HI 
 
 
 
JULY, 1829. 
 
 WORKS 
 
 PUBLISHED DURING THIS SEASON 
 
 BY 
 
 C. J. G. & F. RIVINGTON, 
 
 ST. PAUL'S CHURCH YARD, AND WATERLOO PLACE, PALL MALL. 
 
 I. 
 
 LECTURES on the ELEMENTS of HIEROGLYPHICS 
 and EGYPTIAN ANTIQUITIES. 
 
 By the MARQUIS SPINETO. 
 With PLATES. 8vo. 16s. 
 
 II. 
 SERMONS on various SUBJECTS and OCCASIONS: 
 
 including Three Discourses on the Evidences, the Obligations, and the Spirit of 
 
 the Gospel. 
 
 By the Rev. JAMES WALKER, D.D. 
 Of St. John's College, Cambridge, and Episcopal Professor of Theology at 
 
 Edinburgh. 
 8vo. 10s. 6d. 
 
 III. 
 .ESCHYLI AGAMEMNON TRIGLOTTUS, 
 
 GREECE: Textum ad Fidera, Editionum, praesertim Blomfieldianae, recognovit, 
 
 Notasque Anglice conscriptas et Indices adjecit JACOBUS KENNEDY, S.T.P. 
 
 Collegii SS. Trinitatis apud Dublinienses Socius. 
 
 TEUTSCH: Uebersetzt von HEINRICH Voss. 
 
 ENGLISH : Translated by JAMES KENNEDY, D.D. 
 
 Royal 8vo. 12s. 
 
 IV. 
 The GERMAN PULPIT; 
 
 being a Collection of Sermons by the most eminent modern Divines of Germany. 
 
 Selected and Translated by the Rev. R. BAKER, 
 
 Chaplain to the British Factory at Hamburgh. 
 
 8vo. 10s. 6d. 
 
2 PUBLISHED DURING THIS SEASON, 
 
 V. 
 
 SERMONS on some of the LEADING PRINCIPLES of 
 
 CHRISTIANITY. SECOND EDITION. 8vo. 12*. 
 
 By PHILIP NICHOLAS SHUTTLEWORTH, D.D. 
 
 Warden of New College, Oxford ; and Rector of Foxley, Wilts. 
 
 VI. 
 
 Some ACCOUNT of the WRITINGS and OPINIONS of 
 
 JUSTIN MARTYR. 8vo. 7s. Qd. 
 
 By the Right Reverend JOHN KAYE, D.D. 
 
 Lord Bishop of Lincoln. 
 
 VII. 
 
 PAROCHIAL LETTERS, 
 
 from a BENEFICED CLERGYMAN to his CURATE. Small 8vo. 8s. 6d. 
 
 CONTENTS. Introductory Parsonage Gardening Visiting Churches Psalmody 
 
 Instruction of the Poor Province of Private Christians Preaching Catholics 
 
 Cant Universality of the Church The Poor Friendly Societies and 
 
 Savings Banks The Clergy. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 TESTIMONIES 
 
 in Proof of the separate Existence of the Soul in a state of Self- consciousness 
 between Death and the Resurrection. To which is added, the 
 
 Psychopannychia of Calvin. Small 8vo. 105. 6d. 
 
 By the Rev. THOMAS HUNTINGFORD, M.A. 
 
 Vicar of Kempsford, Gloucestershire. 
 
 IX, 
 
 The CLERICAL GUIDE, or ECCLESIASTICAL DIRECTORY. 
 
 Containing a complete Register of the DIGNITIES and BENEFICES of the 
 
 CHURCH of ENGLAND, with the Names of their present Possessors, 
 
 Patrons, &c. and an alphabetical List of the Dignitaries and Beneficed 
 
 Clergy; with an Appendix containing the Ecclesiastical Patronage 
 
 at the disposal of the King, the Lord Chancellor, Archbishops 
 
 and Bishops, Deans and Chapters, the Universities, &c. 
 The THIRD EDITION. Corrected to 1829. Royal 8vo. I/. 2s. 
 
 By RICHARD GILBERT, 
 Compiler of the Clergyman's Almanack, and the Liber Scholasticus. 
 
 X. 
 
 SERMONS on the DOMESTIC DUTIES. 
 
 To which are added, Two SERMONS upon CONFIRMATION. 12mo. 5s. 
 
 By the Rev. DANIEL CRESSWELL, D.D. 
 
 Vicar of Enfield, Middlesex. 
 
 The Tzco Sermons upon Confirmation may be had separately, price Qd. 
 
BY C. J. G. & F. RIVINGTON. <> 
 
 XI. 
 
 LIBER SCHOLASTICUS: 
 
 or an ACCOUNT of the FELLOWSHIPS, SCHOLARSHIPS, and 
 EXHIBITIONS, 
 
 t the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, by whom founded, and whether 
 open to Natives of England and Wales, or restricted to particular Places or 
 Persons : also such Colleges, Public Schools, Endowed Grammar Schools, 
 Chartered Companies, Corporate Bodies, Trustees, &c. as have Uni- 
 versity Advantages attached to them, or in their Patronage. 
 
 With appropriate Indexes and References. 
 In one large Volume, Royal 18mo. 10s. 6d. 
 
 XII. 
 
 SERMONS. 
 
 By the Rev. THOMAS ARNOLD, D.D. 
 
 Head Master of Rugby School, and late Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. 
 8vo. 10s. 6d. 
 
 XIII. 
 
 A LETTER to the LORD BISHOP of LONDON ; 
 
 i Reply to Mr. Pusey's Work on the Causes of Rationalism in Germany: 
 comprising some Observations on Confessions of Faith and their Advantages. 
 
 By the Rev. HUGH JAMES ROSE, B,D. 
 
 Christian Advocate in the University of Cambridge, and Vicar of Horsham, Sussex. 
 
 8vo, 7s. 6d. 
 
 XIV. 
 
 A CHRISTIAN'S PEACE-OFFERING : 
 
 being an Endeavour to abate the Asperities of the Controversy between the 
 
 ROMAN and ENGLISH CHURCHES. In 12mo. 4s. 6d. 
 
 By the Hon. and Rev. ARTHUR PHILIP PERCEVAL, 
 
 Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty, Rector of East Horsley, and late 
 
 Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, 
 
 * XV. 
 
 FIVE PAROCHIAL SERMONS, 
 
 adapted to the PRESENT CRISIS. 1 2mo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 By J. HUSBAND, A.M. 
 Curate of Norton, and late Bye-Fellow of Magdalen College, Cambridge. 
 
 XVI. 
 
 Ln ADDRESS delivered to the CANDIDATES for HOLY ORDERS, 
 
 in the Diocese of BARBADOS and the LEEWARD ISLANDS. 12mo. 3s. 
 
 By the Right Rev. WILLIAM HART COLERIDGE, D.D. 
 
 Bishop of Barbados. 
 
4 PUBLISHED DURING THIS SEASON, 
 
 XVII. 
 PRACTICAL SERMONS on the LORD'S PRAYER 
 
 and the Beatitudes, adapted to Family Reading. 
 
 With TWO SERMONS on the SACRAMENT of the LORD'S SUPPER. 
 
 By SAMUEL WIX, A.M. F.R.S. & A.S. 
 
 Vicar of St. Bartholomew the Less. 
 
 In 8vo. 8s, 6d. 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 A KEY to the REVELATION of ST. JOHN ; 
 
 being an Analysis of those Parts of that Prophetical Book which relate to the 
 
 General State of the Christian Church in After-Times ; and to the 
 
 Peculiar Signs of those Times. In two Volumes, 8vo. ll. 4s. 
 
 By the Rev. PHILIP ALLWOOD, B.D. 
 
 Fellow of Magdalen College, Cambridge. 
 
 XIX. 
 
 TWENTY-ONE PRAYERS, 
 
 composed from the Psalms, for the Sick and Afflicted. To which are added, 
 
 various other Forms of Prayer for the same purpose. With a few Hints and 
 
 Directions on the Visitation of the. Sick, chiefly intended for the use 
 
 of the Clergy. In 12mo. 4s. 6d. 
 
 By the Rev. JAMES SLADE, M.A. 
 
 Vicar of Bolton-le-Moors. 
 
 XX. 
 
 A SERIES of SERMONS on the LIVES of the FIRST PROMUL- 
 
 GATORS of CHRISTIANITY; with other Discourses : to which are added 
 
 Discourses on Miscellaneous Subjects, preached in the Parish 
 
 of Bromley, Middlesex. 8vo. 8s. 
 
 By the Reverend PETER FRASER, M.A. 
 
 Chaplain to His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge. 
 
 XXI. 
 
 SERMONS FOR SERVANTS. 
 
 By the Rev. W. DOWNES WILLIS, M.A. 
 
 Vicar of Kirkby in Cleveland. 
 
 12mo. 6s. 
 
 XXII. 
 
 The LIFE and TIMES of WILLIAM LAUD, D.D. 
 
 Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. 
 
 By JOHN PARKER LAWSON, M.A. 
 
 With a Portrait, beautifully engraved by DEAN. 
 
 In 2 vols. 8vo. ll. 8s. 
 

 BY C. J. G. & F. RIVINGTON. 5 
 
 XXIII. 
 
 FRIENDLY ADVICE to MY POOR NEIGHBOURS. 
 
 In a Series of Cottage Tales and Dialogues. 12mo. 4s. 6d. 
 By a MEMBER of the CHURCH of ENGLAND. 
 
 txxiv. 
 THE LAST HOURS of EMINENT CHRISTIANS ; 
 
 compiled from the best Authorities, and Chronologically arranged. 8vo. 13s. 
 
 By the Rev. HENRY CLISSOLD, M.A. 
 
 Minister of Stockwell Chapel, Lambeth. 
 
 This Work is designed to present the most illustrious examples of Devotion, Tranquillity, 
 
 Fortitude, and Penitence, together with the most striking instances 
 
 of the brevity and uncertainty of human Life. 
 
 XXV. 
 
 A PLAIN and SHORT HISTORY of ENGLAND for CHILDREN. 
 
 In Letters from a Father to his Son. 18mo. 2s. 6d. half-bound. 
 By the Editor of " The COTTAGER'S MONTHLY VISITOR." 
 
 XXVI. 
 
 THE FOURTH EDITION OF 
 
 A PRACTICAL TREATISE upon the ORDINARY OPERATION 
 
 of the HOLY SPIRIT. 12mo. 4s. 
 By GEORGE STANLEY FABER, B.D. 
 
 Rector of Long Newton. 
 
 XXVII. 
 
 A KEY to the OLD TESTAMENT and APOCRYPHA ; 
 
 or an Account of their several Books, of the Contents and Authors, and of the 
 Times in -which they were respectively written. 
 
 NEW EDITION, revised. 8vo. 14s. 
 
 By the Right Rev. ROBERT GRAY, D.D. 
 
 Lord Bishop of Bristol. 
 
 XXVIII. 
 
 THE FOURTH EDITION OF 
 
 INSTRUCTIONS for the USE of CANDIDATES for HOLY 
 
 ORDERS, and of the PAROCHIAL CLERGY, 
 
 As to Ordination, Licenses, Institutions, Collations, Induction, Reading in, Re- 
 signations, Dispensations ; with Acts of Parliament relating to the Residence 
 of the Clergy, Maintenance of Curates, and to exchanges of Parsonage 
 Houses and Glebe Lands, with the Forms to be used. 8vo. 8s. 
 
 By CHRISTOPHER HODGSON, 
 Secretary to his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. 
 
6 PUBLISHED DURING THIS SEASON. 
 
 XXIX. 
 
 An ABRIDGEMENT of the HISTORY of the REFORMATION o 
 
 the CHURCH of ENGLAND. In 12mo. 5s. 6d. 
 
 By HENRY SOAMES, M.A. 
 
 Rector of Shelley, in Essex. 
 
 XXX. 
 
 THE THIRD EDITION OF 
 
 ANNOTATIONS on the EPISTLES: 
 
 in Continuation of Mr. Elsley's Annotations on the Four Gospels and the Act 
 of the Apostles. Principally designed for the use of Candidates for 
 
 Holy Orders. In 2 vols. 8vo. 18s. 
 By the Reverend JAMES SLADE, M.A. 
 
 Late Fellow and Tutor of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and Vicar of 
 Bolton-le-Moors. 
 
 XXXI. 
 
 EXCERPTA EX VARIIS ROMANIS POETIS 
 
 qui in Scholiis rarius leguntur. 
 
 LUCRETIO, 
 
 CATULLO, 
 
 PROPERTIO, 
 
 TIBULLO, 
 
 PERSIO, 
 
 SENECA, 
 LUCANO, 
 V. FLACCO, 
 S. ITALICO, 
 STATIC, 
 
 MARTIALE, 
 JUVENALE, 
 AUSONIO, 
 CLAUDIANO. 
 
 Notulis illustrata, quas selegit 
 
 JOHANNES ROGERS PITMAN, A.M. 
 
 Editio Tertia. 12mo. 7s. 6d. bound. 
 
 XXXII. 
 
 The DYING CHRISTIAN; a Poem. 
 By the Rev. GEORGE BRYAN, A.M. 
 
 Small 8vo. 5s. 
 
 XXXIII. 
 
 JOHN HUSS, or the COUNCIL of CONSTANCE, A POEM. 
 
 With numerous Historical and Descriptive Notes. 
 Small 8vo. 4s. 6d. 
 
 XXXIV. 
 
 A TREATISE upon JUSTIFICATION by FAITH, 
 
 with particular reference to the Opinions of the late Rev. Thomas Scott, 
 and others of his School. In 8vo. 10s. 6d. 
 
 By JOHN FULLER, Esq. 
 
WORKS 
 
 PREPARING FOR PUBLICATION 
 
 BY 
 
 C. J. G. & F. RIVINGTON. 
 
 i. 
 
 The LIFE of RICHARD BENTLEY, D.D. 
 
 Master of Trinity College, and Regius Professor of Divinity in the University 
 
 of Cambridge. 
 By the Very Reverend JAMES HENRY MONK, D.D. 
 
 Dean of Peterborough. 
 In one Volume, 4to. With a Portrait. 
 
 II. 
 
 A PRACTICAL GUIDE to the READING of the NEW 
 TESTAMENT. 
 
 Intended for the use of General Readers. 
 
 By* the Rev. GEORGE HOLDEN, M.A. 
 
 In one Volume, 12mo. 
 
 III. 
 
 THE THIRD EDITION OF 
 
 The LIFE of the Right Rev. THOMAS WILSON, D.D. 
 
 Late Lord Bishop of SODOR and MAN. 
 
 By the Rev. HUGH STOWELL, 
 
 Rector of Ballaugh, Isle of Man. 
 
 IV. 
 
 A SECOND EDITION OF 
 
 L SERIES of DISCOURSES on the STATE of the PROTESTANT 
 
 RELIGION in GERMANY. 
 
 Preached before the University of Cambridge, in 1825. In 8vo. 
 By HUGH JAMES ROSE, B.D. 
 
 Vicar of Horsham, Sussex. 
 
 7/e Appendix, containing a Reply to the German Critiques upon this Work, may be 
 had to complete the former Edition, price 3s. 6d. 
 
8 WORKS PREPARING FOR PUBLICATION. 
 
 v. 
 PASTORALIA; 
 
 or a MANUAL of HELPS to the PAROCHIAL CLERGYMAN : 
 containing a Scriptural View of the Clerical Duties Hints for Pastoral Visits- 
 Prayers for the Use of the Clergy ^-and Skeletons of Sermons. 
 
 By the Rev. HENRY THOMPSON, M.A. 
 
 Of St. John's College, Cambridge, Curate of Wrington, Somerset. 
 
 In one large Volume, 12mo. 
 
 VI. 
 
 THE SECOND EDITION OF 
 
 A NEW ANALYSIS of CHRONOLOGY, 
 
 Sacred and Profane. In 4 vols. 8vo. 
 
 By the Rev. Dr. HALES. 
 
 VII. 
 CHRISTIANITY a PROGRESSIVE SCHEME; 
 
 in Answer to the Objections offered to its want of Universality. Being the 
 Christian Advocate's Publication for the year 1829. 8vo. 
 
 By HUGH JAMES ROSE, B.D. 
 
 Christian Advocate in the University of Cambridge, and Vicar of Horsham, 
 
 Sussex. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 SERMONS. 
 
 Now First published from the Original Manuscripts. 
 By the late Rev. WILLIAM JONES, 
 
 of Nay land. 
 In 2 vols. 8vo. 
 
 IX. 
 
 The LIFE of ARCHBISHOP CRANMER. 
 
 By the Rev. HENRY JOHN TODD, M.A. 
 
 Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty, and Rector of Settrington, Yorkshire. 
 In one Volume, 8vo. With a Portrait. 
 
 X. 
 
 HENRY and ANTONIO; 
 
 or, the Proselytes of the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches. 
 Translated from the Third Edition of the German of 
 
 Dr. C. G. BRETSCHNEIDER, 
 
 Chief Counsellor of the Consistory and General Superintendant in Gotha. 
 
NEW CRITICISMS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 CELEBRATED TEXT, 1 JOHN V. 7. 
 
 FOR THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR RECORD IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, 
 " AND THE HOLY GHOST ; AND THESE THREE ARE ONE." 
 
 A SYNODICAL LECTURE, 
 
 BY FRANCIS ANTONY KNITTEL, 
 
 COUNSELLOR TO THE CONSISTORY, AND GENERAL SUPERINTENDANT OF THE 
 GRAND DUCHY OF BRUNSWICK LUNEBOURG. 
 
 at Bntiistoicfc in 1785. 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL GERMAN, 
 
 BY 
 
 WILLIAM ALLEYN EVANSON, M.A. 
 
 LECTURER OF ST.LUKE'S, OLD STREET, LONDON. 
 
 ' It is good and needful to adhere to this Proof-Passage, and not to suffer it to be discarded by that superficial 
 'Criticism which is now so common. Nevertheless, this mint be done in rpgular mpthod: otherwise, more 
 ' harm than good will ensue." ^^Z* ^^f^A^^^^ ERNEST I. 
 
 1 
 
 C. AND J. RIVINGTON, ST. PAUL'S CHURCH-YARD. 
 J. HATCHARD AND SON, PICCADILLY. 
 
 MDCCCXXIX. 
 
I / f 
 
 -2 S 2 
 
DEDICATION. 
 
 TO 
 
 THE RIGHT REVEREND FATHER IN GOD, 
 
 THOMAS BURGESS, D.D. 
 
 LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURY, 
 
 MY LORD, 
 
 AS I am indebted to your Lordship for 
 my acquaintance with the very elegant and 
 ingenious " CRITICISMS" of Knittel, and have been 
 encouraged by your Lordship to undertake the 
 office of his Interpreter, I gladly avail myself of 
 the privilege with which your Lordship has further 
 honoured me, and dedicate the result of my 
 pleasurable toil to one who can best appreciate 
 its value to the Biblical Student. 
 
IV DEDICATION. 
 
 In this extraordinary age, when the Lessons of 
 History and the Oracles of the Living God are 
 equally disregarded; when Truth, Honour, Rec- 
 titude, and Consistency, are immolated on the 
 Altar of Political Expediency ; when the Presi- 
 dency of God, among the Nations of the earth, 
 is scouted as the dream of an Enthusiast ; and 
 Religion is Legislatively discarded, as the " one 
 thing needless" in the public relations of So- 
 ciety; it is refreshing to turn from the melan- 
 choly spectacle of a Nation's Apostacy, and 
 contemplate one of those time-honoured Guar- 
 dians of our Church, who scorns to cast aside 
 his Faith, as it were an old-fashioned garment. 
 I am persuaded, My Lord, that I express but the 
 sentiments of my Brethren of the Establishment, 
 when I avow my unqualified admiration of that 
 singleness of purpose, unweariedness of energy, 
 and soundness of argument, with which your 
 Lordship has asserted the inviolability of the 
 British Constitution, and of that Bible which 
 forms its only secure basis. As a Senator and 
 Patriot, your Lordship's shield has borne the 
 untarnished device, " NOLUMUS LEGES ANGLIC MU- 
 TARI," ' We will not have the Laws of England 
 
DEDICATION. V 
 
 changed.' As a Scholar, and a Christian Bishop, 
 your tiara bears inscribed, Ov duvurcii XvOqvai q 
 ygK<pq, " THE SCRIPTURE cannot be broken." 
 [JOHN x. 35.] 
 
 I have the honour to be, 
 
 My Lord, 
 Your Lordship's most obedient, 
 
 very humble Servant, 
 
 WILLIAM ALLEYN EVANSON. 
 
 4, Jeffrey's Terrace-, Kentish Town, 
 London, June 30, 1829. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 BY 
 
 THE TRANSLATOR. 
 
 ONE of the most powerful Opponents of the 
 authenticity of 1 John V. 7., among the German 
 Critics of the 18th century, was Dr. Semler*, 
 in his " Historical Collections ; " quoted by Mi- 
 chaelis in his Introduction to the New Testa- 
 ment (Vol. IV. p. 425. Eng. Tr.) " To Sem- 
 ler's arguments/' says Michaelis, " Knittel has 
 made some learned and specious objections, in 
 his ' New Criticisms : ' but, specious and learned 
 as they are, they have not convinced me that 
 Semler is mistaken." 
 
 This character of Knittel's Work, by an oppo- 
 nent of the controverted verse, excited an earnest 
 wish, repeatedly expressed in the course of the 
 
 * Semler is the person to whom Knittel repeatedly alludes, as 
 " a certain Doctor," " a Doctor of Upper Saxony," " a Pastoralist," 
 &c. &c. See pp. 27, 28, 29. 77. 113. 212. 
 
viii TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. 
 
 controversy on the verse, that the English Reader 
 might be put in possession of it, by a Translation 
 from the German. In a former passage of his 
 e Introduction" (p. 413), though Michaelis pro- 
 nounces that Knittel has " totally failed" in his 
 defence of the verse, yet he allows that the 
 " New Criticisms" is " a valuable Work, and that 
 much useful information may be deduced from 
 it." Knittel was indeed one of the most learned, 
 experienced, and judicious Critics of his day ; and 
 I am persuaded, that, when he is allowed to speak 
 for himself, the decision which Michaelis has so 
 authoritatively pronounced against his conclu- 
 sions, will not be so readily admitted. I confi- 
 dently anticipate, that a patient and impartial 
 perusal of the following " Criticisms" will remove 
 many inveterate prepossessions against the au- 
 thenticity of the disputed Text ; while the 
 clear, judicious, and masterly chain of inductive 
 reasoning which they develope, will give the 
 force of demonstration to the conclusion legiti- 
 mately deduced ; viz. that 1 John V. 7. is, in very 
 deed, an integral and aboriginal Text of Holy 
 Scripture. 
 
 The subject has been illustrated with such a 
 flood of light, by the labours of the last half- 
 century, that my Readers will scarcely expect 
 
TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. IX 
 
 the charm of novelty in the Criticisms of Knittel : 
 yet, I am convinced, they will find much to 
 justify the epithet " NEW," appropriated by that 
 ingenious Author. I shall merely state, in a few 
 Prefatory Observations, the reasons which have 
 long since secured my acquiescence in the affir- 
 mative of this still-controverted question. 
 
 The entire evidence against the authenticity 
 of 1 John V. 7. is resolvable into its absence from 
 the majority of Greek Manuscripts, hitherto dis- 
 covered and collated, which contain the First 
 Epistle of St. John. The number of such may 
 be, at the utmost, 150. Of these, there are only 
 Two of very high antiquity ; namely, the Codex 
 Alexandrinus* , in the British Museum; and the 
 Codex Vaticanus, in the Vatican Library at Rome. 
 These are supposed, by some, to have been of 
 the 4th century. All other Greek Manuscripts, 
 as yet discovered, are later than the 9th century. 
 
 (*) " The Codex Alexandrinus is, notoriously, a Latinized Version. 
 Wetstein was prohibited, by the Authorities at Amsterdam, from 
 printing his Greek Testament from that Codex, because it conformed 
 to the Papal Vulgate in many important passages." (See Goesen's 
 Vertheldigung der Complutensischen Bibel &c. &c. Preface, p. xiii.) 
 
 The Theological World is greatly indebted to the learned and 
 laborious REV. H. H. BABER, Librarian to the British Museum, 
 for an exact fac-simile of the Vetus Testamentum Grcecum in this 
 interesting Codex ; one of the most splendid additions to our stock 
 of Biblical Literature, and an incomparable specimen of typographic 
 skill. 
 
x TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. 
 
 Those two omit the disputed clause. But that 
 omission is only a negative testimony, at the 
 best ; and it is suspicious testimony, as being 
 contemporary with the prevalence of the Arian 
 Heresy, which unquestionably originated in the 
 meaning severally attached to that verse by 
 Alexander and by Arius, in the 4th century. 
 And, moreover, it is counterbalanced, or neu- 
 tralized, by antecedent and contemporary po- 
 sitive, i.e. affirmative testimony; because Ter- 
 tullian in the 2d, and Cyprian in the 3d centu- 
 ries, (who both understood the Greek Language 
 well, and manifestly consulted the Original Text 
 of the New Testament ;) Origen, a Greek Fa- 
 ther in the 3d century ; the second Symbolum 
 Antiochenum (published at the Council of An- 
 tioch, A.D. 341) ; Gregory of Nazianzen, a Greek 
 Father ; Phcebadius and Ausonius, Latins of the 
 4th century ; and Jerome, in his Latin Version, 
 castigated, as he expressly says, 'ad Grcecam 
 veritatem? in the same century * ; all either 
 directly quote, or make such allusions to that 
 
 (*) All the most ancient and best Manuscripts of Jerome's Latin 
 Vulgate contain 1 John V. 7. Not one Manuscript in fifty omits it. 
 The majority of those in which it is omitted, contain the words " in 
 terra " in the 8th verse. This is presumptive evidence of the ex- 
 istence of the 7th verse in the Originals from which they were 
 transcribed. 
 
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. xi 
 
 verse, as necessarily infer its existence in the 
 Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament then 
 extant. Therefore the testimony respecting 
 1 John V. 7. may be summed up thus : EIGHT 
 unsuspicious, positive, against Two extremely 
 suspicious, negative witnesses. And the verdict, 
 I feel confident, should be recorded as follows : 
 " The verse, 1 John V. 7, being tried upon the 
 sole testimony of GREEK Manuscripts of the first 
 four centuries which, if it please some, we will 
 call primary testimony, we find, after due in- 
 quiry, that it did exist, as an integral part of the 
 Greek New Testament, at, and antecedent to, the 
 4th century :" or, to use the words of Bishop 
 Barlow, (no mean authority,) " We make no 
 doubt it was originally there de facto ; and, de 
 jure, should be so still f ." 
 
 In the interval between the 4th century and 
 the first Printed Edition of the Greek New Tes- 
 tament, the majority of Greek Manuscripts now 
 extant, of that period, which contain the First 
 Epistle of St. John, omit the disputed verse. 
 None of them, however, are more ancient than 
 the 10th century; very few older than the 14th 
 or 15th; and almost all belong to the same 
 family, ue. are of Eastern origin. Their testi- 
 mony, also, is merely negative, and suspicious ; 
 and is counterpoised, or neutralized, first, by 
 
 (t) See Bishop Burgess's Letter to Archdeacon Beynon, p. 22. 
 
xii TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. 
 
 the direct and unsuspicious (though not undis- 
 puted) testimony of at least ONE Greek Manu- 
 script, unquestionably antecedent to the first 
 Printed Edition of the New Testament, (a Ma- 
 nuscript, which a most judicious and experienced 
 Critic has ascribed to the 13th century,) I mean 
 the celebrated Codex Montfortianus, preserved 
 in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin. Per- 
 haps the Annals of Theological Controversy do 
 not furnish a more striking instance of unwar- 
 rantable criticism, and inveterate prejudice, than 
 the efforts made to depreciate this Codex. No 
 assertion was too monstrous, no fiction too pre- 
 posterous, to gain currency and momentary cre- 
 dence. It was said, " The Codex was a palpable 
 imposture, fabricated solely to deceive Erasmus :" 
 " It was the work of a bungling and ignorant 
 impostor, and betrays itself by the badness of its 
 Greek;" &c. &c. I cannot avoid a brief notice 
 of these charges : and, first, as to Erasmus. 
 There is no direct evidence that he ever saw the 
 Codex Montfortianus : the presumptive evidence 
 is all the other way. I am quite convinced 
 that he did not insert the disputed verse, 1 John 
 V. 7, into his Third Edition of the Greek New 
 Testament, upon the authority of the Codex 
 Montfortianus; but, either because it was printed 
 in the Complutensian (Princeps) Edition of the 
 New Testament, or because he saw it, (or a 
 
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. xiii 
 
 Transcript of it,) in a Codex which he calls the 
 Codex Britannicus. Let us hear his own ac- 
 count of the matter, in his 'Annotationes? as 
 follows : 
 
 " Interea perlata est ad nos Editio Hispaniensis (the 
 Complutensian) qua3 dissidebat ab omnibus, habet enim 
 hunc in modum: 'On Tpe/s euriv ol paprvpov VTeq sv ra> ovpava, 
 o HaTripf KOC.I 6 Aoyog, xou TO aytov IIvi//t, KO.I ol rpsis etg TO ev 
 etffi. Kat Tpeis eimv ol papTvpovvTes vni TS yrjs, TO TTvevpa, xi 
 TO vSaip, xai TO at/ma. Primum : In hoc dissonat exemplar 
 quod ex eadem (ni fallor) Bibliotheca (scil. Vaticana) 
 petitum, secuti sunt Hispani, ab Exemplari Britannico, 
 quod hie addantur articuli, o nTjjO, o Aoyo?, TO Uvev/jL 9 
 qui non addebantur in Britannico. Deinde : Quod Bri- 
 tannicum habebat iv eim, Hispaniense e/s TO sv <r/. Post- 
 
 remd: QworfBRlTANNICUM ETIAM IN TERR^E TESTIMONIO 
 ADDEBATxa/ ol Tpetg et$ TO ev eiffi, QUOD NON Clddebatur 
 hie duntaxat in Editione Hispaniensi" 
 
 Now, whether Erasmus actually saw that Co- 
 dex Britannicus, or only a transcript of the 
 disputed verse from that Codex, it is most cer- 
 tain, that he either did not see the Codex Mont- 
 fortianus ; or, at least, that the transcript (if 
 such it were) of the disputed verse, to which he 
 adverts in the foregoing Note, could not have 
 been copied from the Codex Montfortianus. 
 For, besides the variations already noticed by 
 the learned Bishop Burgess*, between the verse 
 as here quoted by Erasmus, and as it stands 
 
 (*) Letter to Archdeacon Beynon, p. 6. 
 
xiv TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. 
 
 in the Codex Montfortianus, Erasmus expressly 
 notices a remarkable addition which the Codex 
 Britannicus contained in the 8th verse ; viz. xut 
 ol rgstg ei$ ro tv si<ri : ' which words/ he observes, 
 ' are not found in the Complutensian,' and which, 
 be it observed, are not found in the Montfor- 
 tianus. I am not aware of this remark having 
 been ever made before; but it strikes me as 
 conclusive against the identity attempted to be 
 established between the Codex Britannicus and 
 the Codex Montfortianus ; and, as evidence, that 
 there did exist, in Erasmus's time, besides the 
 Codex Montfortianus, another authentic Greek 
 Manuscript, called the Codex Britannicus, which 
 contained the disputed verse, though that Manu- 
 script has not yet been discovered. 
 
