  n.  ^°. 
 
 •^  The  reading  of  the  Byzantine  text  in  L\ic.  xii.  38.  has 
 
(    505    ) 
 
 this  manner  it  is  not  uncommon  to  find  the  peculiar 
 phrases  of  Marcion's  text'°^  and  the  very  order  of 
 
 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.  User.  xlii. 
 
 p.   314.    b.    avl*    tS*     *   hvlspo.    V)    'FfhTj)    (pv\oiiiv),'    £'';<;«>'    *   ^^TrBprnYiV 
 
 ^vXatKvi'*  The  grounds  of  this  correction  are  thus  suggested 
 by  St.  Epiphanius;  Ibid.  p.  335.  EA-^^a/xla*  o  Klnvu^;  y,[\a,rf^-l'aq 
 T»j  Sgjtff  T^oyaq  avovruf  Ttpos  r'hi  eavis  v'JiovQiacv.  a  y«p  viiAzpivca 
 ylvovlon  (pv'KotKoily  ccKhoi  vvxle^n/aj,  uiib  kanioaci  zis  t-^v  ir^Jjrvw 
 (tluXocicnVj  Wfoay.'iTrriv  rn?  lirtiilcia-eatq  s^ya-cHf  ^  «>c  aTTO  tyiS  sco  elf 
 TYiv  gjTrs^av,  uq  aroj  aXic-adxi  p(x^iyfyy]acc<;.  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  ; 
 Luc.  ib.  38.  Kul  ia,»  IaSjj  (tijI  eJTTfg/vy)  (puKacuri,  y.cci  iv^via-n  iiruq, 
 fl0i'ri<J2i'  Kot)  iuv)  Iv  T>}  ^Bvlsfia^  xal  xri  rpWyjf  (jt.ay.ci^ioi  slaiv  l>iBTt/oi : 
 and  some  copies  of  the  Palestine ;  xat  lav  tX%  {rri  gaTrs'^tvyj 
 ^uXocyc^  xat  evp-n  arwj  iroiHillaf.s  (j^omocqioi  sifftv'  ori  dvocKXivaH  avrtii 
 OO  OJ^KQVOJ^TSt  avroiS'    nav]  h  tv)   h^li^f  y.av  Iv  tjj  r^Wr)   ^t^Aaxjj  eASjj; 
 
 hoc)  iv^r)  tiTu;  ixctadipioi  ilcnv  ikbTvoi,  The  parentheses  in  these 
 examples  clearly  mark  the  interpolation;  i^rwj  7rot55o-e»  in  the 
 Egyptian  text,  being  drawn  out  in  the  Palestine  into  Urut; 
 voisvlaq  lJLocy.a.p\o\  eiV»»*  ot«  x.  t  I.  whicll  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  r^^visals.  Consequently,  w^hile  these  texts  destroy 
 the  testiniony  of  each  other,  they  add  the  strongest  confirma- 
 tion to  the  reading  of  the  Greek  Vulgate.  They  mutualh^ 
 retain  all  that  could  be  borrowed  from  it,  ol  ^yAot  excepted, 
 which  was  obviously  omitted  to  abridge  a  sentence  that  was 
 embarrassed  by  a  long  interpolation  ;  they  respectively  conira- 
 iliet  each  other  in  adopting  more  than  it  contains,  and  thus 
 
(    506    ) 
 
 his  language  *°^  retained  in  the  Egyptian  and  Pa- 
 lestine texts,  though  the  passages  adopted  from  his 
 Gospel  and  Apostohcum  are  given  a  totally  different 
 application  from  that  which  they  possess  in  his 
 writings.  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. 
 
 '°'  One  of  the  longest  extracts  from  Marcion *s  Apostolicum 
 is  taken  from  1  Cor.  x.  1 — 9.  11.  transcribed  by  St.  Epipha- 
 nius,  H{rr.  xlii,  p.  320.  c.  and  repeated,  lb.  p.  357.  b.  With 
 reference  to  the  Marcionite  notions,  it  omits  the  following  pas- 
 sages; Ibid.  1.  Kcc)  irotvles  it?  To»  Muanv  i^x'7r\iaotv\o,  h  t>}  l»s^«^»J 
 XM  £»  T^  ^a,7\a,(7a-^.  Ibid.  8.  ^%ct  7ro^»£t;w^sv,  xaSwj  th'E?  ocvruv 
 sTToeviva-aVf  y.a)  tTnaov  19  /A»a  Y)[ji,tpot  elKoaHpn^  ;^^^^a^s?.  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.  ^eXu  Je.  Vulg.  ^eXa)  yat^,  Marc,  PaL  Ibid.  /Jpw/Aa  wvsv- 
 uccliKov  I'^ayov.  Vulg,  'Trvevjx^tx.ov  t^otyov  /3gi/xa.  Marc.  Pdu  tnfJt.A 
 'rrtivu.cclii'.oii  eVjov.   Vulg,  Trvivixotlmov  eWiov  ttdyLOt.  MarC,  Pal, 
 
 *°*  Tatian  was  a  follower  of  Marcion,  having  adopted  from 
 him  the  fundamental  tenets  of  the  Encratites,  whom  he  formed 
 into  a  sect;  vid.  S.  Iren.  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.  Haer, 
 XLV.  p.  391.  c.  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.  Haer,    Fab.  xx,  p.  303.  »to?  xa\  [o  Toliavo?]    As** 
 
(    507    ) 
 
 which  was  compiled  from  various  apocryphal  worlcs"'^; 
 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- 
 ing's,  and  the  blind  reverence  in  which  that  antient 
 father  was  held  in  the  school  of  Caesarea'",  seem 
 
 TBffo-ocr^m  y.x><iifA,tv6v  crvvV^eixsv  evufytXioVf  ras  te  ysyeaXoyla.s  9!rsffw 
 x64^lXS,    Kat    to.   n'K'Ka.    oca.    sx    cr'rri^^a^o<;    A«/3i^   xa]a    aafKoi   yiyivn* 
 
 }/,Bvov  rov  KvQiov  hUvvcriv.  In  this  undertaking  he  merely  fol- 
 lowed his  master  Marcion  ;    S.  Iren.  ibid.  p.  106. <*  id  quod 
 
 est  secundum  Lucam  Evangelium  circumcidens,  et  omnia  qucs 
 sunt  de  generatione  Domini  conscripta  aiiferens,**  &:c.  As  the 
 Epistles,  not  less  than  tlie  Gospels,  were  unsuitable  to  the  pur- 
 poses of  Tatian,  until  they  were  pruned  of  some  obnoxious 
 passages;  it  is  probable  he  followed  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.  ^^ ; 
 but  in  this  respect  it  agreed  with  the  Apostolicum  of  Marcion, 
 £is  is  evident  from  the  last  note ;  vid.  supr.  n,  '°^, 
 '°^  Vid.  supr.  p.  444.  sqq.  et  nn. 
 
 Vid.  supr.  p.  330.  n.  *^ 
 
 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  withoutloundation;  Pamphil, 
 Apol.  pro  Orig.  Praef.  p.  18.  d.  "  Cum  ergo  haec  eum  [sc. 
 Originem]  de  se  dicere  audiamus,  et  hujusmodi  mente  ac  voto 
 quae  dicit  asserere,  rairaraur  in  tantum  temeritatis  aliquos  esse 
 profectos,  ut  qui  se  ita  humilitate  judicat,  adstrumit  quod  ab 
 aliis  dicta  ejus  vel  libri  pro  sermonibus  Aj)ostolicis  vel  dicti&^tro- 
 
 no 
 
 Hi. 
 
(     508    ) 
 
 to  have  rendered  the  corruption  of  this  text  tin- 
 avoida])le.  Short  annotations  or  scholia  had  been 
 inserted  by  Origen  in  the  margin  of  his  copies  of 
 Scripture;  and  the  number  of  these  had  been  con- 
 siderably augmented  by  Eusebius"*^  most  probably 
 by  extracts  taken  from  Origin'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  containing  the 
 Palestine  text,  it  is  recorded,  that  they  were  tran- 
 scribed from  copies,  the  originals  of  which  had  been 
 ^^  corrected  by  Eusebius'*^''     In  the  celebrated 
 
 jpheticis  haheantuvy  aut  quod  ille  ipse  vel  PropJietis  vel  ApostoUs 
 comparetur. 
 
 "*  This  is  apparent  from  the  following  note,  transcribed  from 
 a  copy  of  Eusebius's  edition  of  the  Prophet  Ezekiel,  contained 
 in  the  Codex  MarchaHanus ;  vid.  Montfaucon,  Palaeogr.  Graec. 
 p.  226,  Praelimni.  in  Hexapl.  p.  15.  |M,£]£Xy/^S»  Je  q/.ttq  civliypd^H 
 
 *   ^f.^iKY,^%'fi  uTTo  ruv  necla,  raj  W^offeii  '"E^WJCKuvy    >c)    ^icy§3"«;S"»   utcq 
 
 iaxo\ioyqa(prn%'   o  Kvai^ios  syai  ey^oXioc  gra§e^^Jta.     ITa/x(piXQf 
 ic,  Ec"7&/3<of  5^L0jphci/(7a,v%J'     Conf.  supr.  p.  366.  n.  **°. 
 "  "3  Vid.  supr.  pp.  318.  n.  *°.  321.  n.  ^7.  322.  n.  *«.  458.  n.  *\ 
 "+  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  Orig-en,  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- 
 
 *"  Not.  Cod.  Marchal.  ub.  supr.  su7roqr,aixy%f  run  iji-^xf^  ti^m 
 
 xaSw?   cilov  re  ^f,  y^  nav   ci(jt.<^l^oXov  Koclct   tjji/  exe/va   gvvoiav   ^iwo- 
 
 Tcc  v'TTo  Ev(Ti0i8  tlq  Tov  HacxAU'j  Bl^r,fii.v»f  kcc]  £v  oisois<pouviiVyrrji  l^rtyri^ 
 Cccos  TYiv  evvoiav  ^vflrjaavlsSy  tt^os  ocvrrtv  i^iuq^coadyLnv. 
 
 ''*  Vid.  supr.  p.  33'i.  n.  '\  p.  313.  n.  ^^  conf.  p.  458.  n,  *'. 
 
(    510    ) 
 
 rlly  implicated  "^  We  thus  no  longer  require  a 
 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  Greeks  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  having  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  alle* 
 o-ation  of  friends ''^  not  less  than  the  concession  of 
 enemies  "9,  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  period  during 
 which  the  sacred  text  has  been  transmitted,  and  the 
 multitude  of  manuscripts   which  have    been  col- 
 
 •"  Vid.  sapr.  p.  316.  n.  ". 
 
 "«  Vid.  supr.  p.  107.  n.  '^^  p.  118.  n.  *^ 
 
 "»  Vid.  supr.  p.  126.  n.*^ 
 
(    511     ) 
 
 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  the  first  place,  to 
 state  the  testimony  on  which  their  authenticity  is 
 supported,  and  then  to  offer  some  of  tlie  objections 
 by  which  it  appears  to  be  invalidated. 
 
 1.  Of  Manuscripts,  ten  '**  only  are  cited  in  favour 
 
 '*°  Vid.  supr.  p.  254,  &c. 
 
 "*  Prof.  Birch  having  inserted  t5  ^sS  among  the  readinj^s 
 of  the  Vatican  MS.  in  the  ActiJ  of  the  Apostles,  in  an  after 
 thought,  expressed  in  his  Preface  to  the  various  readings  of  the 
 Apocalypse,  adds  the  following  remark-  Prscf  ad  Apoc.  p. 
 xxxix.  "  Cum  schedas  meas  collationem  hujus  codicis  com- 
 plectentes,  iterum  intente  examinarem,  ?ii/til  de  lectione 
 iv.itXria-ictv  t5  0£«,  nec  alia  lectione  hoc  loco  adnokttiini  inveyiio^ 
 ita  ut  pro  certo  pronunciare  non  ausim,  quid  in  codice  nostro 
 scriptum  reperiatur.  Vix  tandem  duhitare  licet,  si  hie  in  codice 
 nostro  obtinuisset  varietas  lectionis,  hanc  intentiOfiem  meam 
 fugisse,  cum  locum  hunc  nolabilem  in  omnibus  codd.  qui  mihi 
 obvenerint,  prae  cseteris  examinandum  sumserim."  Had  we 
 been  deficient  in  other  evidence,  we  might  construe  this  omis- 
 
{    512    ) 
 
 of  Kufioj  in  Act.  XX.  28;  not  half  that  number'"  frl 
 
 sion  into  a  proof,  somewhat  stronger  than  presumptive,  that 
 the  true  reading  of  the  manuscript  was  0e5.  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.  ^^'^. 
 
 **^  Vid.  Griesb.  n.  in  h.  1.  The  testimony  of  the  Alexan- 
 drine MS.  has  been  challenged,  in  favour  of  the  Palestine  text, 
 by  M.  Wetstein;  I  have  already  opposed  to  hi$  testimony  the 
 charge  brought  against  it  by  Dr.  Berriman ;  who  openly  ac- 
 cused him  of  having  admitted  to  a  common  friend,  that  he  sato 
 the  Byzantine  reading  in  this  MS.  vid.  supr.  p.  285.  li.  ***'. 
 To  this  charge  M.  Wetstein  thought  prudent  to  reply,  bi/  ex^ 
 jpla'ming  aivay  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  on  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  0,  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  lineolae  diametrahs  a  Millio  assertse  confirmat,  nee 
 facile  e  corifessione  eorum  quae  videraty  poterit  elabi.  Quae  cum 
 jmpossibilis  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  02,  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.  Qsk  legat  an  o; ;  id  (quod  cum  librum  hunc 
 versaremus)  admodum  doluimus,  manibus  hominUm  inepte  curi- 
 osorum  ea  folii  pars  quae  dictum  controversum  continet,  adeo 
 detrita  est,  ut  nemo  mortidittm  hodie  certi  quidquam  discernere 
 vossit.    Con.",  p.  xiii.     "  Respondeo  evanescere  tenuissiraa  linea, 
 
(    513     ) 
 favour  of  oV  in  1  Tim.  iii.  16 :  all  that  are  extant 
 
 prsesertim  in  codice  tani  vetusto  eodemque  rescripto,  omnino 
 potuit  ut  s'lmilis  lineola  in  voce  proxime  sequenie  Z<l>ANEPfiOH 
 (EOANEPnOH)  aliisque  in  locis  7ion  paucis  evanuit."  rfe  still 
 however  supports  his  opinion,  and  with  sufficient  confidence,  on 
 the  following  considerations.  Id.  ib.  p.  x.  "  At  nihilo  tamen 
 minus  confidenter  equidem  pronuntiare  audeo,  vera  esse,  quae  ii 
 tradiderunt,  qui  S?  in  codice  hoc  a  prima  manu  extitisse  affir- 
 marunt.  Nam  non  solum  Alexandrinus  et  Regius  ille  rescrip- 
 tUs,  qui  in  Epistolis  eandem  prorsus  recengionem  exhibent,  sese 
 mutuo  confirmant :  verum  etiam  quod  majus  est,  et  omnem  de 
 utriusque  lectione  dubitandi  locum  prcecluditi  o?  certissime  fuit 
 Alexandrinae  recensionis,  quee  in  duobus  istis  Codicibus  ex  tat 
 lectio.  Patet  ex  consensu  Cod.  17,  versionum  Coptae,  iEthi- 
 bpicae,  Armenicse,  et  Syriacae  posterioris,  atque  Cyrilli  Alex- 
 andrini ;  immo  e  silentio  omnium  Alexaridrinorum  scriptorum, 
 qui  ad  locum  hunc  nunqudm  provocarunt  in  litibus  de  Christ! 
 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.  sui 
 generiSf  having  a  mixed  text,  the  Gospels  following  a  different 
 recension  from  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  fleos-  1  Tim. 
 iii.  16.  was  included.  The  readings  of  Euthalius,  it  is  notorious, 
 correspond  with  this  MS.  vid.  supr.  p.  87.  n.  '* :  but  Euthalius 
 certainly  read  Qeoi  l(pa.n^u%,  if  any  respect  be  due  to  the  testi- 
 mony of  his  editoiur ;  vid.  Zaccagn.  ub.  supr.  p.  290.  n.  *^^ 
 who  collated  his  work  with  the  readings  of  the  Alexandrine 
 MS.  eonf.  p.  86.  n.  ^\ 
 
 Ll 
 
 /^ 
 
(     5l4    ) 
 
 and  known,  with  the  exception  of  tw6  "^  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  Ku^ »o?  in 
 Act.  XX.  28 ;  the  same  versions,  with  the  Ethiopick 
 and  Erpenian  Arabick,  support  ©V  in  1  Tim.  iii.  16: 
 and  all  that  are  extant,  except  the  Latin  Vulgate 
 and  Armenian,  the  corrected  reading  of  1  Joh. 
 V.  7  "^ 
 
 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.  Irenaeus, 
 Eusebius,  Didymus,  S.  Chrysostome,  and  Theophy- 
 lact;  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  '*^ 
 (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  1  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- 
 
 •*^  Vid.  Griesb.  n.  in  h.  1. 
 
 *^  Vid.  Griesb.  n.  in  h.  1. 
 
 "5  Vid.  Bengel.  et  Griesb.  not,  in  loc. 
 
 **^  Vid.  Griesb.  not.  in  loc. 
 
(    515    ) 
 
 rical  interpretation,  which  is  plainly  asserted  in  the 
 contested  passage  "7. 
 
 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 
 
 '^^  Vid.  Person  Let.  to  Travis,  p.  373. 
 
 **^  As  the  Gospels  were  divided  by  Eusebius,  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  e4itioo,  vid.  supr. 
 p.  130.  n.  ". 
 
 '*^  Vid.  Griesb.  not.  in  loc. 
 
 1 13 
 
(    516    ) 
 
 Cohstantine  the  Great,  who  employed  Eusebius  to 
 revise  the  text  of  Scripture'^''.  The  only  proba- 
 bihty  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,  w^hich  are  of  no  account,  they  also  suc- 
 ceeded the  age  of  Eusebius ;  in  referring  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- 
 nseus,  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 
 notoriously  corrupted'**,  as  it  is  conceived,  by  the 
 
 '3°  Vid.  supr.  p.  26.  n.**. 
 
 .'"  Vid.  supr.  p.  322.  n.  3°.  conf.  p.  81.  n.  ^\  p.  316.  n.  '*. 
 "*  Usser.  Dissert,  de  Ignat.  Epist.  cap.  vi.  ap.  Patr.  Aposto^l. 
 p.  211.  Ed.  Cleric  Rot.  172^.    "  Quantum  igitur  ex  hisce  pos- 
 
(    517    ) 
 
 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. 
 Irenaeus's  evidence,  it  is  quoted  merely  from  a  tran- 
 slation which  has  been  made  by  some  barbarous 
 writer,  who,  in  rendering  the  scriptural  quotations 
 of  his  originar^*,  has  followed  the  Latin  version, 
 which  agrees  with  St.  Irenaeus  in  possessing  the 
 Palestine  reading '^^ 
 
 sum  colHgere,  sexto  post  Christum  seculo  prodiit  amplior  hose 
 quce  in  nostris  codicihus  hodie  fertur^  Ignatianarum  Epistolarum 
 Sylloge :  et  quidem  (nisi  me  fallo)  ex  eadem  officina,  unde 
 Apostolonim  qui  dicuntur  Canones,  novorum  capitulorum  xxxv. 
 adjectione  habemus  auctos,  et  Constitutiones  ita  immutatas,  ut 
 pristinam  quam  ohtinuerant  speciem,  non  (ut  Epistolae  nostrae) 
 amiserint  modh,  sed  plane  perdiderint,  Conf.  Pears.  Vind.  Ignat. 
 Prooem.  cap.  vi.  p.  273.  Bevereg.  Cod.  Can.  Eccl.  Prim.  Illus- 
 trat.  P.  I.  cap.  iii.  J  1.  p.  12.  cap.  xvii.  §  4.  p.  73. 
 
 "3  Vid.  supr.  p.  275.  n.  ='2^ 
 
 "+  Mill.  Proleg.  in  Nov.  Test.  n.  368.  "  Sed  cum  Graeca 
 (S.Ireneei)  maxima  ex  parte  interciderint,  tum  et  in  his  quae 
 cupersunt,  Epiphanius  aliique  quibus  ea  debemus,  baud  semper 
 citarint  loca  N.  T.  ad  textum  Irenaeanum,  sed  nonnunquam  ad 
 codices  suos  posteriores,  seu  etiam  ex  memoria.  In  Latinis 
 autemy  Interpreti  id  unum  cures  erat,  ut  Scripturce  testimonia, 
 quce  in  hoc  opere  occurrent,  exprimerentur  verbis  Literpretationis, 
 quce  Celtis  suis,  totique  Occidenti,  jam  in  usu  erat,  Italicce,  sive 
 vulgatce."     Conf.  Sabatier.  Praef.  in  Bibl.  Ital.  Tom.  I.  p.  xl. 
 
 '5  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.  '^^  I  may  be  ])ardoned  in  offering  a  few 
 words  to  prove  that  S.  Irenaeus  read  with  the  Byzantine  in  Act. 
 XX.  28.  (1.)  St.  Irenaeus  is  expressly  engaged  on  the  subject 
 of  the  traditionary  mysteries  of  the  Church;  Iren.  adv.  Hapr. 
 Lib.  III.  cap.  xiv.  p.  201.  ad  init.  *  Si  quae  occuUiora  mysteria 
 pr«  aliis  scivisset  Paulus,  ea  Lucas  assiduus  illius  comes,  labo- 
 
(    518    ) 
 
 We  miglit  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  petuisset,  &c.  conf. 
 ibid.  §  1.  sub.  fin.  (2.)  The  contested  passage  is  quoted  with 
 a  view  to  prove,  that  St.  Paul  expHcitly  taught  all  mysteries  to 
 the  Church ;  Id.  ibid.  §  2.  "  Quoniam  autem  Paulas  simpli- 
 citer  quae  sciebat,  haec  et  docvitf  non  solum  eos  qui  cum  eo 
 erant,  verum  omnes  audientes  se,  ipse  Jacit  manifestum*  In 
 Mileto  enim,  convocatis  Episcopis  et  Presbyteris,  qui  erant  ab 
 Epheso — mnlta  testificans  eis — adjecit:  *  Scio  quoniam  jam  non 
 videbitis  faciem  meam — mundus  sum  a  sanguine  omnium.  Non 
 «nim  subtraxi,  uti  non  annuntiarem  vobis  omnem  sententiara 
 Dei.     Attendite  igitur  vobis — regere  Ecclesiam  Domini  [f.  Dei] 
 
 quam  sibi  constituit  per  sanguinem   suum.'— Sic   Apostoli 
 
 ^iinpliciter,  et  nemini  invidentes,  quae  didicerant  ipsi  a  Domino, 
 hcec  omnibus  iradebant,**  &c.  Now,  as  there  was  no  mystery  in 
 our  Lord's  purchasing  the  Church  with  his  blood,  but  a  great 
 mystery  in  *  Godh  purchasing  it  with  his  oiun  hloody*  St.  Ire- 
 naeus's  allegation  of  this  passage  appears  to  me  to  be  perfectly 
 irrelevant,  unless  that  primitive  father  read,  with  St.  Ignatius 
 and  the  Vulgar  Greek,  t>!»  inxX-naiuv  tS  ©e«,  >)y  tn^n'TroimoRo 
 hoc  t5  lYiH  aii*.ot[oi.  Nor  is  this  supposition  invalidated  by  the 
 consideration,  that  "  Ecclesiam  Domini,'^  is  the  reading  found 
 in  the  old  translation  of  St.  Irenaeus.  (1.)  This  is  the  reading 
 of  the  old  Italick  version,  which  the  translatour  has  Jbllowed  in 
 quoting  the  disputed  passage  with  its  context ;  vid.  supr.  n.  *'*. 
 (3.)  The  work  of  St.  Irenaeus  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  0£Of  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. 
 
 »5^  It  has  been  objected  to  the  passages  quoted  from  Su 
 Athanasius,  supr.  p.  286.  n.  ^^K  p.  289.  n.  ^".  that  the  former, 
 instead  of  GsS,  reads  Kv^ia  in  one  MS.  and  Xf ir5  in  others ; 
 and  that  the  latter  passage  is  wanting  in  some  MS  S.  and  merely 
 
(    519    ) 
 
 siippned  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.  «*.    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.    '{i.)  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  ani/,    St.  Chrysostome 
 having  cited  the  verse  before  us,  observes ;  Comm.  in  1  Tim. 
 Tom.  XI.  p.  606.  a.  /xwr^^tov  Totj-yi'  tr*.  f^rt  roivvv  ixTropcffeiJw/xEV 
 TO  [JLvrvftov,  (xrt  •7rav7ax«  a^'^o  Ti^oJi^Mfxiv.     (2.)  No  conceivable 
 end  could  have  been  attained  by  inserting  it  in  St.  Athana- 
 fiius's  context.  ^  It  could  not  have  been  intended  to  furnish  an 
 authority  for  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, 
 ix°*'^^<;  '^potpu^iv  t})»  tS  cr:c^/*a1os  ua^evsiuv  I  on  the  Other  the  depth 
 of  the  mystery,  £X«<7»  yap  «?  to*  a7ro^«^o^'   iTvfyvu[AViV  avroTq   vsjAOvlXf 
 
 , j,Vi    t^    yjycc    Iri    TO    T???    tiiai^ita<;   f^vrvfiov,   Geo;    E<panfu^i}   i» 
 
 eocfy.l  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  Qth  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 ;  lb.  p.  706.  a.  rh  ^£  av^§w9r»vyj»  IkIhvcov  %Ci^(i, 
 iysipt  i\*  inv^^oiv  u'npa ;  he  carries  on  the  phrase  in  the  latter, 
 and  applies  the  same  terms  nearly  to  the  Apostle;  Ibid,  c. 
 
(    520    ) 
 
 tpme''^  Theophylact,  and  Cyril  of  Alexandria'*'^ 
 
 f^ijfTt  yoif  xj  70V  ociroToy^pv  _  ofpnV  Xe»g«  (xvrots  iv  rS  Asyftv  l)C 
 rehovJoe.  n,  r.  I.  It  will  not  be  surely  deenied  possible  that  so 
 many  internal  marks  of  authenticity  could  be  discoverable  in 
 any  passage  which  was  merely  an  interpolation. 
 
 *^^  It  has  been  objected  that  St.  Chrysostome  reads  Ky^»»,  Act, 
 XX.  28.  in  his  commentary  on  Bph.  iv.  12 :  and  therefore,  that  we 
 should  read  Kvpla  in  his  comment  on  Act,  xx.  28.  as  cited  supr.  p. 
 287.  n.  **'^.  But  we  can  account  for  this  variety  in  his  testimony 
 without  weakening  its  conclusiveness,  or  having  recourse  to  a 
 conjectural  emendation.  As  Kvf'm  is  the  reading  of  the  Palestine 
 text,  and  ©sS  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.  Praef.  p.  i.  "  Jam  qugeritur  pro  more 
 Antiochiae-ne  an  Constantinopoli  habitae  fuerint  Condones  ad 
 Mphesios.  Optimum  CI.  V.  Tillemontius  profert  argumentum  ad 
 probandiim  hasce  Hpmilias  AntiochicB  dictas  J'uis&e  ;  quia  nempe 
 in  Homiha  undecima  acerrime  invehitur  in  eos,  qui  ecclesiam 
 
 in  qua  ille  tunc  concionabatur  scindebant. Aliud  etiam  nee 
 
 leye  indjcium  est  quo  probetur  Antiochice  habitas  Homiliasjuisse^ 
 quod  videlicet  monachos  in  montibus  asperam  sanctamque  vi- 
 tam  agentes  passion  laudet/'  &c.  He  uses  the  latter,  while 
 he  was  Bishop  of  Constantinople.  Id.  Op.  Tom.  IX.  Praef. 
 p.  V.  "  Nihilominus  stat  illud,  quod  supra  dictum  est,  Cow- 
 ciones  nempe  in  Acta,  quae  Constantinopoli  dictce  Jliere,  inter 
 jejuniores  humilioresque  quoad  magnam  sui  partem  cempu- 
 tandas  esse,"  &c.  As  this  is  a  coincidence  which  cannot  be 
 considered  accidental,  the  variety  in  St.  Chrysostome's  testi- 
 mony consequently  proves,  that  in  his  age  Kvpia  was  the  read- 
 ing of  the  Palestine  text,  and  Qte  of  the  Byzantine ;  not  that 
 his  text  is  corrupt  in  one  place,  and  that  we  should  read  Kvpia 
 in  the  passages  before  us.  Under  this  vie^  the  testimony  of 
 St.  Chryspstome,  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,  ®iS 
 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- 
 
 zantlum  not  long  previously  to  the  elevation  of  St.  Chiysos- 
 tome  to  the  see  of  Constantinople;  vid.  supr.  p.  152.  n.  '°\ 
 and  that  its  peculiar  readings  are  generally  adopted  by  thig 
 learned  antient,  in  opposition  to  those  of  the  Palestine  edition  ; 
 vid.  Griesb.  Nov.  Test.  Mat.  vi.  H<.  n.  e.  Joh.  vii.  39.  n.  «. 
 Act.  viii.  1.  n.  p.  lb.  xi.  6.  n.  i.  Rom.  vi.  12.  n.  y.  lb.  xv.  29, 
 n.  q.  1  Cor.  vi.  20.  n.  \  lb.  x.  28.  n.  K  Eph.  iii,  9.  n.  K 
 
 '^^  The  testimony  of  this  Father,  as  cited  supr.  p.  290.  n.  *7*. 
 has  been  opposed  by  M.  Griesbach,  who  contends  that  it  is  mis- 
 printed ;  St.  Cyril  having  read  in  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  oc,  instead  of 
 ©£oj.  Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  I.  p.  Iii.  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  coJifitetis  existentiam  Divinitatis  Filii  Dei  Christum  purum 
 hominem  credidit  conceptum  atque  forraatum,  et  postea  in  Deum 
 provectum,  hoc  est,  hominem  dejficatimi,  et  no7i  verbum  carnem 
 Jactutnf  et  habitasse  in  nobis,  quod  praedicat  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  God ;  or  was 
 born  Man  and  made  God ;  ©eos  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.  *  *. 
 the  futility  of  M.  Griesbach's  objections  may  be  now  easily  de- 
 monstrated. (1.)  He  objects,  that  Cyril,  after  referring  to 
 1  Tim.  iii.  16.  omits  the  term  ©eoc,  putting  this  question, 
 Griesb.  ib.  *?  tjV  o  Iv  aapx.]  (pctve^uBsU  absque  0io? ;"  which,  in 
 his  opinion,  must  have  been  nugatory,  if  Cyril  read,  ©scy 
 *(pavefu^v},  but  most  pertinent  if  he  read,  os  t(pc!cvcpajBr„  But 
 this  objection  is  made,  without  any  knowledge  of  the  Nestorian 
 controversy.  The  Catholicks  had  positive  objections  to  using 
 such  a  phrase  as  rU  0£o?,  as  it  pointed  the  objection  of  the 
 respondent,  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  b^ 
 
 vine  nature ;  Facund,  Defens.  Tri.  Capitt.  Lib.  I.  cap.  iii.  p.  6. 
 d.  "  Si  enim  dicamus,  inquit,  *  unura  de  Trinitate  pro  nobi^ 
 crucifixum,'  si  quis  interrogat,  quid  unum  dicamus,  non  possu" 
 mus  respondere  Deum,  aut  Filium ;  quia  non  tres  sunt  in  Trini- 
 tate Dii,  vel  Filii,  &c.  (2.)  He  objects,  that  Cyril's  proof  is 
 not  deduced  from  the  term  0ao?,  but  /*t;r^p»ov  sr*  (j^sya, ;  which 
 is  equally  inexplicable,  if  he  read  otherwise  than  U  ifotvspco^m 
 Griesb.  ibid.  "  Non  e  vocabulo  0«o?,  sed  per  consequentiam 
 e  verbis  {jLvr^piov  f/.eyoc,  ductam  probat  rov  (pacupu^tula.  tv  ffoc(»a  esse 
 ro»  Aoyov,  Si  legisset  ©eo^  plane  non  dubitasset,  tov  ^anpu^svl» 
 esse  TOW  iK  t5  ©£«  Aoyov,  superscdisset  ista  argumentatione,  quge 
 tantum  non  inepta  est,  si  lectio  0£Of  ponatur."  But  this  ob- 
 jection is  wholly  beside  the  question.  The  meaning  of  the 
 phrase  Qik  i(pccȣfu^v)  h  cu^k\  was  contested;  the  manner  of 
 Christ's  manifestation  as  God,  being  disputed.  An  argument 
 drawn  from  0£o?,  must  have  been  therefore  not  merely  "  tan- 
 tum non  inepta,"  but  *'  omnino  inepta."  On  the  other  hand, 
 an  argument  drawn  from  i^iya.  Ir»  //yr^ptcj  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  mT/steri/,'^  something  more  was  obviously  inti- 
 mated, than  a  mere  human  birth,  which  Nestorius  asserted ;  a 
 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 ;"  CyrjI. 
 ub.  SUpr.  p.  153.  tl  *  Qtoq*  uv  I  Aoyoc,  svocy^qaiTTYiaui  Aeyotro,  x^ 
 «  ^v)  wtf  [ji.e^sl(;  TO  iltut  ©eo?*  aXX  iv  ol?  vjVy  «£*  oiuiiivnv*  lAsya,  9'4 
 Ton,  sC  oiA,o>>oy8jXBvci}q  i^iycc  to  tjj?  svo's^slai;  /x*]r>Jp'ov.  tl  SI  civBpuvoi 
 joEn-at  Koivoq  o  Xptro?,  <y?  xoP.oc  (/.osiiv  rviii  laoTrtroc.  tJJ?  u^iccij  >jysj» 
 al^E^lai  0£iiJ  ffVvr,fA.yt,ivo<i'  irt^Pf^mcixai  ya^  Ta  Tota^g  rices  tw*  a/xa- 
 S'srspw**   WW?   *  h   au^iti    vt(pocvifulccif*    xairot  ww?   a;^  a'TrctO'iv  evapysj, 
 
 0T»  wa?  a»Spw9ro5  l»  tjapxi  re  sri ;  x.  t.  I.  The  object  of  this  de- 
 claration is  consequently  misconceived  altogether  by  M.  Gries- 
 
(    523    ) 
 
 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 
 Crreek,  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  *  ^9.     A  fevr 
 
 bach,  who  thence  deduces  that  Cyril  could  not  have  found 
 &Boq  in  the  disputed  passage ;  ibid.  pp.  xlviii.  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  tv'>th  God 
 in  equality  of  glory  and  power;"  y.oivoq  av^ouiro^ — xola  fxovrtv  ri* 
 
 »<TOT»iTa  T>j?  u^iuc,.  viyav  civ^Bv]ia,<;  Qeu  a-vvyi(A[/.ivoq  ;   as  it  implied  the 
 
 incarnation  of  the  Divine  Logos,  who  was  **  God  and  with  God 
 in  the  beginning,^*  il  ©so?  tiv  h  Aoyoq  y.,  t.  I.  ut  supr.  The  ob- 
 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.  (l.>  ©eoy  kipavB^uBvj  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 
 iiis  translation :  in  the  passage  before  us,  <s)sos  l^anpa/B-/;,  is  ren- 
 dered "  quod  manifestatum  est.'*  Cyr.  ib.  p.  124.  c.  (2.)  This 
 reading  is  supported  by  the  external  testimony  of Eythymius, 
 who  quotes  Cyril  Alexandrinus  against  the  Nestorians ;  Matth. 
 Praef.  in  Epistt.  Paulinn.  Tom.  XI.  p.  xli.  "  His  addo  Euthy- 
 mium  Zigabenum  in  Panoplia,  Tit.  xv.  contra  Nestorianos,  qui 
 fol.  fwcy.  pag.  2.  col.  1.  hunc  locum  ex  Cyrillo  hoc  modo  repetiit; 
 
 kJ  Ofj.o?^oytitj(.ivaq  fji.eyoc  In  to  t»}$  iva-e0ita,<;  i^vr'^/ptoV  dysos  i(pavspuBn 
 i>   crapjti   X,  T.  e. 
 