 Secondly : As to the badness of the Greek in 
 the Codex Montfortianus, especially in the words 
 sv rq yn in the disputed verse, the promoters of 
 that objection seem to forget, or not to know, 
 that the identical form of expression occurs in 
 the most classical of the Evangelists, St. Luke, 
 e.g. Luke xii. 51 : " Think ye that I am come to 
 send peace on earth?" stgqvyjv dovvcu sv ry yv\+ 
 I find St. John also uses the same form, in 
 Rev. V. 13 : " Every creature in heaven, and upon 
 earth y and under the earth," sv r*> ovgavv, zct,t ev 
 ry yy\t %cu vToxaru rqg yqt;. So it stands in my 
 Greek Testament (Sedan Edition, 1628) ; which 
 
TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. XV 
 
 also has w TV yy in 1 John V. 7.* And such, most 
 probably, was the Reading in the Greek Manu- 
 script from which the Montfortianus was tran- 
 scribed. The omission of the article before 
 Ilotrqo, Aoy0, and Hvevpct, is also alleged as 
 evidence that the whole clause was literally 
 translated from the Latin, by some ignorant 
 transcriber! Yet it is strange, that the said 
 ignorant transcriber, who could find no other 
 method of rendering Pater 9 Verbum, et Spiritus, 
 than literally HctTqg, Aoyoj, xou TlvevfAct,, without 
 the article, should suddenly stumble on the gram- 
 matical rendering of in ccelo, and in terra, by sv 
 rep ovguvu, and w rn 777, with the article : not to 
 mention, that we find rqv pagrvgiuv ruv ctv- 
 Ogwrav, 7) [Actgrvgtot rov Ggou, TOV Tloy, &c. &c. 
 occurring in these two verses, with the articles 
 severally prefixed, although the Latin Text 
 assuredly has no corresponding article. Con- 
 sistent criticism would have detected another 
 and more rational explanation of the omission 
 of the article before Hctr^, Aoyog, and Hvevfta ; 
 namely, that these terms are obviously used here 
 as Appellatives, or proper names of the Divine 
 Persons in the Trinity; and the omission of 
 the article, in such cases, is sanctioned by the 
 usage of the best Classic Authorities. 
 
 (*) Goezen also refers to the same Heading in the Printed Editions 
 of the Greek Testament which he consulted. (See Ausfuhrlichere 
 Vertheidigung, p. 242, note.) 
 
XVI TRANSLATORS PREFACE. 
 
 If, then, we oppose the positive and unsu- 
 spicious testimony of only this One Greek Ma- 
 nuscript*, and the numerous quotations of, or 
 direct allusions to, the disputed verse, in the 
 Writings of Greek and Latin Fathers, especially 
 the direct citation of it by the African Fathers 
 at the Council of Carthage in the 5th century, 
 and the assertion (which can never be disproved) 
 of the Author of the ' Prologus in Epis tolas Ca- 
 nonicas* in the 9th century, "that the verse in 
 question existed in the Greek Manuscripts then 
 
 (*) To this should be added the Codex Ottobonianus, 298 in the 
 Vatican Library, discovered not long since by Professor SchoLze, 
 (Biblische-Critische Reise, p. 105,) which that learned critic pro- 
 nounces to be of the 14th century ; I e. anterior to the Princeps Edi- 
 tion. It reads the disputed verse thus : c On rpeis etffiv ot /taprv/jowres 
 OTTO rov ovpavov, ncmjp, Aayos^ KCU TlvevfJia dyiov' KM of rpcis eis ro ev fifft. 
 Kot rpeis tuny of jj.apTvpowres OTTO TTJS yjs, &c. &c. The Latin Version, 
 in the parallel column of this Codex, reads, " Quia tres sunt qui testi- 
 monium dant in ccelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus : et tres 
 sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, spiritus, aqua, et sanguis," &c. &c. 
 On which Scholze observes, " Similar variations and entire transpo- 
 sitions occur in many other passages, and may be imputed chiefly to 
 the negligence of the transcribers. The Venetian MS. (No. XL), 
 and of the 13th century, contains the disputed text in the Latin 
 Version on the parallel column, but in the Greek it is written in the 
 margin by a kter hand." 
 
 The Codex Ravianus or Berolinensis, which contains the verse 
 exactly as it stands in the Complutensian, has been severely attacked 
 by Pappelbaum, but its authenticity by no means so triumphantly 
 annihilated as the adversaries of that verse assert. Martin has sa- 
 tisfactorily repelled the charge that it was a transcript from the Com- 
 plutensian. However defective, there is no reason to doubt its 
 having been transcribed in a great degree from Original Manuscripts ; 
 and so far, evidence for the verse. See Martin's " La Verite du Texte 
 1 John V. 7. dimontree," &c. &c. 
 
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. xvii 
 
 extant," and possibly as far back as the 4th cen- 
 tury ; If we oppose this mass of positive and 
 unimpeachable testimony to the negative and 
 suspicious evidence of about 140 comparatively 
 modern Greek Manuscripts of the New Testa- 
 ment, I think the conclusion is inevitable, that, 
 in authenticity, antiquity, and weight, the former 
 not only counterpoises or neutralizes the latter, 
 but decidedly preponderates in favour of the 
 disputed verse. 
 
 Nor, when we leave Manuscript evidence to 
 examine that of the Printed Editions of the 
 Greek New Testament, will that conclusion be 
 invalidated ; but, on the contrary, most power- 
 fully corroborated. First in honour, as in place, 
 stands that stupendous and magnificent monu- 
 ment, the COMPLUTENSIAN PoLYGLOTT of XlMENES, 
 
 which contains the "Princeps" Edition of the 
 Greek Testament*. Every Princeps Edition 
 is primd-facie evidence of the Readings in con- 
 temporary or antecedent Manuscripts. The 
 Complutensian reads 1 John V. 7. : therefore 
 that verse stood in the Greek Manuscripts of the 
 New Testament then existing and consulted by 
 the Editors. Those Greek Manuscripts, we are 
 assured by the Editors, were the most ancient, 
 
 (*) The Greek New Testament was first printed in the Compluten- 
 sian Polyglott, and finished in the year 1514 ; though the entire Work 
 was not completed until 1517, nor the Papal Privilegium obtained 
 until 1520. Erasmus's First Edition was printed in 1517. 
 
 b 
 
xviii TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. 
 
 and the most valuable which could then be pro- 
 cured from the best public or private Collections 
 in the world. The munificent Patron and Pro- 
 jector of that Work spared no expense or 
 toil, and employed the ablest Scholars and 
 Critics of the day in its completion. Its autho- 
 rity was held equivalent to that of the most au- 
 thentic and ancient Greek Manuscripts then 
 extant (as even Michaelis admits). It was re- 
 ferred to as the ultimate appeal from every 
 subsequent Printed Edition; and it remained 
 in the undisputed possession of that preemi- 
 nence, throughout all Christendom,, for nearly 
 one hundred and fifty years, during the brightest 
 days of the Reformation. Its first assailant was 
 the celebrated Wetstein; whose charges were re- 
 peated by the learned Semler ; [eminent Critics 
 no doubt, but, as we can fully prove, unsafe and 
 most suspicious witnesses in the point at issue,] 
 and upon their sole authority, upon their unsup- 
 ported and peremptory dicta, have all subse- 
 quent opponents of the disputed verse impeached, 
 not only the genuineness of that verse in the 
 Complutensian New Testament, but the charac- 
 ter of the whole Polyglott. 
 
 Now, if it be remembered, that both Wetstein 
 and Semler ground their accusations almost 
 solely upon motives which they invent, and im- 
 pute to the Editors of the Complutensian, we 
 are perfectly justified, not in fabricating and im- 
 
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. xix 
 
 puting any sinister intentions to these two Cri- 
 tics, but in stating their avowed religious tenets 
 tenets of such a nature, as, in ordinary cases, 
 engender not only a suspicion of sinister motives, 
 but of invalidity in those deductions which such 
 persons choose to draw, in favour of their pecu- 
 liar opinions. 
 
 Whoever has impartially examined Wetsteiris 
 Annotations on the New Testament will be con- 
 vinced that the Learned Annotator did not believe 
 in theProperDivinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.* 
 Indeed, he was openly charged with Socinianism ; 
 a charge which he could neither palliate nor 
 deny. He was fully aware, that so long as the 
 verse 1 John V. 7. remained an integral part of 
 God's Holy Word, no ingenuity of criticism could 
 argue away the Consubstantiality of the Father 
 and the Son. Great then was his anxiety, and 
 incalculable the toil and pains which he encoun- 
 tered, to destroy, if possible, the reputation of 
 that Princeps Edition in which that verse was 
 inserted. Where History or argument fails, he 
 
 (*) I select a few specimens. First as to Wetstein's ideas of the 
 inspiration of the New-Testament Writers. On Luke i. 3. eSo^e 
 Kajuot, he observes : " Si Lucas vel Pauli hortatu, velpeculiari Spiritus 
 Sancti qfflatu ad scribendum impulsus fuisset, rem memoratu tarn dig. 
 nam et ad auctoritatem scripto conciliandam tarn idoneam silentio neu- 
 tiquam transiisset." If this reasoning holds, the major part of the 
 Bible is uninspired. Again his ideas of Christ, as the Son of God : 
 he says, (on Matt. i. 20. e/c nvevftaros dyiov,) " Successor Imperatoris 
 Romani vocabatur eou rcus, imo quivis prseclarus homo 
 
XX TRANSLATORS PREFACE. 
 
 has recourse to sneer and sarcasm. Let any one 
 read the subjoined Notes, and say whether I am 
 not justified in impeaching Wetstein as an un- 
 sound witness in this cause. Biassed and hostile 
 as he shews himself, against the foundation-truth 
 of Christianity, his testimony cannot be re- 
 ceived without suspicion : it must be scrupulously 
 weighed ; and the result will be found to be cap- 
 tious, superficial criticism, insidious and un- 
 founded calumnies, upon the munificent Pro- 
 moter and the learned and honest Editors of the 
 noblest Biblical Undertaking in the world. 
 
 Semler, who repeated these accusations, with 
 many additional effusions of his own spleen, in 
 
 irots, apud Liban." &c. &c. ^lianus Tact. Prsef. ad Hadrianum ine 
 &fov. Plinius Paneg. " Necdum Imperator, necdum Dei filius eras." 
 Also on Luke iii. 38 : " Observandum Lucam, cumque Adamum Dei 
 filium vocat, significasse Christum ex virgine natum Secundum esse 
 Adamum, ejusque ortum per Spiritum Sanctum non minus esse opus 
 potentise divinse singulare quam Adami fuerat." Lastly, his ideas of 
 the Proper Deity of Christ may be gathered from his Notes on 
 John i. 1. eos tjvj on which he quotes Livy, lib. i. 4. " Romulus Deo 
 prognatus, Deus ipse :" 16. " Deum Deo natum ;" &c. &c. And on 
 John xx. 28. o Kvpios /xoy, icai 6 eos jitou, after attempting some philo- 
 logical proofs that it should be u> Kvpios, <a 0eos, (that is, a mere excla- 
 mation of surprise, not an acknowledgment that Christ was the Lord 
 and the God of Thomas,) he quotes a passage from Servetus, with evi- 
 dent approbation : " Quis Hebraice vel Chaldaice mediocriter doctus 
 ignorabit Thomam non nominasse Jehovah quando dixit, Dominus 
 meus et Deus meus ? Vidistine unquam illud affixum meus additum 
 nomini Jehovah? Christus nunquam jungitur nomini Jehovah, 
 sed nomini Elohim." (Servet. de Err. Trin. V. p. 98.) See Baum- 
 garten's ' Recension der Wetstenischen Ausgabe der N. T.,' in the 
 " Nachrichten von Merkwiirdigen Biichern," Vol. II. p. 53, &c. 
 
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. xxi 
 
 his Reprint of Wetstein's Prolegomena (1764.-8), 
 was an avowed supporter of Pelagianism. He 
 denied the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. 
 He was, if not the originator, certainly the great 
 promoter of that Infidel system so fashionable 
 amongst the modern Neologians or Rationalists of 
 Germany : I mean the Accommodation Theory *, 
 according to which Revelation is to be judged of, 
 not by the evidences of its divine origin, but by 
 its supposed utility. It is notorious, that at the 
 time when he repeated Wetstein's accusations 
 against the Complutensian, he had never seen 
 that Polyglottf : but he knew that it contained 
 the disputed verse 1 John V. 7, and he was 
 therefore determined to crush it altogether. Un- 
 questionably he possessed gigantic intellectual 
 powers, immense erudition, and unparalleled in- 
 dustry. But he has been encountered by a 
 
 (*) For a fuller account of Semler, see Rev. H. J. Rose's Four Ser- 
 mons on the State of the Protestant Religion in Germany : (a most 
 valuable and interesting Work,) p. 45 et seq. First Edition. 
 
 (t) This appears, from his Note on Erasmus's Annotation already 
 quoted. He there observes : " Since Erasmus has here noticed all the 
 Variations between the Complutensian and the Codex Britannicus, 
 yet without expressly stating that the former has eat rns yys where 
 the latter reads & ry 777, he must have committed a mistake a few 
 lines before, and been thinking of the Greek instead of the Latin 
 in terra, which is much more correct than & ry 777. Now, from 
 what we learn in other Works, of the order of the words in the Com- 
 plutensian New Testament, it is certain that the latter actually printed 
 w TV 777." Every one knows, that the reading in the Complutensian 
 is rt TTJS -Yns : therefore, Semler either deliberately falsifies, or never 
 saw theWork which he criticizes. (See Goezen's Vertheidigung &c. p.78.) 
 
xxii TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. 
 
 formidable antagonist, the celebrated GOEZEN *, 
 of Hamburgh ; who has thoroughly exposed the 
 shallowness of his pretensions as a Critic of that 
 great Work, demolished the whole fabric of his 
 baseless invectives, and consigned him, and his 
 prototype, Wetstein, to the pity of every impar- 
 tial Theologian and genuine believer in the doc- 
 trines of Christianity. 
 
 Wetstein and Semler are, in fact, the only 
 authorities appealed to by the depreciators of the 
 Complutensian. Their unsupported assertions 
 have been assumed as axioms ; their sophisms, as 
 mathematical demonstration. Their hypothesis 
 respecting especially the Greek New Testament 
 in that Polyglott, is, that " the Editors formed 
 the Greek on the Vulgate." This hypothesis, 
 unsubstantiated by even a shadow of proof, has 
 been repeated by Protestants, in the face of un- 
 answerable evidence to the contrary f : and, cu- 
 rious to say, its very opposite is maintained by a 
 celebrated Roman-Catholic critic, Richard Simon, 
 
 (*) Goezen's Works on this subject are enumerated in KnittePs 
 Note, p. 95. I am engaged in preparing a Translation of them for 
 the press ; and am encouraged to hope, they will prove a valuable 
 accession to our Biblical Literature. 
 
 (t) Goezen has collected nearly 1000 Variations between the Com- 
 plutensian Greek New Testament and the Latin Vulgate ; and these 
 not trivial or insignificant, but the majority most important : in 
 many, the sense of the Headings in the Complutensian is directly op- 
 posite to that in the Vulgate. (See Ausfuhrlichere Vertheidigung, 
 pp. 276506.) 
 
TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. XX111 
 
 (Hist. Critiq. p. 516,) who asserts that the Com- 
 plutensian Editors corrected the Vulgate Latin 
 of the New Testament by the Original Greek 
 Text! 
 
 I have been somewhat amused by the logic 
 of our modern Anticomplutensians. The Alcala 
 Editors asserted, (and their assertion, though 
 denied by Wetstein and Semler, never has been, 
 nor ever can be, disproved,) "that they were pro- 
 vided with the rarest and most ancient and va- 
 luable Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament, 
 by the liberality of Pope Leo X. ; who also 
 particularly directed their attention to one of 
 the number, called (xar s&xyv) " THE VATICAN 
 MANUSCRIPT." " Now it is most certain" (say 
 they) "that these Alcala Editors did not con- 
 sult the celebrated Codex Vaticanus, which is re- 
 puted to be one of the most ancient, if not 
 the most ancient Manuscript extant. FOR" (ob- 
 serve tibe-gtfta), " FOR, that Manuscript has not 
 the disputed clause, and they have departed from 
 its Readings in various places *." In this Enthy- 
 mem, we have gotten the Conclusion and the 
 minor Premise; but the major is left for us to 
 guess at ; and when found, will require, I imagine, 
 something like proof. I presume the major is 
 this: " The now-existing Codex Vaticanus was 
 the most ancient Codex existing in the days of 
 
 (*) See Home's Critical Introduct. Vol. IV. p. 466. Sixth Edition. 
 
xxiv TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. 
 
 the Complutensian Editors; and LeoX. was guilty 
 of gross imposition upon their credulity, in calling 
 the Codex which he sent, (and upon which, as 
 their ultimate guide, he requested them to 
 form their Text,) The most ancient and authentic 
 standard of the Original Text." Let me ask, 
 Is this demonstrated? Is it likely? Is it not 
 rather a monstrous improbability ? It matters 
 not a straw whether the Alcala Editors consulted 
 the now-existing Codex Vaticanus, or not. But 
 it is any thing but " most certain" they could 
 not have seen it, because they did not implicitly 
 follow its Readings. As well might we assert, 
 that the Editors of any book, of which there 
 have been many originals, whether Manuscript 
 or Printed, most certainly could not have seen 
 some one of these originals, because they in- 
 serted some clause in their edition which is 
 wanting in that one original, or deviated from the 
 Readings of that one original, although, (as in 
 the case of the Complutensian,) the deviations 
 are confessedly for the better, in most instances. 
 Let, then, the major of the Enthymem be first 
 proved, and we may then examine the intrinsic 
 value of the Conclusion. At present, it goes for 
 nothing. 
 
 Much stress has been laid on the Marginal 
 Note annexed to 1 John V. 7, 8.* in the Com- 
 
 (*) See Knittel, p. 64, and Note. 
 
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. xxv 
 
 plutensian New Testament, as if it implied that 
 the Editors had no Greek-Manuscript authority 
 for inserting the seventh verse. Really nothing 
 but a predetermination not to see, could have 
 obscured the obvious purport of that Note to the 
 eyes of the Anticomplutensians. Its plain and 
 palpable intent is, not to account for the inser- 
 tion of 1 John V.7. but to vindicate the omis- 
 sion of the latter clause of 1 John V. 8. ". e. ol 
 rgsig tv suri, which corresponds to the Latin "Hi 
 ires unum sunt ;" an omission, which affords, 
 amongst many other evidences, an incontestable 
 proof that the Editors had no intention of form- 
 ing the Greek Text on the Vulgate, or elevating 
 the authority of the Latin Version above that of 
 the Original Greek Text. 
 
 Thus then stands the External Evidence, as 
 regards the disputed verse, under the several 
 heads, 1st, Greek-Manuscript authorities of the 
 first four centuries ; 2dly, Greek-Manuscript au- 
 thorities from the 4th to the 16th century; 
 3dly, Printed Editions. 
 
 Under ihejirst, we have the positive, or affir- 
 mative unsuspicious testimonies of Tertullian, 
 Cyprian, Origen, the Second Symbolum Antioche- 
 num, Gregory Nazianzen, Phcebadius, Ausonius, 
 and the Latin Vulgate of Jerome, either directly 
 quoting or undeniably alluding to the clause : and 
 against them we have only the negative and 
 
xxvi TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. 
 
 suspicious testimony of two Greek Manuscripts of 
 the New Testament; both confessedly Latinized, 
 and (allowing them to have been written in 
 the 4th century) the productions of an age in 
 which Arianism had tainted the whole body of 
 the Christian Church, for forty years. 
 
 Under the second, we have the affirmative un- 
 suspicious evidence of at least two existing 
 Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament ; of 
 all the most ancient and best Manuscripts of the 
 Latin Vulgate (there being not one in fifty 
 which omits the verse) ; and a large number of 
 quotations or direct allusions to it, in the Works 
 of Greek and Latin Fathers, from the 4th to the 
 16th century* ; against the negative evidence of 
 about 140 Greek Manuscripts, few more ancient 
 than the 14th century ; and the great majority 
 belonging to the same suspicious stock, the East- 
 ern Church. And, as it is admitted, that there 
 are probably many thousand Greek Manuscripts 
 of the New Testament in existence, which have 
 never been collated or examined ; as the Manu- 
 scripts employed by the Complutensian Editors 
 have not yet been discovered, being either de- 
 stroyed in the great conflagration of the Escurial 
 
 (*) The verse, 1 John V. 7, was alleged against the Arians at the 
 Council of Carthage, in the 5th century ; and its authenticity was not 
 disputed by the Arian Bishops then present ; nor questioned by any 
 Arian, or other Heretic, from the 5th to the 16th century. 
 
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. xxvii 
 
 1671, or disposed of by some ignorant or disho- 
 nest Librarian, or concealed in the Library at 
 Alcala, or possibly in the Vatican at Rome, 
 under the apprehension of their proving unfa- 
 vourable to the authority of the Vulgate ; there- 
 fore, until the materials, on which a negative tes- 
 timony can be admitted, be very considerably 
 augmented in number and authenticity, the affir- 
 mative, i. e. in favour of the disputed clause, must 
 be allowed to preponderate under this head alsof . 
 
 Thirdly, As to Printed Editions, the verse is 
 contained in the Princeps Edition, by which ERAS- 
 MUS improved, and STEPHENS wholly formed, their 
 several Editions of the New Testament ; and in 
 the genuine versions of Jerome, edited by Mar- 
 tianay and Vallarsius ; names fully equivalent to 
 those of the Deistical WETSTEIN and the Utili- 
 tarian SEMLER, or any of their servile imitators. 
 
 I have confined my remarks solely to the 
 EXTERNAL EVIDENCE for and against this verse, 
 and rest in the assured conviction that the former 
 is decidedly preponderant. The Internal Evi- 
 dence has been so ably and argumentatively dis- 
 cussed by the learned Bishop Burgess, and esta- 
 
 (t) At the same time, I must assert, that no amount of negative 
 testimony can overthrow the positive evidence of those unimpeachable 
 witnesses already adduced, as vouchers for the authenticity of 1 John 
 V.7. 
 
xxviii TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. 
 
 blished on such an immoveable basis, entirely 
 and unanswerably in favour of the verse, that the 
 opponents of that verse have no other resource, 
 than to thrust that species of evidence out of 
 court altogether, and take refuge in a very con- 
 venient postulate, which has every thing to re- 
 commend it except truth. They tell us, that " no 
 Internal Evidence can prove a clause to be 
 genuine, where External Evidence is decidedly 
 against it." The falsity of this aphorism is pal- 
 pable, from the whole history of Various Read- 
 ings. How is any particular reading to be 
 determined, when there are conflicting testimo- 
 nies ? By the context ; by the general scope of 
 the author; in short, by Internal Evidence alone. 
 But the aphorism is not only untrue, but inappli- 
 cable in the case in question ; viz. 1 John V. 7. 
 External Evidence is not decidedly against it: 
 Internal Evidence is wholly in its favour: there- 
 fore it is a genuine Text of Holy Writ. 
 
 One thing has deeply impressed me, in this 
 inquiry. No satisfactory answer has ever been 
 given to the question which naturally occurs, 
 " How did that verse first gain admission and 
 currency, as a text of Scripture, if it were not so 
 ab initio $" 
 
 There have only been two attempts to explain 
 this mystery: 1st, That the verse was forged 
 
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. xxix 
 
 by the Orthodox party, against the Arians. 2dly, 
 That it was a marginal note of Augustine's ; and 
 thence accidentally, or designedly, crept into the 
 Text. As to the first, there is not a particle of 
 evidence to support the charge of forgery. And 
 if the test of cui bono be applied, all the pre- 
 sumption is in favour of omission by the Arians, 
 rather than invention by the Orthodox. To the 
 former it is an insurmountable stumbling-block : 
 to the latter (supposing it a forgery), it was un- 
 necessary and idle in the extreme. The doc- 
 trine of the Trinity so thoroughly pervades the 
 New Testament, is so interwoven into its texture, 
 as a thread of gold, that the insertion of a single 
 text, and at the risk of certain detection, 
 would argue an extreme of folly, irreconcileable 
 with the known character of those to whom it is 
 imputed. Were the Orthodox ever charged 
 with such a gratuitous imposture? Was such a 
 calumny ever heard of until the 16th century, 
 when it was fabricated to serve Socinian pur- 
 poses? On the contrary, was it not broadly 
 promulgated, so early as the 9th century, that 
 the verse in question had been designedly erased 
 by the Arians ? and was that imputation discre- 
 dited or disproved ? As to Augustine, suffice it 
 say, that the verse was in existence, in the Latin 
 Version current in Africa, at least two hundred 
 years before he was born. How could it have 
 
XXX TRANSLATORS PREFACE. 
 
 gotten there, unless it was an integral and ab- 
 original text of Holy Writ ? 
 
 These remarks have swelled far beyond the 
 limits which I had originally prescribed ; and I 
 therefore hasten to a conclusion. It shall con- 
 sist of a few Personal and Pastoral observations. 
 
 When first I received our present Authorised 
 English Version of the Bible, as the Revealed 
 Will of God presented to me in a Translation 
 which, with the imperfections unavoidable in such 
 a Work, is probably unrivalled in purity and 
 faithfulness, I entertained a religious dread of 
 rejecting any part or parcel of that Volume, as 
 spurious, or of doubtful origin. The original 
 Translators, as well as the Revisers, had wisely 
 cautioned and guarded their readers against con- 
 founding the mere fictions, or historical records, 
 or didactic aphorisms of uninspired men, with 
 the " Oracles of the Living God ;" and the brand 
 of " Apocrypha" was indelibly affixed, to warn 
 the ignorant or the heedless. Patiently and 
 learnedly had they explored the Divine Originals ; 
 and neither few nor feeble were the grounds upon 
 which, after mature deliberation, upon the 
 deepest conviction, and assuredly in the spirit of 
 dependence upon the guiding counsel of the 
 Most High, they retained 1 John V. 7. as an 
 integral and essential text of Holy Scripture. 
 
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. xxxi 
 
 Therefore, when that . Volume, the Authorised 
 Version of the Bible, was placed in my hands at 
 my ordination, and I was solemnly enjoined to 
 " Take authority to preach the WORD OF GOD ;" 
 when, subsequently, I " set to my seal," that 
 " HOLY SCRIPTURE containeth all things necessary 
 to salvation ;" I should have deemed myself guilty 
 of an unworthy dissimulation, had I virtually 
 assented with my lips, and by my written sub- 
 scription, to the integrity of that Authorised 
 Version as the Revealed Will and Word of God, 
 while I tacitly obliterated so important a verse as 
 1 John V. 7. I could not conscientiously pro- 
 fess myself a Minister of the Established Church, 
 while I deliberately stamped FALSEHOOD and FOR- 
 GERY upon an entire text in her Authorised Ver- 
 sion, promulgated by the Supreme Ecclesiastical 
 Authority in the realm, as the very Word of 
 God. This may be called weakness or bigotry, 
 or whatever the reader chooses. Be it so. I 
 quarrel with no man's conscience, in merely as- 
 serting my own. 
 