 *39  This  appears  from  the  following  sentiment  of  St.  Augus- 
 tine, De  Doctr.  Christ.  Lib.  II.  cap.  xiv.  Tom  III.  p.  27.  f, 
 *'  Nam  Codicibus  emendandis  primitus  debet  invigilare  solertia 
 •eorum,  qui  Scripturas  Divinas  nosse  desiderant,  ut  emendati^ 
 
(    524    ) 
 
 words  would  serve  in  reply  to  the  authority  of  thfe 
 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, 
 suppiorts  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,  Grcecis  cedere  oportere  non  dubium  est,'* 
 Conf.  S.  Ambros.  Tom.  II.  p.  722.  {  82. 
 
 '*°  Vid.  Lab.  et  Cossart.  Concil.  Tom.  II.  col.  103.  d.  Bar- 
 rim.  Dissert,  ut  supr.  p.  173,  &c. 
 
 ^"^  Vid.  Griesb.  not.  in  Act.  xx.  28. 
 
 *"**  The  testimony  of  Ibas  and  Theodorus  Mopsuestenus  is 
 wholly  inadmissible,  as  they  were  the  avowed  partizans  of  Nes- 
 torianisra,  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.  xxxviii.  p.  418.  1.  22.  p. 
 419.  1.  12.  sqq. 
 
 **^  Ammonius,  of  whom  we  know  nothing  more  than  his 
 name,  is  quoted  from  a  catena,  in  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  oa 
 these  quotations  at  second  hand,  see  S,  Epiphanius  and  S.  Ire- 
 naeus,  ut  supr.  p.  517.  n.  ^^*.  The  folloM'ing  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    ) 
 
 l-ected  Text,  who  must  receive  this  testimony  sub- 
 ject to  the  mistakes  of  the  original  authours,  and 
 the  errours  of  subsequent  transcribers,  fully  entitled 
 to  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 
 
 rlty.    S.  Ignat.  ad  Ephes.  cap.  i.  Ed.  Genuin.  ava^wrvf^aatrti 
 
 £V  aliAOcri  ©6b,  TO  avfyiViKov  s^yov  rsXtiuq  uirnp'iaom  :  Ed.  InterpoL 
 i.vatfii'rrvDYta-xvri^  ev  aVptaTi  X^ffxa,  to  avlyiviKoVf  x.  t.  I.  Vers. 
 Antiq.  reaccendentes  in  sanguine  Christi  Dei,  cognatum  opus 
 integre  perfecistis.  In  Act.  xx.  28.  St.  Athanasius  is  quoted 
 as  reading  GsS,  X^trS,  et  Kupia.  Vid.  Bengel.  not.  in  loc.  Ori- 
 gen,  Theodoret,  and  Fulgentius  read  Xpn-a,  in  opposition  to  all 
 known  manuscripts;  and  Theophylact  agrees  with  many  in 
 reading  Kvpia  xa»  0i».  Gricsb.  ibid.  In  1  Tim.  iii.  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, 0,  for  OS  or  0JO5 ;  Vid.  Sabatier.  et  Griesb.  not.  in  loc. 
 And  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  in  opposition  to  all  known  manu- 
 scripts, thus  refers  to  this  verse,  [jivarKfiov  /xe^'  v)fA.u»  tl^of  o» 
 »yytXoi  Tov  X^ioTov.  Vid.  Griesb.  not.  in  loc.  Origen  reads  hffS, 
 Tom.  I.  p.  467.  Barnab,  vlk  e^S.  cap.  v.  p.  16. 
 
(    526    ) 
 
 doctrine  of  the  Trinity  there  was  no  room  for  main- 
 taining a  contest'^'*-.  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- 
 trine of  the  two  great  sects  into  which  they  may  be 
 divided^  consisting  of  Gnosticks  and  Ebionites ;  for 
 such  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Jews  and  Magians, 
 from  whom  those  sects  respectively  descended ''♦^^ : 
 and  suchj  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  Hkely  to  be  quoted.  Theodorit.  Hist.  Eccl. 
 Lib.  V.  cap.  ix.  p.  207.  1.  25.  Tavru,  xctloirs  t595  'A^eJa  xmI  'Atlls 
 nal  'Evvof/iS  [Aocvieii*  xal  ixivlot  xal  xaloi  £a/3£AXi8  x«t  <PuTtite  xetl 
 MapK/AX«,  IlapAtf  re  t5  Sap-oo-alfw?  xa»  Mecxt^o/m  ysy^a^aair, 
 verecvTuq  SI  )t««  tv»  * AiroMvu^ia  xaivolojAiciv  Trpo^acvui  ocrrtuvj^v^aAf 
 c»pU»toT£?,  *  xat  Toy  t?5  ivctt^^wTrviffitii;  re,  Kypis  >iOyov  u^ioirpofov 
 fu^ofAiVf*  X.  1. 1.  Conf.  n.  *sj.  infr.  p.  528.  et  Epist.  Damas. 
 ap.  Theodorit.  ut  supr.  cap.  xi.  p.  209.  1.  17.  seq.  Aetius  and 
 Eunoniius  follo\^ed  Arius,  and  adopted  his  errours;  Socrat, 
 Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  H.  cap.  xxxv.  p.  133.  1.  1.  p.  134?.  1.  2. 
 Both  the  ApoUinaris*  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. 
 527.  n.  ''\ 
 
 '«  Vid.  supr.  p.  268.  n.  "*. 
 
 «*^  Vid.  ibid. 
 
 **^  "the  following  testimony  will  sufficiently  prove,  that  Ce- 
 rinthus acknowledged  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  which  was 
 
C    527    } 
 
 febion'^,  Valentinus'^9^  Marcion'^^  and  their  fol- 
 lowers. 
 
 To  the  Gnosticks  the  SabeHians  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.  ***.  S.  Epi- 
 phan.  Haer.  xxviii.  p.  110.  d.  »toj  [o  K-^pt»So?j  w^pyrle^— a^w^e* 
 91  iK  tS  cc)iu  (s)e5  f/.^ct  TO  (x^fvy^Yivoci  Tov  I>3(T8V,  Toy  Ix  ffTriffAaroi 
 lucrY)(p  jcj  Mufioci  yiyini^i/.ivov,  y.ccrtXTiXv^smi  rov  X^^-ov  tU  avroy, 
 T«T£r»  TO  TJvEVfAOc  TO  fltyiov  Iv  B^u  •^repifBpaq  »  ru  'lop^ayjj, 
 
 '48  Conf.  supr.  p.  272.  nn.  "^  g^  "^^ 
 
 **^  Though  the  Valentinians  multiplied  their  first  principleiS, 
 they  acknowledged  a  Trinity  as  paramount  to  the  subordinate 
 beings  whom  they  admitted  into  their  notion  of  the  divine  na- 
 ture ;  S.  Iren.  adv.  Hser.  Lib.  I.  cap.  ii.  §  6.  p.  12.  /?ax^  /x*a  t^ 
 
 yvuiJiV)    TO   way   UXrj^UfAOt  run   Aiiovuy,    a-vviv^oxhloq    T«   X§*S"»,   t^  T» 
 
 TIvsufJ-ocTO^f  t5  ^e  iloU^os  uvruv  a-vyBVKTippx'yi^ojji.eis >tj   BfjiuiXue 
 
 huaccnoti;  wgoi3«Aso-^«*  'jr(<^&hn^ot.rot  [1.  Trpo^Xvi^x  TtJ — TeAeto*  aap'Tror, 
 TOV  Ioo<j5v,  ov  x^  2wT>5^a  'rrpotruyoptv^'invuif  x^  Xptj-oj',  x^  Aoyov,  x.  t.  I, 
 
 Vid.  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  xi.  p.  156,  1.  15.  conf. 
 supr.  p.  272.  n.  "^ 
 
 '5°  The  affinity  between  the  Catholick  and  Marcionite  no- 
 tions is  admitted  by  St.  Cyprian,  Ep.  Ixxiii.  ad  Jubaian.  p.  200. 
 
 **  At  ne  longum  sit  per  haereses   universas  decurrere de 
 
 Marcione  solo examinemus,  an  possit  baptismatis  ejus  ratio 
 
 constare.  Dominus  enim  post  resurrectionem,  discipulos  suos 
 mittens,  quemadmodum  baptizare  deberent,  instituit  et  docuit 
 dicens — *  docete  gentes  omnes,  baptizaiites  eos  in  nomine  Pa- 
 tris  et  Filii  et  Spiritus  sanctu*  Insinuat  Trinitatem .  Nun- 
 quid  hanc  Trinitatem  Marcion  tenet  .^  Nunquid  eundem  asserit 
 quem  et  nos  Pair  em  creatorem  ?  Nunquid  eundem  unum  Filiutn 
 Christum,  de  Maria  virgine  natum;  qui  Sermo  caro  factus  est, 
 &c.     Conf.  S.  Athan.  contr.  Apolin.  Lib.  L  §  12.  p.  932.  a.  c. 
 
 '^*  S.  Epiphan.  Haer.  lxv.  p.  608.  a.    Oao-xi*  ^e  »to?  [UuvXo^ 
 
 0  2aji*ocraTsy!;3  ^*'  Q*'?'  <*ti  ovra  tov  avra  Aoyo,  xal  ro  Hviviaci  avT&f 
 uffTTip  IV  av^^uirv  Kap^Kx,  q  V^to?  ^oyo^,  ^^   'i\ia,\  ^\  to*  'T**j>  t£  ©£» 
 
(    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  1  Job.  v.  7. 
 had  been  quoted  by  the  Evangelist  as  a  concession 
 of  those  hereticks^i  this  text^  in  the  strictness  of  the 
 letter,  decided  rather  in  their  favour,  than  in  that 
 of  the  orthodox. 
 
 Marcellus  of  Ancyra,  and  Photinns  his  disciple '^^, 
 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 
 
 tiv^rofxrorr,   «^^    h  ccvtZ   ®su.    uaittf    ui^shu  noti   Yoc^eXXio^j  xdct   o 
 
 ^^*  Euseb.  de  Eccl.  Theol.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xiv.  p.  75.  'Ejxotw; 
 ^i  ravTcc  y.-n^vrinffec  ^  lxxX>jcr{a — rrtv  ufwiffiv  t5  'Yta  tS  ©jS,  Sa^sXXjor 
 £i'7Fi^o)iijA.a,a'£f  xcciTst  QiQ9  iva.  tloivxiy  xat  <7r\riV  fA""!  ilvai  Mot^KiT^^u 
 'Ka^wTrT^riffCas  ^eyo»T«•  xa*  avrS  ^l  tS  Xarvipog  riijLuvy  ol  Trfwrox^pi/xej 
 *E/3Ki!vaJ8?  wfojtxa^ov,   Ei3paVx^  (punvjf  '7rTa;%8?.      Conf.  Lib.  IL  COntl*. 
 
 Marcel,  cap.  ii.  p.  42,  b.  c.  cap.  iv.  p.  62.  d.  S.  Epiphan.  Haer, 
 XXV.  p.  609.  b. 
 
 '53  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  IL  cap.  xviii.  p.  98.     'A^»a^op» 
 
 *tiivvy  £T»  tvyj(jxv^(7ini  tJJ^  (abIu^v  t&)>  ^vIikuv  re  x«t  av«]o^»y-a;v  xoivw»ta?', 
 
 *yip  tuv  Exw  iKxT^nciuv  'n-posru^,  ysvo;  t??  /xtxpa?  FaAoIia?,  WlapKiXXd 
 TE  t5  xa^r}§r3pi-£v«-  [xu^TilrtS,  duoXa^oDv  rut  ^i^ocffxaXo},  -^iTiov  uvBpa. 
 irov,  Tov  Tiov  i^oyfAccna-e.  Id.  ib.  cap.  xix.  p.  100.  1.  29.  Tot5To4^ 
 ^e  EiVnr  ol  aTxo  Magx&XXa  xcci  ^co%ivs,  tSjv  * AyKvpoyaXaiciuv' 
 •»  rriv  'TTfoonuviov  ywapl*!'  re  xat  ©Eorrj/a  tS   X^is"»>  x«*  T^v  arsXtJ^ 
 
 *^*  Vid.  supr.  n.  *5^ 
 
(    529    ) 
 
 were  engaged  in  sustaining  it.  Eusebius  aind  Mar- 
 cellus,  by  whom  it  was  carried  on,  v/ere  professedly 
 agreed  on  the  existence  of  "  three"  persons  or  sub- 
 sistences in  the  Divine  Nature '^5;  one  of  which 
 they  hkewise  believed  to  be  "  the  Word/*  or  Lo- 
 gos '*^  and  asserted  to  be  "  one''  with  God*^^ :  it  i9 
 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 
 
 «s  Euseb.  de  Eccl.  Theol.  Lib.  III.  cap.  vi.  p.  175.  b.  Id. 
 Contt.  Marcel.  Lib.  I.  cap.  ii.  p.  37.  d. 
 
 *5^  Eiiseb.  contr.  Marcel.  Lib.  I.  cap.  i.  p;  4.  c.  Lib.  II.  cap; 
 ii;  p.  36.  Ci  &c. 
 
 *"  Euseb.  ibid.  cap.  iv.  p.  54.  a.  Id.  de  Eccl.  Theolog.  Lib; 
 L  cap.  i.  p.  61.  a.  b.  cap.  xvii.  p^  79.  c.  d.  conf.  Lib.  II.  cap.  iv, 
 p.  lot-  a.  cap.  xi.  p.  Il9.  a. 
 
 *58  The  oriental  bishops,  expressly  anathematizing  the  erroicrs 
 of  Marcellus  and  Photinus,  deliver  themselves  in  the  following 
 terms;  Socrat.  ibid.  p.  100.  1.  17.  B^eT^vaa-ofAi^u  ^e  frp^  tstoj? 
 xa«  «i»«$£^aTi^op.jy,  xat  rag  Xoyov  fxh  /ocovov  ocCtov  £rov  Xf*r"o»'3 
 7«  0i5,  -vl/iXov  xal  dvi/TTocpKroy  iTrwXarw?  xaASvra?  |y  he^u  to  bIvx^ 
 %X<ivtoi:  n>\t  jxiy^  uq  Tov  7r§o(po§jxov  y^tyofAeiov  vtito  rivcdv'  vvv  h  wj  tov 
 h^ici'^ilov'  Conf.  Euseb.  contr.  Marcel.  Lib.  I.  cap.  i;  p.  4.  d. 
 Lib.  II.  cap.  ii.  p.  36.  c.  Eccl.  Theol.  Lib.  I.  cap.  i.  p.  61, 
 a.  b.  On  Photinus*s  opinion,  vid.  Epiphan.  adv.  Hser.  n.  lxxi. 
 p.  830.  c.  831.  d.  &c.  One  sentence  on  this  subject  will  illus- 
 trate the  state  of  the  controversy  between  Eosebius  and  Mar- 
 cellus. Euseb.  de  Eccl.  Theol.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xvi.  p.  78.  b. 
 *0  ^£  [MapxfAAo;]  tov  *Tioy  sl'mTv  9rafa»T>3cr«/xEj/o?,  avu  ko-tu  toV 
 A070V  Sp'AA£»,  xa\  Zu^tWiti  ^^Xv  KATmyo^tTf  to*  'Yiov  apvtijjiiiii'  Ttxinlv 
 ii  '^furlav  ixiivu,  ap^jj^aTi^ijaJ,  Tvi  HftT*  ftt'Xa  JtajSa^^  Tnv  T^f  xftxo^o-^ 
 ;^*«f  vTovoiav  sx5t^I»;i»  oJo^^syo?,' 
 
 M  m 
 
(    530    ) 
 
 of  explaining  away  its  force,  so  as  to  confound  the 
 persons,  after  the  errour  of  SabeUius*^^  while  the 
 former,  as  implying  its  correlative  Fatherj  effcctu* 
 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  w^d 
 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  oth^r : 
 the  term   iv  making  as  much  against  Eusebius*^*, 
 
 "»  Euseb.  de  Eccl.  Theolog.  Lib.  II.  cap.  ix.  p.  115.  d.  116. 
 a.  cap.  xiii.  p.  120.  b. 
 
 '"^  Euseb.  ibid.  cap.  xii.  p.  119.  d. 
 
 »«**  Vid.  supr.  p.  292.  n.  *^'.  conf.  Barret.  Collat.  Cod. 
 Montfort.  p.  28.  Cod.  Rescript.  Dublin,  subnex.  Person,  Lei. 
 XIL  p.  377. 
 
 '*''  S.  Epiphan.  Heer.  lxviii.  p.  723.  d.     'T.y.i>.tv(rt  it  [Kutrxf. 
 
 rTvo^']    ciy.ui^ur  'EvcTi^iov   Tov    Ka»«rapi»a?,  nut    a^^^fcJ   Tti**?.    *i<rBit   it 
 
 Vid.  supr.  p.  39.  n.  '^     Conf.  Montfauc.  Nov.  Coliec.  Scriptt. 
 Tom.  II.  Prcel.  p.  xxviii. 
 
 '""^  Vid.  supr.  p.  528.  n.  *". 
 
 *^*  Marcel.  Ancyr.  contr.  Ariann,    *0ir»8   te  Ims-Kovti  1(ut^ 
 
(    531     ) 
 
 who  divided  the  substance,  as  the  term  r^u^  iagainst 
 Marcellus*^^  who  confounded  the  persons.  Prom 
 this  circumstance  we  are  consequently  enabled  to 
 account  for  more  than  their  silence:  fof  thus  We 
 clearly  discover  the  cause  which  induced  the  one  to 
 expunge  this  text  from  his  edition,  knd  the  other  to 
 acquiesce  in  its  suppression. 
 
 We  may  pass  over  the  opinions  of  Theodotus 
 and  Artemon,  as  well  as  over  those  of  Montantis 
 and  the  Encratites.  The  controversies  with  the 
 former  never  extended  to  the  consideration  of  the 
 Trinity  **^  or  were  conducted  ort  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- 
 
 travloq  ecvTov  [[Nap/crs-oj']],  »*  ucrfrs^  'Ei/ce'/StOS'  o  TTjf  YluXaiS^lvrif, 
 ^vo  tta»«?  «{»«»  (pviciVf  HTbi  V.OH  at/Ie;  ^eyoi*  Zyvuv  dvroty  «7ro  ru> 
 'y^a(pevlu)'!^  TgeTj  sivai  TTi^EViiv  leaia!^,  awox^tvo/xEvov.  Ap.  Eusebi 
 Contr.  Marcel.  Lib.  I.  cap.  iv.  p.  25.  c.  coiif.  Lib.  IIL  Cap.  ir. 
 p.  169.  d. 
 
 •'^s  Eusebi  contr.  Marcel,  de  Eccl.  TheoL  Lib.  IL  cap.  iv. 
 p.  107.     E»   ^e  e¥  h  xai  rxvrov  v)v  o  ©cor  xat  o  Iv  avr^^  Xoyos, 
 
 vwep  tuv  aiAU^rtuv  x^uiy  aiiro;  r^v  o  Itt*  iriyrut  0io?.  Qonf.  Mont- 
 fauc.  ib.  Tdm.  IL  Proel.  p.  Iv.  }  vi. 
 
 •"^^  Vid.  supr.  p.  209.  n.  *^. 
 
 *«7  Vid.  supr.  p.  527.  n.  ^^\ 
 
 '^'  S.  Epiphan.  Hser.  xlviii.  p.  402.  d.  'me}  ^\  Udr^o^,  xj 
 
 M  m2 
 
(    533    ) 
 
 founding  the  Persons,  as  the  latter  divided  the  sub- 
 stance. But  the  contests  maintained  with  these 
 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 
 
 *^^  Socrat.   Eccl.    Hist.    Lib.  III.    cap.  vii.    p.  179.    I.   8. 
 
 ijo"»a$  y.oil  v'Troi'a.aiuq'J  ^riTViO-iv  koe  >.oyov  vi^iua-Bv*  stts*  ^^s  ijt,{\o[{ocvroc 
 TtKS?  %•!§»  T»'T8  IftO-x^T^^^v  vj^iXoVf  ^^tarSro  If  ruvTVi  rv  crvio^ai  [^iv 
 A^£|at'^p£^i*3  ""^^  «c"(a?  t£  xoa  viroa-ruffsug  rocoe  a7r£^^^a»To.  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  i7i  ilia  synodo  super  substantia  ejus 
 silentium  fuit,*  De  Ario  tunc,  non  de  Origene  quaestio  fuit; 
 de  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. 
 1.  1.  seq.     Lab.  et  Cossart.  Concil.  Tom.  II.  col.  103.  e. 
 
 »7o  S.  Athan.  de  Synodd.  Tom.  II.  p.  759.  d.— e;^o.T£{  .5^^  t^ 
 rat  T^Jv  'TTi^i  A»ovt;crioj'  'TrafcchiyiJiacrctf   riiv  T^-.^pr^v  t^  Trjf  Tre^i  tS  ou^aaiH 
 
 0     llarr/p     £V     eTfiztf*     xa»,     *    o    lu^uy.uq'   Ifxtj     lusfxy.z    tov    Tlocrifot* 
 
 Phcebad.  contr.  Ariann.  p.  302.  f. — "  Patrem  Demici,  et  Filium 
 Deum  diciraus :  illitd  ante  omnia  sciatur,  nee  unmn  nos  cum 
 praejudicio,  nee  duos  dicere,  quia  unum  dicimus  in  duobus, 
 ipso  Domino  snggerenie :  *  Ego  et  Pater  unum  sumus,"  &c. 
 conf.  Alex.  Alexandxin.  ap.  Theodorit.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  I.  cap. 
 ir.  p.  16. 1.  16.  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  orthodox 
 from  citing  this  passage  in  their  contests  with  the 
 Ariansj  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"7\  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 
 
 '7»  Vid.  supr.  p.  40.  n.  "". 
 
 "^  Phot.  ad.  Mich.  Bulg.  Ep.  i.  p,  6.  *Cls  y»^  ''Ageiof  xara, 
 T8  *Yi5,  era  xa»  dyro;  [Maxs^ovto?]  y.c(,ro!,  T«  r/ravxyla  'na.qpi.xa'V' 
 ro/xevos"  rivety/xaTor,  i\%  ^kKH<;  y.xl  lifn^iraq  t/jk  ciffvortxriv  xa* 
 iw£flxjf|u,tt»)5v  ccvTO  avvirocrre  Kv^iarrtru,  Kai  rot  ^aov  r,vy  alwep  6/3aAiTO, 
 ju  4'^>vw,  avvo^^Vf  on  xa^aTri^  ol  Tov  *Tiov  U9  yjiaiMCt  rxrtovlas, 
 T>jv   t/fSpif  iSfv   v'^lov   Vfoaei'rrlyah   rZ    Tlcclf),  eru   xa*    ol   to   vunw^k'JB 
 
 ^\(xa(^rnxloLv  u^[x.<ji  kcut*  «i5t«.  Conf.  Socrat,  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib^ 
 II,  cap,  3^1\% 
 
(    55*    ) 
 
 two  subsistences  aftd  one  person*^'.  In  th^sc  can-* 
 troversies,  of  course,  there  was  no  greater  n^ces* 
 sity  '7^  for  an  appeal  to  the  disputed  pasfe^e,  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 '^^  But  it  was 
 of  a  different  chamcter  from  those  which  preceded. 
 The  disputants,  having  at  length  agreed  on  the  ex- 
 istence of  the  third  person  ^'^^^  now  began  to  dispute 
 
 '73  The  doctrine  of  Nestorius  has  been  already  described^ 
 Bupr.  p.  521.  n.  '^*.  that  of  Eutyches  rati  into  the  opposite  ex- 
 treme ;  and  as  ^he  forn^er  divided  the  person,  the  latter  con- 
 founded the  natures ;  Facund.  Defens.  Trium.  Capitt.  Lib.  1. 
 cap.  V.  p.  10.  e.  "  Et  ideo  jam  illud — Eutychianis  contrarium 
 rectum  esse  monstremus,  quod  Dpminum  nostrum  Jesum  Chris- 
 tum confitemur  in  duabis  naturis,  id  est  in  Divinitate  atque 
 humanitate  perfectum.— Nee  dici  patimur  vnam  ejus  ex  Divi- 
 nitate et  humanitate  compositam  naturam,  ne  Patri,  cujus  sim- 
 plex natura  est,  consubstantialis  non  sit,"  &c, 
 
 ''*  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  ditFerent  with  the  Nestorians ;  Garner,  not. 
 in  Liberat.  Brev.  cap.  x.  p.  55.—**  neque  enim  Nestorius  ipse 
 Hegavit  unquam,  Verbum,  aut  esse  unain  de  tribus  Personii: 
 Divinis,  aut  esse  incarnatum ;  neque  vero  fuit  unquam  agitata 
 quaestio  an  una  de  tribus  Personis  sit  incarnata ;  sed  an  unus 
 de  TriniUde  sit  passus^  ac  crucifixus,"  &c. 
 
 »"  Vid.  Usser.  Antiq.  Brit.  Eccles.  cap.  ix.  p.  1 12.  seq. 
 
 '^^  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,  eon- 
 f  equently,  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 
 Xiot  admit  of  reference  to  1  John  v.  T.  yet,  as  turn- 
 ing on  the  divinity  and  the  humanity  of  Christ,  they 
 necessarily  suggested  the  expediency  of  an  appeal 
 to  Acts  XX.  28,  i  Tim.  iii.  16.  But  this  objection 
 will  have  little  force,  when  it  is  remembered  that 
 the  passage  was  not  considered  decisive,  as  not  using 
 ihe  term  Christ;  and  that  the  hereticks,  who  ex- 
 cepted against  the  doctrine  inculcated  in  those  texts, 
 rejected  also  tliat  part  of  the  canon  in  which  they 
 are  contained.  Of  the  hereticks  who  took  the  lead 
 in  this  controversy,  the  Ebionites  wholly  renounced 
 th€  authority  of  St.  PsluV^"^  ;  and  the  GnosUcks, 
 Marcionites,    Valentinians*'^,  and  their  followers, 
 
 II,  C3p.  i»  Toro.  Ih  p.  24-1.  "  NjoIo  cures  quae  s^a  sunt  vul- 
 nera  medicare.  Trinitatem  dicis  esse  unius  Deitatis.  Hoc  toto 
 credente  jam  mundo,  puto  quod  et  dccmones  confiteaniur,  Filium 
 Dei  natum  de  Maria  Virgine,  et  camera  naturae  humanse  atque 
 ftpiaiam  suscepisBe.*' 
 
 *7^  0»g.  cpntr.  Gek.  Lib.  V.  cap.  Ixv,  p.  628.  c.  **>*  y»f 
 
 pt-y)  xp^f^^^°^  "^V  a^os-oXw  us  (Maxaqlci)  rm'  x.  t.  I.  Conf.  Euseb. 
 Jlist.  Eccl.  Lib.  III.  cap.  xxvii.  p.  121.  1.  37,  S.  Hieron. 
 Procem.  in  Ep.  ad  Tit.  Tom.  VI.  p.  196.  d. 
 
 '73  Vid.  supr.  p.  431.  n. «°.  462.  n.  ^5.  S,  Hier.  ibid.  p.  196.  b. 
 «  Licet  non  sint  digni  fide,  qui  fi^em  primam  irritan?  fecerunt. 
 Marcionem  loquor  et  BasiUdem,  et  oranes  haereticos,  qui  Vetus 
 laniant  Testamentum,   &c. Ut  enim  de  cceteris  Ej^istoUs 
 
(    536    ) 
 
 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 '^^  and  were  thus  prevented  from  making 
 those  frequent  appeals  to  the  verses  in  dispute, 
 which  the  controversy  may  be  conceived  to  have 
 suggested. 
 
 It  is  thus  apparent  from  the  state  of  the  early 
 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- 
 
 ^aceam,  de  quibus  quicquid  contrarium  sua  dogmati  videranf, 
 ^ras^runt :  nonnullas  integras  repudiandas  crediderunt;  ac^ 
 Timotheum  videlicet  utramque,**  $lc, 
 
 *^»  Vid.  supr.  p.  331.  n.  46, 
 
 '"^  Yid.  supr.  p.  $2S.  nn.  ''*  et  '^K 
 
(    537    ) 
 
 pel*^',  from  whence  they  descended  to  Noetus, 
 Praxeas,  SabeUius'^%  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  folloAving  cen- 
 tury, they  were  revived  by  Marcehus,  Photinus,  and 
 Apollinarius '^^ ;  and  were  expressly  condemned  by 
 the  Council  of  Sirmium,  which  was  convened  against 
 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 
 
 *'*  S.  Epiphan.  Haer.  lxij.  p.  514.  a.   rh  ^\  nua-ctv  avru* 
 
 AvoKpvipuf  nyuv,  ixaXiTOC  a'rro  ra  Ka}<ii[A.evti  Alyvnlm  Eya/yeAta,  u 
 T»v£?  TO  ovo/xa  irriBivlo  tSto. 
 
 "*  Conf.  S.  Epiphan.  ibid.  p.  513.  a.     Tert.  adv.  Pra». 
 
 '"  Euseb.  Hist.   Eccl.  Lib.  VII.  cap.  xxix.  p.  358.  1.  27. 
 
 xcc^     or    rB>iiv\ixixf     cvyy.polsBt'iaiiJ     TrT^eifuv    cktuv    tiricDiOTruv    ervvQ^a^ 
 
 Siif  £Ti^oJo|iav  0  T?$  xala  'Avlio^eiai/  alfeaius  a.^X^y°-^f  '^^?  ^'''^  "^^^ 
 ifavov  xaSoXix^;  iKy.T^via-loci  uvoy.vj^vrlilai, 
 
 »'*  Conf.  S,  Epiphan.  Haer.  lxxi.  p.  828.  d.  Haer.  lxxii. 
 p.  SS^.  a.     Hser.  Lxxvii.  p.  998.  b.  c. 
 
 '»5  Socrat.  Hist.   Eccl.   Lib.   H.   cap.   xxix.  p.   123.    1.  5. 
 
 ^071  }r)  xj  ^oleivoq  o  T??  ikbT  [_(v  ru  2»^jiA*ft']  sKuT^via-Us  'K^oirnaa^.,  to 
 vuDiv(i^\v  avrca  ^oyfJLX  (pcivtfUTtPOv  i^t^fvX'Kn.  ^io  rapcc^vii  U  tutu 
 yeyoiji.EyV}q  o  ^acrtXswj  [Kft>vrai1»o?]  avvo^ov  ImJ-xo'Truv  Iv  t(0  Iif^»4) 
 yfVccrSat  viihivtxi*  av^yiK^nv  kv    \y.ii  x.  r.  I. 
 
 ^8^  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 
 Samosat^.  The  tenets  of  the  former  are  thus  described  by  St. 
 J^piphanius,  Hair.  lxii.  p.  513.b.  ^oy/vtaHi^it  aro?  [o  Sa^sMjo?] 
 
(    538    ) 
 
 the  confessions  of  faith  which  were  drawn  up  by  the 
 councils,  that  were  summoned  against  them''^ 
 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 
 
 Tov  uvrlt  stven  aytoy  TLviVfAO.'  ax  tlrai  i»  yua,  virorctvu  r^7q  Qvo^etvia^f 
 n  *>{  v>  otv^fVTFSff  auixa^  >c)  ^v^viy  kJ  'nviv^ok.  x^  ilvsci  yiXv  to  cra;/x«> 
 &►>*  UTSiTv  tov  n<x1/pa,  "^^X^iV  ^\  uq  iWiiV  rov  'Yjov,  to  wvEy/xa  de  ui 
 iv^OiiVta,  VT&f  x)  TO  ayiov  TlviVftx  Iv  Tr;  Q^torvili,  ^  af  lav  >)  iv 
 jf>ia   ovli   /X.JV   h    fn»   v7roi-ei<reiy    r^tTq    ^g   sp^ovlt   rd(    lvt^ys!a^y    y.,  T.  I, 
 
 The  tenets  of  Paul  of  Samosata  have  been  already  described 
 8upr.  p.  527.  n.  •»^ 
 
 "*'  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.  lb.  cap.  xxx.  p.  S59.  i.  17.  p.  362. 1.  9—15.  p. 
 363.  I.  13 — 20.  The  deficiencies  of  his  account  may  be  how- 
 ever supplied  in  some  measure  from  St.  Athanasias,  Epist.  de 
 Synodd.  §  45.  &c.  Tom.  II.  p.  759.  eqq.  A  fuller  account  o^ 
 the  Council  of  Sirmium,  is  given  by  Socrates,  Hist,  Eccl.  Lib* 
 11.  cap.  xxix.  &c.  p.  123.  sqq.  whose  account  may  be  compared 
 with  Athan.  ibid,  f  27.  p.  741.  e.  S.  Hilar,  de  Synodd.  §  37. 
 ^ol.  1174.d. 
 
 ^88  S.  Epiphan.  Haer.  lxv.  p.  608.  a.  ^ri  J^a,  ^\  rov  'Tiov 
 
 vffTFtf  aj*fX«*  »{j  3  Zot^iMto?,  x)  0  NoraTo?,  t^  «  Novjlof,  xj  aXAo». 
 ex  iffUi  ^t  tKiUiHi  5to?,  «X^a  aAXwf  wa/  £Kt»>af.  tASJv/a  ell  rou 
 .AOrON*  x)  ivotxiia'xylst  cy  'It)<y5  aiv^qevTrci>  ov7i,  xa*  erui  (pvicn  tlq 
 iri»  «  ©w?,  xat  »p^i  llaUp  0  Hscirip^  xai  'Tto?  o  'iflOS,  xa*  ay;**' 
 Tlviy^a  TO  acyjov  ITvcVpta*  «X>.a  £ij  0Et»f  I  IIccIy)^,  )g  YIOS  a^T« 
 ,fi^  avr^,  ^s  AOroZ  £v  uii^pcovcv.     Conf.  p.  609.  b. 
 