 Now, let me ask you, My Brethren in the Mini- 
 stry of the Established Church, opponents of this 
 important text, Are you aware of, or indifferent 
 to, the inevitable results of that too often perti- 
 nacious opposition ? Will your flocks, who rea- 
 dily follow in their shepherd's track, as readily 
 stop when he cries out 'Halt You are se- 
 
xxxii TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. 
 
 dulously endeavouring to convince them, that an 
 entire text in the Authorised Version of the Bible 
 is spurious and interpolated. You have perhaps 
 succeeded : they receive your conclusion as it 
 were an axiom; but think you, Will they 
 stop at that conclusion? Indeed No! Blind 
 must be the man who does not already discern 
 the effects of your shall I call it, rash and un- 
 warrantable impeachments of the integrity of our 
 Authorized Version ; who does not already take 
 alarm at the wide-spreading Scepticism, and the 
 popular and palatable delusion, that the Esta- 
 blished Church of England circulates a spurious 
 Bible, and imposes the fictions of man as the 
 Oracles of God. The multitude are unskilled 
 to argue, but prompt to believe what favours 
 the corrupt propensities of nature. The trans- 
 ition, from your conclusion to that of the Unita- 
 rians, is natural and easy. You reject one verse 
 of John's First Epistle: they reject the first 
 fourteen verses of his Gospel (John I. 1 15.) It 
 is but a step, and we reject the Sacred Canon al- 
 together. This is no imaginary or visionary 
 alarm: late circumstances indicate, if not its 
 actual arrival, its very near approximation *. 
 
 (*) During the discussions which lately agitated the Bible Society 
 on the subject of the Apocryphal Books, a great laxity of opinion was 
 developed, as to the inspiration of the Sacred Canon. " The Eclectic 
 Review" put forth an article, in which the integrity of that Canon is 
 
 avoir edly 
 
XXX111 
 
 Pope Pius VII. denounced your Authorised Ver- 
 sion in no measured terms; as, " Not the Gospel 
 of man, but the Gospel of the Devil." His ob- 
 sequious Hierarchy in Ireland re-echoed these 
 sentiments throughout that Priest-bound Coun- 
 try, and millions hailed the tidings with shouts of 
 joy! Beware, then, lest your disciples should 
 fearfully outstrip their Teachers, and grow, with 
 accelerated velocity, from Sceptics of a Text, into 
 Disbelievers of the Bible. 
 
 WILLIAM ALLEYN EVANSON. 
 
 4, Jeffrey's Terrace, Kentish Town, 
 London, June SO, 1829. 
 
 avowedly impeached, and the inspiration of four entire Books of the 
 Old Testament almost directly denied. This article was afterwards 
 reprinted in a separate form ; and circulated gratuitously, in large 
 numbers. The same Periodical, in its Number for June 1829, has 
 taken up the cause of * Crito Cantdbrigiensis^ a determined opponent 
 of \ John V. 7. Well may that indignant Critic exclaim, " Defend 
 me from my friends ! " ' Hand tali auxiHo"* $c. $c. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 SYNODICAL LECTURE 1 18 
 
 1 John V. 7. a text much controverted its Opponents (in 
 Germany) numerous and respectable their reasons 
 
 deserve a hearing 1 
 
 Those reasons stated ; viz. 1st, The text itself ohscure, &c. 
 2dly, Luther omitted it in his Editions of his German 
 Bible, and forbade any alteration in them. Sdly, Its 
 advocates must also admit human interpretations as 
 part of the text 2 
 
 Those objections answered; viz. 1st, The first would 
 weaken our attachment to articles of Faith founded 
 on Scriptural texts. Sdly, The second is only par- 
 tially true. Sdly, The third applies equally to the 
 objectors The attack upon 1 John V. 7. has been ad- 
 vantageous to Biblical Criticism 3, 4 
 
 ERASMUS, the first who gave occasion to the Contro- 
 versy he omitted the text in his two first Editions, 
 and restored it in his third 5 
 
 The Controversy not definitively settled The Works 
 of the Fathers and the Councils ought to be more 
 minutely investigated . ib. 
 
 AUGUSTIN'S maxim, " In rebus obscuris &c." admitted 
 by J. BERNOULLI Bernoulli's rule in similar cases . . 6 
 
 The ground of the Controversy stated, in the words of 
 
 MlCHAELIS 7 
 
 MICHAELIS'S mode of subverting the argument for the 
 authenticity of the clause, from the context ... 8 
 
 GERHARD'S Note on the KOU in John V. 8, ... ib. (n. 6.) 
 
 c 2 
 
XXXVi CONTENTS. 
 
 The argument, in favour of 1 JohnV. 7. stated in Seven 
 
 Propositions; viz. 
 i. It existed in the Ante-Hieronymian Latin Version, 
 
 at least two hundred years older than the oldest 
 
 Greek MSS. extant. 
 IT. Most Latin MSS. contain it. 
 in. It is quoted by Latin Fathers of the 2d and 3d 
 
 centuries, and frequently since the 5th. 
 iv. Greeks of the 4th, and down to the 15th century, 
 
 quote or allude to it. 
 v. It is found in some Greek MSS. 
 vi. Some Greek MSS, which omit it, have additions 
 
 to the 8th verse, implying the original existence of 
 
 the 7th. 
 vii. No Greek Author ever understood 1 John V. 8. 
 
 of the Trinity 9, 10 
 
 Observations on Historical Criticism ; viz. 
 
 Difficulties not to be confounded with Objections 
 Examples given 10 
 
 Objections, or " Argumenta necessario indicantia" of two 
 kinds Examples of each 11 
 
 Difficulties, or "Argumenta contingenter indicantia? of 
 two kinds Examples of each 12 
 
 Knittel' s remarks on the foregoing; viz. 
 
 Obs. 1. Mere difficulties, in what respect incompetent 
 to refute a proposition. Obs. 2. Historical difficulties 
 may be removed, and how. Obs. 3. Or weakened, and 
 how. Obs. 4. Historical truths capable of complete 
 proof, notwithstanding difficulties Example : Hero- 
 dotus' and Thucydides' silence respecting the Romans 
 Herodian's silence respecting the Christians . . 14, 15 
 
 Two cases analogous to the omission of 1 John V. 7. ; viz. 
 (1.) Cicero's quotation of a lost line in Homer, (the 
 various points of the analogy stated in Note 13) . . 15 
 (2.) Cyril's quotation of a lost clause in 1 Thess.V. 21 .. 17 
 
 The different effect of confuting difficulties and objections 
 Why necessary to make the distinction .... ib. 
 
CONTENTS. XXXVll 
 
 NEW CRITICISMS ON SOME TESTIMONIES OF LATIN 
 
 FATHERS CONCERNING 1 JOHN V. 7. . . . 2137 
 
 CYPRIAN 
 
 In the extract from his Work, De Unitate Ecclesice ; viz. 
 " Dicit Dominus c. &c." The words " Hi tres unum 
 sunt " are a quotation of 1 John V. 7 21 
 
 Objection. They are taken from the 8th verse, which Cy- 
 prian mystically understood of the Trinity .... ib. 
 
 Answer. No trace in any of his Works that he allegorized 
 the 8th verse 1A\$ formula of citation, when he quotes 
 allegorically, is quite different this proved, hy various 
 extracts Neither is there any mode of expression in 
 his Works to justify the objection . . . 22, 23, & notes 
 
 The objection originated* with FACUNDUS, an African 
 Bishop, three centuries later than Cyprian Extract 
 from Facundus' Work Pro defensione Trium Capitu- 
 lorum 24 
 
 Facundus' testimony contrasted with Cyprian's own 
 words, and shewn to be altogether untenable How 
 accounted for 25, 26 
 
 A difficulty alleged; viz. the word " confitetur" applied 
 to Cyprian, in FULGENTIUS' (Bishop of Ruspa) Work 
 Contra Arianos 26 
 
 This hypothesis examined and confuted Had Fulgeritius 
 only been acquainted with 1 John V. 7. from the quo- 
 tation in Cyprian, he would have worded it in the same 
 manner ; but he does not Therefore, Fulgentius read 
 1 John V. 7. in his own copy of the Latin New Tes- 
 tament This is proved by the context of the passage 
 where the word " confitetur" is introduced The true 
 meaning of Fulgentius in that passage shewn ... 29 
 
 But Fulgentius may also have read 1 John V. 7. in his 
 Greek New Testament- 1 - He was a great proficient in 
 that language No Latin Version, in his day, had been 
 sanctioned by the authority of Councils His quota- 
 tions should be treated as those of Jerome When 
 Jerome quotes texts of Holy Scripture in Latin, no one 
 doubts they existed also in his Greek copies . . . 30, 3 1 
 
 Another difficulty alleged; viz. That Augustin never 
 quotes, or was acquainted with, 1 John V. 7. though he 
 read Cyprian's Work De Unitate but this is no ar- 
 gument 
 
XXXvi CONTENTS. 
 
 The argument in favour of 1 JohnV. 7. stated in Seven 
 
 Propositions; viz. 
 J. It existed in the Ante-Hieronymian Latin Version, 
 
 at least two hundred years older than the oldest 
 
 Greek MSS. extant. 
 n. Most Latin MSS. contain it. 
 in. It is quoted by Latin Fathers of the 2d and 3d 
 
 centuries, and frequently since the 5th. 
 iv. Greeks of the 4th, and down to the 15th century, 
 
 quote or allude to it. 
 v. It is found in some Greek MSS. 
 vi. Some Greek MSS, which omit it, have additions 
 
 to the 8th verse, implying the original existence of 
 
 the 7th. 
 vii. No Greek Author ever understood 1 John V. 8. 
 
 of the Trinity 9,10 
 
 Observations on Historical Criticism ; viz. 
 
 Difficulties not to be confounded with Objections 
 Examples given 10 
 
 Objections, or " Argumenta necessario indicantia" of two 
 kinds Examples of each 11 
 
 Difficulties, or "Argumenta contingenter indicantia? of 
 two kinds Examples of each 12 
 
 Knittel's remarks on the foregoing; viz. 
 
 Obs. 1. Mere difficulties, in what respect incompetent 
 to refute a proposition. Obs. 2. Historical difficulties 
 may be removed, and how. Obs. 3. Or weakened, and 
 how. Obs. 4. Historical truths capable of complete 
 proof, notwithstanding difficulties Example : Hero- 
 dotus' and Thucydides' silence respecting the Romans 
 Herodian's silence respecting the Christians . . 14, 15 
 
 Two cases analogous to the omission of 1 John V. 7. ; viz. 
 (1.) Cicero's quotation of a lost line in Homer, (the 
 various points of the analogy stated in Note 13) . . 15 
 (2.) Cyril's quotation of a lost clause in 1 Thess.V. 21 .. 17 
 
 The different effect of confuting difficulties and objections 
 Why necessary to make the distinction .... ib. 
 
CONTENTS. XXXV11 
 
 NEW CRITICISMS ON SOME TESTIMONIES OF LATIN 
 
 FATHERS CONCERNING 1 JOHN V. 7. ... 2137 
 
 CYPRIAN 
 
 In the extract from his Work, De Unitate Ecclesice ; viz. 
 " Dicit Dominus &c. &c." The words " Hi tres unum 
 sunt" are a quotation of 1 John V. 7 21 
 
 Objection. They are taken from the 8th verse, which Cy- 
 priau mystically understood of the Trinity .... ib. 
 
 Answer. No trace in any of his Works that he allegorized 
 the 8th verse His formula of citation, when he quotes 
 allegorically, is quite different this proved, hy various 
 extracts Neither is there any mode of expression in 
 his Works to justify the objection . . . 22, 23, & notes 
 
 The objection originated* with FACUNDUS, an African 
 Bishop, three centuries later than Cyprian Extract 
 from Facundus' Work Pro defensione Trium Capitu- 
 lorum 24 
 
 Facundus' testimony contrasted with Cyprian's own 
 words, and shewn to be altogether untenable How 
 accounted for 25, 26 
 
 A difficulty alleged; viz. the word " confitetur" applied 
 to Cyprian, in FULGENTIUS' (Bishop of Ruspa) Work 
 Contra Arianos 26 
 
 This hypothesis examined and confuted Had Fulgeritius 
 only been acquainted with 1 John V. 7. from the quo- 
 tation in Cyprian, he would have worded it in the same 
 manner ; but he does not Therefore, Fulgentius read 
 1 John V. 7. in his own copy of the Latin New Tes- 
 tament This is proved by the context of the passage 
 where the word " confitetur" is introduced The true 
 meaning of Fulgentius in that passage shewn ... 29 
 
 But Fulgentius may also have read 1 John V. 7. in his 
 Greek New Testament He was a great proficient in 
 that language No Latin Version, in his day, had been 
 sanctioned by the authority of Councils His quota- 
 tions should be treated as those of Jerome When 
 Jerome quotes texts of Holy Scripture in Latin, no one 
 doubts they existed also in his Greek copies . . . 30, 3 1 
 
 Another difficulty alleged; viz. That Augustin never 
 quotes, or was acquainted with, 1 John V. 7. though he 
 read Cyprian's Work De Unitate but this is no ar- 
 gument 
 
xxxviii CONTENTS. 
 
 gument against Cyprian's authority Cyprian quotes 
 many texts to which Augustin never alludes : there- 
 fore, Augustin's omission is no evidence that Cyprian 
 did not quote 1 John V. 7. or doubted its authenticity, 31,32 
 
 Further : That Augustin, in his Work against Maximin 
 the Arian, quotes 1 John V. 8., and explains it mysti- 
 cally of the Trinity But that is no reason why Cy- 
 prian must necessarily have understood 1 John V. 8. 
 mystically ; or that Augustin should have imagined he 
 did 32 
 
 But there is also a passage in Augustin's Civitas Dei, 
 which evidently alludes to 1 John V. 7 .... 33 
 
 Objection. " That passage alludes to 1 John V. 8." 
 
 Answer. The " Hi ires unum sunt" in Augustin's Work 
 against Maximin, are his mystical interpretation of 
 1 John V. 8., and proposed only hypothetically. But 
 the " Tria unum sunt," in the Civitas Dei, are given 
 by him as a categorical proof of the Trinity . . . 33, 34 
 [Possibly, Augustin acknowledged 1 John V. 7. au- 
 thentic when he wrote the Civitas Dei; but 
 changed his opinion afterwards, when he wrote 
 the work against Maximin His case the reverse 
 of Luther's in that respect] . . . (Note 24, 25.) 
 
 Augustin's Commentary on 1 John does not reach to 
 chap. V. 7. : therefore, his sentiments on that clause 
 are not known 35 
 
 Cyprian understood Greek well so did Tertullian his 
 master, who recommends the study of the Greek Ori- 
 ginal of the Holy Scripture It is unlikely that Cyprian 
 should quote Latin texts against Heretics, which texts 
 did not exist in the Original Greek He may have oc- 
 casionally quoted from the Vetus Itala or Africana, La- 
 tin Version but there is a difference between the 
 authenticity of an entire clause, and of a few Various 
 Readings: this illustrated by an example The rule 
 should be, Whenever a Latin Father who understood 
 Greek quotes a text in Latin, it is primd-facie evi- 
 dence of that text in the Original This rule con- 
 firmed by experience, and a discovery of Knittel's, in 
 comparing the Gothic Version of Ulphilas with the 
 Greek Codex Gtielpherbytanus B. & C. . . 3537. & n. 28. 
 
CONTENTS. XXXIX 
 
 NEW CRITICISMS ON SOME TESTIMONIES OF GREEK 
 
 FATHERS RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7 . . . 4154 
 
 I. JOHN MAUROP, Archbishop of Euchania, in the 
 llth century His two Panegyrics on Basil, Gre- 
 gory, and Chrysostom Copies of one of them in the 
 Wolfenbiittle Library, described 41 
 
 Its Inscription a part of the 15th Oration of Gregory 
 Nazianzen The Fragment illustrated and ex- 
 plained 42. &n. 31. 
 
 The Writer of this Manuscript was GEORGE, who also 
 wrote the Codex Colbertinus and Martyrium Demetrii 
 
 (See Montfau^on Palceograph.) 43 
 
 [A useful hint given to Investigators of Manuscripts, 
 n.44.] 
 
 MAUROP'S Oration described The beginning and close 
 
 of it 44,45 
 
 [The Festivals of Basil, Gregory, and Chrysostom, 
 
 in the Greek Church-Calendar, n. 38.] 
 Contents of Maurop 's Oration investigated Extract 
 from the Mencea, giving account of the origin of the 
 Festival on which it was delivered 46 48 
 
 A remarkable phrase in the Menaean Narrative, viz. " We 
 are one in God" seems an allusion to 1 John V. 7. 
 because referred to the Three Saints whom Maurop 
 calls a Trias 49 
 
 Extract from Maurop's Oration The phrases ol avrot 
 rpets Kai e/s, " The same Three aJso are One /' and x< 
 Tpirov, Kara rrjv *Lv/u,7rvoiav, " Thirdly ', in Unanimity ; 
 
 evident allusions to 1 John V. 7 50 52 
 
 Objection. " Tjoe/s xat E/s " not grammatical. 
 
 Answer. It is the usual mode of expression in the Fathers, 
 
 who actually quote 1 John V. 7 52 
 
 [This confirmed by an ancient Scholium of Origen's, 
 by Cassiodorus' Complex., and by Charlemagne's 
 Letter to Pope Leo III. ; 11. 45.] 
 
 Maurop was an Orthodox Greek ; and therefore not to be 
 suspected of Latinizing in this allusion This con- 
 firmed by a passage in one of his Hymns .... 53 
 
xl CONTENTS. 
 
 II. GREGORY NAZIANZEN SOME PASSAGES OF HIS WORKS 
 
 HITHERTO OVERLOOKED, AND NOT EMPLOYED IN THE 
 CONTROVERSY UPON 1 JOHN V. 7 55 79 
 
 Gregory uses the phrase " Three are One" in his 12th, 
 37th, and 51st Discourses ; viz.'Ev rot. Tpta, To lv T/O/, 
 'Ey yap TO. Tpioc t KO.I T rptot lv. Also the expression 
 , Aoyos, KOU Uvevpa, in his Qprjvos &c. v.113 ; and 
 , Ao-ye, xai n/ei/yu TO aytov , in Disc. 25 and 42 
 These are manifest allusions to 1 John V. 7 . . 55 57 
 
 [Hints as to the proper mode of arguing from the 
 supposed silence of ancient Authors on any topic, 
 n.47.] 
 
 Objection. " The foregoing quotations are from 1 John 
 V. 8. Gregory never quotes 1 John V. 7. among 
 his Scripture proofs of the Trinity " 57 
 
 Answer. Gregory does quote 1 John V. 7. ; and this is 
 proved by three Propositions : (1.) There was a keen 
 dispute, in Gregory's days, respecting the authenticity 
 and interpretation of 1 John V. 7. (2.) Gregory never 
 understood 1 John V. 8. of the Holy Trinity. (3.) He 
 actually quotes 1 John V. 7. as a text of Holy 
 Scripture 58 
 
 Proposition I. proved. In Gregory's 37th Discourse, he 
 argues against the Opponents of the Trinity. He asserts 
 the Homoousian doctrine, which they opposed from the 
 clause Tp/a c Ev, which connumerates the Persons of the 
 Godhead, and infers Tritheism Gregory refutes this 
 objection ; shews that things of different essence may 
 be connumerated ; and quotes the letter of Scripture in 
 
 proof 59 61 
 
 [The whole dispute had evidently originated in this 
 connumeration, which only occurs in 1 John V. 7. ; 
 n. 51.] 
 
 His opponents objected, that the phrase " Three are One " 
 does not specify what Three they deny it to be a 
 phrase of St. John's. 
 
 Gregory replies, that in 1 John V. 8. things of different 
 essence are similarly connumerated, and the masculine 
 
 applied to things neuter 61,62 
 
 [The Arians acknowledged 1 John V. 7. to be au- 
 thentic ; n. 54.] 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 xli 
 
 Prop. ii. Gregory did not quote 1 John V. 8. in proof of 
 the Trinity MILL is right in asserting that no Greek 
 Father ever understood 1 John V. 8. of the Trinity 
 ORIOEN is the first among the Greeks who quotes that 
 text at all Gregory did not quote the last clause of 
 1 John V. 8. : possibly it did not exist in his copy - 
 This would account for Aquinas' Note on 1 JohnV. 8 . . 63 
 
 The phrase 'Ev ra Tpia almost proverbial in the Greek Fa- 
 thers, to denote the Holy Trinity It occurs in the 
 Philopatris (supposed) of Lucian The phrase " Tres 
 Unum sunt" is common among the Latin Fathers of the 
 2d and 3d centuries; e.g. Tertttllian, Cyprian, &c. 
 They evidently derived it from 1 John V. 7 : therefore, 
 Gregory's ra Tpta c Ev was taken from the same It 
 evidently was not a mere technical expression, in his 
 opinion , 64) 
 
 Prop. in. Gregory, in his 37th Discourse, where he enu- 
 merates the Scriptural titles of the Holy Ghost, states, 
 that he is crvvapi0/j.ov/uievov (connumerated) with the 
 Father and the Son The meaning of that word gene- 
 rally, and in this specific instance, proved, from his 
 44th Discourse, where he says, " The Holy Ghost is 
 ffvvTsrot.yiJ.evov xat arvvapiOfji.oviJ.evov" these cannot be 
 synonymous Now this connumeration only exists in 
 1 John V. 7 : therefore Gregory read that clause in 
 his Greek New Testament This conclusion further 
 proved by three passages of his Works : 
 
 1st, In his 37th Discourse, he argues against the Sabellians 
 and Nestorians, from the phrase 'Ev ra Tpta That 
 phrase, being equally interesting to the Orthodox and 
 the Heretics, must have been a phrase in Scripture 
 [This further proved by a passage of Theodorite's Dia- 
 logue against Macedonius ; Cyril's Epistle to John of 
 Antioch ; and Maximin's Reply to Augustin] 65 70. 
 
 (& notes 67, 68.) 
 
 2dly, A passage in Gregory's Hymns only explicable as 
 an allusion to 1 John V. 7 70 
 
 3dly, In his 51st Discourse, he says, " In the Trinity there 
 is no AAo, because the Three are One" He must 
 have taken this proof from the Bible, as no other evi- 
 dence was admitted by theHeretics (See Athanasius 
 de Synodis &c.) 71. & n. 70 
 
xlii CONTENTS. 
 
 Application of the foregoing reasoning to the case of 
 Maurop Maurop had read Gregory's Works, and 
 coincided with him in opinion on the Trinity : there- 
 fore Maurop's two quotations (see pp. 50 52) are ob- 
 vious allusions to, and therefore tacit quotations of, 
 1 John V. 7 72 
 
 Objection. " No Greek Author quotes 1 John V. 7." 
 Answer. It is quoted by Bryennius, in the 15th century; 
 Manuel Calecas, in the 14th ; the Council of the La- 
 teran, in the 13th [a capitulum of which proves that 
 they did not pervert the Original Greek Text, nor form 
 it on the Vulgate] ; by Euthymius Zygabenus, in the 
 12th ; Maurop, in the llth ; the Greek Nomocanon, in 
 the 8th ; Maximus, the Confessor, in the 7th ; Theo- 
 dorite against Macedonius, in the 5th [this Dialogue 
 attributed to Athanasius] ; Gregory Nazianzen, and the 
 author of the Philopatris y in the 4th [a remarkable 
 extract from the latter] ; and Origen, in the 3d cen- 
 tury. [See his Scholium on the 122d Psalm, Oi yap 
 Tpsig TO 'Ev sun, which could not be from 1 John V. 8 ; 
 else he would have said E*s TO c Ei/ nor did he explain 
 the 8th verse as of the Trinity] . . . 72 78, & notes. 
 
 The Latins generally, in the 4th century, use the phrase 
 " Three are One" (See Ausonius, in his poem of 
 Gryphus) 77 
 
 Objection. " No Greek Codex contains the C E> rrj yp in 
 
 1 John V. 8." 
 Answer. Simon asserts it exists in the Cod. Reg. 2247, 
 
 Paris : [but this disproved by Bishop Burgess] . . 78, & n. 
 That some persons mutilated the First Epistle of John, 
 
 appears from Socrates, Hinckmar, Fulbert, and the 
 
 Prologue of Jerome, 
 
 [Epiphanius suspects that the Alogi rejected John's 
 Epistles] 78,79 
 
 
CONTENTS. xliii 
 
 GREEK AND LATIN MANUSCRIPTS DISCOVERED 
 
 WHICH SUPPORT 1 JOHN V. 7 83 101 
 
 THE FIRST GREEK MANUSCRIPT, or Codex Guelphcr- 
 bytanus C. (1.) Its age, between the 10th and 13th 
 centuries. (2.) Its Writer, GEORGE, a Monk (not the 
 George mentioned p. 43.) (3.) Its Marginal Notices 
 of the Lessons read in the Greek Church on stated days, 
 from the Apostolus or Greek Church Liturgy The 
 modern Apostolus reads 1 John V. 7. as in our Printed 
 Editions Desirable to collate ancient MSS. of the 
 Apostolus Simon's high opinion of Apostolized 
 Codices 8385 
 
 This Codex contains 1 John V. 7 ; not in the text, but 
 in the margin, and written by a later hand. But, 
 (1.) It has many marks of the Transcriber's haste and 
 carelessness. (2.) It has a wholly new Reading in 
 1 John V. 8. ; viz. 6n OI Tpe*s e*<rii>, &c. This OI 
 shews that the original, whence it was transcribed, 
 contained 1 John V. 7. That clause might have been 
 omitted, owing to similarity in sound between OVTOI 
 and on ; or to the insertion of Uncial letters, as Ot/ToI 
 This conjecture verified by Archbishop Eugenius, of 
 Cherson, in his Criticisms on 1 John V. 7. . . 86, 87. & 
 
 App. (C.) 206 
 
 This Codex omits xai before v<tap, in 1 John V. 8 ; so 
 does the Codex Basileensis ; and so Bryennius . . 87 
 
 THE SECOND GREEK MANUSCRIPT, or Codex Guelpher- 
 bytanus D, described It was written in the 17th 
 century The Text divided into chapter and verse 
 The Various Readings of the Vulgate, Syriac, Vatablus', 
 Castalio, Erasmus, and Beza, noted underneath the 
 Text It reaches only to 1 John V. 19; and adds 
 gypa^j; an^ois ffoy'. The same number of ffri-^oi in 
 Codex Montfortianus, Codex Ravianus, and Codices Ste- 
 phani It reads 1 John V. 7. exactly as our Printed 
 Editions , 88 90 
 
 THE THIRD GREEK MANUSCRIPT. That there existed 
 a Greek Manuscript of the New Testament which 
 contained I John V. 7. in Luther's time, and that he 
 
 had 
 
xllV CONTENTS. 
 
 had seen and believed that MS. and that clause to be 
 authentic, appears from the following considerations; viz. 
 
 In his First Commentary on the First Epistle of St. John 
 (published by Dr. Neumann 1708), originally written 
 down by Jacob Sprenger from Lectures delivered by 
 Luther, it appears that Luther had at that time re- 
 jected 1 John V. 7. as spurious, because he had not 
 found it in the Greek Bibles 91 
 
 His Second Commentary on the same Epistle was 
 translated into German from an Autograph Latin MS. 
 of Luther It was evidently prepared from the Greek 
 Original Text It is junior to the former Commentary 
 it was written by Luther, shortly before his death : and 
 it bears internal evidence, that he had at that time 
 acknowledged 1 John V. 7. to be authentic ; and must 
 therefore have seen Greek MSS. of the New Testa- 
 ment which contained it, and of whose authenticity he 
 was satisfied This proved, by various extracts from 
 the Commentary itself, and hia other Works; 92 95, 
 
 (& notes 9095) 
 
 1 John V. 7. is contained in the Codex Montfortianus, 
 the Codex Ravianus, and the Complutensian Edition 
 of the Bible 94 
 
 [GOEZEN'S Works in vindication of the Compluten- 
 sian referred to Fac-simile of the clause 1 John 
 V. 7. in the Codex Montfortianus , as sent to Pro- 
 fessor Bruns of Helmstadt by Archbishop New- 
 come of Ireland ; n. 98.J 
 
 JEROME'S Prologue asserts the existence of 1 John V. 7. 96 
 Objection. " The Prologue is a mere Monkish fiction." 
 Answer. It unquestionably existed in the 7th century 
 Its assertion, that the Greek MSS. contained that 
 clause, must not be absolutely rejected Its Author 
 must have seen that clause in the MSS. which he con- 
 sulted Analogy between it and the Acta Sanctorum 
 The latter are admissible evidence, when they treat 
 of ordinary events related by other Authors Jerome's 
 Prologue states that some Latin MSS. omitted 
 1 John V. 7 This no one doubts 90, 97 
 
CONTENTS. xlv 
 
 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS 
 
 Collation of 24 Latin MSS. of the Bible in the Wolfen- 
 
 biittle Library : all, except one, posterior to the 9th 
 
 century ; and all containing 1 John V. 7. 
 ONE has a marginal gloss interpolated into the Text 
 
 [A singular example of this in the Greek Codex Corsen- 
 
 doneensis.~] 
 FIFTEEN omit the " Hi tres unum sunt" in 1 John 
 
 V.8. 
 TEN transpose the 7th and 8th verses. 
 