(    5S9    ) 
 than  that  of  the  heavenly  witnesses,  could  not  be 
 easily  fabricated'^.     It  seems  to  be  therefore  just 
 
 ^^^  As  the  Sabellians  held  that  the  Father,  Word,  and  Holy 
 Spirit  were  three  energies  in  the  Divinity,  r^tTq  lnfyeUt  iv  tjj 
 es6u%  vid.  supr.  p.  538.  n.  '^' :  they  held  that  these  three 
 energies  were  one  Person;  S.  Epiphan.  ibid.  p.  609.  b.  ^»» 
 tSto  TrpoacuTTOV  h  rov  0£o»  a/xa  rZ  Aoyu  ^curlv,  us  avB^uvov  tvcc  Ka» 
 (Tov  auTtf  ^07ov.  H^tv  ivhiov  vuv  'la^aiuv,  i>q  i(pny  5b|«{omf.  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.  5  r,  Tioj 
 Ix  rriS  Voices  uv  yivriiAOc,  HGia.  h  sftv  uirU  ^  o  ytyr,<ru<;  av^h  TLMg. 
 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,  rozts    «»<r»»   o'    fA«p1v?^y')s?,    «   nal^p,  xa*  0  Aoyof,   xa»   TB   «yifl» 
 
 Tlviv^^y  «*'  ot  'r§E»'f  ^'v  e'^^'.  ^"l^y  explained  their  doctrine ;  as  in 
 this  phrase  the  term  Aoyo?  was  supplied  for  'Y*^?,  and  the  personal 
 diversity  consequently  unmarked,  if  not  subverted,  in  the  sen- 
 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  th^ 
 context,  their  tenets  were  thus  fully  and  accurately  described, 
 
 iyio»  HytD^a,   xai   al  Tpsr?   tv   [^7rf6a 0,7:6*2    "Vu     In  fact,  as  EuS^ 
 bias  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  &lso  borrowed  their  notions  on  the  subjea 
 ©f  the  Trinity.     Of  consequence,  the  passage  before  us,  how- 
 ever reconcilable  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Catholicks,  was  wholly 
 Wifit  to  oppose  to  the  errours  of  their  opponents.     Had  they 
 quoted  it  without  supplying  the  ellipsis,  it  expressed  in  a  manner 
 e^n  worse  than  inadequate  the  difference  between  their  tenets 
 and  those  of  the  hereticks ;  as  in  using  Aoyo?  for  'Yio?,  their 
 distinctioxi*  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 
 Avould  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  o^o^trioy  was  wholly 
 rejected,  though  in  this  term  the  whole  strength  of 
 the  catholicks'  cause  was  rested  '9° ;  and  in  that  of 
 Sirmium  it  was  passed  over  in  silence ''':  the  here- 
 
 nents  were  forcibly  marked.  Had  they  filled  up  the  ellipsis  by 
 inserting  the  peculiar  terras,  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.  rpict  []9rpo<r*i7ra3  ^J"*  "^^  (xccflvf'^ilaj  o  Jlc^iyip  v.cci  o  Ytoy  xat  to 
 ^yjoB  nvey/xfit,  xat  T<*  Tp*a  ;xi«  [ao-ia^  ^r*.  Will  the  impugners 
 of  1  Joh.  V.  7.  now  persist  in  requiring  an  express  appeal  to  this 
 text  in  the  Trinitarian  controversy  ? 
 
 ^^  S.  Athan.  de  Synodd.  §  45.  p.  759.  b.  ol  ^A*  yap  rlv  2«^o- 
 ffUTioe.    jt«SeXo>1e?'— ^^'io'^'''?    EyXajSvjSe'i'le?   to    co(pior[j,ec    T«   "ZaitaaaMco^y 
 
 sloviKctai,  /w,-/)  EiVflii  Tov  X§ts-ov  opio8(7tov.  Couf.  S.  Hilar,  de  Sy- 
 nodd. §  86.  col.  1200,  b.  The  peculiar  force  of  the  term 
 ifioscrm  is  asserted  in  the  following  terms  by  St.  Athanasius, 
 Ibid.  p.  760.  b.  tst»  xapn*  ol  iv  Niv.aU  <^u»6^Sol/1£?,  Sto^^cra^Js?  rrm 
 'Tfccvac-Ua.v  ruv  aT«  (p^ovevluv  [Iripxt  ia-lav  tS  Y*a  tivon  U7r$  t§  riaifpj^ 
 itj    ffvvafecy6i]ss     Ix.    rut    X^oc^up     rvit    ^xvoiocv,    XevKore^ov    ypa^ovlEf, 
 
 Btprr/.X'Jt   TO   ofj£>OHGtov, 'TTUvioc  yt»  ^yt-a^ciQi  orc(pl{E<rSa»>  lej  fxtlx' 
 
 vouTvy  w;  ^aXaaif  ravTW  /xovw  Ty)V  Xe'giV,  uq   ^n>.efxy(rav  uCriv  rfii> 
 
 '5'  The  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Council  of  Sirmium,  is 
 given  in  Socrates,  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  II.  cap.  xxx.  p.  124.  S. 
 Athan.  de  Synodd.  §  27.  p.  742.  a.  S.  Hilar,  de  Synodd.  §  38* 
 col.  1174.  e:  but  the  term  S^oacnov  does  not  occur  in  it.  In  a 
 Council  held  at  Sirmium,  within  six  years  of  the  preceding,  tho 
 
(    541    ) 
 
 ticks  having  carried  their  notions  of  the  doctrine  of 
 one  substance,  which  is  asserted  in  the  disputed 
 verse,  to  such  an  extent,  that  they  confounded  the 
 persons,  in  establishing-  their  favourite  tenet. 
 
 It  may  be  however  objected,  that  as  this  text  must 
 have  been  challenged  by  the  hereticks,  some  refer- 
 ence must  have  been  made  to  it  by  the  orthodox,  in 
 replying  to  the  arguments  of  their  opponents.  It 
 is  much  to  be  regretted,  that  we  retain  no  more  of 
 the  controversies  of  those  hereticks,  than  their  or- 
 thodox adversaries  were  able  to  refute :  yet  scanty 
 as  the  accounts  of  those  controversies  are '9*,  we 
 discover  sufficient  in  the  remains  of  them  to  warrant 
 us  in  asserting,  that  the  disputed  text  was  claimed 
 by  the  hereticks.  The  controversy  maintained  by 
 Tertullian  against  Praxeas,  and  by  Epiphanius 
 against  the  Sabellians,  supply  the  only  places  in 
 which  we  might  expect  that  some  allusion  would  be 
 made  to  the  disputed  passage  ;  for  the  reply  of  Eu- 
 sebius  to  Marcellus,  must  be  set  out  of  the  question, 
 for  reasons  which  were  formerly  specified  '^^     In 
 
 term  is  wholly  proscribed;  S.  Hilar,  ib.  §  11.  col.  1157.  b. 
 •*  Quod  vero  qiiosdam  aut  multos  movebat  de  substantia,  quse 
 Graece  vsia  [«crj«]  appellatur,  id  est  ut  expressius  intelligatur, 
 homoxision  [5/xoyo-ioi'],  aut  quod  dicitur  homceusion  [ov.ojaaio?], 
 nullam  omn'ino fieri  oportere  mentionevi,  nee  quemquam pi crdicaret 
 ea  de  causa  et  ratione,  quod  nee  in  divinis  Scripturis  continea- 
 tur,  &c.     Conf.  S.  Athan.  ib.  §  28.  p.  744.  f. 
 
 »'*  Eusebius  dismisses  the  subject  of  the  Sabellian  heresy 
 with  scarcely  an  observation,  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  VII.  cap.  vi. 
 p.  326. 1.  3.  . 
 
 »93  Vid.  supr.  p.  530. 
 
(    543    ) 
 
 the  works  of  TertuUian '''^  and  Epiphamus  »>5,  w^ 
 
 '^  Vid.  supr.  p.  299.  n. 
 
 '^5  St.  Epiphanius,  in  asserting  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
 against  the  Sabellians,  cites  Joh.  x.  30.  lyu  f^  o  nolJjp  e»  i^fABt : 
 and  quotes  with  this  text  the  following  passage,  which  does 
 not  at  present  exist  in  Scripture,  xj  ol  ^6o  ey  laf^ev  i  subjoining 
 the  form  of  baptism.  Matt,  xxviii.  19:  Hasr.  lxii.  p.  515.  c. 
 xj   TO  IlvtvfAX — TpiTOK   T>J  ovofAoicrix,    iffov  rr)   QiOTr^i,    ax   tiXhoMiAivof 
 
 0  yccp  Y»o;  ^ijcru/*  *  lyu  zxl  i  Ilolip  g'v  Ejptev**  xat  ax  iivi>  sis  £\f/,t» 
 u>^cc  To  *  iyuj  xai  o  Ilalup,*  o-yij^t-uifH  Ivvvofulov  riv  HcclsfUf  x«* 
 «»t;7ror*1o:'  top  Yrji*.  Ka*  *  ol  ovo*  tiVf,  xat  ax  ETTrsf  o  eTj"  xa»  9ra?^»' 
 *  £V  EaiM5V'*  xat  ax  eiTrsi*  sTf  £i/xt.  ua-airu;  $e  *  <»9re^^oj'76?  ^afrlia-eilt 
 tii  TO  bVoiMX  Ta  Ilalpo?,  xa»  ra  'T»aj  xa*  Ta  ccyie  nfit/^olo?.'  fAsauf  ii 
 ri^i[jt.ivuy  ruv  apSpw**  t?$  at/XXaiSvj?  *  tS,  tS,*  xa*  *  Ta.'  ttai  lAi/^^fj 
 X(*^«^^^o^'  Molvaui?  Toi/  crvvxKitpYiV  '7rot,^ti(r(pipov\cc,  ova  yoip  kJ  cr^fjLotivti 
 aXr)BaJ^  Ylccii^a,  aX»j$&>f  Yiov,  tiXijSw;  ayiov  nvEV/tz-a.  Not  long  pre- 
 vious to  this  passage,  he  connects  the  same  phrase  with  Joh* 
 X.  38.  Id.  ibid.  p.  514.  a.  *  lyu  iv  ru  Xlal^t,  ka)  o  Ilal^^  Iv  l/xo*,' 
 >jj,  *  01  ^uo  6v  sdfMsv.*  Now  whether  we  must  attribute  the 
 alteration  of  this  text  to  St.  Epiphanius,  or  his  transcribef",  it 
 is  fully  evident,  that  this  phrase  has  been  fabricated  out  of 
 
 1  Joh.  V.  7.  01  TpsK  iv  eJo-u  (1.)  The  phrase  quoted  by  St* 
 Epiphanius,  o?  ^vo  h  so-^ev,  is  neither  Scripture  nor  Greek  t 
 ol  Uo  requires  the  3.  pers*  plur.  ejVj,  or  the  3.  pers.  dual.  Wov  i 
 and,  contrawise,  lafAtv  recjuires  the  pronoun  in  the  first  pers» 
 ii/y,£K  or  lyu  x«*.  (2.)  St.  Epiphanius  quotes  two  passages  from 
 Scripture,  and  makes  an  effort  at  quoting  a  third.  There  are 
 precisely  three  passages  in  Scripture,  in  which  the  diversity  of 
 the  Persons,  and  the  unity  of  the  substance  of  the  Trinity,  are 
 plainly  asserted;  Mat.  xxviii.  19.  Joh.  x.  30^  1  Joh.  v.  7.  The 
 first  two  are  correctly  quoted  by  St.  Epiphanius :  and  the  re« 
 mains  of  Uie  third,  ot  Tpe??  'iv  iliriy  clearly  exist  in  the  cor- 
 rupted passage  before  us,  o»  ^vo  h  £*V».  (3.)  This  passage  is 
 cited  by  St.  Epiphanius  as  Scripture,  and  is  quoted  in  reasoning 
 against  the  Sabellians ;  but  St.  Cyprian  informs  us,  that  the 
 phrase  *  tres  unum  sunt,'  is  Scripture,  vid.  supr,  p.  300.  n,  ^°^  j 
 
(    543    ) 
 
 consequently  find  manifest  traces  of  the  disputed 
 text^  which  very  sufficiently  declare,  that  it  was  not 
 only  appealed  to  in  the  controversy,  but  challenged 
 on  the  side  of  the  hereticks. 
 
 If  we  now  consider  the  period  during  which  the 
 Sabellian  controversy  prevailed,  we  shall  easily  per- 
 ceive that  the  negative  argument  adduced  against 
 1  Joh.  V.  7.  derives  its  entire  strength  from  an  in- 
 attention to  the  true  state  of  that  controversy,  and 
 the  period  for  which  it  prevailed.  The  first  effec- 
 tual opposition  which  was  made  against  that  heresy 
 was  in  the  council  of  Antioch,  about  sixty  years  pre- 
 
 and  TertuUian  sliows  us,  that  this  phrase  was  cited  with  Job. 
 X.  30.  in  the  Sabellian  controversy^  vid.  ibid.  p.  299,  n.  '*^ 
 I  therefore  conclude,  that  ot  Uo  h  lay^sv,  or  h  tla-i,  stood  in 
 St.  Epiphanius's  authority,  with  the  alteration  of  a  single  word, 
 «*  r^cTf  Hv  £»Vi.  But  this  antient  Father  not  finding  this  phras« 
 in  hie  copy  of  the  Greek  Testament,  nor  inclined  to  believe  it 
 genuine,  if  he  found  it  in  any  other  person's,  as  must  be  appa- 
 rent from  his  remark  on  the  article  t5j  prefixed  to  nu%f  and 
 *Y»o5-,  in  Mat.  xxviii.  19.  as  signifying  «^jj$w?  ncc%p,  and  ctKn^MS 
 'Tios,  vid.  supr. :  yet  having  found  it  in  some  authour*s  wri* 
 tings,  whom  he  was  engaged  in  refuting,  he  very  easily  ima- 
 gined it  a  part  of  Joh.  x.  38.  with  which  passage  it  was  pro- 
 bably connected  in  the  work  before  him,  as  it  is  now  evidently 
 connected  in  his  own  text,  p.  514.  a.  ut  supr.  Having  thus 
 united  it  with  lye)  xal  o  nctrzp  in  Joh.  x.  30.  the  change  from 
 nrpeT?  to  5^0,  was  not  so  much  the  result  of  caprice  as  necessity, 
 in  order  to  connect  it  with  the  context  of  St.  John.  Though 
 I  cannot  offer  this  remark  as  any  evidence  that  1  Joh.  v.  7. 
 was  known  to  St.  Epiphanius ;  j'et,  until  a  better  account  is 
 given  of  the  extraordinary  text  in  his  writings,  r>l  <5vc.  «>  icfjkif, 
 I  feel  warranted  in  offering  it  as  a  proof,  that  this  text  is 
 1  Joh.  V.  7.  oi  rper?  E»  6.V«,  corrupted ;  and  that  St.  Epipha- 
 nius found  it  quoted  as  Scripture  in  some  Sabellian  writer. 
 
(     314    ) 
 
 viously  to  tlie  council  of  Nice  *9'^.  From  "this  period 
 it  silently  gathered  strength  from  the  opposition  of 
 Arianism^  until  it  was  formally  condemned  in  the 
 middle  of  the  fourth  century,  by  the  council  of  Sir* 
 mium  '9^:  The  last  effectual  blow  was  struck  against 
 those  rival  sects  in  the  second  general  council,  con- 
 vened at  the  close  of  the  same  age  in  Constantino- 
 ple »^^  But  for  a  long  period  after  this  time,  they 
 continued  to  infest  the  Oriental  Church,  until  they 
 broke  out  in  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century,  in  the 
 heresies  of  Nestorius  and  Eutyches  '^9. 
 
 Let  us  therefore  advert  to  the  history  of  the  sa-* 
 cred  text  for  the  whole  of  this  period,  and  view  it 
 comparatively   with  the  state  of  religious  contro- 
 versy.    Let  us  remember,  that  in  the  earlier  part 
 of  the  term  the  canon  was  revised  by  Eusebius,  the 
 avowed  adversary  of  the  Sabellians,  with  the  most 
 unlimited  powers  to  render  it  conducive  to  the  pro- 
 motion of  what  he  believed  the  ecclesiastical  doc- 
 trine *°'*.     Let  us  recollect,  that  at  the  latter  part  of 
 the  term,  the  Vulgar  Text  was  again  restored  by 
 the  Catholicks,  whose  prejudices  were  not  less  vio- 
 lently opposed  to  the  Sabellian  errours,  than  their 
 avowed  enemies,  the  Arians ;  and  that  the  disputed 
 text  was  still  conceived  to  be  on  the  side  of  the  he- 
 terodox **".     Let  us  hence  consider  the  peculiar  ten- 
 's* A.  D.  269.    Vid.  Pag.  in  Ann.  Baron.     Sac.  iji.  p.  285.- 
 '^'  A.  D.  351.    Vid.  Pag.  ibid.     Saec.  iv.  p;  475. 
 '5'  A.  D.  381.     Vid.  Pag.  ibid.  p.  557. 
 *55  Vid.  supr.  p.  344.  nn.  ^'  et  '\  p.  371.  n.  '*'. 
 *=°  Vid.  supr.  p.  26.  n.  4+.  conf.  p.  27.  n.  ^^ 
 "'  Vid.  supr.  p.  539.  n.  »^^ ;  conf.  p.  298.  n.  ^^^ 
 
(    545    ) 
 
 dfenfcy  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 
 
 *°*  Vid.  supr.  p.  39.  nn.  "^  sqq. 
 
 ^3  Vid.  supr.  p.  93.  n.  '°\ 
 
 '°*  Vid.  supr.  p.  303.  n.  ^'\ 
 
 '°5  s.  Chrysost.  Horn,  in  1  Cor.  xv,  19»  Tom.  X.  p.  379.  a. 
 
 fjitlcc    yap    rcc  a.h'Ka   liuiloc   tSto   ^rfcaliSe/AEy   o  vvv    a    YlxvXo^    >,eyet.   t^ 
 
 Cyril.  Hieros.  Cateches.  vi.  §  xv.  p.  97.  1.  17.  ed.  Oxon,  1703. 
 
 ^(.^AofA£»«*    8x    Ifiv   £^og   i^HxoTi;   ^iT,ys7a-^xu  8  y»q  k^vixu  ra  Treat 
 ""^  Vid.  supr.  p.  34-3.  sqq. 
 
(    546    ) 
 
 affected  by  the  disputed  passage  *°^  wliile  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  fay  sliall  we  be  from  requir- 
 ing express  allegations  of  it  in  every  controversy  *'^^. 
 
 *^7  Vid.  supr.p.  534.n.  ^7*. 
 
 »°8  Vid.  supr.  p.  539.  n.  '«».  conf.  iiifr.  p.  552*  n.  *"- 
 ^^^  The  question  hag  been  carried  by  thia  most  unfounded 
 assumption ;  on  which,  as  an  indisputable  principle,  the  rea- 
 sonings of  its  impugners  are  founded,  Pors.  Lett,  to  Trav. 
 Lett.  xii.  p.  402.     '*  But  from  the  facts  stated  in  this  historical 
 deduction,  it  is  evideiit,  that  if  the  text  of  the  heavenly  witnesses 
 had  been  known  from  the  beginning  of  Christianity,  the  an* 
 tients  would  have  eagerly  seized  it,  inserted  it  in  their,  creeds, 
 quoted  it  expressly  against  the  hereticks,  and  have  selected  it 
 for  the  brightest  ornament  of  ertery  hook  that  they  tvrote  upon 
 the  subject  o^the  TrinityJ*     That  thecritick,  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  wa» 
 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.     S.  Hilary's  work  is  entitled  in  some  MSS.  **  De 
 Fide  contra  Arianos  ;"  this  is  the  title  under  which  the  autlu"»ai' 
 alludes  to  his  own  work  ;  S.  Hilar.  Ibid.  col.  785.  c.  and  that 
 under  which  it  is  mentioned  by  the  antients  ;  vid.  S.  Hier.  Cat, 
 
(    547    ) 
 
 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  losa 
 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.  Praef.  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 
 iTFiloiy.Tiv  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  Haj-escsy^  which 
 comes  nearer  to  the  title  of  some  of  Tertullian's  works ;  vid. 
 Patrr.  Benedd.  Praef.  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  Novat.  p, 
 '"05.     Patrr.  Benedd.  Praef.  in  Hilar.  $  xii,  xiv.  p.  756, 
 
(    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 
 
 **°  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  mtnesscs*^^ 
 
 *"  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.  xi.  p.  31 L — "  I  do 
 re-assert,  that  no  ririter  in  his  perfect  mind  could  possibly  adopt 
 this  allegorical  exposition  of  the  eighth  verse,  if  the  seventh 
 were  extant  in  his  copy.  Even  a  madman  would  have  method 
 in  his  madness. — I  appeal  to  any  orthodox  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.*' 
 
 "*  Auct.  de  Baptism,  p.  21.  '*  Ait  enim  Joannes  de  Do- 
 mino nostro  in  Epistola  nos  docens ;  *  Hie  est  qui  venit  per 
 aquam  et  sanguinem,  Jesu§  Christus.  Non  in  aqua  tantum, 
 sed  in  aqua  et  sanguine.  Et  spiritus  est  qui  testimonium  per- 
 hibet,  quia  spiritus  est  Veritas.  Quia  tres  testimonium  perhibent, 
 spiritus,  et  aqua,  et  sanguis,  Kt  isti  ires  in  unum  sunt.'  Ut 
 ex  illis  colligamus,  et  *  aquam'  pra?stare  solitum,  et  *  sangui- 
 nem'  proprium  prajstare  solitum,  et  ipsum  quoque  *  spiritum* 
 
(    549    ) 
 
 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 
 
 praestare  spiritum  solitum.'*  Int.  opuscc.  S.  Cypr.  adscriptt. 
 p.  21. 
 
 *'^  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  ties  unum 
 sunt  ;*  *  spiritus*  utique  sanctificationis,  et  *  sanguis'  redemp- 
 tionis,  et  *  aqua'  baptismatis,  quae  tria  unum  sunt,  et  individua 
 manent,  nihilque  eorum  a  sui  connexione  segungitur."  Ap, 
 Auctar.  Bibl.  Patrr.  Tom.  I.  p.  492.  a.  Par.  1624-. 
 
 *'*  S.  August,  contr.  Maxim,  cap.  xxii.  Tom.  VIII.  col.  726.  b. 
 **  Si  ea  quae  his  [Spiritu,  aqua,  et  sanguine]  significata  sunt, 
 velimus  inquirere,  non  absurde  occurret  ipsa  Trinitas,  quae  unus 
 — Deus  est,  Pater,  et  Filius,  et  Spiritus  sanctus,  de  quibus  veris- 
 sime  did  potuit :  *  tres  sunt  testes,  et  tres  unum  sunt:*  ut 
 nomine  *  Spiritus*  accipiamus  Patrem,  nomine  autem  *  sangui- 
 nis' Filium,  et  nomine  ^  aquae'  Spiritum*** 
 
 *'5  Facund.  Defens.  Tri.  Capitt.  Lib.  I.  cap.  iii.  p.  6.  g. 
 <*  Aut  si  forsitan  ii  qui  de  verbo  contendunt,  in  eo  quod  dixit ; 
 <  Tres  sunt  qui  testificantur  in  terra,  spiritus,  aqua,  et  sanguis, 
 et  hi  tres  unum  sunt,'  Trinitatem  quae  unus  Deus  est,  nolunt 
 intelligi,  secundum  ipsa  verba  quae  posuit,  pro  Apostolo  Joanne 
 respondeant.  Numquid  *  hi  tres'  qui  *  in  terra  testificari'  et 
 qui  *  unum  esse'  dicuntur,  possunt  spiritus,  aut  aquae,  aut  san- 
 guines dici  ?  Quod  tamen  Joannis  Apostoli  testimonium  B. 
 Cyprianus  Carthaginiensis,  antistes  et  martyr,  in  Epistola  sive 
 Libro,  quern  de  Trinitate  scripsit,  de  Patre  et  Fitio  et  Spiritu 
 sancto  dictum  intelligit.  Ait  enim,  <  Dicit  Dominus,"  &c 
 Ut.  supr.  p.  291.n.*s4. 
 
(    550    ) 
 
 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  Cathohcks  on  the  one 
 side,  and  the  SabelHans,  the  ApoUinarists,  and  the 
 Eutychians,  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:  but  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  three 
 Persons^'\  And  the  Apolhnarists  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  same 
 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- 
 
 -"  Vid.  supr.  p.  534.  n.  *".  infr.  n. 
 ^^7  Vid.  supr.  p,  538.  n.  '^^ 
 
 ^^'  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.  II.  p.  932.  a. 
 
 ?.£7ov7£5-,   6ptob(7i'«v  £jva»  rr)   T^ioih   TY,y  accpxoc,^     Conf.   lb,  p. 
 932.,  a. 
 
(    531    ) 
 
 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*'9  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  is  thus  easily  disposed  of:  he  wrote  while 
 the  heresy  of  Apollinarius  prevailed,  and  with  a 
 
 **'  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  *  spiritu*  significans  Patrem .     In  *  aqua'  vero  Spiritum 
 
 sanctum  significans, .     In  *  sanguine*  vero  Filium  signi- 
 
 iicans,  quoniam  ipse,  ex  sancta  Trinitate,  communicitvit  carni 
 tt  sanguine,'*     Conf.  supr.  p.  549.  n,  *'^ 
 
(    552    ) 
 
 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  unreasonable  to 
 
 *^  Vid.  supr.  p.  15.  n.  *^  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.  *'*,  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  quae  in 
 Epistola  Johannis  legitur,  exponi  et  intelligi  potest,  secundum 
 catholicam  Jidem,  quad  n%c  coiifimdit  nee  sejoarat  TRiNiTATEAf, 
 nee  abnuit  tres  personas,  nep  diversas  credit  esse  substantias^ 
 nulla  ratione  respuendum  est.  Quod  enim  ad  exercendas 
 nientes  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  Joha 
 V.  7.  must  have  been  an  encumbrance  not  easily  disposed  of; 
 vid.  supr.  p.  539.  n.  '^^  p.  549.  n.  *'*.  St.  Augustine  had  been 
 a  convert  from  Manicheism ;  by  which  sect  the  Apolinarian 
 and  Eutychian  notions  relative  to  Christ's  body  being  of  one 
 substance  with  the  Trinity,  were  adopted;  vid,  S.  Athanas. 
 contr.  Apolinar.  Lib.  I.  §  12.  Tom.  II.  p.  932.  c.  934.  d. 
 
 *"  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.  Praef.  in  init.  p.  4.  a.  He 
 however  subsequently  enlarged  his  plan,  and  directed  his  attacl?; 
 against  the  Nestorians  and  Eutychians;  Id.  ibid.  Lib.  I.  cap.  i, 
 p.  4.  d,    "  Nam  cum  ^w^  nuncferveant  hcereses  ab  eodem 
 
(    553    ) 
 
 expect  in  their  works^  any  thing  in  the  shape  of  an 
 Appeal  to  its  authority.     In  fact,  it  must  be  appa- 
 
 concilio  [CalchedonensI]  refutatae — mysterium  divince  Incurna* 
 tionis  oppugmant,  Nestorianorum  dico,  et  Euti/chianoriim/*  &c. 
 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.  ^'*.  But  as  it 
 did  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  Filium  Dei,  quemad- 
 modum  dictum  est,  in  duabus  praedicamus  esse  natiiris.  Nee 
 dici  patimur  unam  ejus  ex  Divinitate  et  humanitate  compos/tarn 
 esse  naturam,  ne  Patriy  cujus  simplex  natura  est,  consubstantialis 
 Tion  sit:  et  sicut  alterius  est  personam,  quam  Pater,  ita  etiam 
 alterius,  id  est,  diversce  dicatur  esse  naturce.  Verum  neque 
 nobis  erit  consubstantialis  nisi  ejus  diice  naturce  sint:  ut  scilicet 
 altera  sit,  in  qua  consubstantialis  est  Patri,  altera  vero  in  qua 
 consubstantialis  est  nobis.  At  huic  evidentissmae  rationi  bruta 
 jEutychianorum  contentio  refragatur,  adfirmans,  Dei  Verbi  uni- 
 tatem  incommutabiliter  simplicem  cum  suscepta  humanitate,  in 
 unam  componi  potuisse  naturam,"  Conf.  S.  Athan.  contr.  Apo- 
 linar.  Lib.  I.  \  2.  p.  923.  a.  §  12.  p.  932.  a.  Epis  ad  Epictet. 
 §  9.  lb.  p.  907.  e.  Let  the  reader  now  weigh  the  force  of 
 **  FiLiu^Dei  in  duabus  naturis,"  in  the  former  part  of  this  pas- 
 sage, with  '  Verbum  in  una  simjjlici  natura,"  in  the  latter; 
 let  him  then  apply  this  distinction  of  Facundus  to  the  disputed 
 Verse,  **  tres  sunt  qui  testificantur  in  ccelo,  Pater,  Verbum,  et 
 
(    554    ) 
 
 rent  to  the  most  superficial  observer^  that  Pacundus 
 has  absolutely  laboured  to  destroy  its  authority"*,  by 
 
 'Spiiitus;  et  hi  tres  ununt  sunt:'*  let  hinti  then  pronounce  how 
 fur  Facundus  and  P.  Leo's  testimony  is  admissible,  on  the  au- 
 thenticity of  this  verse,  which  embarrassed  their  cause  with  the 
 greatest  difficulties,  and  voas  tvantmg  both  in  the  authorised 
 text  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  Church,  with  which  these  lathers 
 were  well  acquainted ;  vid.  Facund.  in  Praef,  p.  4-.  b.  c.  Leo. 
 ub  supr.  p.  492.  b. 
 
 *"  As  1  John  V.  7.  taken  in  the  strict  literal  sense,  fully 
 agreed  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Eutychians ;  atid  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  advaii' 
 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.  Cjprian's  testimony,  as  Fulgentius,  his  contemporary, 
 ][)laces  out  of  dispute,  vid.  supr,  p.  292.  n.  *^^ ;  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  dilferent 
 meaning,  vid.  supr.  pp.  548,  549.  nn.  *"  et  *'^ :  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  wliole  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  opposition  to  the 
 tenets  of  the  Eutychians ;  Ibid.  "  In  *  sanguine^  vero  Filium 
 significans,  quoniam  ipse  ex  sancta  Trinitate,  cofinnunicavit  came 
 et  sanguine ;"  ut  supr.  p.  549.  n.  **'.  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, 
 «upr.  p.  549.  n.  *  ^  is  I  conceive  apparent,  from  the  objection 
 
(    555    ) 
 
 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 :  "  Numquld  <  hi  tres  qui  in  terra  testi- 
 iicari,'  et  qui  <  unum  esse'  dicuntur,  possunt  *  spiritus,  aut  aquae, 
 aut  sanguines'  did :"  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, 
 
 **^  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  iii 
 the  sequel.  And  M.  Griesbach  further  objects,  Append,  ad 
 J.  1  Joh.  V.  7.  p.  14.  n.  *.  "  probabiliter  e  Vulgata  recentiore  a 
 Jibrario  aut  ab  editore  Facundi  intrusa  fuerunt.'*  But  this 
 unsupported  conjecture  has  not  the  shadow  of  probability,  9s 
 Facundus  is  not  accommodated  to  the  Vulgate,  in  the  passage 
 before  us ;  he  reads  both  in  the  text,  and  in  his  comment,  "  tre» 
 sunt  qui  testijica7itur  in  terra/'  while  the  Latin  Vulgate  reads> 
 *'  tres  sunt  qui  testimonium  dant  ;*'  and  in  some  MSS.  without 
 **  in  terra."  On  the  other  hand,  that  Facundus  wrote  "  la 
 terra,"  is  apparent,  for  the  following  reasons.  (L)  There  coul4 
 be  no  object  in  adopting  these  words  from  theVuIgate,  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.  J 5.  (4.)  They  are  delivered 
 with  that  variation  in  the  testimony  of  Facundus,  and  yet  with 
 that  conformity  to  the  documents  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 
 oxvn  texfy  naturally  follows  the  Vulgate;  he  there  reads,  "  tres 
 sunt  qui  testimonium  dani  in  terra;"  vid.  supr.  p.  549.  n.  *'^ 
 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.  54-9.  n.  "-'^  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. 
 
 II.  p.  28.  "  Summam  hujus  ControversicB  quae  Orientalem  Ec- 
 clesiam  diu  multumque  devexavit,  accipe,  Scripserat  Xenajas 
 ad  Monachos  quosdam  Syros  prolixam  de  Incarnationis  mysterio 
 Epistolam,  in  qua  propositionem  banc  frequenter  usurpabat, 
 
 *  Vnus  e  Trinitate  descendit  de  ccelo  incarnatus  est,  passus,  est 
 crucifixus,  mortuus,  resurrexit,  ascendit  in  ccelum*  et  similia : 
 notare  volens  turn  Nestorianos^  qui  humanitatem  Christi  a  Divt* 
 nitate  ac  persona  Verbi  separabant,  turn  Eutychianos  qui  corpus 
 phantasticum  ab  eodem  Verbo  assumptum  opinabantur.  Exce- 
 pit  ilium  cum  risu  Anonymus  Nestorianus,  reprehendens  maxime 
 illam  dictionem,  *  Unus  e  Trinitate,*  quasi  duae  non  tres  divinae 
 Fersonas  remanserint  in  ccelo,  si  '  Unus  e  Trinitate'  dicatur 
 
 *  in  terram  descendisse,'  quae  sunt  ipsius  Anonymi  verba  a 
 Xenaja  initio  Disputationis  relata:  aliaque  subjungit  absurda, 
 quae  ex  ea  propositione  sequi  affirmat,  sed  maximum  ait  esse, 
 
 *  vocis  illius  novitatem.*  Ad  haec  Xenajas  e  Scriptura  et  Patri' 
 bus  demonstrat  vocem  illam  nee  novam  esse  nee  veteribits  incog- 
 nitam,  &c.     Gonf.  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- 
 servable, that  in  appealing  to  the  disputed  passage,  he  keeps 
 this  subject  fully  in  view.    He  opens  the  chapter  in  which  ha 
 
(    557    ) 
 
 frmn,  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  hke  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  contendanti 
 quia  videtur  eis,  quod  dici  non  debeat,  Unum  dt  Trinitate  pro 
 nobis  crucifixum,  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  separab(mt ;"  the  term  '*  san- 
 guis" was  opposed  to  the  Eutychians,  **  qui  corpus  phantas- 
 ticum  ab  eodem  Verbo  assumptum  opinabantur.'*  In  every 
 other  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  in  heaven^  the  Father,  Word^  and  Holy  Ghost," 
 &c.  So  far  therefore  is  the  phrase  '*  in  terra"  from  being  m- 
 consistent  tvith  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  cceIo,"  ex- 
 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  in  ccelo^*  &c* 
 
 i^+  Ruffin.  de  Adult.  Librorr.  Orig.  p.  53.  a.  "  Sancti  Cy- 
 priani  martyris  solet  omne  Epistolarum  corpus  in  uno  codice 
 ficribi.  Huic  corpori  hcerettci  quidam  qui  in  Spiritum  sanctum 
 blaspketnantf  Tertulliani  libellum  de  Trinitate  reprehensibiliter 
 
(    558    ) 
 
 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  "^;  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  wbich  have  been  adduced 
 a»'ainst  the  testimony  of  Eucherius,  from  the  diver- 
 sity of  the  copies  which  contain  that  writer's  works, 
 
 (quantum  ad  verltatem  fidel  nostra  pertinet)  scriptum  insere^ite^^ 
 et  aiiamplurmos  codices  de  talibus  exeinplariis  conscribentesy  per 
 totam  Constantinopolim  urbem  raaximam  distrahi  pretio  viliori 
 feccFunt,"  &c. 
 
 ^^^  It  is  a  curious  circumstance,  that  a  remark  is  made  in  the 
 tract  undet  consideration,  which  must  have  been  intended  to 
 bring  disrepute  on  the  edition  of  the  Latin  version  pubh'shed 
 by  Eusebius  Vercellensis.  A  remarkable  passage  which  he 
 admitted  into  the  sacred  text,  in  Mat.  iii.  15.  vid.  supr.  p.  127. 
 B.  '^^  is  said,  in  this  tract,  which  is  ascribed  to  tke  times  of  SL 
 Cyprian,  to  exist  in  no  Gospel ;  vid.  supr.  p.  44'5.  n.  ^^.  With 
 whatever  object  tliis  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.  m  order  to  deprive  this  verse  of  St.  Cyprian's  support ;  by 
 rendering  it  probable,  that  it  no  mare  existed  in  the  sacred  text, 
 m  his  daya,  th^n  Mat.  iii.  15.  ut  supr. 
 