 ONE, the most ancient, written in the Franco-Gallic or 
 Merovingian Character, and therefore prior to Charle- 
 magne, reads " Spiritus est veritas" [How this may 
 be accounted for] The same Reading found in Two 
 Codices at Ulm There were two Recensions of the 
 First Epistle of St. John in Charlemagne's days 
 Curious account of a supposed Alcuin's Bible in the 
 Vauxcelles' Library; also of one in the Library of the 
 Benedictines at St. Casino, superscribed " Biblia ad 
 recensionem S. Hieronymi " . . . 100, 101, and notes. 
 
 SUMMARY, AND CORROBORATION, OP THE WHOLE EVI- 
 DENCE IN FAVOUR OF 1 JOHN V. 7, WITH A FEW 
 
 PASTORAL OBSERVATIONS RELEVANT TO 
 
 THE SUBJECT 105 123 
 
 The phrase " Three are Owe "used in speaking of the 
 Deity by LATINS ; viz. Tertullian in the 2d centuiy ; 
 Cyprian in the 3d ; Phrebadius and Ausonius in the 
 4th ; and numerous others subsequently Also by 
 THE GREEKS ; viz. Origen in the 3d, &c. [as enu- 
 merated in pp. 74 79] 105,106 
 
 This phrase asserted, by Cyprian and others, to have 
 been employed in Scripture, of the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost 100 
 
 It is used in the Philopatris ; also by Gregory Nazianzen 
 and Maximus, as the words of Scripture, and of 
 UohnV.7 107 
 
 This is corroborated by sundry Greek Fathers ; Greek 
 MSS. of the New Testament ; the Complutensian 
 
 Edition ; 
 
xlvi CONTENTS. 
 
 Edition ; many ancient Latin MSS. of the Vulgate ; 
 by the additions to ver. 8 in some Greek MSS. which 
 want ver. 7 ; by the grammatical structure of ver. 8 ; 
 and by the general report that ver. 7. was expunged by 
 
 Heretics 107 
 
 The Difficulties; viz. (1.) " That it is omitted in the ma- 
 jority of Greek MSS;" (2.) "That the Greek Fa- 
 thers seldom quote it ;" are not sufficient to overturn 
 the affirmative evidence in its favour, the oyuoAoyrj/za 
 of so many Ancient Fathers who do quote or allude 
 to it ."......... 108 
 
 In gaining thus much, we only secure a position; viz. 
 (1.) That 1 John V. 7. formerly existed in Greek 
 MSS. of the New Testament, now lost. (2.) That the 
 Fathers who quoted it believed it to be the word of 
 God. We are therefore to deal with it as a Reading 
 supported by some Greek and many Latin MSS. ; or, 
 vice versa, wanting in many Greek and some Latin MSS. 109 
 
 Its authenticity is verified by Eighteen MSS. ; one of 
 which is of the 2d century, two of the 3d, two of the 
 4th, and one of the 5th century . . . . . . .110 
 
 [Remarks on the Codex Ottobonianus ; and the 
 Codex Britannicus, which Knittel (improperly) 
 identifies with the Codex Montfortianus ; ib. note.] 
 
 The clause 1 John V. 7. harmonizes with the style, 
 context, and doctrine, &c. &c. of St. John . . . ib. 
 
 PASTORAL OBSERVATIONS 
 
 This text may, and ought to be, employed in proving the 
 doctrine of the Trinity The notions of modern Pas- 
 tors, on this point, shewn to be erroneous Fashion, 
 or the spirit of the age, an unsafe guide to Ministers 
 of the Gospel may mislead them to the abandonment 
 of all the peculiar doctrines of Christianity . . . Ill 113 
 
 The Objection, viz. " That the doctrine of the Trinity is 
 not necessary to Practical Christianity," confuted An 
 ancient stratagem practised at the Council of Sirmium 
 (A.D. 350) to disparage a truth which cannot be dis- 
 proved 113, 114 
 
 Question. " Cannot one be a Christian without knowing 
 or believing the doctrine of the Trinity ?" 
 
CONTENTS. xlvii 
 
 Answer. No ! Because, 1st, It is essential that we adore 
 God as he is revealed in Scripture. 2<lly, It is impos- 
 sible to pacify conscience under a sense of guilt, or he 
 furnished with adequate motives to holiness, without a 
 distinct knowledge of the Incarnate Mediator, the 
 God-Man, Christ Jesus 114,115 
 
 This proved hy illustration Scaliger's aphorism ' Nescire 
 velle &c. &c." modified Minute investigation of texts 
 bearing on this doctrine recommended . . . 116, 117 
 
 The 'Author's (Knittel's) u Brief Philosophy of what are 
 called Mysteries" in Twenty-five Propositions; viz. 
 (1.) There are mysteries. (2.) All mysteries are sub- 
 jective. (3.) There is no mystery to God. (4.) What 
 constitutes a mystery? (5.) Invincible ignorance. 
 (6.) How we know it to be invincible. (7.) Two 
 things to be discriminated in mysteries. (8.) Occult 
 and revealed mysteries. (9.) Ignorance in occult mys- 
 steries, two-fold. (10.) Temporary and eternal myste- 
 ries. (11.) Temporary may not be eternal. (12.) My- 
 steries to man may not be such to Spiritual Beings of a 
 higher order. (13.) But some may be eternal myste- 
 ries to all created Beings. (14.) Revealed mysteries, 
 what? (15.) have a clear and a dark side. (16.) are 
 known only symbolically. (17.) Mysteries essential 
 components of Natural Religion. (18.) Mysteries re- 
 specting God may be revealed, independently of Crea- 
 tion. (19.) Symbolical knowledge of the mysteries in 
 Christianity. (20.) Testimony of Holy Scripture. 
 (21.) Mysteries must not be contrary to reason. 
 (22.) All mysteries are above reason. (23.) Cannot be 
 illustrated by comparisons. (24.) Our knoAvledge of the 
 mysteries of Christianity solely analogical. (25.) Some 
 mysteries may seem more analogous to our perceptions 
 than others are Mistakes of Cunninghame (a Ger- 
 man Author) on this subject Knittel's Concluding 
 Prayer 118123 
 
 Al'PENDIX (A.) 
 
 Proofs that Maurop interweaves passages of Scripture 
 into his Discourses 125, 126 
 
xlviii CONTENTS. 
 
 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 Various Readings &c. of the Greek Codex Guelpherby- 
 tanus C. collated with Mill's Edition of the New 
 
 Testament 129 
 
 Remarks on the Codex : 
 
 Some of its Readings peculiar to itself Others found 
 only in one Codex besides ; viz. the Codex Havniensis 
 (See Hensler's Specimen Codex Nov. Test. Grceco- 
 rum, &c. &c.) 204 
 
 APPENDIX (C.) 
 
 Extract from the Letter of Eugenius, Archbishop of 
 Cherson, containing some interesting Remarks on 
 1 John V. 7. published by Professor MATTHJEI of 
 Moscow, in his Edition of the Seven Catholic Epistles. 
 
 The purport of the Extract is, to shew the authenticity of 
 1 John V. 7. from the context, from the grammatical 
 structure of the clause itself, and from the scope of the 
 Apostle's argument in his Gospel and First Epistle . . 206 
 
 Gregory Nazianzen quotes an objection of his antagonist 
 against the grammatical structure, and confutes it- 
 The Tjoe/s ptxpTvpowTes is not a Hellenism Dionysius 
 Alexandrinus, on Eusebius, proves that St. John's First 
 Epistle is free from grammatical solecisms . . 207, 208 
 
 APPENDIX (D.) 
 
 Extracts from TERTULLIAN'S Works, to prove that he 
 consulted the Greek Text of the New Testament, and 
 regarded it as the ultimate appeal from all Versions . 209 
 
 He was well acquainted with Greek, and actually wrote 
 Works in that language . . ib. n. 113 
 
 CYPRIAN also quotes different Lathi Versions of the same 
 Text, and evidently consulted the Greek Codices of 
 the New Testament existing in his day This is con- 
 firmed by a remark of Richard Simon A striking 
 passage in Cyprian shews that he had the Greek 
 Text lying before him, even when he quotes in Latin . 210 
 
 This further confirmed by his occasionally playing on the 
 
 words of the Original 211 
 
 We may infer generally, that the Latino-Greek Fathers 
 
 never 
 
CONTENTS. xlix 
 
 never quoted passages of Scripture which did not ac- 
 tually exist in the Greek Manuscripts of their day . .213 
 
 Remarks on the African^ or Latin Version of the Scrip- 
 tures, current in Africa during the first three centuries 
 It was not considered a perfected or closed Version, like 
 Luther's German Bible; for Augustin admits that he 
 corrected it This proved by two quotations from his 
 Works .............. M- 
 
 There was no African Vulgate (strictly speaking) from 
 Tertullian's to Cyprian's days This proved, by com- 
 paring the Scripture quotations of the same texts in Ter- 
 tullian's and Cyprian's Works They differ considerably 
 from each other, and must have consulted different 
 Codices ............. 215,216 
 
 Two Remarks : 
 
 (1.) Whenever Greek or ancient Latin Authors quote 
 any text of the New Testament, we may be sure that 
 at least the substance of it existed in the Greek MSS. 
 of their days ............. ^17 
 
 (2.) There is a striking parallel to the case of 1 John 
 V. 7. in a clause formerly existing at the end of John 
 iii. 6., quoted by Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustin, and 
 others ; and also referred to by Eusebius, though it no 
 longer exists in any Greek MSS. of that Gospel. Still 
 there is no ground for maintaining its authenticity ; be- 
 cause it is the evidence of only one Greek Author, that 
 it ever existed as part of the Original Text ; and it is 
 palpably at variance with the Context ..... ib. 
 
 APPENDIX (E.) 
 
 EXTRACT from GREGORY NAZIANZEN'S Panegyric on CY- 
 PRIAN ; proving that the Anti-Trinitarians of his day per- 
 verted the clause 1 John V. 7., especially the meaning 
 of the words ev and rpets, i.e. the evcoffn; and the <rvv- 
 
 .......... 219 
 
 Even some of the Orthodox entertained doubts as to its 
 interpretation This appears from a passage of Gre- 
 gory's Oration, addressed to Evagrius the Monk . . 220 
 
 Evidently, therefore, 1 John V. 7. was the subject of keen 
 disputation between the Orthodox and Heretics . .221 
 
1 CONTENTS. 
 
 APPENDIX (F-) 
 
 Critical Remarks on the Philopatris or Didascomenus 
 The author of it must have been well acquainted with 
 the Bible He describes St. Paul exactly in the 
 words of the Martyrology of Thecla ; often uses the 
 words of the Bible ; speaks of the book of God ; 
 mentions the Lord's Prayer, &c. &c. . . 222. & n. 120 126 
 
 It is generally supposed to have been written by Lucian 
 the Sophist, during the life-time of the Emperor Julian 
 the Apostate, and with a view to turn Christianity 
 into ridicule : but these suppositions are disproved, by 
 internal evidence The sarcasms against Necromancy 
 would have greatly offended Julian It was probably 
 written about the time of his death, and intended 
 to describe the various emotions of the people while 
 that event was yet in suspense The chief character 
 in the Philopatris is a Christian Convert from Pagan- 
 ism ; and there were many such after Julian's death 
 The existing editions of the Philopatris seem incom- 
 plete The Conclusion of the Work seems wanting 
 
 225227 
 APPENDIX (G.) 
 
 Extract from an obsolete Anonymous Work, in which the 
 doctrine of the Trinity is attempted to be proved by 
 Algebra ; being a Revival of the Doctrine of the Syn- 
 arithmesis. The Algebraic Formula given. (See 
 Clemm's Vollstdndige Einleitung &c.) 228 
 
 DESCRIPTION of the Codex Guelpherbytanus E. written in 
 the llth century, containing the Four Gospels and 
 some other matters Heusinger's Essay on it, noticed 
 byMichaelis p. 231.&n.l30 
 
 This Codex contains the Eusebian Canons, and the Ke^>- 
 A< prefixed to each Evangelist It has the remark- 
 able addition Trep/ rijq yuo/^AiJo?, noticed by Richard 
 Simon p. 232, 233. & n. 132 
 
 Prefixed to each Evangelist is a Prologus, or Preface, in 
 Greek That prefixed to Matthew is found in the 
 Typicum (Twrrixcq, or Greek Liturgy), and in Theophy- 
 lact's Preface to St. Mark . . 233235 
 
CONTENTS. H 
 
 The Preface to St. Luke states him to be a disciple 
 of Peter 237 
 
 The Preface to St. John states his banishment to Patmos, 
 where he wrote his Gospel ib. 
 
 A very curious Reading, Luke xvi. 8. vioi TOV vvjm^cavog 
 TOVTOV, accounted for 238 239 
 
 The Conclusion of Matthew's Gospel written oravpo- 
 Ti/7rtus, i. e. in the shape of a Cross 241 
 
 The AfjAeyovs after John's Gospel is taken from Doro- 
 theus, and found also in the Typicum 242 
 
 The Calendar of Festivals in this Codex 243 
 
 Extracts from Heusinger's Essay ib. 251 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 P. 50, note, for 
 
 read avaffTaffi[j.ov eairoffTei\apiov. 
 
 P. 95, note 98, for Holmstadt, 
 
 read Hehnstadt. 
 
 P. 107, note 1 04, for Note 7 1 , 
 read Note 6. 
 
SYNODICAL LECTURE 
 
 1 JOHN,V. 7. 
 
 THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR RECORD IN HEAVEN, 
 THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST; 
 AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. 
 
 REVEREND BRETHREN, 
 
 You are all aware, that the authenticity of this 
 passage has been controverted, from the beginning of 
 the 16th century, down to the present day. I might 
 almost say, no passage in the Bible has ever occasioned 
 a dispute so violent and so general in the Church. 
 Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, Socinians, in short all 
 Religious Sects whatever, who appeal to the New Tes- 
 tament as authority, have taken part in the contest. At 
 first, the party which rejected the passage was the 
 minority : in the present day, on the contrary, [in 
 Germany] it is the strongest and most respectable : nay, 
 people already go so far as to wonder how it is possible, 
 at the close of the 18th century, an age so enlightened 
 upon this Text, there should still be found men to 
 favour a clause so incongruous to St. John. Their 
 reasons certainly deserve a hearing. 
 
 "1 John V. 7." say they, "is wanting in all Manuscripts of 
 the Original Text. No ancient Greek or Latin Father of the 
 
 B 
 
Church, not even excepting Tertullian and Cyprian, quote 
 that clause. We seek for it in vain in old Translation*. It 
 was in the reign of Charlemagne, or perhaps later, that it 
 first crept, from a marginal gloss, into the Vulgate ; and 
 passed from thence into a few insignificant Manuscripts, 
 posterior to the art of printing." 
 
 To predispose us to a more favourable hearing of 
 these objections, the following motives are urged. 
 
 1st. To console the friends of the Bible for the loss 
 of this clause, we are told : 
 
 " It may well be dispensed with in Dogmatics : besides, it 
 is obscure; or, at least, too ambiguous to prove what it is 
 commonly intended to prove. Its loss, therefore, is of no 
 importance whatever." 
 
 2dly : To discourage its defenders, we are told : 
 
 " Ungrateful that ye are ! how faithless is your conduct 
 towards Luther, the mighty Luther, so deserving of your 
 veneration and that of all the rational world ! How earnestly 
 did that blessed man enjoin you, not to alter one tittle of his 
 Translation of the Bible ! Yet, scarcely had twenty years 
 elapsed since his death, when, lo! 1 John V. 7. appears, in 
 Dr. Luther's New Testament ! a clause which is wanting in 
 all the editions which he himself prepared ! Let it not be 
 objected, that its absence in those editions was merely acci- 
 dental, a matter of chance. If you have not read yet, read 
 now, with what clear and profound reasoning that enlightened 
 divine declares against the authenticity of that clause, in his 
 Commentary on the First Epistle of St. John." 
 
 3dly ; And further, as a good-natured warning, we 
 are asked, 
 
 " What is ultimately to become of the Text of the Bible, if 
 our Criticisms are to be held worthless, and yours alone 
 valid? Will not the same reasons which induce you to make 
 1 John V. 7. a Text of Scripture, compel you also to admit into 
 the Sacred Volume many human suggestions, which Legends 
 
 
announce to be expressions of Jesus and his Apostles, but 
 whose real nature you yourselves acknowledge. To smite 
 oneself with one's own sword, is surely the grossest impru- 
 dence imaginable in any contest. Yet this is what you are 
 doing." 
 
 Let us immediately reply to the foregoing ; and clear 
 these obstacles from our path to the refutation of 
 objections. 
 
 1st. They console us for the loss of this very favourite 
 clause, so generally employed in Catechisms and books of 
 doctrinal instruction. 
 
 True, we do not lose the doctrine of the Trinity, 
 though this clause should lose its authority. But what 
 rational Christian will adopt a doctrine unsupported by 
 the testimony of Holy Scriptures, or cherish, as the 
 ground of his faith, a Scriptural text which he perceives 
 to be spurious and interpolated ? If he does, he acts 
 erroneously ; and requires not to be consoled, but to be 
 better taught. Our attachment to an article of faith 
 ceases, the moment it is proved to us unfounded in any 
 passage of Scripture. Where then is the need of con- 
 dolence, when we are not sensible of any loss ? Conso- 
 lation of this kind pays no great compliment to the 
 discernment of those to whom it is offered : in fact, it is 
 a species of satire. Suppose a case : A rational Chris- 
 tian, but defective in Biblical learning, imagines that 
 the whole proof of the existence of the Trinity rests 
 singly and exclusively on 1 John V.7. Well; the mo- 
 ment he is convinced this passage is not the word of 
 God, but a mere human invention, all his attachment to 
 the doctrine vanishes He will thank us, perhaps, for 
 
our instruction, but take it very ill if we attempt to 
 console him for the loss of a passage which he erro- 
 neously held to be genuine and divine. This is just 
 the fashionable language used to persuade the world 
 that the faith of Orthodox Christians, so Called, is blind 
 and groundless; 'that their wishes, prejudices, ha- 
 bits, are the only source of their rigid adherence to the 
 unphilosophical doctrines of their bigotted forefathers ; 
 that to gain upon this capricious weakness, it only 
 requires to get hold of their passions, to play the part of 
 some zealot for the ancient faith, and counterfeit their en- 
 thusiastic veneration for the words and phrases of Scrip- 
 ture ; and that to attempt to controvert their doctrines, 
 is only pouring oil on the fire.' But further, allowing 
 that 1 John V. 7. is not sufficiently clear to convince us 
 of the existence of the Trinity, shall we therefore be 
 deterred from scrutinizing the authenticity of this clause, 
 or reject it without further ceremony, according to the 
 system of a certain individual, in which relative edifica- 
 tion is substituted for criticism on the Text ? Verily, I 
 think this would be proceeding too arbitrarily, and too 
 insecurely, in the investigation of the Bible Text. 
 
 2dly : " Luther," we are told, " thought quite differently of 
 1 John V. 7. Why corrupt his Translation ?" 
 
 What is here observed of our Luther, is true; but 
 only in part. I shall reply to this hereafter, when I treat 
 of Manuscripts : here I might become too episodical. 
 
 3dly : " You prove too much," say they, " when you 
 attempt to vindicate the authenticity of this clause. Learn 
 from us to criticise with more caution, and on better grounds." 
 
It is true, (why should we deny it ?) that our fore- 
 fathers had occasionally recourse to improper weapons 
 in defence of 1 John V. 7. But did not their antagonists 
 frequently do the same ? Does not Truth continue to 
 be Truth, though its advocates rest their convictions of 
 it upon erroneous grounds ? It is assuredly true, and 
 palpable to any one who reads what has been written 
 for and against this clause, that the attack upon I John 
 V. 7. has been exceedingly advantageous to Biblical 
 criticism. How many useful medicines have not che- 
 mists discovered in their researches after gold ! Thanks 
 to ERASMUS, who gave the first occasion to this contro- 
 versy ! Thanks to that great man, who, with a torch in 
 one hand and scales in the other, elucidated and weighed, 
 as carefully as it was then possible to elucidate and 
 weigh, the Greek Text of the New Testament, which 
 he presented to the world in various editions that 
 great man, who applied criticism to the uses for which 
 it was designed ; i. e. as a test for discovering truth, and 
 not as the mask of irregular passions ; that great man, 
 who retracted his words whenever he altered his opi- 
 nions ; and, in his third edition of the New Testament, 
 restored 1 John V. 7. to the place which he had refused 
 it in his two first editions ! 
 
 But, has the controversy upon this text been already 
 settled by a decisive victory on either side ? Are the 
 Manuscript sources so completely exhausted, that no 
 further discoveries can be made, to sustain the autho- 
 rity of this clause ? There are voluminous documents, 
 often difficult to be understood, and to which all have 
 not access I mean the Writings of the Fathers, and 
 
 - 
 
the Councils, which require to be revised more than 
 once, if we would give the full force of law to the sen- 
 tence founded upon them *. It is with the history of the 
 Biblical Text, which we derive from the Fathers, as 
 with Natural History, written about remote countries. 
 Neither arrives at certainty, until men of various schools 
 read the former deliberately, and travel attentively 
 through the latter : each, however, candidly laying the 
 grounds of their judgment, without reserve, before the 
 reading world ; and, in short, " valuing their wares no 
 higher than they are worth" Augustin had a maxim in 
 this case, which I would strongly recommend to all our 
 Critics who may yet be without it. " In matters of a 
 doubtful nature 2 ," says this acute Bishop, " we must 
 take care, lest an extravagant attachment to our own 
 opinions, and a rash defence of them thence resulting, 
 lead us to become guarantees for their absolute cer- 
 tainty. For the time may come," he adds, " when we 
 and others shall discern the real state of the case, and 
 be convinced of the incorrectness of our notions. What 
 would then be said of our having so zealously fought 
 for our opinions? Every one would say, it was not 
 truth, but an over-fondness for our own theses, which 
 stimulated us to put on harness." Thank God! this 
 ancient maxim has not wholly lost its admirers. That 
 great calculator of probabilities, BERNOULLI, recognises 
 it. " In our decisions," he observes, " we must take heed 
 
 (1) Remember, Brethren, the exquisite Critical Investigation of the 
 60th Canon of the Council of Laodicea ; published by the learned 
 Professor Spittler, in 1777. 
 
 (2) Lib. I. de Genes, ad litt cap. xviii. u In rebus obscuris" &c. 
 
 
that we attach no greater value to things than they 
 really possess : we must not consider that thing to be 
 absolutely certain, which is more probable than the 
 rest ; nor impose it upon other people as an incontro- 
 vertible truth V This being the case, I may be per- 
 mitted here to announce the discovery which I have 
 made respecting 1 John V. 7. 
 
 I shall describe the bearings of the controversy in the 
 words of MICHAELIS ; because he possesses the art of 
 stating Critical propositions in a manner at once intelli- 
 gible and entertaining ; and belongs to the party of those 
 who reject 1 John V. 7. as spurious, but yet controvert 
 it learnedly, and with decorum. 
 
 " Forasmuch," says he 4 , " as many persons, who pretend 
 to judge of this question, do not exactly know what is the sub- 
 ject-matter in dispute, and as this is the case even with those 
 who have actually taken the field as defenders of the text in 
 question, I shall first present the entire passage, as it stands 
 in our ordinary printed editions ; inclosing between brackets 
 the words wanting in the Greek Manuscripts, which form the 
 proper subject in controversy. 
 
 " 'OTf TjO/5 tiff iv o/ fjuxprvpovvres [/ T&> ovpavot, 6 Harijp, 6 Ao- 
 yos, xf TO 'Ayiov Hvev/ma' xai OVTOI o! rpe/S ev eifft. Ka/ Tpeis 
 ot ftapTvpovvTSs ev rrj yrf] t TO TrvevfAtx, xai TO vdwp, nat TO 
 ' xf 01 rpet$ ei$ TO 
 
 (3) Artis conjectandi, Parte IV. cap. n. Axiom vm. " In judiciis 
 nostris cavendum, ne rebus plus tribuamus quam par est ; neque quod 
 probabilius est ceteris, pro absolute certo habeamus, ipsi aut obtru- 
 damus aliis." 
 
 (4) In the Second Part of his Introduction to the Holy Scriptures 
 of the New Testament, 223. pp. 1244, 1245. 3d and improved edi- 
 tion. [Bishop Marsh has translated from the 4th edition. The 
 parallel passage in his Translation will be found in Vol. IV. p. 415. 
 2d edition, 1802 __ TV.] 
 
8 
 
 " 1 translate them for the benefit of the unlearned, whom I 
 here chiefly aim to serve: for no scholar, who seeks the 
 truth, requires my aid in this particular. 
 
 " For there are three that bear record [IN HEAVEN, THE FA- 
 THER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST ; AND THESE THREE ARE 
 ONE. AND THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR RECORD ON EARTH], 
 
 the spirit, and the water, and the blood ; and these three agree 
 in one. 
 
 " The words between brackets, I consider inadmissible ; 
 and adopt the Text simply as it stands in the Greek Manu- 
 scripts; viz. 
 
 " 'OTI Tpei$ eiffiv 01 paprvpovvTes, TO Trvevpa, xai TO i/Scop, nat TO 
 fjiijufjc.' xat ol Tpets ft ? TO iv etcriv. 
 
 u For there are three that bear record, the spirit, and the 
 water, and the blood ; and these three agree in one. 
 
 " By this representation of the case we immediately 
 subvert the arguments which some would deduce from the 
 context, to maintain the genuineness of the clause; viz. 
 
 " 1. ' That the sentence, There are three that bear record 
 on earth, is incomplete, unless the Heavenly Witnesses be 
 mentioned before or after.' This, as we said, falls to the 
 ground; because the words * on earth 1 are part of those 
 wanting in the Greek Manuscripts 5 , and therefore rejected as 
 spurious. 
 
 " 2. ' The genuine verse begins with KOII (and), which pre- 
 sumes that other witnesses were mentioned before.' This 
 also fails : for the KOU itself is part of the reading which is not 
 found in the Greek Manuscripts ; and is therefore denied, 
 when 1 John V. 7. is considered to be spurious. Still I must 
 admit respecting this particle x/, that it stands in the Syriac 
 Version 6 , and has passed from thence into the Arabic edited 
 by Erpenius. But, even in that case, we must perceive that 
 the two sentences, ' The Spirit beareth record' (v. 6), and, 
 
 (5) I shall make an observation in reply to this hereafter. 
 
 (6) John Gerhard has already remarked this, in his Essay De Tri- 
 lus Testibus In Caelo. In Thesis XL. he says, " Ktu rpets, Et ires sunl 
 lestificantes in terra, quam copulativam expressit etiam Syrus per usi- 
 tatum V' 
 
9 
 
 * There are three that bear record, the spirit, the water, at 
 the bloody may be likewise connected by the particle AND." 
 
 Thus far MICHAELIS. 
 
 Having ascertained what is properly the matter in dis- 
 pute, we must then make ourselves acquainted with the 
 weapons used in defence of 1 John V. 7. And these 
 weapons it is the purport of my " New Criticisms" partly 
 to sharpen, and partly to augment. To enable you to 
 survey them all at one glance, I shall exhibit them 
 before you in regular succession. 
 
 PROPOSITION I. 
 
 Long before Jerome, this celebrated clause, 1 John 
 V. 7, existed in an ancient Latin Version, which is at 
 least three hundred years older than the oldest Greek 
 Manuscript, yet extant, of the First Epistle of St. John. 
 It is exceedingly probable, and therefore morally cer- 
 tain, that the same clause existed also, at that time, in 
 Greek Manuscripts. 
 
 PROP. II. 
 
 The majority of ancient as well as modern Latin Ma- 
 nuscripts read 1 John V. 7. 
 
 PROP. III. 
 
 The Latins quote this clause so early as the 2d and 
 3d centuries ; and, ever since the 5th, very frequently. 
 
 PROP. IV. 
 
 Greeks of the 4th, Greeks of the 5th, Greeks of the 
 6th, Greeks of the 7th, Greeks of the llth, Greeks of 
 the 13th, Greeks of the 14th, and Greeks of the 15th 
 centuries, cite T John V. 7, or make evident allusions to 
 
 that clause. 
 
 PROP. v. 
 
 1 John V. 7. is found in Manuscripts of the Original 
 Text, which are so constructed as to merit attention. 
 
10 
 
 PROP. VI. 
 
 There are indeed Greek Manuscripts which do not 
 contain 1 John V. 7 ; but yet make such additions to the 
 Text of the eighth verse, as evidently shew there has 
 been an omission in the verse preceding. 
 PROP. VIT. 
 
 No GreekI appeal, in testimony, to their writings- 
 imagined that the 8th verse of the 5th chapter of St. 
 John's First Epistle denoted the Holy Trinity. Au- 
 gustin was the first in the Latin Church who suggested 
 this allegory, yet without enforcing it on any one. 
 
 It may readily be supposed, that scarcely any one of 
 these Propositions has been unassailed. I shall therefore 
 now adduce what has been urged against most of them 
 in its fullest force ; and, where illusions have been 
 generated, endeavour to radiate upon them the pure 
 light of Truth. 
 