(    559    ) 
 
 and  which  sornetinies  omit  the  contested  passage, 
 at  all  aifect  the  point  in  dispute  ^^^.  Eucherius  pre- 
 ceded the  eera  which  produced  the  Eutychian  con- 
 troversy ;  and  in  quoting  the  disputed  text,  he  fur- 
 nished an  authority  in  favour  of  that  heresy  **^.     As 
 
 *^^  Vid.  Griesb.  Append,  in  loc.  1  Joli.  v.  7,  8,  p.  16, 
 **^  This  observation  will  appear  more  probable  when  Euche- 
 rius's  testimony,  as  read  in  two  IMSS.  at  Vienna,  Codd,  tUeoL 
 lat.  64,  109.  is  compared  with  the  remark  on  Facundus's  testi- 
 mony, supr.  p.  554.  n.  *".  **  HI.  Sanctam  et  individuam 
 designaf  Trinitatem,  ut  Joannes  apostolus :  '  tres  sunt  qui  tes- 
 timonium dant  in  coelo,  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- 
 tiraony  of  St.  Cyprian  :  the  reader  may  determine,  whether  it 
 is  more  probable  the  cathoHcks  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  tlie  above' 
 passage  of  the  Vienna  MSS.  in  the  least  affected,  by  the  quo- 
 tations adduced  from  Eucherius's  "  Qua?stiones  in  Vet.  et  Nov. 
 Testament."  p.  88.  ed.  SichartL  ap.  Griesb.  ub.  supr.  p.  17, 
 One  of  those  quotations  convicts  the  other  of  a  palpable  omis- 
 »ioD,  In  the  first  it  is  declared  that  1  Joh.  v.  8.  was  interprete4 
 of  the  Trinity  ;  and  in  the  second,  that  the  Trinity  wa&  prqvj^ 
 merely  from  Gen.  i.  1,2.  Ps.  xxxii.  6.  Matt,  xxviii.  19.  Rom, 
 xi.  36.  From  the  latter  passage  of  course,  something  has  been 
 removed.  M.  Griesbach  would  probably  say  1  Jph.  v.  8:  but 
 it  is  just  as  easy  to  say  1  Joh.  v.  7,  8.  And  in  support  of  the 
 latter  assumption,  we  may  appeal  to  tlie  testimony  of  CereaJis 
 in  the  subjoined  note;  and  quote  the  first  of  thej  passages  ad- 
 duced in  the  present  note  from  Eucherius, 
 
(    560    ) 
 
 the  removal  of  an  obnoxious  passage  from  his  works 
 was  merely  an  accommodation  of  his  quotations  to 
 the  sacred  text,  as  corrected  by  the  Greeks  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  inserted. 
 
 The  variations  of  the  disputed  passage,  as  read  in 
 the  modern  Latin  Vulgate,  present  no  greater  diffi- 
 culty. In  some  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,  is  an  assumption 
 which  may  be  very  easily  refuted.  In  the  first 
 place,  it  was  a  custom  unknown  to  the  primitive 
 
 *^^  Bengel.  Appar.  Crit.  var.  in  1  Job.  v.  7.  §  xvi.  p.  463. 
 "  Cerealis  Afer — librum  scripsit  contra  Maximianum  Arianum, 
 in  quo  negant  dictum  .Johanneum  extare :  quod  tamen  penitus 
 negari  non  debebat.  Solent  Afri,  ut  vidimus,  duo  ilia  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  hahes 
 demonsU-atum  :*  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.  xv.)  distulisse  videtur,  et 
 *  subter'  vel  ipse  prae  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  vrho  had  not 
 been  initiated  in  the  Christian  covenant**'.  In  the 
 next  place,  the  seventh  vei*se  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 
 
 *^  S.  Chrysost.  Horn,  in  1  Cor.  xv.  19.  Tom.  X.  p.  S?9.  a. 
 BTo»    yap    t®'   «/Af^To»]]    ^vaxoXcJliqav  rif/AV  ttoihgi  rrjv   s^inynaiv, 
 
 Cyril.  Hieros.  Cateches.  vi.  §  xv.  p.  97.  1.  21.  iSi  rx  inpl  ru» 
 f^vr^fiuv  €7r;  xouriy^aixivcov  Ksvku/s  XaXwptsv,  aXXu  'nok'koi.  7roX>.axif 
 Xiyofxsv  luiy.zx.oikvixy.husy'i-iioi,  eJ^otsj  Trifoi  vQr,c(ioai'  >^  ot/^rj  £»^rfc, 
 ^Kyi  ^y^a^uar     Conf.  supr.  p.  545.  n.  ^^ 
 
 *^°  Vid.  supr.  p.  539.  n.  '^\  p.  552.  n.  ^". 
 
 *^'  Vid.  supr.  p.  iJOO,  n.  '"^  conf.  p.  292.  nn.  ^'^  et  *•^ 
 
 o  o 
 
(    562    ) 
 
 wholly  fails  of  its  end ;  a  very  satisfactory  soltition 
 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  be 
 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  arc  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 
 
 *3*  Separate  editions  of  St.  Matthew  had  been  inscribed, 
 ^ith  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. 
 
 *^3  Of  the  twelve  minor  Prophets,  Nahum,  Michea,  Zepha- 
 niah,  and  Haggai,  were  inscribed  to  Paula  and  Eustochium ; 
 Vid.  S.  Hier.  Tom.  V.  p.  113.  f. 
 
 *^*  S.  Hier.  Prol.  in  Cann.  Epp.  Tom.  I.  col.  1667.  ed. 
 Bened.  *'  Sed  tu  virgo  Christi,  Eustochium,  dum  a  me  impen- 
 sius  scrijpturcB  veritatem  inquiris,  meam  quodammodo  senectutem 
 invidorum  dentibus  corrodendam  exponis,  qui  me  falsarium, 
 corruptoremque  sacrarum  scripturarum,  pronunciant/* 
 
(    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*^^: 
 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  *^^, 
 
 *'5  Vid.  supr.  p.  545.  n.  *°^ 
 
 *'^  The  strongest  distinction  is  drawn,  by  St.  Jerome,  be- 
 tween the  copies  which  were  intended  for  private  use,  and 
 those  which  were  intended  for  general  circulation  ;  supr.  p.  101. 
 n.  *^^.  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.  *34.  «  meam  senec- 
 tutem  invidorum  dentibus  corrodendam  exponis,  qui  me  falsa- 
 rium,  et  corruptorem  sacrarum  scripturarura,  pronunciant.'* 
 
 *3^  Vid.  supr.  p.  158.  n.  "*.  p.  161.  n.  "^ 
 
 *^^  S.  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, 
 prima  earum,  Jacobi,  una ;  Petri,  duae ;  Johannis,  tres ;  et  Judae 
 una :  quae  si  ut  ab  eis  digestas  sunt,  ita  quoque  ab  interpretibus 
 fideliter  in  Latinum  verterentur  eloquium,  nee  amb'guifaiem 
 legentibus  facerent,  nee  sermonum  sese  varietas  impugnaret; 
 illo  prctcipue  loco  ubi  de  unitate  Trinitatis  in  prima  Johannis 
 Epistola  positum  legimus.  In  qua,  etiam  ab  infidelibus  [f.  fide- 
 libusj    translatoribus  multum   erratum  esFe  ab   fidei  veritate 
 
 oo2 
 
(     564    ) 
 
 On  summing'  up  the  arguments  which  have  been 
 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  respects,  which  at 
 all  detracts  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*^^, 
 is  removed  but  a  step  back  by  the  insertion  of  1  Joh. 
 V,  7  :  as  the  same  false  concord  occurs  in  the  con- 
 text 1  Joh.  V.  8.  as  read  in  the  Byzantine  edition  : 
 T^£K  ol  /xaf TUf8i/T£f  bciug  thcre  made  to  agree  with 
 TO  TrviZfAx,  x)  TO  v^u^.  But  this  objection  has  been 
 made  without  any  attention  to  the  force  of  the 
 figure  attraction.     The  only  difficulty  which  embar- 
 
 comperinms ;  trium  tantum  vocabula,  hoc  est,  *  aquae,  sanguinis 
 et  spiritus,'  in  sua  editione  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/' 
 .    *'^  Vid.fupr.p.  257, 
 
(    565    ) 
 
 rasses  the  construction  lies  in  furnishing  the  first 
 adjectives  r^tTg  •»  ixa^TvpHung  with  substantives; 
 which  is  effectually  done,  by  the  insertion  of  0  nxrva 
 ^  0  A&yof,  in  the  disputed  passage.  The  subse- 
 quent ol  r^iXq  /txa^Tu^avT£?  are  thence  attracted  to 
 the  foregoing  adjectives,  instead  of  being  go- 
 verned by  the  subsequent  to  irnZfAx^  ^  to  I'^wp,  in 
 the  strictest  consistency  with  the  style  of  St,  John 
 and  the  genius  of  the  Greek  language  ^'^^ 
 
 It  has  been  further  objected  to  the  Byzantine  text, 
 that  ixxAno-iav  T8  ©gS  Act.  xx.  28.  has  been  substi- 
 tuted for  lKxXn<Tiocv  Ts  Kuf/»,  in  order  to  accommo- 
 date the  phrase  to  tlie  style  of  St.  Paul ;  and  that 
 parallel  examples  to  og  £<pav£^w5>j  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  used 
 in  the  definitive  sense  of  ''  he  loho  was  manifested/* 
 
 **°  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.  John ;  vid.  Joh.  xiv.  26.  xv.  26. 
 xvi.  13.  In  the  last  instance  we  read,  orav  ^l  c>,$^  IxsTvos  to 
 rivsu/xa  Tvf  a}.vi$iiaq :  but  i>is7vo<;  is  here  ath^acted  to  t^  |^$&., 
 ExeTvof.  vers.  8.  which  is  governed  by  ©  UapaixXrflof  lArt/craTa., 
 vers.  7.  In  fact  this  structure  was  preferred  by  the  Evan^^e- 
 iist,  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  langua^^e. 
 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  Apostle  has  spoiled  the 
 effect  of  this  figure,  in  determining  the  gender  of  OviD^.a  to  be 
 neuter,  by  prefixing  to  it  the  article  to,  and  coupling  it  with 
 TO  fjLxflvftiv  in  his  context :  he  has  thus  wholly  unfitted  it  for 
 qualifying  the  subjoined  ol  [/.ufv^^tli^  /.,  t.  «,  ; 
 
(    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'^^ 
 
 *4«  Vid.  supr,  p.  255.  n.  '". 
 
 ***  In  Mar.  iv.  25.  Luc-  viii.  18.  o?  signifies  he  xvko,  on  na 
 ether  account,  tlian  because  he  tvho  is  synonymous  with  tohoeve7'j, 
 in  English  i  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.  o$  is  the  subjunctive  article,  and,  as 
 such,  tied  by  the  particle  yt  to  its  antecedent  Geo?  ;  as  is  di* 
 rectly  apparent  on  viewing  the  text  independent  of  its  artificial 
 division  into  verses,  il  6  &eos  l-Trl^  '/if^uv,  ti<;  xa$'  i|Ma/»;  os  ys 
 t5  l^iu  vi^  ^K  \<pt\a-a,ro.  Had  jiot  this  connexion  existed,  the 
 Apostle  would  have  used  the  participle,  with  an  article,  agree- 
 ably to  the  genius  of  the  Greek,  and  his  usual  practice :  Gal. 
 
 ii.  8.   0   yap   in^ywca;.      lb.  iii.  5.   o  a>   e-TTJ^ogijyft;*,      2  Cor.  ix.  10, 
 
 5  ^8  E7rixof'57«^i/.  Nor  does  the  example  adduced  from  Col.  i. 
 27.  supr.  p.  281.  furnish  any  parallel  instance  to  1  Tim.  iii.  16. 
 St.  Paul  has  expressly  determined  the  gender  of  /xfrsj^iOK  to  be 
 neuter  (1.)  by  the  context;  writing  to  (/.v^-yi^iop  to  awoxE^y/*- 
 ^£>ov:  and  (2.)  by  the  sense,  as  XpirU  is  not  to  ^vt^iov,  but  a 
 grXH7o$  tYii  ^ojvjy  tS  fAvs-nq^e,  as  the  Apostle  shews,  by  subjoin- 
 ing >)  e^7r*?  t5?  So^n<; :  SO  that  the  true  antecedent  to  o?,  in  b\  lr» 
 "X^iTuc,  is  0  wxSto?.  If  the  passage  admitted  not  of  this  expla- 
 nation, an  Attraction,  by  which  o?  and  X^^roi  were  made  ta 
 agree,  would  afford  a  better  explanation  of  the  phrase  Ters 
 
(  567  ) 
 It  has  been  further  urged  against  the  Greek  Vul- 
 gate, that  Liberatus  states  the  vulgar  reading  of 
 1  Tim.  iii.  16.  to  be  a  correction  of  the  heretick 
 Macedonius ;  and  that  1  John  v.  7.  could  not  have 
 existed  in  the  sacred  text,  in  the  age  of  the  Alogi, 
 since  these  hereticks  rejected  the  Gospel  of  St, 
 John,  as  militating  against  their  peculiar  opinions 
 yet  have  not  objected  to  the  Epistles  of  the  Evan- 
 gelist, which  are  equally  opposed  to  their  tenets, 
 when  the  disputed  verse  forms  a  part  of  his  context. 
 But  when  the  principles  of  Liberatus  are  taken  into 
 account,  together  with  the  obscurity  and  contradic- 
 toriness  of  his  testimony,  it  will  not  be  deemed  wor- 
 thy  of  implicit   credence  *^^      We   may   however 
 
 f/ivrvi^ie  05  Irt  Xpiroj,  than  tliat  which  supposes  to  jtAvr^pto*  and  oj 
 to  agree,  by  the  most  palpable  solecism. 
 
 ^'^'^  The  charge  urged  by  Liberatus  is  expressed  in  the  fol- 
 lowing terms;  Liber.  Brev.  cap,  xix.  p.  134.  "  Hoc  tempore 
 Macedonius  Constantinopolitanus  Episcopus  ab  Imperatore 
 Anastasio  dicitur  expulsus,  tanquam  Evangelia  falsasset,  et 
 maxime  illud  Apostoli  dictum  ;  *  Quia  apparuit  in  came,  justi- 
 licatus  est  in  spiritu.'  Hunc  enim  immutasse,  ubi  habet  ©?,  id 
 est,  qui,  monosyllabum  graecum,  littera  mutata  o  in  J  vertisse, 
 et  fecisse  w,-,  id  est,  ut  esset  Deus  apparuit  per  carnem.  Tan- 
 quam Nestorianus  ergo  culpatus  expellitur  per  Severum  mona- 
 chura.*'  The  text  of  Liberatus  has  been  here  obviously  accom- 
 modated to  his  account  of  the  Nestorian  heresy,  vid.  supr.  p. 
 521.  n.  "*.  As  we  know  the  different  readings  of  the  Greek 
 copies  to  which  he  alludes,  v/e  may  correct  his  text,  without 
 difficulty: — ''  hunc  enim  mutasse  ubi  habet  OT  id  est  qui, 
 monosyllabum  grajcum  [et]  littera  mutata,  O  in  0  vertisse  et 
 fecisse  0S,  id  est,  ut  esset,  *  Deus  apparuit  per  carnem."  But 
 to  this  statement  of  Liberatus  there  are  several  objections.  It 
 appears,  from  the  testimony  of  St.  jChrysostome,  that,  for  many 
 
(    568    ) 
 
 grant,  that  it  has  every  foundation  in  truths  without 
 affecting  in  the  least  the  integrity  of  the  Greek  Vul- 
 gate. When  it  is  remembered,  that  the  reading 
 which  Macedonius  is  said  to  have  corrected,  is  found 
 in  a  verse  which  Eusebius  had  previously  corrupted ; 
 vy^e  may  admit  that  the  alteration  was  made  in  some 
 copies,  and  yet  maintain  that  the  integrity  of  the 
 sacred  text  was  restored,  not  impaired,  by  the  last 
 emendation.  But  the  possibility  of  thus  altering  a 
 few  copies,  will  be  still  infinitely  remote  from  ac- 
 counting for  the  general  corruption  of  the  Greek 
 Vulgate;  and  until  this  object  is  attained,  the  pre- 
 sent objection  must  wholly  fail  of  its  intention.  As 
 to  that  which  has  been  advanced  from  the  consi- 
 deration  of  the  Alogi,  who  have  not  objected  to  St. 
 John's  Epistle,  it  seems  to  have  been  urged  from  a 
 partial  view  of  St.  Epiphanius's  account  of  those 
 hereticks.     As  f^r  as  I  can  collect  from  his  words, 
 
 years  previous  to  the  times  of  Macedonius  and  Severus,  ©eo? 
 iipectt^u^r)  had  been  the  reading  of  the  Byzantine  edition ;  so 
 that  no  culpability  could  attach  to  the  bishop  of  Constantino- 
 ple, for  introducing  this  reading  in  his  copies :  vid.  supr.  p.  289. 
 n.  ^''.  A  totally  different  account,  and  one  which  carries  in,- 
 ternal  marks  of  its  truth,  is  given  by  Evagrius,  of  the  causes 
 which  occasioned  Macedonius's  expulsion  from  the  see  of  Con- 
 stantinople, at  the  instigation  of  Severus :  vid.  Evagr.  Hist. 
 Eccl.  Lib.  III.  cap.  xliv.  p.  380.  1.  10.  And  the  account  of 
 Liberatus  is  rejected  as  wholly  improbable,  not  only  by  Bishop 
 Pearson,  and  Dr.  Berriman,-  but  the  Jesuit  Garnier,  who  had 
 some  interest  in  supporting  Liberatus's  testimony,  as  it  afforded 
 some  countenance  to  the  reading  of  the  Latin  Vulgate.  Vid. 
 Garn.  in  Liberat.  p.  137.  Pears,  on  Creed-  Vol.  IL  p.  IS*^. 
 Beriim..  Dissert,  on  1  Tim.  p.  231. 
 