 But I have one remark to make a remark of great 
 importance; which neither we, nor our antagonists, 
 nor he that listens to us, can dispense with ; unless we 
 all wish to mistake what is the truth. My remark is 
 this : 
 
 In Historical Criticism, we must never confound diffi- 
 culties with objections: for they differ much, both in nature 
 and in power. The former are concerned with relative, 
 the latter with absolute, incomprehensibility : or, more 
 plainly He that raises an historical objection, alleges a 
 fact which directly contravenes what we assert, or renders 
 our assertion absolutely impossible. For example : Who- 
 ever impugns the proposition, ' Moses wrote every 
 thing which is found in his Five Books,' by asserting, 
 
11 
 
 ' No one can write after he is dead ; therefore Moses 
 never wrote what is found in Deut. xxxiv. 5, 6, 7 : 
 therefore the fact asserted, viz. that every thing which 
 we read in the books of Moses was written by his own 
 hand, is impossible;' whoever, I say, impugns the fore- 
 going proposition in this manner, raises an objection. 
 
 Objections, therefore, are what the calculators of proba- 
 bilities call Argumenta necessario indicantia 7 : consequently, 
 there are two kinds of objections. The first, when the 
 existence of the fact on which the contradiction rests is 
 indubitable, and absolutely certain. The example just 
 alleged belongs to objections of this first kind. These 
 therefore are incontrovertible ; and completely demolish 
 the positions against which they are levelled. The 
 second sort of objections is, when the existence of the 
 fact on which the contradiction rests, is not absolutely 
 certain, but presumptive. For instance : If this propo- 
 sition, * In the 2d century after the birth of Christ, the 
 autographs of the Apostolic writings were no longer ex- 
 tant,' be impugned thus ; viz. ' If some Christians in the 
 time of Ignatius appealed to the Apostolic Originals, 
 these originals must still have been extant in the 2d 
 century;' whoever, I say, impugns the proposition 
 thus, raises an objection of the second class : for the testi- 
 mony of Ignatius 8 to the existence of the fact on which 
 the contradiction rests, (I mean, that " Christians ap- 
 pealed to the Apostolic Originals of the Apostles,") is 
 not absolutely certain, but only presumptive. Therefore, 
 
 (7) Jacob! Bernoulli Artis Conjectandi, Pars IV. cap. HI. 
 
 (8) Michaelis's Introduction to the Holy Scriptures of the New 
 Testament, Vol. I. 37. pp. 243, 244. 
 
12 
 
 objections of the second class may be refuted ; and we 
 may maintain our assertion against them. 
 
 We now come to Difficulties. He that creates diffi- 
 culties, draws such inferences from a fact as tend not 
 to make what we assert impossible, but its contrary, to a 
 certain extent, more possible, that is, more presumptive. 
 
 For example : Supposing the testimony of the An- 
 cient Fathers, that the clause 1 John V. 7. was for- 
 merly extant in the New Testament, be thus impeached : 
 ' No such clause has hitherto been found in any ancient 
 Greek Manuscript ;' such an impeachment is no objec- 
 tion, but a mere difficulty. For, as it is possible that all 
 the Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament have not 
 yet been discovered ; as it is possible that the Manuscripts 
 in which the Fathers read it have perished / so the ob- 
 servation just made does not render what the Fathers 
 say impossible : though the contrary proposition, viz. 
 ' that hitherto the clause has not been found in any an- 
 cient Manuscript,' gains presumptively, to a certain extent; 
 that is, in case our assertion, ' that the Fathers actually 
 found the clause in their New Testament,' cannot be 
 perfectly ascertained. 
 
 Difficulties, therefore, are what the Ars Conjectandi 
 (or Doctrine of Probabilities) designates Argumenta con- 
 tingenter indicantia 9 . Consequently there are two kinds 
 of difficulties. First, When the existence of the fact 
 which elicits the difficulty is absolutely certain 10 . The 
 example given, is of this kind. 
 
 (9) Bernoulli in loc. cit. 
 
 (10) The fact in the present case is this : " No very ancient Greek 
 Manuscript, which we have yet discovered, reads 1 John V. 7." This 
 fact is certain. 
 
13 
 
 The second kind of difficulties is, When the existence 
 of the fact which elicits the difficulty is not absolutely 
 certain, but merely presumptive. For instance : If the 
 position, ' Matthew wrote his Gospel in Greek,' be con- 
 troverted thus: ' Eusebius writes, " It is reported that 
 Pantaenus left the Gospel of St. Matthew, in the Hebrew 
 language, with the Indians :" thence it is evident this 
 Gospel was written by Matthew, not in Greek, but in 
 Hebrew.' Now, this argument consists of a difficulty, 
 and that of the second kind : for, in the first place, the 
 very quality of the fact here laid as its basis is doubtful : 
 consequently, the presumptiveness or calculative value 
 of the analogical inference (the contingenter indicans) = J : 
 for the Gospel left by Pantaenus may have been 
 that written by Matthew ; but it may also have been a 
 Translation, made from the Greek Gospel of this Apostle, 
 by another hand. Secondly, Eusebius also does not 
 state the existence of this fact as certain. His words 
 are, " It is reported." 
 
 Consequently, in difficulties of the second class, two 
 calculations (viz. one which bears the analogical in- 
 ference ; another, on which the existence of the fact is 
 based) must be multiplied into each other, if we would 
 determine the total probability of the surmise to be en- 
 gendered thereby. 
 
 And now a few remarks which I feel to be im- 
 portant on Historical and Critical Difficulties : I say, 
 on Historical and Critical Difficulties, on which many a 
 fashionable Critic of our day builds his entire triumph, 
 when he impugns ancient truths which he dislikes, and 
 tries to say something new, in order to be stared at ; 
 
14 
 
 on Historical and Critical Difficulties, by which our 
 lovers of innovation are so rapidly seduced from the 
 straight path of Truth, into the romantic by-ways of 
 Imagination. 
 
 OBSERVATION I. 
 
 Mere difficulties, whether of the first or second class, are 
 not competent to refute a proposition. Still they render 
 good service, in putting to test the probability of mere 
 hasty critical hypotheses. 
 
 OBS. n. 
 
 Historical difficulties are removed, whenever we adduce 
 a circumstance from History, whereby the analogical 
 inference (the contingenter indicans) of such difficulties 
 becomes impossible, and = 0. 
 
 For instance : " Unquestionably," say those who would 
 raise suspicions against the authenticity of Josephus's tes- 
 timony to Christ, " Unquestionably Justin Martyr, when 
 trying to convince Tryphon the Jew of the truth that 
 our Jesus was the true Messiah, would have appealed 
 to this testimony, had it been genuine, and in the 
 writings of Josephus." This difficulty is removed, i.e. 
 its analogical inference (or contingenter indicans) is an- 
 nulled, the moment we find Justin, in this famous dia- 
 logue of his, expressly saying to Tryphon, that he would 
 adduce no other than Bible-proofs, to convince him that 
 Jesus was the Christ ; and the Jew answering, that he 
 (the Jew) required none other n . 
 
 (11) See my 'New Criticisms' on the celebrated Testimony of the 
 ancient Jew, Flavius Josephus, on behalf of our Lord and Saviour 
 Jesus Christ, pp. 42, 43, 44. 
 
15 
 
 OBS. III. 
 
 Historical difficulties are weakened when we quote cir- 
 cumstances from History which invalidate their ana- 
 logical inference ; that is, lower their grade of proba- 
 bility. 
 
 To illustrate by an example. The following difficulty 
 is alleged against Pilate's wife having resided in Jeru- 
 salem (Matt. xxvii. 19.) : "It is incredible that Pilate, 
 the Procurator, should have had his wife with him in 
 the land of Judsea ; for, by an ancient Roman edict, no 
 Procurator in the Provinces was allowed to do so." 
 This difficulty is weakened, that is, the inference from 
 the law referred to is invalidated, and its grade of pro- 
 bability lowered, when we shew, that Severus Ccecina was 
 not listened to when he attempted to revive this edict, 
 about twenty-one years after the birth of Christ ; and 
 that, some years previously, both Germanicus and Piso 
 had their wives with them in Syria. 
 
 OBS. IV. 
 
 Hence we can prove an Historical truth completely, though 
 we are unable to remove, or weaken, all the difficulties alleged 
 against it. 
 
 I shall illustrate this also, by an example. I can 
 prove, that in the times recorded by Herodotus and 
 Thucydides the Romans were already a warlike people, 
 and known to the Greeks ; notwithstanding my incom- 
 petence radically to remove the difficulty why neither 
 of these Historians mention them. I can prove that 
 the Christians, in those periods of the History of the 
 Emperors recorded by Herodian, had attracted much 
 public attention, by their religion, and the persecu- 
 
16 
 
 tions which they underwent. Yet Herodian makes no 
 mention of them whatever. Why did he not, seeing he 
 had such frequent opportunity ? This difficulty I cannot 
 remove. But does it follow thence I mean from He- 
 rodian's silencethat the statements of other credible 
 Historians concerning the Christians of that period must 
 be false, or at least doubtful ? By no means. 
 
 And now two examples more ; which are better suited 
 to the nature of this my Synodical Lecture. 
 
 1st: I can prove, that in the time of Cicero there 
 was a verse in Homer which described Laertes manur- 
 ing his fields l \ But the difficulty, ' Why that verse is 
 
 The citation in Cicero, to which I allude, is found in De Se- 
 nectute, cap. xv. ; viz. " Homerus ..... Laertem lenientem deside- 
 rium, quod capiebat e filio, colentem agrum et eum stercorantem facit." 
 This citation presents many similarities and parallelisms to that of 
 Cyprian, concerning 1 John V. 7. ; viz. (a) A Latin, who understood 
 Greek, quotes something in Latin from Homer. (5) The idea of what 
 he quotes (I mean, manuring a field) was known in Homer's time. 
 (c) No one Manuscript of the Original Text, now extant, reads what 
 Cicero has quoted, (d) We are informed that the early Critics ex- 
 punged certain verses in Homer, as spurious. But there is no such 
 account of this verse, (e) Except Cicero, we meet none of the An- 
 cient Greek or Latin Authors who quote this verse. (/) Other pas- 
 sages which Tally quotes from Homer we still read in the works of 
 that ancient poet. (#) We do not possess a single Manuscript of 
 Homer, of the times of Cicero. All ours are much later, (h) Homer 
 was an author whose writings were diligently read by all the Literati 
 in Cicero's days, and subsequently, (i) Cicero's writings were almost 
 universally known among the Latins : &c. &c. &c. I could wish 
 therefore that a Heyne, a Harles, and other great Critics, would still 
 submit this quotation of Tully, from Homer, to the test of criticism. 
 Their labours might be most serviceably applied to the controversy on 
 1 John V. 7 : though Cyprian's quotation, as I shall prove in this 
 Lecture, has much, very much more, in its favour, than Tully's. 
 Similarity of cases may be employed with as much advantage in criti- 
 cism, as similarity of triangles in Mathematics. 
 
17 
 
 wanting in all the Manuscripts of this ancient Poet 
 which have come down to us,' I cannot remove. 
 
 2dly; The passage, IVeotfe <f>povipoi TpaTretyrat, was un- 
 questionably in Manuscripts of the New Testament in 
 the 3d, 4th, and 5th centuries 13 . Yet it is wanting in all 
 Manuscripts of the Original Text, and all Versions, 
 which have escaped the ravages of time. Whence is 
 this ? I cannot tell. 
 
 In a word : When I confute the objections of my adver- 
 sary, I convince him : but if I also remove his difficulties^ 
 I strengthen the weakness of his conviction. The former 
 terminates his contradiction ; the latter his suspicion. 
 The former is necessary ; the latter only useful. The 
 former lays the foundation of truth ; the latter eluci- 
 dates it. 
 
 
 
 I deemed it necessary, Reverend Brethren, to remind 
 you of these principles ; because, in the controversy in 
 which I have engaged, it has become almost the fashion 
 with our opponents to have recourse to difficulties, instead 
 of objections. 
 
 (13) Respecting this passage, I refer, for brevity sake, to Suicer 
 (Thesaur. Eccles. T. II. p. 1281); Cotelerius (ad Apost. Constit. lib. n. 
 cap. 36) ; and Fabricius (Cod. Apocryph. Nov. Test. T. I. p. 300) ; &c. 
 Thus Cyrillus Alexandrinus, in cap. in. lesaise, says : C O 
 , KaOairep SO/CI/AOS Tpa7remjs, cicrSexfTat ftev^ TO irctpvKos 
 
 Se, Kadatrfp TI irapaffti^ov vopurp.^ TO (M] ovrias *xov. Totou- 
 TOV TI KOI o jua/captos riavAos tyt\<ri' Twea-fle (ppovifjioi TpaTrefmu, VOMTO. 
 SoKt/xofere, TO noXov /carexere, OTTO TTO.VTOS etSous irovypov cwrcxeotfe. In 
 like manner, Cyrillus, lib. iv. cap. v. in Johannem ad v. 12. cap. vn. & 
 lib. i. adv. Nestorium. From all these passages it is perfectly evident 
 that the Presbyter of Alexandria read these words, TiveaQe <ppovi/j# l 
 Tpa7re$Yrai, in 1 Thess. V. 21. Where are the Manuscripts in which 
 they were (and perhaps still are) extant ? 
 
 C 
 
18 
 
 I could wish to be favoured with your opinion whe- 
 ther I have succeeded or failed in my undertaking, when 
 you shall have read and pondered my " NEW CRITICISMS 
 on passages of the Fathers hitherto overlooked, and newly-dis- 
 covered Manuscripts" which I now proceed to lay before 
 you. 
 
 
I 
 
 NEW CRITICISMS 
 
 UPON SOME 
 
 TESTIMONIES OF LATIN FATHERS, 
 
 CONCERNING 1 JOHN, V. 7. 
 
CYPRIAN. 
 
 TASCIUS C/ECILIUS CYPRIANUS, bishop of Carthage, 
 flourished in the former half of the 3d century. About 
 the year 241, he wrote his celebrated Treatise De Unitate 
 EcclesicB 14 . In that work, he says : 
 
 " Dicit Dominus, Ego et Pater unum sumus. Et iterum, 
 de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, Et hi tres 
 unum sunt." 
 
 He must therefore have read the clause 1 John V. 7. 
 in his New Testament. 
 
 " No !" it will be said, " No ! He only read in his 
 copy the words ' Et hi tres unum sunt? and these he took 
 from the 8th verse : but the subject of this predicate 
 quoted by him I mean the words, ' the Father, the 
 Word, and the Holy Ghost ' these did not exist in his 
 Bible, but in his imagination. In short, he discovered, 
 mystically, the three Persons of the Godhead, in the 
 three words of the 8th verse, * spirit, water, and blood.' " 
 
 Nothing of the kind, however, appears in the words 
 of Cyprian. Allow me then to ask, How do you know 
 it ? " Oh ! because he is sometimes apt to allegorize." 
 Granted. But does he always allegorize, when he quotes 
 
 (14) Facundus calls this book, De Trinitate. In a few editions it 
 bears the title, De Simplicitate Prcelatorum. Cyprian also quotes the 
 words ' Tres unum suni,' in his Letter to Jubaianus. 
 
22 
 
 passages of Scripture ? ' Certainly not always.' Well, 
 then, I should think it was quite necessary to prove in 
 the present instance, in the passage quoted, that he 
 actually allegorized the 8th verse, and had it in view in 
 this citation. Do we find any traces in his writings to 
 confirm this surmise, or at least render it in some de- 
 gree probable? Perhaps, when he quotes passages of 
 Scripture in an allegorical sense, he uses the same for- 
 mula of citation which he adopts in the passage before 
 us ? No ! he does not. Nay, when he uses this for- 
 mula, the subject as well as the predicate expressly 
 stands in the Text, and he specifies particularly what 
 the subject signifies, taken in an allegorical sense. I 
 shall be more explicit. In his 69th Epistle (Bremen 
 Edition 1690), which begins with the words c Pro tua 
 religiosa diligentia, consuluisti mediocritatem nostrum] he 
 quotes Exodus xii. 46. precisely in the same manner as 
 he does in the passage under consideration. These are 
 his words : 
 
 " Cum DE Sacramento paschse et ag-ni, qai ugnus Christum 
 designat t SCRIPTUM SIT, In domo una comedetur, non ejicitis 
 de domo carnem foras." 
 
 Here we perceive, 
 
 1. He uses the very same formula of quotation which 
 he does in the passage before us, ' de . . . scriptum est.' 
 
 2. The subject (pascha et agnus), as well as the predi- 
 cate (in domo una comedetur, non ejicitis de domo carnem 
 
 fords)) are found verbatim in the Text. 
 
 3. What he understands mystically by the pascha 
 and agnus, he particularly specifies, viz. ' qui agnus 
 Christum designat* 
 
23 
 
 Therefore, if he had quoted the 8th verse allegori- 
 cally, he would have said, according to his custom : 
 
 " Et iterum, DE spiritu, et aqua, et sanguine, qua Patrem, 
 Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum designant, SCRIPTUM EST, Et hi 
 tres unum sunk" 
 
 Would he not ? 
 
 In short, in every passage which he cites as allegorical 
 proof, he fast quotes the Text literally, and then states what it 
 signifies mystically. If an example be wanting, observe 
 how he quotes and explains Canticles vi. 8 ; la John xix. 
 23, 24; l6 Joshua xi. 18 ; 17 &c. 
 
 Hence, his method and manner of quoting passages 
 according to the mystical sense evidently infer the very 
 contrary of what our opponents assert. The mode of 
 quotation which they ascribe to Cyprian is completely 
 
 (15) De Unitate Ecclesice ; viz. ** Unam Eoclesiam etiam in Cantico 
 Canticorum Spiritus Sanetus ex persona Domini designat et dicit : 
 Una est columba mea, perfecta mea, una est matri suse, electa geni- 
 trici suse." 
 
 Epist. LXIX. he quotes the same text thus : " Quod autem Eccle- 
 sia una sit, declarat in Cantico Canticorum Spiritus Sanetus ex per- 
 sona Christi, dicens : Una est coluinba mea, perfecta mea, una est 
 matri suae electa genitrici suae." 
 
 (16) De Unitate Ecclesice ; viz. " Hoc unitatis sacramentum, hoc 
 vinculum concordiae, inseparabiliter cohserentis, ostenditur, quando in 
 Evangelic tunica Domini Jesu Christi non dividitur, omnino nee scin- 
 ditur, sed sortientibus de veste Christi, quis ipsam potius indueret, in- 
 tegra vestis accipitur, et incorrupta atque individua tunica possidetur. 
 Loquitur et dicit Scriptura divina : De tunica autem quia de superior! 
 parte non consutilis, sed per totum textilis fuerat, dixerunt ad invicem : 
 ' Non scindamus illam, sed sortiamur de ea, cujus sit.' " 
 
 (17) Epist. LXIX. "Quod item circa Rahab, quoe ipsa quoque typum 
 portabat Ecclesiae, expressum videmus ; cui mandaur et dicitur: 
 Patrem tuum et matrem tuam et fratres tuos et totam domum patris 
 tui colliges ad te ipsam in domum tuam, et omnis qui exierit ostium 
 domus tuae foras, reus erit." 
 
24. 
 
 the reverse of his usual habit. Now, I should think 
 that Cyprian ought to be explained by Cyprian. Ought 
 he not ? 
 
 But perhaps modes of expression occur elsewhere in 
 his writings, in some measure, if not entirely, to support 
 the opinion of our adversaries. 
 
 I answer, No ! nor have our adversaries themselves 
 ever asserted there were. In order to give their opi- 
 nion the fairest play, I have read Cyprian through and 
 through, with the most minute attention ; but I have 
 not found any thing that could, in the least, lead one to 
 suppose that the Bishop entertained any mystical views 
 respecting 1 John V. 8. 
 
 How then did this fancy enter people's heads ? 
 
 " Oh ! " we are told, "It is no fancy, but a well-founded 
 historical truth. Facundus, a celebrated African bishop, 
 so early as the 6th century, undeceived the world re- 
 specting this quotation of Cyprian ; and informed 
 posterity that the bishop of Carthage did not quote 
 1 John V. 7. but 1 John V. 8. In his book Pro Defensione 
 Trium Capitulorum t 661. cap. in. he says : 
 
 " Johannes Apostolus, in epistola sua, de Patre et Filio et 
 Spiritu SanctOj 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, in san- 
 guine Filium. Quod Johannis Apostoli testimonium beatus 
 Cypricnmsy Garthaginensium Antistes et Martyr, in epistola 
 sive libro quern de Trinitate scripsit, de Patre, Filio, et 
 Spiritu Sancto intelligit. Ait enim : Dicit Dominus, Ego et 
 Pater unum sumus ; et iterum, de Patre et Filio et Spiritu 
 Sancto scriptum est, Et hi tres unum sunt/' 
 
 " What need we further testimony ? " 
 
25 
 
 It seems, then, that Facundus is the man, the solitary 
 witness, from whom we are to learn what Cyprian in- 
 tended in his quotation, three hundred years before. 
 Assuredly Facundus was no Pope ! Suppose he were 
 fallible ? Suppose I contrast his testimony with that of 
 Cyprian himself? Suppose I quote a passage from 
 Cyprian, in which he tells us, expressly, that it is con- 
 trary to Scripture, and therefore it never occurred to him, 
 to discover the Three Persons of the Godhead in the 
 8th verse ? In that case, Facundus, the retailer of anec- 
 dotes, would dwindle into an insignificant Legendary. 
 
 The passage I allude to is as follows ; viz. Cyprian, 
 in his 36th Epistle, which begins with the words, " Quan- 
 quam sciam, frater carissime," says : 
 
 " Quotiescunque autem aqua sola in scripturis sanctis no- 
 minatur, baptisma pradicatur" 
 
 Upon which he quotes passages to prove his position ; 
 and concludes, 
 
 " Nee argumentis plurimis opus est, frater caristime, ut 
 probemus APPELLATIONS AQU^ BAPTISMA SIONIFICATUM SEM- 
 PER ESSE, ET SIC NOS INTELLIGERE DEBERE." 
 
 Cyprian therefore declares it to be unscriptural for any 
 one to believe that water, in the Bible, occasionally re- 
 presents a Person of the Godhead, Could the venerable 
 Father have spoken more plainly than he here speaks ? 
 as if announcing to posterity, "Should an African step 
 forth, three hundred years after my death, and try to 
 persuade you that I allegorized the Persons of the God- 
 head from 1 JohnV. 8 ; and understood the water to mean 
 the Holy Ghost, or any other divine person, believe him 
 not!" Verily, as matters stand, Facundus cuts no very 
 
26 
 
 respectable figure as a witness ! But how did such a 
 notion enter the man's head ? Heaven only knows ! 
 Meantime, it seems at least to me that the old answer 
 is still the best; viz. He read our disputed clause in 
 Cyprian : on the other hand, he did not find 1 John V. 7. 
 in his own Bible, but only the 8th verse : therefore he 
 saw no better way of maintaining Cyprian's credit, than 
 telling the world that the bishop's quotation was allego- 
 rical, and taken from the 8th verse. 
 
 This, I think, would sufficiently prove that Cyprian 
 read 1 John V. 7. in his New Testament. 
 
 But it may be said, "You have not yet removed the 
 difficulties which are alleged." For it is with wars 
 carried on upon paper, as with wars carried on in the 
 field : if a man cannot slay his enemy, he tries to throw 
 difficulties and hindrances in his way. Now, what are 
 the difficulties in our case ? These : " How," says an 
 avowed opponent of our passage, " how will you explain 
 the word confitetur, found in the following important 
 extract from Fulgentius, unless Cyprian took his ' tres 
 unum sunt' from the 8th verse, and transformed the 
 spirit, the water, and the blood, into Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost ? Observe : Fulgentius says 18 : 
 
 " In Patre ergo, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto, unitatem sub- 
 stantiae accipimus, personas confundere non audemus. Beatus 
 enim Johannes Apostolus testatur, dicens : Tres sunt, qui tes- 
 timonium perhibent in coelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus ; et 
 tres unum sunt. Quod etiam beatissimus Martyr Cyprianus, 
 in epistola De Unitate Ecclesiae conjitetur, dicens : Qui pacem 
 Christi et concordiam rumpit, adversum Christum facit, qui 
 alibi prseter ecclesiam colligit, Christi ecclesiam spargit; atque 
 
 (18) In his work, Contra Arianos. 
 
27 
 
 ut imam ecclesiam unius Dei esse monstraret, hiec con- 
 festim testimonia de Scripturis inseruit : Dicit Dominus, Ego 
 et Pater unum sumus ; et iterum, de Patre et Filio et Spiritu 
 Sancto scriptum est, Et tres unum sunt." 
 
 Now what does our opponent say of this passage ? 
 He asks, 
 
 " What is here meant by confitetur ? That John wrote these 
 words, * Father, Word, and Holy Ghost, and these Three are 
 One ? ' If they were actually read in the Epistle of St. John, 
 would Fulgentius have said confitetur ? On the contrary, as 
 the mystical exposition De Trinitate was somewhat far- 
 fetched, therefore the authority of such a man as Cyprian 
 was highly serviceable." 
 
 I reply : Supposing though I do not grant it that 
 the Bishop of Ruspa had thought exactly as the Doc- 
 tor makes him think : he would then rank, in our con- 
 troversy, on a line with Facundus ; and we should 
 regard the evidence of these two Africans with utter 
 indifference, being convinced of the contrary. But did 
 Fulgentius actually think as his Interpreter would have 
 him think ? Let us see. The Doctor assumes, in his 
 Explanatory hypothesis, that Fulgentius did not read 
 1 John V. 7. in his copy; that he first became ac- 
 quainted with this testimony of John by the allegorical 
 quotation in Cyprian. I answer : Had he become 
 acquainted with this testimony of John solely and ex- 
 clusively by Cyprian's treatise, he would, I imagine, 
 have quoted it as Cyprian did. But his quotation runs 
 quite differently. The expression * in coelo ' was not in 
 the allegorized 8th verse, which he is said to have 
 adopted on the authority of Cyprian, as a proof of the 
 Holy Trinity ; for Facundus says, expressly, that the 
 
28 
 
 words in that verse were ' in terra.' The hypothesis, 
 therefore, obscures what it was intended to elucidate. 
 The Doctor is aware of this contrast : and therefore 
 attempts to prop up his tottering surmise by a new 
 fancy. He says, " Fulgentius, to make himself intel- 
 ligible, subjoins, of his own accord, 'in ccdo* to the 
 word Father, which refers to the clause ' This is my 
 beloved SonJ On the other hand, Facundus connects 
 ' in terra' with the word spiritus ; because he understood 
 spiritus to mean the aqua, water, or the baptism of Christ, 
 on which occasion the Father proclaimed with a voice 
 from heaven to earth, ' This is my beloved Son.' ' 
 
 This, then, is to solve the enigma, why Fulgentius 
 gives ' in ccelo,' while the allegorized Text reads * in terra' 
 I might expatiate in reply to all this particularly to 
 the notion, that Facundus understood the spiritus of the 
 8th verse to mean water, or the baptism of Christ. 
 How does this harmonize with his own words, ' In spi- 
 ritu significant Patrem ; in aqua vero, Spiritum Sanctum ' f 
 But, briefly and fairly, how will the Doctor prove that 
 his thoughts were also Fulgentius's ? The onus of this 
 proof still rests with him. The hypotheses, which he 
 here accumulates, are most extraordinary. The word 
 Spiritus stands in the Text, and, according to the testi- 
 mony of Facundus's authority, is to signify water: and 
 this water indicates the baptism of Christ; and this 
 baptism represents the Father, exclaiming from heaven 
 to earth, This is my beloved Son!!! Thus he thrice 
 christens the meaning of the word spiritus in the Text, 
 and twice mystifies the first mystical meaning! ! Verily, 
 no mystic has ever gone such lengths ! And why has 
 
29 
 
 the good Doctor done so? In order to mask the false 
 bearing which he gives the word confitctur. Now what 
 is the true one? It is this: 
 Fulgentius says 19 : 
 
 " In Patre ergo, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto, unitatem sub- 
 stantise accipimus, Personas confundere non audemus." 
 
 This was the doctrine of Orthodox Christians respect- 
 ing the Holy Trinity. He proves this doctrine from 
 the testimony of St. John: 
 
 " Beatus enim Johannes Apostolus testatur, diceirs : * Tres 
 sunt qui testimonium perhibent in ccelo, Pater, Verbum, et 
 Spiritus ; et tres unum sunt.' ' 
 
 Doubtless, therefore, Fulgentius read 1 John V. 7. 
 in his New Testament. He then proceeds: 
 
 " Quod etiam." Which, (namely, the unanimity of Or- 
 thodox Christians in the doctrine of the Trinity, of which 
 he had just spoken,) is confessed by Cyprian also, and on 
 (he same grounds 20 : 
 
 " Beatissimus Martyr Cyprianus, in epistola De Unitate 
 Ecclesise, confitetur, dicens : * Qui pacem Christi et concor- 
 diam rumpit adversus Christum facit ; qui alibi praeter eccle- 
 siam colligit, Christi ecclesiam spargit.' Atque, ut imam 
 ecclesiam unius Dei monstraret 21 , hsec confestim testimonia 
 
 (19) Fulgentius, in his Book Contra Arianos, ad fin. 
 
 (20) Whoever has read Fulgentius, knows that he is wont to quote, 
 in his Doctrinal theses, the testimony and agreement of the Ortho- 
 dox Fathers who lived before him. See his Book Ad Monimum, and 
 his Responsioncs ad Ferrandum Diaconum ; also the parallel passage 
 lib. ii. ad Trasimundum regem, cap. xvi. " Probante Domino, et di- 
 cente," &c. &c. very relevant to our subject. 
 
 (21) This Unity of the Church rested on the agreement of Chris- 
 tians in the correct doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Cyprian expressly 
 says so, in his Epistle to Jubaianus : " Si eundem Patrem, eundem Fi- 
 
 lium, 
 
30 
 
 de Scripturis inseruit : * Dicit Dominus, Ego et Pater unum 
 sumus : et iterum, de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scrip- 
 turn est, Et tres unum sunt.' " 
 
 And now, let us leave the field of battle ; and advance 
 a few steps. 
 
 Fulgentius quotes the words, " Tres sunt qui testi- 
 monium perhibent in coelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spi- 
 ritus ; et tres unum sunt," as the express words of the 
 Apostle John: consequently they stood in his Latin 
 Version. But may he not also have read them in the 
 Greek, in the Original Text ? 
 
 It may be replied, " Who can tell that ? Did Ful- 
 gentius understand Greek ? " 
 
 I should think he did. He was even extraordinarily 
 proficient in that language. He spoke it with great 
 fluency, purity, and elegance. Nay, it seems to have 
 been his favourite study : for, even when a boy, he had 
 committed the entire of Homer to memory. Is it likely 
 that such a man, disputing against the Arians, and con- 
 fronting them with passages of Scripture, should never 
 have consulted the Original Text ? Could he be guilty 
 of such imprudence as to combat his opponents with 
 Scripture-testimonies, which were not existent in the 
 Original Text ? No Council had, as yet, invested any 
 Latin Translation with the authority of the Original 
 Text. Then let us be reasonable, and think of Fulgentius 
 reasonably and fairly, as we are wont to think of Jerome 
 
 Hum, eundem Spiritum Sanctum, eandem ecclesiara confitentur nobiscum 
 Patripassiani, Anthropiani, Valentiniani, Appelletiani, Ophitae, Mar- 
 eionitae, et ceterae hereticorum pestes et gladiis et venenis subvertentes 
 veritatem, potest illic et baptisma unum esse, si est et fides una." 
 
SI 
 
 in similar cases. When Jerome opposes the Heretics 
 with passages of Scripture, no one doubts, for an instant, 
 that they stood in his Greek copy, though he only quotes 
 them in Latin. And why ? " Oh ! " we are told, " Why 
 ask such a question? The man understood Greek." 
 Be it so : our Bishop of Ruspa understood it as well : 
 aye, and better. May not, therefore, the quotation in 
 Fulgentius be justly alleged as a proof that 1 John V. 7. 
 stood in Greek copies of the 5th and 6th centuries ? I 
 think it may ; not only for the reasons already assigned ; 
 but my opinion is further justified by a discovery which 
 I have made in the Works of Fulgentius, of which I 
 shall speak hereafter. 
 
 We come to the last struggle of our opponents. It 
 consists of a faint difficulty, which they have ransacked 
 from the writings of Augustin : 
 
 "If we allow," say they, " that Cyprian was acquainted 
 with the clause 1 John V. 7. then surely Augustin also must 
 have been acquainted with it : for he had read the very work 
 of his countryman, in which, according to your allegation, 
 this clause is quoted 22 . Now, peruse his writings from be- 
 ginning to end : no where will you find the smallest trace 
 that Augustin was acquainted with 1 John V. 7." 
 
 It may be so ! But to what purpose is this remark ? 
 Is it that we must thence infer, " Because Augustin has 
 not quoted this text, therefore Cyprian, whom he had 
 read, could not have quoted it?" Woe to poor Cy- 
 prian's writings, if this conclusion be legitimate ! How 
 many things did Augustin read in Cyprian which he 
 never quoted ! Be so good, then, as to prove to us the 
 necessity that the bishop of Hippo must have quoted, in 
 Contra Cresconium Donatistam, lib. n. cap. xxxni. 
 
3-2 
 
 his own Works, all the passages of Scripture which he 
 found in those of the bishop of Carthage. 
 
 " But this text was obviously advantageous to him, in 
 combating the enemies of the Holy Trinity ; Why then 
 did he never use it ? He must either have been ignorant 
 of it; or regarded it as suspicious, or even interpolated." 
 All this may be so ; even if he were convinced that 
 Cyprian quoted 1 John V. 7. But it never can follow 
 that Cyprian must have been as ignorant or as suspi- 
 cious as perhaps Augustin was. 
 
 Further, it is asserted, and as of ponderous weight 
 against our opinion : " Augustin, as you must be aware, 
 in his second book against the Arian Maximin, explains 
 1 John V. 8. mystically, and finds in it the Holy Trinity. 
 Undoubtedly, therefore, he must have been convinced 
 that Cyprian, whom, as you know, he had read, grounds 
 his expressions, * Et iterum, de Patre et Filio et Spiritu 
 Sancto scriptum est, Et hi tres unum sunt,' on the 8th 
 verse." 
 
 What an inference ! So, because Augustin allegorizes 
 the 8th verse, it is evident, thence, that he must have 
 thought Cyprian to have done the same ! How this 
 ' must ' follows, I cannot exactly see. Possibly Augustin 
 did think so ; but where is the proof that he actually 
 thought, or must have thought so ? Augustin never 
 notices, for a moment, one syllable of Cyprian's (whose 
 writings on the subject he had read), in the passage 
 where he retails his allegories on the 8th verse. And, 
 inverting the argument, if Augustin had read the 
 works of Cyprian with attention and memory, he 
 never could have stumbled upon this notion ; as we 
 
33 
 
 have already proved. And, granting that he had, you 
 surely cannot expect us to follow his errors, in oppo- 
 sition to our own convictions. But let us now change 
 places, and ask you in return : 
 
 Is it then already perfectly clear, free from all doubt> and 
 absolutely certain, that Augustm, in all his Works, has never 
 taken any notice of 1 John V. 7. ? 
 
 Of course you have done yourselves what you ad- 
 vised us to do; i.e. read through all Augustin. If so, 
 you will recollect a passage 23 , where he says, 
 
 " Deus itaque summus et verus, cum Verbo suo et Spiritu 
 Sancto, qucB tria unum sunt." 
 
 Does not this passage distinctly betray its origin? 
 I mean the text of John, " There are three that bear 
 witness in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy 
 Ghost ; and these three are one." 
 
 " Oh ! but," you answer, " this conjecture is only 
 tenable, or even plausible, as long as the passage is 
 viewed separately, and not compared with that already 
 adduced to you from Augustin's polemic treatise against 
 the heretic Maximin. From that, it seems to us clear 
 as the sun, that Augustin had the 8th verse in view, 
 when he used the words ( guce tria unum sunt.' " 
 
 Now we think quite the reverse. This very passage, 
 wherein he combats Maximin, confirms us in our 
 opinion, that he took his ' tres unum sunt* which he 
 submitted to Marcellus, not from the 8th, but from 
 the 7th verse. And why? Because the meaning 
 
 (23) De Civitate Dei ad Marcellum, lib. v. cap. xi. I need not re- 
 mind you, that the word Deus is here used, UTTOO-TCTJ/CWS, for Uaryp. 
 
 D 
 
 - 
 
34 
 
 which he affixes to the words of the 8th verse, ' tres 
 unum sunt,' in the dispute with Maximin, he announces 
 as a mere problem, in which he leaves every one at 
 liberty to differ from him : he only prohibits hete- 
 rodoxy 24 . On the contrary, the * tria unum sunt,' which 
 he quotes in his Civitas Z)ei t he proposes not as a 
 problem, but as indisputable truth as a very axiom. 
 Now, could such a man as Augustin, who so strenuously 
 cautioned all Theologians not to confound mere proba- 
 bilities with ascertained truths 25 could a man of such 
 prudence so completely forget himself and his prin- 
 ciples, as to assert categorically, that these, namely, 
 
 (24) Contra Maximinum Arianum, lib. n. cap. xxn. 3. Au- 
 gustin, after proposing his allegories on 1 John V. 8, says : " Si quo 
 autem alio modo, tanti sacramenti ista profimditas, quse in Epistola 
 Johannis legitur, exponi, et intelligi potest secundum catholicam fidem, 
 quae nee confundit nee separat Trinitatem, nee abnuit tres personas, 
 nee diversas credit esse substantias, nulla* ratione respuendum est. 
 Quod enim ad exercendas mentes fidelium in scripturis sancii* obscure 
 poniiur, gratulandum est, si multis modis non tamen insipienter ex- 
 ponitur." 
 
 (25) The passage relevant to this point we have already quoted, in 
 Note 2. 
 
 To quote the proposition, ' Tria unum suntj in his book De Civitate 
 Dei, was contrary to his principles : for he says (Contra Donatistas, 
 vulgo De Unitate Ecclesise, 9), " Sic et ilia interim seponenda sunt, 
 quae obscure posita et figurarum velaminibus involuta, et secundum 
 nos et secundum illos possunt interpretari. Est quidem acutorum 
 hominum dijudicare atque discernere, quis ea probabilius interpretetur. 
 Sed nolunms in has ingeniorum contentiones in ea caussa, quse popu- 
 los tenet, nostram disputationem committere." 
 
 As the books Contra Maximinum were written subsequently to that 
 De Civitate Dei, possibly Augustin considered 1 John V. 7. authentic, 
 when he wrote the latter ; but altered his opinion afterwards, when 
 he was composing the former. This case reversed was actually 
 Luther's. I shall allude to it hereafter. 
 
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, are ONF, 
 from an arbitrary allegorical interpretation of a Scrip- 
 ture text, of which interpretation he himself says, that 
 it is merely possible, and a problem ? 
 
 That is the difficulty note it well ; and understand 
 us no further than we wish to be understood : it only 
 purports to shew you, how improbable is your conjecture, 
 and how probable ours ; namely, " that it cannot be 
 affirmed, as a positive certainty, that Augustin, in all his 
 Works, has never taken any notice of 1 John V. 7. 
 and was wholly unacquainted with that text." If his 
 Commentary on the First Epistle of John, still extant, 
 had reached as far as this passage, we could then 
 more certainly determine whether he was acquainted 
 with it; at least at the time he wrote that Exposition. 
 
 And now a few words more respecting CYPRIAN. 
 
 CYPRIAN understood Greek. He read Homer, Plato, 
 Hermes Trismegistus QG , and Hippocrates 27 . He main- 
 tained an Epistolary Correspondence with the Teachers 
 of that Church: nay, he translated into Latin the Greek 
 Epistle written to him by Firmilianus, bishop of Ca?- 
 sarea. His great Master, whose principles he fol- 
 lowed I mean Tertullian, a man who likewise under- 
 stood Greek enjoins us to keep before our eyes the 
 Original Text of the Apostolic Epistles ; and him- 
 self frequently appeals to the ancient Manuscripts. 
 
 (26) This is evident, from his book De Idolorum Vanitate. His 
 Latin style also occasionally Grsecizes. 
 
 (27) Cypriani. Epistol. LXIX. 
 
 D 2 
 
36 
 
 Now, could such a man as Cyprian, when proving the 
 elementary truth of Christianity, have quoted, as a text 
 of the Bible, a passage not extant in the original ? Cre- 
 dat JudcBus Apella ! It might easily have happened, that, 
 in passages where the Latin had a few Readings varying 
 from the Original Text and of no particular importance, 
 he quoted according to his what shall I call it ? Italic, 
 or African Version. Still, there is a great difference 
 between the authenticity of an entire sentence, and that of 
 SL few readings in that sentence : the latter may be easily 
 overlooked by one conversant with the Original Text ; 
 the former, never. To illustrate this : A man skilled 
 in coins may hastily take a ducat as perfect, which 
 wants a few grains in weight: but it is extremely 
 improbable that he could mistake a piece of leaden 
 money for a real ducat, merely because it has the co- 
 lour and impression of one. Hence I have laid down 
 for myself the following rule : Whenever an ancient 
 Latin Father, who understood Greek and held it to 
 be the language of the Original Text, quotes a passage 
 of the Bible, in Latin, which is wanting in all those 
 Greek Manuscripts yet come to hand, it is in the highest 
 degree probable that he must have formerly read that 
 passage in Manuseripts of the Original Text, now 
 lost 28 . Is it not so ? This, then, is the reason why I con- 
 
 (28) That this rule is a safe one, experience teaches. For in- 
 stance : Fulgentius, of whom I have already spoken, quotes a 
 passage, " Qui solvit Jesum &c." in such a manner, that we know it 
 formerly stood in Greek Manuscripts, although it is wanting in ours: 
 And where ? In 1 John IV. 3. Further : If we are certain that a 
 Translation of the New Testament was made immediately from the 
 Greek, or if we only know that its author (unless he says explicitly 
 
 that 
 
37 
 
 sider Cyprian s quotation of this passage so important. 
 It proves, that 1 John V. 7. existed in Greek Ma- 
 nuscripts of the 3d century. 
 
 that he follows a Translation) understood the original language, we may 
 infer, with the greatest probability, that even such of its Headings as 
 are not found in the present Greek Manuscripts must formerly have 
 stood in some copies of the Original Text. Experience has confirmed 
 this conjecture of mine, in the case of the Gothic Version. For ex- 
 ample : Luke vi. 38. has, " Mitad izwis :" therefore Ulphilas read, 
 in his Original, METPH0H2ETAI vp.iv. Luke ix. 28. has, " Waurthun 
 than afar tho waurda :" Ulphilas therefore read ErENONTO /uera rovs 
 \oyovs. John xiv. 16. has, " Ei Sigai mith izwis:" therefore Ul- 
 philas read, Iva. H /xe0' V/J.MV. These three Readings I had vainly sought 
 in Greek Manuscripts, before the year 1756. But in that year when 
 I discovered the Codices Guelpherbytani A and B, I then found the two 
 first Readings in Cod. Guelph. A, and the last in Cod. Guelph. B. 
 Both these Codices are about 150 years junior to Ulphilas's Ver. 
 sion. (See my Ulphilas.) 
 
NEW CRITICISMS 
 
 UPON SOME 
 
 TESTIMONIES OF GREEK FATHERS, 
 
 RESPECTING 1 JOHN, V. 7. 
 
JOHN MAUROP. 
 
 ONE OF HIS HITHERTO UN PRINTED ORATIONS, 
 
 JOHN, surnamed MAUROP, a Metropolitan of Euchania 
 of the 1 1 th century, wrote two panegyrics on Basil the 
 Great, Gregory Nazianzen, and Chrysostom. Trans- 
 scripts of them are found in various Libraries ; and, as 
 far as I can learn, they have never been printed. One 
 begins with the words, 
 
 Tpeis /JLS TTjOOs rpiCDWfJiov 7rapoTpvvov<rt Kivtjcrtv &C. &C. 
 
 and the beginning of the other is, 
 
 Yia\tv Icoavvtis 6 rtiv Xcorrav vffovs &C. &C. 3 
 
 There is a Manuscript Copy of the latter preserved 
 in the Wolfenbiittle Library ; which, considered merely 
 as Manuscript, merits particular attention. I shall de- 
 scribe it. 
 
 It consists of eighteen leaves in 4to. On the first 
 page of the first leaf is the following Inscription : 
 
 airrjffai TTpo ravrtis, KOI rt]v yye- 
 ovpavov Karaftaivovffav. dv rovro 
 verov 
 
 (29) Acta SancLm-. Junius, T. II. p. 933. 
 
 (30) P. Lambecii Comment, de Biblioth. Caes, lib. v. Cod. tciv. 
 n. 6. p. 4. 
 
o Kvp'os 5&>0E/ xptiffTorrjTf*, xat r) yij iifj.uv Secret rov napTtov ur7s 
 rj xT<uye, rov e^rjjuepov' xai 6 %ov$ rifJ-(*>v rov aitoviov, ov rou<; 
 ta trov. TTpo<rayovro$ 7/u,s re x* T<X 
 
 I have transcribed this passage accurately, with all its 
 marks of aspiration, accents, and points : the Iota has 
 always two dots over it. But to what work does this 
 Fragment belong? and who is its author? Answers 
 to questions of this kind are not always easy : nay, they 
 are sometimes utterly impossible. I have been fortunate 
 enough to detect the father of this foundling. Great 
 Patristics would think this little to boast of. Our 
 Fragment contains the conclusion of a Discourse of 
 Gregory Nazianzen, which has this superscription, E/s 
 
 rov Ttarepa cn&Trcavra. $ia rrjv Trhtjytjv TIJS ^aAj$. In the Co- 
 
 logne Edition of 1690, it is the 15th 31 in T. I. 
 
 Immediately under this Fragment, which occupies 
 
 (31) This 15th Discourse of Gregory, from which our Fragment 
 is taken, will be interesting and valuable to those who investigate 
 the antiquity of our modern religious solemnities ; an inquiry which, 
 especially in our days, is of great utility, and, if I mistake not, 
 would be very serviceable to the Reformers of our Liturgy. The 
 occasion of the Discourse was as follows: Arianzum was a small vil- 
 lage in Cappadocia Secunda, in the Prefecture of Tiberina. The father 
 of our Gregory possessed an estate there ; and the place was within 
 his episcopal diocese. His son, our Gregory, was born there. 'A 
 hail-storm laid waste the fields at Arianzum. The father, a pious 
 man, but naturally somewhat irritable, kept silence under this ca- 
 lamity, believing it a deserved punishment on the villagers, for their 
 sins. The peasants therefore applied to his son, at that time a Pres- 
 byter and assistant to his father, and entreated him to perform a 
 religious service on account of the hail-storm. He did so, and in a 
 manner becoming a son. I mention this, to explain the title of the 
 Discourse : Ets rov irarepa auairwvra. Sio TTJZ/ Tr\7)yrjv TT)S xAct<tr/s. 
 
nearly half the first page, there stands a Monocondilion, 
 which contains a Date. 
 
 I shall here exhibit all that I have been able to de- 
 velope with perfect satisfaction, from the confused traces 
 of the mutilated letters : viz, 
 
 -j- EreAgi/o)^ ^M %sipo$ ys&pyiov 
 I . . p TOV . . 
 
 S7TI TUtV 
 
 ai <j>i\o%ptffTaiv 
 
 'A.v$povix.ov xoci 
 Kai Etprivtis T/JS vffftsffrart]<; 
 M/^^A, Kai MJO/<J, Ka 
 
 The Transcriber's name, therefore, was George; 
 and he finished his work in the year of Christ 1.315. 
 
 I find, in Montfaucon 3 ', that the Writer of the Codex 
 Colbcrtinus, No. 493, was also named George : and he 
 likewise says, in his Monocondilion, that he finished his 
 work in the year 1315. He mentions (and very natu- 
 rally) the same Princes named in ours. If we compare 
 our Manuscript with his hand-writing, which Montfaucon 
 caused to be engraved 33 , we perceive, plainly, that the 
 
 t 
 
 same George who wrote the Martyrium Demetrii also 
 copied our Fragment. 
 
 Enough of the first page 34 . Turning over the leaf, 
 
 (32) Palseograph. p. 68. 
 
 (33) Palaeograph. lib. iv. cap. ix. p. 324. specim. u. 
 
 (34) This first page had been pasted down by the bookbinder, on 
 the inner side of the cover. Some of its letters were visible through 
 the outer surface : I -therefore had it detached. I mention this cir- 
 cumstance, in order to suggest to novices in the art of investigating 
 Manuscripts a mode of making discoveries, already announced by the 
 celebrated Professor Bruns, of Heimstadt, in the Annales Liierarice, 
 which he edites jointly with the learned Dr. Hencken. In the second 
 
 page 
 
44 
 
 we find, on the reverse, the Oration of MAUROP: and this 
 also was written by our George. The shape of the 
 letters is exactly the same with that we meet in the 
 concluding Fragment of Gregory's, already quoted. 
 
 And now for the Oration itself. Its title, written in 
 uncial letters with accents, appears thus : 
 
 + TCfY ZIANIEPQTA'TOY 
 
 MHTPOnOAl'TOY EYXAI'T&N 
 IQA'NNOY AOTO2 'EI2 TOY'S 
 eEHTO'POYS KAf OEOEIAE~I2 'IEP -f 
 APXO N Y2. TO N N BASI'AEION. TO^N 
 rPHTO'PION. KAf TO N N XPYSO~YN 
 
 IGA'NNHN. IvA: 
 
 On this Title I shall make three remarks : 
 
 1st. It runs differently in other Manuscripts 35 . 
 
 2dly. The abbreviation euA, is evhoywov. We fre- 
 quently meet it after the titles of Homilies, in Manu- 
 scripts of the 13th and 14-th centuries 36 . 
 
 3dly. The sign (:-) i.e. two dots vertically with a 
 hyphen, is commonly found in Manuscripts of the 10th, 
 11 th, 12th, and 13th centuries 37 . 
 
 page of the Number for January 1782, he says, "Cseterum, oro rogoque 
 Bibliothecarum Prsefectos, et peregrinatores, immo obtestor, ut non 
 solum codices rescriptos sedula excutiant manu, sed etiam tegmina vel 
 involucra librorura manu exaratorum et, impressorum attentius consi- 
 derent, immo folia ilia qua? tegmini averse glutine affixa sunt." 
 
 (35) Lambec. Comment, de Bibl. Csesaria, lib. v. p. 4. Cod. cciv. 
 n.6. gives this Discourse the following title: Iwavvov MrrrpoTro\irou 
 EVXCUTWV EyKw/juov ety TOVS dyiovs /cat Offfirccriovs jj/uwv Trarepos, BcuriXfiov 
 TOV p.eyav, Tpijyopiov rov 6eo\oyov, at Iwavvqv TOV xP v<Toffro l jLOV ' 
 
 (36) Montf. Palaeogr. lib. iv. cap. ix. p. 324. Spec. x. n. lib. iv. 
 cap. vi. pp. 303, 304. 
 
 (37) Montf. Palseogr. lib. iv. cap. i. p. 271. Specim. iv. cap. vm. 
 p. 320. Specim. n, in. caj). vi. p. 308. Specim. i. n. 
 
45 
 
 The Oration begins thus : 
 
 YLd\iv 'Icodvvtjs 6 rtjv yh&rrav %pvffov$, xat 7rd\iv fj/uuv Trepi- 
 
 firjv ovroq . f ov T 
 
 7ravriyvpiffa/Av. ax; <$ Sv<r%paivet f rd^a /xjj^eV nappe* reray- 
 
 TTOV xaxivovq avrco 
 
 Troivv, oi/s ov ^%cw TTftJ? ovofj.dffoi.1 fia<ri\iov, xai Tpriyopiov, T 
 xi a-yyeAo/s xi dv0pa)7roi<; ovo/jiara. TOVT&V y<xp exT- 
 TOV yuv, eoprdffafjLev %0sq. rov ^e Ttpo rfc %0e<; avdis ovv 
 fifjuv 7reiffrj\0Vf 6 KOI (frtovtjv xai Travra %pvffov<;. xi TO 
 
 %Opia T/5 fjfiiffTII $OKl. TTjOO? (JiVTtJV VpvOf*Gi><; KOI TT} OtVTOV 
 
 poovvT<; eyyvri, inrep r>v $vo ffvveyyvrjffaoDe. yu/ fj.lv So 
 
 Tplds. % ^ (TX07TO?. 
 
 i. xat xaTaff<f>a\iffaff0ai itjv vff/3iav. v pyov 
 
 tg iraffi. xai \oyoiq xai rpo-rroi^. a"irov- 
 
 i/i7. Inlays ot rpiis rov QEOV jmya\vvav t 7T/<rij? T^I/ TTIOTIV 
 t$ rtjv oixovju.vtiv Ixijpv^av. ETri<n}$ T$ xxAtj<r/ 
 T,$ ToJi' ftaprvpcov jj.vrip.as Ixocr/miffav. i7rcoT 
 7Tiffrjg rot yap ovv, TOI/$ vpyTa$ avTirt/j.r}ffct)fjiv t OVTO$ o TOV 
 \6yov OVCOTTOS. TOUTO rrjs Trpodvpiaq fi(j.G>v TO /jt-vartipiov. avrrj rtj<; 
 irapovffris ^lahifyws f} V7r60sffi<;. iitsi ovv } &C. &C. 
 
 And concludes thus : 
 
 yui/, rrjv 
 
 T}/JUV , paVOtT TtJV 
 
 (38) The 13th of November, among the Greeks, was, and still is, 
 sacred to bishop Chrysostom. This Discourse, as I shall hereafter 
 shew, was delivered on 30th January. According to the e H/j.fpo\oyioi>, 
 the 1st January is dedicated to Basil ; the 25th to Gregory ; the 
 27th to Chrysostom ; and on the 30th is celebrated the Commemora- 
 tion of these three saints jointly. 
 
ev%pe0Tpov eXxocre?, iva xai avroi Si' vfj.(i<; re KOI avv v/j.7v, 
 avyaffOcof^ev' eyyvrspov xa} rpavorepov, TO> <f>coTt rtjs w,yia<; xat 
 7ravv/j.vr)Tov. rov rpiafios. vTtlp ov TT$ \6yoq v/uuv xal TTJ/ 
 epyov xal (nrou&xo/ua. on ai/rco TrpSTrst Tratrot So^ sis TOV$ 
 nicovaq rcov aiajvcov. djmrjv. -}- 
 
 Such is the beginning and close of the Discourse, 
 with all its marks of punctuation and accent, just as 
 they stand in the Manuscript. The v and t have 
 always two dots over them ; but the Iota subscriptum 
 never occurs. 
 
 On the verso of the first leaf, under the text, is 
 written 
 
 and the leaves following amount to exactly seventeen. 
 
 I now come to the contents of the Oration. 
 
 JOHN MAUROP (that is, Blackfoof) was a Monk, Pro- 
 fessor, and afterwards Metropolitan of Euchania, a city 
 belonging to the province of Heleno-Pontus, in Asia 
 Minor. He lived in the llth century; and in his 
 time, it is said, an event occurred which gave occasion 
 to the festival on which he delivered this Oration. Let 
 us hear the printed MEN^EA* on the subject 39 . 
 
 " The occasion of this festival," say they, " was as 
 
 * [" M EIMBUM, (M-nvaiov seu MTjwatoj/.) The title of a Work con- 
 taining the prayers and hymns to be repeated in the choir, divided 
 into xn volumes, according to the months of the year, for the use of 
 the Greek Church. Each month occupies a volume ; and for each day 
 is prescribed the office, or religious service, proper to the saint or saints 
 commemorated on that day." HOFFMAN Lex. in voc. (TRANS.) ] 
 
 (39) Acta Sanctorum Junius, T. II. p. 93-1. 
 
47 
 
 follows. During the reign of Alexius, who swayed the 
 Imperial sceptre after Botoniates, there arose at Con- 
 stantinople a schism between persons of rank and re- 
 spectability. Some preferred Basil the Great, before all 
 others. ' He speaks,' said they, ' with sublimity, probes 
 the very inmost recesses of nature, almost surpasses the 
 angels in virtue, or at least is scarcely their inferior. His 
 demeanour is striking, and has nothing earthly about it.' 
 On the other hand, they depreciated the godlike Chry- 
 sostom, pretending that he was the reverse of all this, 
 and that men soon became disgusted with him. Others, 
 on the contrary, extolled this Chrysostom, as one whose 
 instructions were much better adapted to human-nature, 
 who by the plainness of his address attracted every 
 one, and called men to repentance: nay, they ranked 
 him, in consequence of his acute understanding, above 
 the great Basil and Gregory. Others again favoured 
 Gregory the Theologian ; as one who, in ornament 
 and variety, in charm of eloquence and flowery lan- 
 guage, far surpassed all the Greek Literati of any re- 
 pute, as well as our own: these, therefore, gave the 
 palm to Gregory, as did the former to Basil and Chry- 
 sostom. And thence it came to pass, that the people 
 split into parties ; and some were called Joannites ; 
 others, Basilians ; others, again, Gregorians. 
 
 " Now, while they were disputing with each other 
 under these appellations, these great men appeared, first 
 one after the other, then altogether (it was no dream) 
 to John, bishop of Euchania (a man of station and re- 
 nown, who possessed no small knowledge of Greek lite- 
 rature, as his writings evince, but attained a still higher 
 
48 
 
 eminence in virtue), and said to him with one accord : 
 4 We are, as thou seest, one in God, and no dissension 
 exists between us ; but each of us, in our day, moved 
 by the Holy Ghost, have confirmed the doctrines of 
 the Salvation of Mankind by our writings, and pub- 
 lished our religious instructions. None of us is first: 
 none of us is second. If thou invokest one of vis, the 
 other two immediately accompany him. Wherefore, 
 arise, and command the people not to quarrel on our 
 account : for our wish is, that there be peace between 
 the living and us who have already departed life ; and 
 that concord be finally established. Assemble them on 
 some day: consecrate to us a festival, as behoveth 
 thee: shew them, thereupon, that we are one in God. 
 But we will not the less labour, with our combined 
 energies, for the welfare of those who celebrate our 
 joint Commemoration : for we believe that we possess 
 some influence with God.' After these words, they 
 seemed to soar to heaven, encircled with a glorious 
 light ; and each called to the other by name. 
 