(    569    ) 
 
 he  has  implicitly  declared,  that  they  objected  not 
 less  to  the  Epistles  written  by  St.  John,  than  to  his 
 Gospel  **^  And  had  not  this  been  the  case,  the 
 objection  might  be  easily  set  aside;  as  it  equally 
 proves,  that  the  first  verses  of  the  Epistle  must  have 
 been  also  absent  from  the  Apostle's  text,  as  they 
 are  even  more  strongly  opposed  to  the  peculiar 
 tenets  of  the  Alogi.  As  this  is  a  position  which  will 
 be  hardly  sustained  by  any  objectour,  I  apprehend, 
 that  the  present  objection  in  proving  so  much,  really 
 proves  nothing. 
 
 A  few  words  will  now  cover  the  Greek  Vulgate 
 from  every  objection  which  has  been  raised  to  its  ver- 
 bal integrity  *^^     It  has  been  an  old  objection  urged 
 
 ^"^  St.  Epiphanius  expresses  himself  on  the  present  subject 
 m  the  following  unqualified  terms.  Haer.  li.  p.  423.  d. — 
 «7ro/8aXX8(Ti  [o»  "A/  oyoi]  'ludntm  rocs  ^'t^Xas,  I'ttiI  hv  tqv  Aoyov  » 
 ^eXOvlixi  rov  ita^oi  ^luuviH  xtKr)^vyiJt.etov,  "AXeyoi  KXri^aotlau^—oTroTE 
 ^1  b  "^iyoviai  (p6an  rat  /3</3Xi'a  Ta  airo  rS  kym  'luoinvti  KBiiri^vyfAem, 
 firatvri  ru  ^rikov  SiTj,  on  erct  slerif  t^  ot  ofj^oiot  t^tok*  ^£Pi  u/v  ei'^ev 
 0  asyios  *luxvms  sv  ratr  xoc^oXixous  k'ni'^okoi.'is'  ot«,  *  ia^arvi  apot, 
 ift*  X.  T.  I.  The  connexion  of  the  sense,  in  the  last  clause  of 
 this  sentence,  apparently  renders  it  necessary  that  we  should 
 suppose  the  Alogi  rejected  the  Catholick  Epistles ;  and  Peta- 
 vius  accordingly  renders  the  first  clause  ;  *'  sed  cum  miiversos 
 Joannis  lihros  proprie  rejiciant,'*  &c. 
 
 **^  I  shall  add  but  another  remark  on  1  Joh,  v.  7.  in  answer 
 to  Mr.  Porson's  question,  Lett.  XII.  p.  397.  **  li  the  Spirit 
 that  witnesses  in  the  sixth  verse  be  the  holy  Spirit,  which  I 
 think  cannot  be  doubted,  *  because  the  Spirit  is  truth,'  why  is 
 the  epithet,  after  being  twice  omitted,  added  in  the  seventh 
 verse,  to  mark  a  distinction  without  a  difference?'*  Because 
 when  the  Holy  Ghost  is  mentioned  by  himself,  **  the  Spirit" 
 J)ecomes  his  sufficient  designation  ;  vid.  Joh.  i.  33.  iii.  6.  vi.  %S^ 
 
(    570    ) 
 
 against  the  Apocalypse  and  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
 that  neither  of  those  canonical  books  corresponds 
 with  the  style  of  the  authour^  with  whose  name 
 they  are  inscribed;  the  one  possessing  an  elevation 
 of  language  which  is  not  discoverable  in  the  works 
 of  St.  Paul,  the  other  abounding  in  solecisms  which 
 are  not  discoverable  in  the  other  writings  of  St.  John 
 the  Evangelist.  But  when  due  allowances  are  made 
 for  the  latitude  in  which  the  term  style  was  used  by 
 the  antients;  and  when  the  peculiar  subjects  of  the 
 books  under  review  are  taken  into  account,  this  ob- 
 jection, which  at  best  is  founded  on  a  very  fallacious 
 criterion  **^  admits  of  a  very  easy  solution.  As  the 
 term  style,  in  the  original  acceptation^  was  applied 
 not  merely  to  the  peculiar  mode  of  expression,  in 
 which  a  writer  delivers  himself,  but  jointly  to  the 
 diction  and  sentiment;  an  elevation  in  the  latter, 
 
 vii.  39.  But  when  he  is  mentioned  mth  the  Father  and  the  Son^ 
 the  epithet  "  holy"  is  necessary  to  distinguish  him  among  the 
 Persons,  as  the  Father  and  Son  are  equally  Spirits ;  vid.  Matt, 
 xxviii.  19.  2  Cor.  xiii.  13.  The  epithet  which  is  added  with  so 
 much  propriety  in  the  seventh  verse,  would  have  been  absolutely 
 improper  in  the  sixth ;  as  "  the  Spirit'*  there  means  *'  the 
 Spirit  of  Christ ;"  such  being  the  proper  designation  of  the 
 Holy  Ghost,  where  he  is  considered  as  the  Spirit  sent  by  the 
 Son,  to  bear  v/itness  of  him,  as  in  the  passage  before  us,  conf. 
 Rom,  viii.  9.  Joh,  xv.  26.  The  Holi/  Spirit  is  on  the  contrary 
 his  proper  designation,  when  he  is  considered  as  the  Sancfrfier  ; 
 a  being  co-equal  and  co-essential  with  the  Creatour  and  the 
 Redeemer,  rather  than  a  spirit  proceeding  from  either.  As 
 the  human  spirit  is  meant  in  the  eighth  verse,  the  epithet  holy 
 5s  of  course  as  properly  omitted  in  this  verse,  as  it  is  retained 
 jn  the  preceding. 
 
 '^  Vid.  Orig.  Epist.  ad  Af\ican.  Tom.  L  p.  29.  e. 
 
(    571    ) 
 
 which  arises  out  of  the  subject^  has  afForded  the 
 chief  ground  to  the  objection.  In  the  retrospect 
 which  the  one  Apostle  takes  of  the  primitive  state 
 of  the  Church,  and  in  the  prospect  which  the 
 other  gives  into  its  future  fortune,  objects  seized 
 the  imagination,  which  were  essentially  different 
 from  those  which  engrossed  the  attention,  when  they 
 described  the  acts  of  our  Lord,  or  inculcated  his 
 doctrines.  Adapting  their  language  to  their  matter, 
 they  adopt  a  different  elevation  of  manner  in  treat- 
 ing different  subjects ;  and  have  thus  furnished  the 
 objectour  with  grounds  to  urge  his  exceptions. 
 With  greater  plausibility  have  they  been  urged 
 against  the  Apocalypse,  than  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
 brews. By  a  nice  attention  to  the  texture  of  the 
 phrase,  many  expressions  have  been  discovered  in 
 the  latter,  which  are  characteristick  of  the  manner 
 adopted  by  St.  Paul  in  his  other  Epistles.  And 
 though  some  expressions  in  the  Apocalypse  appear 
 to  be  less  reconcilable  to  the  style  of  St.  John ;  yet 
 when  it  is  considered  that  they  are  Hebrew  idioms  *^7 
 
 '"^^  These  examples  are  collected  by  M.  Bengel,  who  offers 
 the  following  vindication  of  them ;  Apparat.  Crit.  Fund.  Oris. 
 Apoc.  §  V.  p.  488.—"  Spectat  hue  maxime  duorum  casuum 
 constructio :    cap.  i.  5.  utto  'ha-u  X^irHj  o  f/,cc^Tvq  9  m^o^ , 
 
 cap.  ii.  20.    rriv  yvtotXnoc   Ti  Xtyaa-et.    ill.  12.    r^y  y.am^s  'l£^»o'«;\^^   ^ 
 
 iteirx0x(v8a-a, Nec  longe  abeunt  ilia:  cap.  xiv.  9.  rf  %^ia 
 
 kJ  77)v  sUovec  ctvTti.    xvii.  4.  l^h'KvyiA.uTuv  i^  ru  uxcc^ec^rx  :   vel  etiani 
 
 cap.  iv.  4.  vii.  9.  xiii.  3. In  summa,  Hebraismus  ioto  reo-jiai 
 
 libro,  prima  specie  insolens  et  asper,  sed  revera,  cum  assueveris 
 pon  solum  tolerabilis,  sed  etiam  dulcis  ac  plane  coelestis  stilo 
 curise  dignus.     Johannem  tibi,   lector  Apocalypseos,  propone 
 Jlebraice  cogitantem,  Greece  scribentem.'*    The  vindication 
 
(    ST2    ) 
 
 which  are  particularly  suited  to  the  prophetical 
 style,  which  is  adopted  by  St.  John,  we  have  no 
 sreat  allowance  to  make  for  the  difference  of  the 
 Evangelist's  subject,  in  order  to  meet  every  objec- 
 tion which  has  been  made  to  these  passages. 
 
 Thus  weighing  every  objection  which  has  been 
 stated  against  the  Greek  Vulgate,  there  appears  to 
 be  none  urged,  which  can  at  all  affect  its  integrity, 
 as  a  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  manners.  In  regard- 
 ing the  constitution  of  the  primitive  church,  and  the 
 care  taken  to  disperse  the  commonest  documents 
 relative  to  ecclesiastical  polity,  it  is  impossible  even 
 to  conceive  how  the  inspired  text  could  have  been  cor- 
 rupted in  the  first  ages  of  Christianity.  In  the  age 
 of  St.  Irenseus  and  Tertullian,  who  followed  in  the 
 next  succession  after  the  Apostles,  the  authenticity 
 of  the  sacred  canon  was  investigated  with  the  ut- 
 most care ;  and  in  the  age  of  Origen,  who  suc- 
 ceeded at  no  great  interval  of  time,  it  was  still  con- 
 sidered free  from  corruption**^.  To  the  period 
 intervening  between  his  times  and  those  of  St. 
 Chrysostome,  whatever  alterations  were  made  in 
 the  text  must  be  referred;  as  at  the  latter  period 
 the  vulgar  text,  which  has  been  since  used  in  the 
 Church,  was  confessedly  adopted.  In  this  period, 
 which  extends  to  little  more  than  an  hundred  and 
 fifty  years,  we  are  accordingly  informed,  that  those 
 editions  of  the  Greek  were  published,  to  which  we 
 
 of  IvL  Eisner,  who  thinks  these  idioms  may  be  reconciled  to 
 the  genius  of  the  Greek  language,  appears  to  me  to  be  wholly 
 inadmissible;  Vid.  Elsn.  Observv.  Sacrr.  Tom.  II.  p.  434. 
 *»*  Vid.  supr.  p.  431.  n.  '°. 
 
(    573    ) 
 
 €an  trace  every  variety  in  the  sacred  text,  whether 
 existing  in  the  original  or  in  translations.  Of  these 
 editions,  however,  two  only  are  entitled  to  any  con- 
 sideration ;  that  of  Palestine,  which  prevails  in  the 
 writings  of  Eusebius,  Athanasius,  Cyril,  and  Isidore, 
 and  is  found  in  the  Vatican  manuscript  **9.  ^nd  that 
 
 ^^  I  have  already  ventured  to  offer  a  conjecture,  that  this 
 celebrated  MS.  is  allied  to  the  text  revised  by  St.  Basil:  vid. 
 supr.  p.  104<.  We  are  assured  by  a  person  who  possessed  a 
 transcript  made  from  a  copy  of  the  library  of  Casarea,  in  Cap- 
 padocia,  that  St.  Basil  had  corrected  the  text,  and  had  accu- 
 rately  marked  it  with  points  and  accents:  Syncel.  Chrono- 
 graph, p.  203.  b.  ed.  Par.  1652.  Iv  hi  r^  amyg^^^,  x.'jtv  m^t/So;. 
 fXEVw  xccicc  rs  S-jy/x^v  >^  irfoa-u^iat  Ik  t??  Iv  Kataufsnc  t^^  Katt- 
 *a^oxJa?  £?v$om  tU  t(^t  ^i^hto^xng  iv  u  >^  iTnyz-ypavlo  Jj  5  y,iyxs 
 3^  $«o?  Bao-;^EJo$  ra,  (e|  uv  UeTvo  »7riy^u(pr))  u^yi^oCKuv  ^ia)^Buc-»ro 
 ^i^xict.  The  following  considerations  may  be  offered  in  sup- 
 port of  the  above  conjecture.  (1.)  St.  Basil  studied  in  Caesa- 
 rea  in  Palestine,  with  Gregory  of  Nazianzum,  and  imbibed  that 
 partiality  for  Origen,  and  consequently  for  the  Palestine  text 
 which  was  common  to  the  disciples  of  that  school :  vid.  Socrat, 
 Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  xxvi.  p.  245.  1.  9—13.  conf.  supr,  p, 
 84.  n.  '\  (2.)  The  Vatican  MS.  differs  from  all  known  manu- 
 scripts of  equal  antiquity,  in  having  accents  and  marks  of 
 asperation  added  by  the  original  transcriber ;  Vid.  Birch.  Nov. 
 Test.  Prolegomm.  p.  xiv.  (3.)  The  Greek  MSS.  of  the  reli- 
 gious order  of  St.  Basil,  which  had  been  dispersed  in  several 
 monasteries  through  Calabria,  were  transported  to  Rome  by 
 P.  Menitius,  Prefect  of  the  order,  and  were  deposited  in  the 
 library  of  St.  Basil  in  that  city :  vid.  Montfauc.  Palaogr.  Greec. 
 p.  xxiii.  As  many  of  the  most  valuable  MSS.  in  Italy  have 
 been  transferred,  through  the  arbitrary  power  of  the  Popes,  to 
 the  Vatican,  it  is  possible,  that  the  celebrated  MS.  which  is 
 distinguished  by  this  name,  might  have  thus  made  its  way  into 
 the  Pontifical  librarv. 
 
(    574    ) 
 
 of  Byzantium,  Avhicli  prevails  in  the  writings  of 
 Chrysostome,  Gregory  Nyssene,  Nazianzene,  &c. 
 and  is  found  in  the  great  body  of  Greek  manuscripts. 
 The  weight  of  evidence  which  supports  both  edi- 
 tions^ has  been  already  laid  in  detail  before  the 
 reader.  In  almost  all  points  of  importance,  they 
 mutually  afford  each  other  confirmation;  and  where 
 this  coincidence  fails,  the  testimony  of  the  oldest  wit- 
 nesses, contained  in  the  primitive  Italick  and  Syriack 
 versions,  is  generally  found  on  the  side  of  the  Greek 
 Vulgate ;  the  testimony  of  those  witnesses  being  fur* 
 ther  confirmed  by  that  of  the  primitive  fathers*^**. 
 The  variations  in  the  testimony  of  later  texts,  ver- 
 sions^ and  writers,  is  besides  easily  traced  to  the 
 
 **°  The  following  list  of  passages,  quoted  by  those  Fathers 
 who  lived  in  the  next  succession  after  the  Apostles,  includes 
 the  principal  texts  in  which  the  Greek  Vulgate  differs  from  the 
 Palestine  edition.  They  may  be  disposed  in  four  classes,  ac- 
 cording to  their  importance :  and,  as  read  in  the  vulgar  Greek, 
 are  supported  by  the  annexed  authorities.  (1.)  1  Joh.  v.  7. 
 Tert.  Ci/pr,  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  Ignat,  Act.  xx.  28.  Ig7iat.  TerU 
 vid.  supr.  p.  291.  nn.  *«^  et  ^«*.  p.  275.  n.  ^^*.  p.  286.  n.  *5'. 
 (2.)  Mat,  xix.  17.  Just.  Mart.  lb.  xx.  22,  23.  Iren.  lb* 
 xxvii.  25.  Tert.  Luc.  iv.  18.  Iren,  Joh.  i.  27.  Orig.  vid, 
 supr.  p.  372.  sqq.  (3.)  Mar.  xiii.  32.  Iren.  Luc.  ix.  55.  «. 
 Clem.  Alex.  Cypr.  lb.  xi.  13.  Tert.  lb,  xxii.  43,  44.  Just. 
 Mart.  Joh.  v.  3,  4.  Tert.  Act.  viii.  37.  Iren.  lb.  xv.  28. 
 Clem.  Tert.  Col.  i.  14.  Iren.  lb.  ii.  2.  Clem.  Akx.  ut  videtur, 
 1  Joh.  iv.  3.  Polyc.  Tert.  vid.  supr.  p.  380.  sqq.  (4.)  Matt. 
 ix.  13.  'J.  Barn.  Clem.  Rom.  lb.  vii.  2.  ^.  Pohjc.  Clem,  Rom, 
 lb.  XXV.  41.  ^  Tert.  Mar.  i.  2.  *>.  Iren.  Luc.  iv.  18.  i.  Iren, 
 lb.  vi.  26.  K  Iren.  lb.  ix.  62.  ".  Iren.  Tert.  Rom.  r.  14.  U 
 Iren.  vid.  Griesb.  nn.  in  locc. 
 
(    575    ) 
 
 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  vital  importance.  But  in  de- 
 ciding the  present  question,  the  African  Church  is 
 entitled  to  a  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  tmct  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*^'.  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 
 
 *'*  Vid,  supr.  p.  306. 
 
C   ^76   ) 
 
 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**  Square^  London, 
 
DATE  DUE 
 
 9rr 
 
 DSN^l^S 
 
 76 
 
 '-'     -__<i^ 
 
 k 
 
 ' 
 
 ^«^^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^*^^I 
 
 MAfiiHiiniHi 
 
 ~-. 
 
 lii^H^ 
 
 Ml 
 
 IIIM    1  ^ 
 
 IQA^ 
 
 WQQ 
 
 DEC  2  8  19 
 
 9d^ 
 
 ■flUi^     1     ' 
 
 { ^>m^ 
 
 l^ljb  ' 
 
 CAYLORO 
 
 rRINTEOINU.S.A. 
 
BS525 .N78 
 
 An  inquiry  into  the  integrity  of  the 
 
 Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 
 
 Sl^^-^