 " Now this'godlike man, John of Euchania, did what 
 those saints enjoined him. After he had pacified the 
 multitude and the parties, (for he was regarded as 
 a man of acknowledged integrity,) he commanded this 
 festival to be solemnized in the Church, to the glory of 
 God. And now let the reader observe the wisdom of 
 this man. When he found that each of the three saints 
 had his festival in the month of January Basil the 
 Great on the 1st, St. Gregory on the 25th, St. Chryso- 
 stom on the 27th he appointed another festival for all 
 three jointly, on the 30th ; and graced it, as became 
 
 - 
 
19 
 
 these saints, with hymns, antiphonies, and panegyrics; 
 which (being delivered, I believe, with their approbation) 
 omitted nothing conducive to their renown, and sur- 
 passed every thing of that kind ever written before, or 
 that will be written hereafter." 
 
 Thus far the MEN/EA. 
 
 Manrop says nothing of the apparition of the three 
 saints, in this Discourse. Possibly the other, which 
 I have quoted above, contains something to that effect. 
 It appears, from the Mcnaean account, that Maurop 
 was already a bishop, and advanced in years, when 
 he delivered the panegyric : for the feast was esta- 
 blished after the year of Christ 1081 ; and therefore 
 the copy of this Discourse, which is preserved in the 
 Wolfenbiittle Library, is above 234 years junior to the 
 original. Now, as our three saints were known to the 
 world as zealous champions of the doctrine of the 
 Trinity 40 , so the expression, ' We are one in GW 41 ,' 
 which occurs twice in the Menoean narrative, seems to 
 be an allusion to 1 John V. 7 : particularly, because it 
 is here used of Three Persons, whom Maurop himself 
 calls, in his Discourse, a T/><s. This, however, is only 
 a cursory remark. Maurop, as we may readily sup- 
 pose, quotes different passages of Holy Scripture, but 
 seldom accurately and at full length : he commonly 
 interweaves their substance into his context, or makes 
 allusions to them 42 . 
 
 (40) This appears from their writings, and also from the beginning 
 of Maurop's Discourse. 
 
 (41) The first time it is, 'H/xeis eV ecr/xei/, us opaj, irapa rip 0ew. The 
 second time, *H^fts kv 0>ie/ ry Qty. 
 
 (42) I shall give several instances of this in the Appendix (A.) 
 
 E 
 
50 
 
 And now to come nearer the goal: now for the 
 interesting passage. It runs thus: 
 
 Qeo$ /JLv dyivvrjTOS 6 UaTtjp' Oeoq Se yevvtjros 6 Y/o?' xa* 
 os etirropevTos TO Tlvevpa TO "Aytov. 'OI AYTOI TPEIZ KAI 
 oTaTOv x} Traffi, Tchtjv To7q yvtjffiots 
 
 T K.O.I <J(.yv<t)ffTOV Tpl$ fJ>V 
 
 Qeoi' e7$ 5s 05. on pia QSOTVS xi 17 avTrj. OVTS ras v7ro<rra- 
 Ivtaico 43 , OL/TS 7rA<v eKsivais ffvjmirKridvvo- 
 AA' 0^^ xr/Vrx?, o/xo/s 7rpoj3a\\OfAvri It- 
 x< Tijpov<ra$ iva TOV j]\iov. ov^ev l%ov- 
 p.ovov K(x.ffrt]v Ttjv t^iOTrjTfx, 9 ov 
 J <pvffi xai ool-r], xi ovvwjitei x 
 
 AI'I/ aKptfius dTTOff&tyvcras TO tffov yucxAAoi/ ^ TO 
 /J/cy? AA^A/5 (rt/^oiicra? xai ffweffo/mwag, e/s TO a.7TpavTOv. 
 TOU 7r>Tos $v/j.iovpyo<; fj Tpia^. OI/TO? o 0eo? o r}fj,Tpo$ ov Ao- 
 
 yi(T0r]ffTOll TpO$ TTjOO? (XVTOV* OV& TjO&>? ) OVT&S 7Tpl (AVTOV T/S 
 <f>pOVOVVTQ)V Op0CtJ$. ^Vp TTaffOiV OOO 
 
 Tft> 7Tl/ CClTOl;i, X <TjO To) iyaTTt]fJLVta VTf (KVTOV. 
 
 TavTa $ TO?? Tpiffiv avTOv TOVTOIS ATjOi/Tr5 xrxi T 
 e<$t yup 7rvTo>5 T^ J/' >7? T 7rvT yyovv dyiav 
 piOp.ov<; lavTtj Qepa7TVTas vTTOffrfjffai' xat /UT T/?? 
 
 (13) 'Ei/jaios is an exceedingly rare word. Maurop uses it as an 
 adjective, in one of his e|a7ro<rT6t\apm*. *H cVmta eoTTj 
 KOI TO n>eu/ia ; Taiy Ba<riAetou irpea-fieiais, Tptjyopiov KCU Iwo 
 ayvt)s QSOTOKOV fj.7] %a/)t(r0a> TTJS (rrjs So^y. 
 
 1 [" t&noa-TeiXapiavocantur Cantica quaedam quse erant 
 TCI)V ayyeXuV) TOV irpoS^OjUOu, TOU oravpoy, TCOJ* aTrotrToAcov, Itt patet ex 
 Horologio. Tjpicum Saba? cap. n. p. 4. TO avaffTa(Tt/j.oveaTroffTt\apiov' 
 Kai TO OeoroKiof. Undecim numero fuerunt ava.(na<Tifj.a. Vide Gl. 
 IMeussii." Suicer. Thesaur. in voc. (TRANS.)] 
 
 (U) Baruchiii. 36,37. 
 
51 
 
 *at T rpia rovq rpes, on re roffovrot, xa on TO, Travra 
 KAI TPITON, KATA THN 2YMIINOIAN. TO 
 
 KOti T/;$ yu.^|Oe/$ avvexnxov XT TIJV inrep rt<; rjp.- 
 
 I >/ . T ,v. V ~ ' ~ </ 
 
 <ret>Ttipiat$ (nrovorjv ?$ ovosvt TCUV iravrtov roffovrovj OGOV 
 re xxe/j/o/5 ete'Aijoe. T xe>/ 0^ x. T. A. 
 
 Which may be thus rendered : 
 
 " God Unbegotten, is the Father ; but God Begotten, 
 is the Son ; and God Proceeding, is the Holy Ghost. 
 
 THE SAME THREE ALSO ARE ONE. A most WOnderflll 
 
 thing, and to all, save the true worshippers of the Three, 
 a thing unintelligible and obscure ! Three Persons ; not 
 Gods, but ONE God : because the Godhead also is One 
 and the same; neither uniting the Substances in its Single- 
 ness ; nor, again, multiplied with them because of the 
 Plurality; but beaming forth equal rays, like those which 
 proceed from the sun, yet constitute but one identical 
 sun ; having no distinction, except each his own indivi- 
 duality ; no pre-eminence ; no inferiority ; but, in essence, 
 glory, power, and goodness, preserving the most perfect 
 equality, nay, rather identity ; and individually co- 
 existent with each other, and to co-exist to all eternity. 
 This Trinity is the Creator of the Universe : this 
 is our God; and there is none to be compared with 
 Him ; neither let any Orthodox Believer think other- 
 wise than thus of Him. As saith the Prophet (Baruch 
 iii. 36, 37) : " He hath found out all the way of know- 
 ledge, and hath given it (formerly, indeed) unto Jacob 
 his servant, and to Israel his beloved :" but afterwards, 
 to these Three, his worshippers and adorers. For it 
 altogether behoved the Holy Trinity, by whom all things 
 were made, to be personated by a co-equal number of 
 
 E 2 
 
52 
 
 worshippers; anil, according to its counsel, again to 
 create men after its own image and likeness, (a much 
 more accurate and striking one than the first) ; and the 
 Trinity (T>) created the Three Saints (T^), that they 
 might be like unto God, 1st, in number; 2dly, in god- 
 liness; THIRDLY, in unanimity. Nay more, Fourthly, 
 and to complete the similitude, in zeal for our salva- 
 tion ; which none whatever has had so much at heart 
 as God and they:" &c. &c. 
 
 In this passage there are two paragraphs in which 
 the allusion to 1 John V. 7. is remarkable. 
 
 The first is this : " God Unbegotten, is the Father ; 
 God Begotten, is the Son ; and God Proceeding, is the 
 Holy Ghost. The same Three also are One" In the words 
 " The same Three also are One," we are immediately re- 
 minded of the Scripture Text, " These Three are One." 
 
 " Yes," it may be said, " if the expression were, 
 ' The same three also are One, in the neuter ' (lv), we 
 might imagine the allusion ; but it is, * The same Three 
 also are One/ in the masculine (/?)" 
 
 I answer : The ONE (e/s) evidently refers to God 
 (0eo$), which word occurs immediately before and after. 
 The Fathers, who expressly quote 1 John V. 7, use the 
 same mode of diction. I shall give examples below 45 . 
 
 (45) An ancient Scholium of Origen says, Keu ra rpia els 0eos. 
 
 In Cassiodorus' Complex. Canonic. EpistoL it is said : " Cui rei testi- 
 ficantur in terra tria mysteria, aqua, sanguis, et Spiritus, quae in pas- 
 sione Domine leguntur impleta : in ccelo autem Pater, Filius, et Spi- 
 ritus Sanctus ; el hi tres unus est Deus." 
 
 Likewise in the Caroli M. ad Leonem III. Epislola ad Holsleniam, 
 we find : " Hieronymus quoque de hac ipsa Spiritus Sancti processione 
 in symboli expositione inter coetera ait : Spiritus qui a Patre et Filio 
 
 procedit 
 
53 
 
 The second paragraph is this : " The Holy Trinity," 
 says Maurop, " by creating the Three Saints, has pro- 
 duced also a Triad, resembling itself, and chiefly in 
 unanimity." The obvious meaning of which can be 
 nothing else than this : " Just as the Three, the Father, 
 the Word, and the Holy Ghost, agree in one, so also 
 do these Three Saints." But we find no text in the 
 Bible which literally supports this on the part of God, 
 except 1 John V. 7 : therefore, we have every reason to 
 conjecture, here is an allusion to this clause. " But is 
 that conjecture to turn the scale ?" Have a little pa- 
 tience, Reader. Let me first introduce an episode ; and 
 then I will shew its preponderance more fully. 
 
 But, previously, a few words on Maurop's panegyric. 
 In this Oration, Maurop quotes no one text of the Bible 
 in express terms, to prove the doctrine of the Holy Tri- 
 nity. This, therefore, removes the suspicion, that, as 
 the bishop probably quoted Scriptural proofs, and yet 
 omitted 1 John V. 7, he must have been unacquainted 
 with that text, and consequently made no allusion to it. 
 Finally, the bishop was an Orthodox Greek**, and lived at 
 a time when his Church was at variance with the Latin, 
 
 procedit, Patri Filioque cooeternus, et per omnia oequalis est. Hsec est 
 Sacra Trinitas ; i.e. Pater, Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus, una est Deltas, 
 et potentia una, et essentia ; i. e. Pater qui genuit, Filiusque genitus, 
 et Spiritus Sanctus qui ex Patre Filioque procedit, h<ec tria unus Deus 
 cst." 
 
 (46) We perceive, even in his Hymns, the cautious orthodox of 
 his Church. He ties down the expression the instant its meaning 
 seems too equivocal. For instance, in his 186th Hymn. 
 'O Ao-yoj i\v fv apxp T * TOP riarepo crwapxos. T(p \oycp livdVfj.0. ffVftjv 
 AAA' EK TOT TENNHTOPO2. 
 
54. 
 
 in many particulars. I entreat my Readers to bear this 
 circumstance in mind, whenever they are assailed by 
 the fashionable objection, " Perhaps Maurop latinizes 
 in this allusion." 
 
 
55 
 
 II. 
 GREGORY NAZIANZEN. 
 
 SOME PASSAGES FROM HIS WORKS, HITHERTO OVER- 
 LOOKED, AND NOT EMPLOYED IN THE CONTRO- 
 VERSY ON 1 JOHN V. 7. 
 
 Now for the promised Episode ! 
 
 Is the expression, " Three are one" this almost unques- 
 tionable allusion to 1 John V. 7 found in any other 
 Greek Father whatever? 
 
 I answer, Yes ! The very man upon whose silence 
 people have relied so confidently in our days, in assailing 
 the authenticity of this celebrated text even GREGORY 
 NAZIANZEN, a renowned Teacher of the 4th century 
 uses the very same expression, and in that very Dis- 
 course from which men have been wont to controvert 
 the existence of 1 John V. 7, in the Greek exemplars 47 . 
 
 (4?) See Wetstein's New Testament, T. II. p. 722. It would be 
 worth while carefully to revise the Fathers there cited by him; in order 
 to see, partly, whether they are really silent on the passages quoted ; 
 partly, whether their silence is authority, and admissible as evidence. 
 Upon the latter point, our modern Reformers conceive themselves at 
 liberty to take very little trouble. I have censured this impropriety, 
 in my Beytr'dyen zur Critik uber Johannes Offenbarung, (Contri- 
 butions to Criticism upon the Apocalypse of St. John,) pp. 13, 14; 
 viz. " Whosoever wishes to argue fairly from the silence which authors 
 observe respecting matters ascribed to their times, must do more than 
 quote their mere silence. He must prove that his silent witnesses 
 would certainly have spoken of them, if they had really occurred in 
 
 their 
 
56 
 
 In this his 37th Discourse, which treats of the Holy 
 Ghost, he says, at the beginning of page 598 (Cologne 
 Edition, 1690) : C EN TA TTIA Qeorim, xi TO 'EN TPIA 
 rats i$(OTti<rt. Further, in his 51st Discourse, which has 
 
 the superscription Kara ATroXtvapiov Trpos KAj<W/oi/ Upeff- 
 
 fivTspov eTUffToXn '. He says, in the middle of page 739: 
 'EN yap TA TPIA, JCGCI TWVTOV TJ? QeoTtjrt. Finally, in his 
 
 12th Discourse, entitled Etpnvixos '. e-ni -n? svutret T&V yuo- 
 
 yuerot rtjv fficoTrrjv Trapovfft'Ji TOV Tioirpos GCI/TOI/, at 
 
 their time-. But, to apply a proof of this kind, I must neither give the 
 ancients my world, nor transpose myself, with my modes of thinking, 
 into theirs: that is dreaming, not criticising, and converting History 
 into Fable. The problem for Historical Criticism is properly this : 
 To find out, from the known sentiments of an author, and the nature 
 of the world in which he lived, and with which he was conversant, the 
 relation which his silence bears to matters ascribed to his times ; 
 I mean, whether his silence upon the subject originated in wisdom, cun- 
 ning, flattery, fear, neglect, or ignorance ; or whether the cause of his 
 silence lay not in himself, but in the subject, which had no existence in 
 his times." A celebrated author, whom I hold in high respect for his 
 erudition and philology, in his " New Investigations into the Apoca- 
 lypse," in which he attempts to confute my " Beytragen," assails the 
 principle which I have advanced, as thus : " With such precepts," 
 (namely, how to estimate the authority of silence,) " Protestants 
 could have reflected but little historical light against the assertions 
 of the Papists respecting the antiquity of the Mass and Transub- 
 stantiation ; or the genuineness of many Works which were certainly 
 spurious, e.g. the high antiquity of the symbol c Quicunque' &c. of 
 the Apostolic Constitutions; the ' Dionysius Areop.' &c. &c. But 
 I will very briefly give my opinion, that there are no general rules as 
 to the application of such a precept or problem." And in this tone 
 the refutation proceeds. Refutations resting on such principles, I 
 shall never reply to. For whoever asserts, that the truth of a cri- 
 tical maxim must only be judged of by the interests of the Pro- 
 testant Church, he And such is the conduct of this 
 
 man, who certainly cannot himself be accused of having the interests 
 of the Lutheran Church 
 
57 
 
 page 204, he says, K* TA TPIA 'EN. He also thrice 
 mentions the Three Divine Persons, with the very names, 
 and in the same consecutive order in which they 
 occur only once in Holy Scripture, Le. in I John V. 7. 
 
 In his Opnvoq Trepi TQ>V rns avrov ^i>%7$ 7r0a>i/, in the 113th 
 
 verse, he says, AAA IIATEP, Uarpos rs AOFOS, x< 
 IINEYMA faeivov. And in the 42d Discourse, Ei$ TO 
 uytov -naff^a, towards the end, O IIATEP, KGU AOFE, KUU 
 
 IINEYMA TO 'AFION. And in the 25th Discourse, Ilpos 
 
 Apeiavovs KOH sis aviov, he says, at page 442, Ov ^vffojmai as. 
 HATEP i/|0^, ov \l/vffo/jt.ai ffe fjiovoyeves AOFE, ov ^euao/uat ffe 
 ro IINEYMA TO 'AFION. 
 
 Is not all this a very plain intimation that the bishop read 
 \ John V. 7. in his Greek New Testament, and intended an 
 allusion to that passage in the expressions which he has used ? , 
 
 " No ! " we are told, " not at all." And pray why 
 not? " Because, in the Discourses referred to, the 
 bishop was vindicating the doctrine of the Trinity : yet 
 neither here, nor any where else, does he quote the 
 clause 1 John V. 7. among his Scripture proofs. In one 
 of these Discourses, indeed, he quotes the 8th verse: 
 a striking and indisputable proof that he knew no- 
 thing of the 7th verse: that, on the other hand, he 
 discovered the Holy Trinity, mystically, in the 8th verse ; 
 and therefore borrowed from it his C EN TA TPTA, and 
 his TA TPIA 'EN." 
 
 Is all this, so dictatorially announced to the world, 
 perfectly true ? Is it true, I ask ? 
 
 I strongly doubt that the man who affirms it has 
 read Gregory with attention : or, if he has, that he 
 
 
58 
 
 understands him rightly. At least, I may be allowed to 
 say how /understand Gregory in this passage. 
 
 "How, then?" 
 
 What if I should prove the three following Proposi- 
 tions out of his writings ? 
 
 PROPOSITION I. 
 
 There had arisen a keen dispute between Gregory 
 and some Heretics of his day, concerning the exposi- 
 tion, as well as the authenticity, of 1 John V. 7. 
 
 PROP. II. 
 
 The venerable Greek Father never harboured the 
 idea of finding the Holy Trinity in the 8th verse of the 
 5th chapter of St. John's First Epistle. 
 
 PROP. III. 
 
 Gregory quotes 1 John V. 7. more than once, as a 
 text of Holy Scripture. 
 
 Now for my proofs. 
 
 Gregory says, in his 37th Discourse 48 , " THE Per- 
 sons in the Godhead are ONE ; not only as regards that 
 wherewith they are conjoined, but also as regards them- 
 selves, because of the Oneness of Essence and Power: 
 in short, they are opoovmot." Now this Unity, maintained 
 by the Orthodox, was assailed by their opponents, who 
 attempted to prove an absurdity and inconsistency in the 
 Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. And what gave 
 
 (48) riept TOV 'Ayiov n>et//.iaTo$, p. 602. To ev tuaarov avruv e^ei '"'pos 
 TO ffvyKci/jievov ov\ TJTTOP, i) irpos eatrro, rep ravrcp TTJS ovffias KOI TIJS 5wa- 
 juewy. In order to illustrate this somewhat obscure passage, read what 
 he says upon the same Proposition, in his 41st Discourse, Eiy TO aytov 
 /3a7m0>ta, p. (H38 ; viz. Tavrrfv SiSw/u Trcuroy, K . T. A- 
 
 
59 
 
 occasion to this attack ? I answer, ' The clause, Three are 
 one TPIA 'EN.' " You cannot deny," said the adversa- 
 ries, " that you understand by the 'EN, in this passage, a 
 perfect equality of the whole Divine Essence 49 . You 
 maintain further, that each Person of the Godhead is 
 not a Quality, a mere relative denomination, but is 
 actually self-existent; and is, therefore, a separate 
 Substance. Now see the absurd consequences of this !" 
 How so? " Thus. By the Three (TA TPIA), the Divine 
 Persons are here trvvapie/movpEvot, that is, connumerated? 
 This was undeniable. But then they assumed an axiom, 
 to this effect : " Things only can be connumerated 
 which are of the same essence (ja o^oovma 50 ): those, on 
 the contrary, which are not of the same essence (T w 
 o/jLoovffia) cannot be connumerated." And, thence, they 
 argued thus : " As, in the passage ' Three are one, ' the 
 Persons of the Godhead are connumerated ; you must, 
 nokntes volentes t in virtue of our axiom and this passage, 
 grant the existence of Three Gods. What absurdity!" 
 
 Gregory commences his refutation by controverting 
 the axiom on which the objection of his adversaries was 
 founded. 
 
 " You say," said he, " if things are to be connumerated^ 
 
 (49) This is evident from the connection with what immediately 
 folloAVs : for they built their whole objection on the connumerating of 
 the Persons in the Godhead ; on the Three (TA TPIA) ; and on the idea 
 of the One (TO 'EN). I have therefore unravelled the intricate argu- 
 ment of the opponents, for greater perspicuity's sake. 
 
 (50) The adversaries seem here to have taken the word 'OMOOT- 
 2IO2 in the erroneous sense, which was rejected by the Church in the 
 year 273, at the Councils of Antioch ; according to which, there was 
 no difference of the Persons. 
 
 
60 
 
 they must be of the same essence ; and therefore there 
 must be no difference between them. What absurdity ! 
 Know ye not, that Numerals are merely competent to 
 express the quantity, and not the nature, of the things 
 whose sum they designate ? I call things Three, which 
 are that many in number, though they are different in 
 Essence : likewise, I call One and One and One, so many 
 Units, namely, Three, when they have the same essence. 
 For I look not, herein, to their essence; but to their 
 quantity, which constitutes the number that I affix to 
 them 51 ." 
 
 Now, though this was clear as the sun, and perfectly 
 sufficient to confute the opponent's axiom, still Gre- 
 gory strikes into another path : and it is very interesting, 
 very remarkable. " Well, what is it ? " This. 
 
 " Since you," says the bishop, " adhere so strictly 
 to the letter of Scripture in this instance; namely, to 
 the word * Three ^ though you generally controvert it; 
 I therefore will also adduce proof from the same source 
 namely, the letter of Holy Scripture 53 , which 
 
 (51) We see, therefore, that the whole dispute originated in the 
 connumerating of the Persons in the Godhead ; which occurs only once 
 in the Bible, and that in 1 John V. 7. 
 
 (52) Orat. xxxvii. p. 603. Ewet 5e Ktav Treptex^s rov ypa/j./j.aros, KO.I 
 TOI 7* voXf/JLcov TO) ypa/Jt-fj-ciTi, EKEI0EN /J.QI Aa/8e ras OTroSetfeis. Tpia evrais 
 irapoifuais sffnv, K. r. \. That I have rightly translated Tpa/x/^a, by 
 " Letter of Holy Scripture," will be seen by perusing the passage 
 in p. 606 of this same Discourse. Justin Martyr uses Tpa^a. in the 
 very same sense. He says, in his Expositio Fidel: AAA' ou5e TOU rio- 
 rpos eovffias e\aTTOu<r0ai TOV Ttoj/ wot TO nVet^a irapa. TTJS Oetay ypa<pT]s ;uc- 
 /na07jKa^J/. Kcu ircoj; A/coue rov FPAMMATO2, o 5e eos T^OJJ/, tyrjffi, sv T<U 
 ovpa.vcf, KCU 67ri T?j5 yrjs, TrcwTa, offa i]9e\ri<Tev, 67roi7j(T6. And moreover, 
 this possible signification is rendered necessary, that is real, in this 
 
6! 
 
 demonstrates the proposition, * Things also can be con- 
 numerated which have not the same essence, but are 
 different :' " and accordingly he quotes passages of 
 Scripture, in which things of different kinds are num- 
 bered together ; e. g. Prov. xxx. 29 31. Exod. xxxvii. 7. 
 Matt. vi. 24. 
 
 " Good bishop," replied his opponents, " thou still 
 understandest not all that we charge upon the clause 
 ' Three are one' It is absurd ; and therefore cannot pos- 
 sibly be derived from the discourse of the Apostle 
 John. For, of things, we can only say, * they are con- 
 numerated, and of like essence,' when the names proper 
 to them (i.e. those resulting from the identity of their 
 essence) are expressly stated in their sums total. For 
 instance, Three men, Three Gods ; not merely indefinite 
 Three. No sensible man thinks, speaks, or writes other- 
 wise. Away then with the fancy, that the clause * TJiree 
 are one? originated with the Apostle ! " 
 
 After Gregory had, in his own way, exposed the ab- 
 surdity of this new principle also, he attacks the conse- 
 quence which the Heretics had inferred from this axiom, 
 against the authenticity of the clause. " WJiat" says he, 
 " What! the Apostle John? shall he not be the author 
 of this text, because in your opinion it involves an 
 absurdity 53 . Listen! I will lay before you another 
 passage of St. John, whose authenticity you do not 
 
 passage, not only by the EKEI0EN (which, as the sequel proves, evi- 
 dently refers to expressions of Scripture), but also by the proposition, 
 that the adversaries elsewhere contested the TO TPAMMA. 
 
 (53) I cannot otherwise conceive why he hurls, with such marked 
 and energetic vivacity, his TI AAI 'O IHANNH2,; against his adver- 
 saries. 
 
 Solomon, 
 
62 
 
 deny, which is conceived in the very same manner; 
 namely, 1 JohnV. 8. 54 ' There are three that bear record, 
 the spirit, the water, and the blood.' What say you to that? 
 Has the Apostle expressed himself absurdly here; in 
 the first place, because he combines things which are 
 different in essence ? (For who will maintain, that 
 spirit, water, and blood, are things of one and the same 
 essence ?) Secondly, because he construes ungrammati- 
 cally ; inasmuch as he says of three things which are 
 of the neuter gender, that they are three (jpe'is) in the 
 masculine 55 ?" 
 
 Now what rational man, under such circumstances, 
 will assert, that Gregory wished to prove the existence 
 of the Trinity from 1 John V. 8 ? It is therefore clear 
 as the sun that the bishop was ignorant of the mystical 
 meaning of the 8th verse. Nay, I know not one of the 
 
 Solomon, Moses, and Christ, whose mode of expression the bishop 
 had already quoted in vindication of the clause, were held by his adver- 
 saries in equally great estimation with St. John ; Christ, indeed, in 
 greater. Whence then the TI AAI 'O IflANNHS j if what I have just 
 said was not the bishop's intention ? 
 
 (54) It is notorious that the Arians to which class Gregory's 
 opponents belonged acknowledged the authenticity of 1 John V. 7. 
 August, contra Maximinum Arianum, lib. n. cap. xxn. 
 
 (55) The passage, Orat. xxxvii. p. 603. runs thus: TI AAI 'O 
 iriANNHS ; Tpetj fivou. rovs fj.apTvpovvraS', Xvyosv sv rats /ca0oAi/cats, TO 
 Trveujua, TO u5a>p, TO cu/xa, upa croi Aepew (pawtTcu; Tlpurov /wev, on TO. 
 /tTj 6/ji.oovffia ffvvapi6jj.T}(Tai TeToAjurj/ce;/, 6 rots o/j-oovcriois ffv SiScas- Tty yap 
 av etTrot ravra (juas ovvias; Aevrepov 5e, oVt ^77 Kura\\r]Xu>s ^X cav <"-^W~ 
 Tijffev, oAAa, TO rpeis apfevmus 7rpo0ets, ra rpia ouSerepcos firyveyKc irapa. 
 TOVS novs Kat TTJS ypa.fj.{j.aTLKr)s opovs /cot vofj.ovs* Kat Tot TI Sm^epet, 97 rpeis 
 irpoQevra, tv KO.L ev Kat ef e7Tj/67/ceiV, i) eVa at Iva. /cat eva \tyovra, jur; rpeis 
 aAAa rpia Trpoffayopeveiv, oirep avros a-naiois errt TTJS QeoTTjTos. I shall 
 avail myself in Appendix (B.) of the last part of this quotation, from 
 
 to the end. 
 
G3 
 
 Greek Fathers, though I have anxiously perused them, 
 who discovered Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in the 8th 
 verse of 1 John V. I am therefore convinced, by expe- 
 rience, of what honest Mill says : " No Greek understood 
 the 8th verse mystically of the Holy Trinity" an important 
 maxim in criticising our disputed clause ! It deprives 
 our opponents of all recourse to 1 John V. 8, when 
 they meet with undeniable allusions to 1 John V. 7. in 
 Greek Authors. I have also found what Mill says, in 
 this respect, of the Latin Fathers, perfectly correct. 
 Augustin, of whom I have spoken above, is unques- 
 tionably the first who metamorphosed the meaning of 
 the 8th verse. 
 
 Origen 66 , Ambrose, Cassiodore, Pope Leo the Great, 
 Bede, and others, explain it quite differently ; and much 
 more naturally. 
 
 It is therefore beyond all doubt, that Gregory did 
 not take his C EN TA TPIA, his TA TPIA e EN, (which he 
 vindicates so sharply, as expressions of St. John,) from 
 the 8th verse. Nay, in citing this verse, he never once 
 quotes the words, K* ol rpeis ei$ TO lv SKTI. Now, would he 
 have omitted words of such importance to him, if he had 
 grounded his 'EN TA TPIA upon them? Assuredly not ! 
 Perhaps, indeed, they were not in his copy ; and this 
 would justify, or at least excuse, the celebrated Note of 
 
 (56) Origen is the first among the Greeks, to my knowledge, who 
 quotes 1 John V. 8. In his Commentary on the Gospel of 1 John, 
 he says, on the words John I. 27, 28. (p. 133. Cologne Edit. 1685.) 
 Ourws 6 avros eort jSaTmoyia v8aros /cat Trpev^aros 8e /ca: atjwaros. Ilept 
 Serov TcAcuratou /SoTrrtcr^aTos, us nvfs $t\v\.v &> tcf EairrKr/j.a 8' ex&> /3cr- 
 TiffO-rjvai, Kai irus (rvvcxopai ews 6 rov T\fffOrj. Tourco 5e crv/j.<p<at>os tv ry 
 firt(TTO\ri j*a0rjTr?s IWOWTJS, TO nNEYMA KAI TO 'TAriP KAI TO 'AIMA, 
 TA TPIA EI2 'EN TINOMENA. 
 
St. Thomas Aquinas*, on 1 John V. 8. If it be said that 
 Gregory did not consider them to be the words of the 
 Apostle, there is only this alternative : Either the bishop 
 himself first invented this clause, or borrowed it elsewhere. 
 That he was not the inventor , is, I think, palpably evi- 
 dent ; because the phrase 'EN TA THA, long before the 
 middle of the 4th century, was a solemn form of ex- 
 pression, and generally known, among the Greek Chris- 
 tians, to designate the Holy Trinity. I appeal to the 
 author of the Didascomenus, of whose testimony I shall 
 speak more circumstantially hereafter. The Latins 
 used the same expression in the 2d and 3d centuries, 
 ( Tres unum sunt? says Tertullian. ' Tres unum suntj says 
 Cyprian. Now, as it plainly appears, as well from the 
 Didascomenus as from Cyprian, that they took this phrase 
 from Scripture, and indeed from 1 John V. 7, there 
 remains no doubt that Gregory derived his TA TPIA 'EN 
 from the same source 1 John V. 7* 
 
 The expression was by no means merely technical, in 
 Gregory's estimation : for he vindicates his TA TPIA 'EN 
 very zealously and firmly ; which he never does in the 
 case of technical terms. In the latter, he is very in- 
 dulgent; nay, he shuns all controversies of the kind, 
 and holds them to be useless and ridiculous. I refer 
 my reader to the Note 57 . 
 
 * [Aquinas's words are, " Et in quibusdam libris additur (sell, to 
 the 8th verse), ' Et hi ires unum suntS Sed hoc in veris exempla- 
 ribus non habetur sed dicitur esse appositum ab Hereticis Arianis, ad 
 pervertendum intellectum sanum auctoritatis praemissse de Unitate 
 Essentise trium Personarum." (See Home's Crit. Introd. Vol. iv. 
 p. 466. Ed. vi.) TRANS.] 
 
 (57) Orat. xxi. ad finem, p. 395. Tijs yap fj.ias ovffias xai &c. 
 Further, Orat. XMV. p. 710. Zw&uftfv o^A7J^o^s &c. 
 
6,5 
 
 We now proceed to prove our Hid Proposition ; viz. 
 That Gregory actually quotes 1 John V. 7. as a .passage of 
 Holy Scripture. 
 
 After Gregory, in his 37th Discourse, had termi- 
 nated the dispute which we have just noticed, concern- 
 ing the words ' Three are one; and subjoined a few ob- 
 servations on the diction of Holy Scripture ; he then pro- 
 duces, what he conceives, an express proof of the Di- 
 vinity of the Holy Ghost, derived from the divine names, 
 works, and attributes, applied to him in Holy Scripture. 
 
 " I tremble," says he 58 , " when I consider the mul- 
 titude of titles, which must cover with shame all who 
 rebel against the Holy Ghost. He is called the Spirit 
 of God; the Spirit of Christ; the Mind of Christ; the 
 Spirit of the Lord ; the Lord himself; the Spirit of 
 Adoption, of Truth, of Liberty ; the Spirit of Wisdom, 
 of Counsel, of Understanding, of Might, of Knowledge, 
 of Piety; of the Fear of God, that is, as one who 
 worketh this ; who filleth all things with his Essence ; 
 upholdeth all together ; who has power to pervade all 
 earth with his Essence, yet whose Might the world 
 cannot conceive; the Good, the Upright, the Guide; 
 not by grace, but by nature; who sanctifieth, not is 
 sanctified ; who measureth, not is measured ; who di- 
 videth, not is divided ; who filleth, not is filled ; who 
 upholdeth, not is upheld ; who inheriteth , is glorified, 
 and ZYNAPI0MOYMENON." 
 
 Gregory concludes his Biblical Catalogue of names of 
 
 (58) Orat. XXXVll. p. 610. E-ya> fj.ev <j>piTr<a TOV trXoinov 
 K\T\crtwv &c. to KXtipovo^ov^ SolaS'ojuejw, (rwapi9iJ.ouiJ.tvov. 
 
 F 
 
06 
 
 the Holy Spirit with these words 09 : " Thus great, thus 
 impressive, are the titles of the Holy Ghost! What 
 need that I should lay before you, verbatim, the passages 
 in proof thereof?" 
 
 We see, therefore, that all the functions, all the attri- 
 butes, all the denominations, of the Holy Ghost, which 
 occur in the foregoing extract, the bishop has taken 
 from passages of Holy Scripture. 
 
 Two questions arise : 
 
 1. What is meant by " The Holy Ghost is ZYNAPI0- 
 MOYMENON?" 
 
 2. From what passage of Scripture did Gregory de- 
 rive the assertion, " The Holy Ghost is ZYNAFIOMOY- 
 MENON?" 
 
 To the first question I reply : " It is true, the word 
 ffwaprfpeopai has frequently, in Gregory 60 and others, 
 only this signification : * / put some one in a series, in a 
 class of certain persons, wiiJiout enumerating the persons who 
 compose that series. But, in the passage before us, the 
 signification of the word is wholly different." And 
 why ? Because the adversaries, whom Gregory combats 
 in this 37th Discourse, restricted the vague signification 
 of the word SYNAHOMEOMAI by a precise definition. 
 They said, " 2YNAFI0MH2IZ means, The combining 
 together certain things in one number 01 ; i.e. eonnume- 
 
 (59) Orat. xxxvil. p. 61 1. At pev ovv /cA7?<my rocravTai KCU OVTCOS [*- 
 ^t/xot. Tt yap Set ffot ras fin TWV pr)iJ.aTwv /jLaprvptas irapa,Ti6ecr6a.i ; 
 
 (60) Orat. xxiv. p. 431. Mera Uav\ov BeoXoyrjffov, rov vpos rpirov 
 ovpavov a.va.-)(QfVTos irore /tev awapiQuovvros ras rpeis vTroffraa'fis. 
 
 (61) Orat. xxxvii. p. 602. Ta ofwovo-ia o-uj/ap^^rat ^TJS 2YNAPI0- 
 MH2IN, \cyoov r-rjv eis apiBuov tva (TvyouprjffLv. I have already no- 
 licetl tliis. 
 
07 
 
 rating them'' Gregory admitted this definition 02 ; and, as 
 we have just shewn, took considerable pains to ob- 
 viate its false application. Consequently the expres- 
 sion, " The Holy Ghost is 2YNAPI6MOYMENON," must 
 necessarily be taken here in the signification which his 
 adversaries maintained ; and which Gregory did not only 
 admit, but also controverted its application in a sophis- 
 tical axiom, and likewise purified the idea of the word 
 itself: that is, we must translate it, " The Holy Ghost 
 is placed in a class, and connumerated with the Father 
 and the Son." 
 
 That this is the actual signification of the word ffw- 
 KpiBpovpevov, in the present instance, will become clearer 
 still, from the 44th Discourse of Gregory ; in which he 
 vindicates the Deity of the Holy Ghost against the same 
 Heretics, and likewise refers his hearers to his 37th 
 Discourse. He there says 63 , " The Holy Ghost always 
 was, and always is, and always will be: He has never 
 had a beginning, and will never have an end ; but is al- 
 ways with the Father and the Son ZYNTETAFIMENON and 
 ZYNAFI0MOYMENON." Here these two words must 
 either differ in signification; or Gregory falls into a 
 palpable tautology, which he never does in any other 
 instance. But how do they differ, being generally syn- 
 onymous ? I answer, I^vvreTay/Msvov means, " The Holy 
 
 (62) In Orat. xxxvu. p. 603. he says of St. John, Ta JUT? fytootxna 
 ovvapi6/j.ri<Tcu TToAjitr;/cej'. And p. 604. Ei yap jurjre ra 6/j.oovffia iravTws 
 (TvvapiBfjiTiTai &c. 
 
 (63) Orat.XLiv. p. 711. To nvevpa TO ayiov t\v fj.ev aci KO.I eo-rt KOU 
 eoTeu- oure ap^a^evov , ourc ira.vffoiJ.tvov, oAA' act Tlarpi rcat ttcp vvvrtTayiJ.*- 
 vov, /cat ffvvapi6(j.ov/jLfvov. 
 
68 
 
 Ghost is ranked or classed with the Father and the 
 Son." I appeal (for he occurs to me this moment) to 
 
 Photius ; nay, even to Gregory himself 64 . 
 jj-svov, among its meanings, has none other whereby it is 
 distinguished from those of o-i/i/rerayyaevoi/, except that 
 which the Heretics selected, and Gregory admitted ; 
 namely, connumerated, as I have already shewn. And 
 therefore Gregory intends to say, " The Holy Ghost is, 
 in Scripture, classed, cmd also connumerated, with the Father 
 and the Son." 
 
 Now the latter I mean, " That the Holy Ghost is 
 connumerated with the Divine Persons" in what pas- 
 sage of Scripture does that occur ? The verse, " There 
 are three that bear record on earth, the spirit, the 
 water, and the blood," cannot be the proof-passage, to 
 which the bishop alludes : for he did not understand 
 this text of the Holy Trinity. Now, as we find no other 
 place, throughout the whole Scriptures, wherein the 
 Holy Ghost is connumerated with the Divine Persons, 
 except that which the Latin Version has preserved, and 
 a few ancient authors have quoted ; viz. " There 
 are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the 
 Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are 
 one;" the bishop, therefore in the passage alleged, 
 must have taken his SYNAPI0MOYMENON from 1 John 
 V. 7. and have read it in his Greek New Testament. 
 
 (64) Photius, Epist. I. He says of the Holy Ghost, ITcos 
 Hwrpi Kai fly; TropevQevTfs yap, avros <pf]<Tiv 6 f'tos, jua07jreu(raTe, K.r. A. 
 
 Gregory also uses the word <rwTais in this sense. Orat. XLIV. p. 7 1 2. 
 KOI Trap', w IJLOV&V yw(a<TKerai 
 
69 
 
 This conclusion is further justified by three passages, 
 which I have discovered in the Works of Gregory, and 
 which are as follows : 
 
 The First. Gregory says, in this 37th Discourse 6S , 
 " The phrase C EN TA TPIA is of such a nature, that 
 neither the C EN supports the opinion of Sabellius, nor 
 the TPIA the notion of those who falsely separate those 
 Divine Persons." We see, then, from this passage, 
 that the phrase 'EN TA TPIA interested the Ortho- 
 dox and the Heretics ; both wishing to discover their 
 opinions in it 66 . Phrases which equally interested 
 the Heretics and the Orthodox, and to which they 
 mutually appealed, were none other than phrases in 
 Scripture. This is notorious, and self-evident 67 . Con- 
 sequently, it is manifest, from the passage just quoted, 
 
 (65) Orat. xxxvii. p. 598. C EN TA TPIA eorrjTJ, KUI TO kv Tpia, rats 
 ', ba (M}T* TO C EN 2aj8eA\tov, t\ ^re TO. TPIA Ti]s irovrjpas vvv 81- 
 
 (66) This is clear, from the following passage. Bishop Theodorite, 
 in his First Dialogue against Macedonius (a Heretic belonging to this 
 class), makes one of his followers say, UaXiv TA TPIA 'EN Ae^w. 
 (Therefore this phrase greatly interested the Heterodox.) To which 
 the Orthodox replies, Tats vTroffraffecriv ovx &, a\\a rpia, 
 
 (67) For instance : " Cyrillus Alex, in Epist. quadam ad Johannem 
 Antiochenum in Actis Synod. Ephesinoe: Of cwro TTCKTTJS alpeo-ws e TT/S 
 Qeoirvevffrov ypa(pr]s TO.S rrjs tavrwv irXavrjs av\\eyovaiv cupoppas. TO. Sia 
 rov'Ayiov nvevfj.a.Tos opOas iprjfji.eva rats eauTeoy KaKovoiais Trapcupdeipovres." 
 I might here adduce testimonies in abundance : but, to convince our- 
 selves, even from Gregory, let us read his 36th Discourse, entitled 
 riept Tlou \oyos Sevrepos. I have spoken of this subject before. The 
 Arian Maximin says to Augustin: " Si quid de divinis scripturis 
 protuleris, quod commune est cum omnibus, necesse est ut audiamus. 
 Ese vero voces, quae extra scripturam sunt, nullo casu a nobis sus. 
 cipiuntur." 
 
70 
 
 " thai the 'EN TA TPIA, THREE ARE ONE, was a phrase which 
 stood in the Bible. Now, as Gregory and all the other Greeks 
 did not understand 1 John V. 8. of the Trinity, he must 
 therefore have taken his ev ra rpta from the 7th verse" The 
 validity of this reasoning may be easily perceived and felt. 
 For instance : If I say, " The Father of Jesus Christ is 
 greater than He ;" and add, " This word * greater 1 does 
 not support the opinion of Arius;" it will be imme- 
 diately inferred that the clause, " The Father of Jesus 
 Christ is greater than He," is taken from Scripture 68 . 
 Will it not? 
 
 The Second passage from the Works of Gregory is 
 taken from his Poems. In his Hymns, which bear the 
 name of " Mysteries," (TA AIIOPHTA,) Hymn III. 1. 80, 
 81, 82: he says 
 
 Ei/re rpto)v rivtx. /j.vtjffriv e%rj \oyoq, os TO ftev ij 
 TW rpiffffav faeoov <TTTTOV xtipvypa pporourt, 
 Tco (Je /jLOvoxpotTiTjv pt\a/j.7rea xi/5/i/cw/iei/." 
 
 These three Hexameters I understand thus : 
 
 " Whereas Holy Scripture makes a certain mention 
 of Three, in order that men should venerate what is 
 announced by these three Divine Persons : but that we 
 might at the same time extol the all-glorious Singleness 
 of the Supreme. 
 
 I know not any passage of Holy Scripture which makes 
 a certain mention of three, to the intent here stated ; except 
 it be, " There are Three that bear record in heaven, 
 
 (68) Gregory frequently uses this mode of quoting Biblical phrases. 
 e.g. Orat. xxxv. p. 572. TO>J> 5e teyovrwv ^awy, tin rep airiy MEIZflN 
 'O nATHP, K.T.\. 
 
71 
 
 the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost ; and these 
 three are one. If we receive the witness of men, the 
 witness of God is greater. Now this is the witness of 
 God, which he hath testified of his Son" &c. to ver. 13. 
 
 And now for the Third passage. In his 51st Dis- 
 course, Gregory maintains the following proposition 
 against Nestorius ; viz. " In the Trinity there is no 
 AAAO." 69 And how does he prove this assertion? 
 Thus : " For" says he, " three are one ! " And whence 
 did he get this proof? From reason ? Assuredly not. 
 From a Canon of a Council ? I answer, first, that can- 
 not be proved : next, mere edicts of Councils, without 
 proofs from Scripture, availed nothing in those days 
 with the Orthodox, the followers of the great Atha- 
 nasius, to whom Gregory unquestionably belonged 70 . 
 Consequently, and beyond all dispute, he got his proof, 
 * Three are one, from Holy Scripture. 
 
 Doubtless, therefore, he got his TA TPIA 'EN, his 'EN 
 TA TPIA, his combined IIATHP, AOFOZ, KA1 IINEYMA TO 
 'ATION, from 1 John V. 7 ; and therefore he quoted 
 this text. 
 
 (69) He says : EK (namely, em TTJS TptaSos) /xer yap oAAos KOI aAAos, 
 Iva. (MJ TO.S inroffrafftis ffvyx fu f j -* v > OVK ^ ^ 6 Kcu AAo* 'EN yap TA TPIA 
 KCU ravrov ry 0eoT7jTt. 
 
 (70) Athanasius de Synodis Ariminensi et Seleuciensi : Man?*' n-epi- 
 TpfXovTfs npotyacrifrovTai Sia iricrTiv Tj^uaKtvai yeveffdai ras ffwofiovs* Eon 
 fiev yap iKavwrepa iravrwv T) eto ypatyi]. 
 
 In the controversies of those days, and especially respecting the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, particular stress was laid upon Scriptural proof. 
 Basil the Great says to those who accused Christians of adoring three 
 Gods (Epist. LXXX.) ; OVKOVV 77 Beoiri'tvffros y(uv StatTTjTaTco ypacpri, KCU 
 irap ols o.v eipe07j ra 8o*yjuaTa (TvvwSa rots Oeiots ^.07015, Trt TOVTOLS yfa 
 rravTuv TTJS 
 
72 
 
 And thus ends my Episode. But what is its pro- 
 mised application ? It is this : Maurop had read the 
 Works of Gregory, especially those in which he ex- 
 plains and proves the doctrine of the Holy Trinity ; 
 and coincided in sentiment with him on that point. 
 Doubtless, therefore, his two expressions; viz. " The same 
 three are also one;" and, " The Holy Trinity created a 
 Triad, resembling itself in Unanimity ;" are both, I say, 
 obvious allusions to, and therefore tacit quotations of, 
 the text 1 John V. 7. 
 
 And now, but three remarks more. 
 
 The First. It is frequently said, by those who would 
 dispute the authenticity of this text, " No Greek Author 
 quotes 1 John V. 7." 
 
 How any one can affirm this, I am at a loss to con- 
 ceive. The following testimonies to the contrary lie 
 open to all the world. 
 
 I. 
 
 FROM THE 15th CENTURY. 
 
 The Greek Monk, JOHN DE BRYENNE, who lived in 
 the 14th and 15th centuries, quotes 1 John V. 7. He 
 was no partisan, but an opposer of the Latin Church : 
 for he disputed the tenets respecting which the latter 
 seceded from the Greek Church. He died previous to 
 the Council of Ferrara; a circumstance particularly 
 to be noted. 
 
 He was a Critic ; and consulted Codices. He asserted 
 expressly, that " nothing was more reasonable than to 
 revise and correct the Latin Versions of the New Tes- 
 
73 
 
 tament by the Original Greek Text." He must there- 
 fore, in the 14-th and 15th centuries, have seen Manu- 
 scripts which read 1 John V. 7 ; Manuscripts, I say, 
 which had weight and authority with him. 
 
 " But yet he quotes a few phrases, which vary from 
 our Greek copies, and follow the Vulgate." 
 
 I reply. " Does it thence certainly follow, that be- 
 cause our Greek Codices read differently, his Greek 
 Manuscript should have read so too ? He also quotes 
 texts which follow the Greek accurately, where the 
 Latin Translations vary. Nay, occasionally, he has new 
 readings: therefore I should think his copy of the 
 New Testament, from which he quotes, could not have 
 been a re-model of the Greek from the Latin." 
 
 II. 
 
 14-th CENTURY. 
 
 MANUEL CALECAS, who lived in the middle of this 
 century, quotes 1 John V. 7. 
 
 III. 
 
 13tll CENTURY. 
 
 In the Acts of the 4th General Council of the Late- 
 ran, held at Rome in IS 15, 1 John V. 7. is quoted. 
 
 " Indeed ? But a Council, to which the Latins gave 
 the tone, is not worth a straw I " 
 
 "Why so?" 
 
 " Because, doubtless, in that Councfl they metamor- 
 phosed the Original Text, according to the Vulgate." 
 
 " That is a groundless suspicion ; not only incapable 
 of proof; but, as far as evidence goes, false. This I 
 will demonstrate. In the very same Capitulum of this 
 
74 
 
 Council, which cites 1 John V. 7, another clause also, 
 viz. John X. 29, is quoted verbatim. The Latin Text 
 cites it after the Vulgate : thus, ' Pater, quod dedit mihi, 
 majus est omnibus.' On the contrary, the Greek quotes 
 it accurately, according to the Original, Ilarnp, o? Se&uxe 
 pot, pei^aiv TravTuv effTi. People should read Ancient 
 Authors more carefully, before they pronounce sen- 
 tence of condemnation upon them." 
 
 IV. 
 
 12th CENTURY. 
 
 The Constantinopolitan Monk, EUTHYMIUS ZIGA- 
 BENUS, was acquainted with 1 John V. 7. 
 
 V. 
 
 lltll CENTURY. 
 
 I think I have proved that MAUROP alluded to 
 1 John V. 7, and did not question the authenticity of 
 that passage. 
 
 VI. 
 
 8tll CENTURY. 
 
 The author of the Greek Nomocanon, who must have 
 lived at least in the 8th century, says, 
 
 Aura, ra rptot, Harnp xai Y/os xai 
 ro'kyiov Tlvevpa, iv ravra ra rpia. 
 
 VII. 
 
 7th CENTURY. 
 
 MAXIMUS, the Confessor, author of the Nicene Dis- 
 putation, falsely ascribed to Athanasius, says, in that 
 
 work, Ujoos <ta TOVTOH; Tracri xai Io>v^rjs (paffxs* xai 01 rpeis TO 
 iv siffi. 
 
 Now, as Maximus has never been suspected of mysti- 
 
75 
 
 cizing the 8th verse, in any part of his writings ; and as 
 we know from experience that the Greeks universally 
 never understood 1 John V. 8. of the Holy Trinity ; 
 it is clear that he took these words from 1 John V. 7. 
 Besides, if he had the first passage (i.e. ver. 8.) in 
 view, he would and must have said, Ei$ TO lv eian. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 5th CENTURY. 
 
 Bishop THEODORITE, in his First Dialogue against 
 Macedonius, makes a partisan of that Heretic say, n- 
 
 Aiv TA TPIA 'EN Aeyw. 
 
 The Orthodox replies: To*s V7ro0r<re<ni/ ov% eV, AA 
 
 rpta. 
 
 The Heterodox therefore used this phrase, as well as 
 the Orthodox. The only question was, How were the 
 TPIA and the C EN to be explained ? 
 
 We know, that some ascribed this Dialogue to Atha- 
 nasius. It is also usually printed in the Editions of 
 Athanasius's Works. 
 
 IX. X. 
 
 4th CENTURY. 
 
 GREGORY NAZIANZEN, as I have proved, held 1 John 
 V. 7. to be authentic. But so did another author of this 
 century: I mean the author of the Dialogue entitled 
 Philopatris, or Didascomenus' 11 . A passage in this Dia- 
 logue plainly betrays that he was acquainted with 
 
 (71) Though Lucian may not have been the author of the Philo- 
 palris, yet it is certain that this work must have been written at least 
 in the beginning of the 4th century. 
 
76 
 
 1 John V. 7. CAVE, and others, made the same re- 
 mark, long ago. Permit me to offer my sentiments on 
 the subject. 
 
 The passage is as follows : 
 
 The Pagan, who personates Critias, and endeavours, 
 in this Dialogue, to turn Christianity into ridicule, puts 
 a question to Triphon, who represents the Christian : 
 K/ nva e7ro/jLO<re0fJLOU ye ; 
 
 Triphon replies : 
 
 *Y\^f/xe5oi/T 0ov, yueyai/, ufi/Sporov^ ovpavicovot.) Y/ov YIvtTpo$ t 
 
 \\VEVfJLO. ex nT(OOS K7TOpVO/JiVOV, 'EN EK TPI12N, XCU E3 
 
 'ENO2 TPIA, ravTO, vojju^s tyv<*t TOV <T tiyov Qsov. 
 
 Critias rejoins : 
 
 A/o/^/z/v /xe ^/Jao-xe/?, xou opxoq tj wpi0fitjriKtj K/ yap ao/5- 
 fieei<; &s N/XO/X^OS 6 Tepacnjvo^. Oux oitiot yap n hsystg 'EN 
 TPIA, TPIA C EN 7a . 
 
 The 'Ev ex Tpicov, E^ ei/o? rpta, Ev rpia, Tpta eV, must 
 therefore have been well-known and solemn forms of ex- 
 pression among Greek Christians in the 4th century. 
 Now, whence may the reviler have derived them? I 
 think the most natural answer is, " Undoubtedly from 
 the same source whence he derived the immediately 
 
 preceding, Y/o? IlaTjOO?, Hvev/Jia ex nT|OOs etnropvofj.evov ; that 
 
 is, from passages of the New Testament." Now, we 
 do not discover, in the Writings of the Greeks, the 
 
 (72) 'EN TPIA, TPIA 'EN, exactly like Gregory Nazianzen and Theo- 
 dorite. 
 
 The Author of the Twenty Questions, falsely ascribed to Atha- 
 nasius, says, in Qurest. IV. 'O Uarrtp KCU 6 Tlos /cat TO n>ey/ia TO 07*0** 
 'EN E2TI KAI TPIA. 
 
77 
 
 faintest indication that they understood 1 John V. 8. of 
 the Holy Trinity. Consequently, nothing remains but 
 that the phrases above-mentioned are borrowed from 
 ) John V. 7. Besides, Triphon elsewhere uses words 
 and sentiments of Holy Scripture without noticing the 
 author, or the passage from which they are taken. He 
 
 says of God, " It is He who ovpavov &? tieppiv et}7rAa>0, 
 
 yr\v oe <p vSaros eTr^ev" The first is evidently taken 
 from Psalm civ. 2 : the second, from Psalm xxiv. 2. 
 
 Among the Latins also, in the 4th century, this ex- 
 pression * Three are one? was familiar as a sacred phrase . 
 Ausonius, in his Poem bearing the name of " Gryphus," 
 says, 
 
 " Tris numerus super omnia, Tris Deus unus" 
 
 XI. 
 
 3d CENTURY. 
 
 ORIGEN, in his Scholium on Psalm cxxii. 3. says, 
 
 T e rpta Kvpios 6 Geo$ r)jj.a>v earn, ol yap rpei$ TO ev curt. 
 
 I am aware that Wetstein, and a certain Doctor of 
 Upper Saxony, doubt the authenticity of this Scholium. 
 But, as they assign no reason for their doubts, their 
 assertions go for nothing. In criticism, we acknowledge 
 no Pope. I see no reason why I should follow them. 
 
 Now, it is remarkable that Origen here says, To lv 
 em. He certainly does not mean the 8th verse; for 
 in that he read, eu; TO lv. And, moreover, he did not 
 explain the 8th verse, as indicating the Holy Trinity, 
 but the triple kind of Baptism. (See Note 56.) The 
 Confessor Maximus also, in the 7th century; whose 
 
78 
 
 testimony I have already adduced, expresses himself 
 exactly like Origen ; i. e. TO 'EN. 
 
 The Second remark ; viz. " No Greek Codex, it is 
 said, contains the words EN TH : TH t , in the text 1 John 
 V. 8." 
 
 I answer, " That is false." Richard Simon says, 73 
 that the Greek Codex 2247, in the Royal Library of 
 Paris 74 , reads, 
 
 'Or/ Tpsis eiffiv ot /uapTvpovvT<; EN TH t FHij TO 7ri>i/yu xat 
 TO vtiup xat TO //x, xat ol Tpeig ei$ TO sv eifft. 
 
 The Third remark, " That there were persons who 
 mutilated the First Epistle of St. John, and expunged 
 passages from it which contradicted their favourite 
 tenets," is proved by Socrates 75 , in the 5th century; 
 Hinkmar, in the 9th 76 ; and Fulbert, bishop of Chartres, 
 
 (73) Histoire Critique du Texte du Nouveau Testament, chap. xvni. 
 p.m. 204. " Par exemple, dans I'exemplaire du Roi, cote 2247. a 
 Topposite de ces mots: e Ort rpeis eiffiv EN TH t FH t , TO irvevp.a. KO.I ro vSiap 
 KM TO alpa c."* Luther also inserted the EN THi THi in the last edi- 
 tion of his German Versions of the Bible. Doubtless he had seen Greek 
 Manuscripts which had these words : for he says himself, that he had 
 omitted 1 John V. 7. because it was wanting in the Greek Manuscripts. 
 
 * [Simon, however, was mistaken. See the foe-simile in Bishop 
 Burgess's Letter to the Clergy of the Diocese of St. David's. TRANS.] 
 
 (74) Neither Mill, nor Wetstein, nor Michaelis, mention this Codex. 
 
 (75) Historia Ecclesiastica, lib. vn. cap. xxxn. Hyvo-^fffv (namely, 
 Nestorius) 6n ev TTJ KaOoXuty 'luavvov ytypairrai fv rots ira\atois airtypa- 
 </>ois, 6rt irav irvevfjia, 6 Auet TOV lyarovv, airo TOV &eov OVK fcrnv. Taurirjv yap 
 rrjv Siavjotav e/c ruv iraXauav avriypa^uv irepiziXov, ol )(< a P l fc lv a7r TOV Tys 
 oLKovofiias avOpuirov POV\O/J.WOI rr)v Qeor-nra. Aio Se ol TroAatot tpfjujveis avro 
 TOVTO fTTtar]fj.r]va.vTo } us rives iev fia$iovpyr)(TavTfs Tt\v fmcnoXtiv \vsiv airo 
 
 TOV 0OU TOV 0.vQp03irOV 0f\OVTS. 
 
 (76) Quidam autem ex eisdem scripturis quredam eraserunt, de 
 quibus revinci timebant, sicut constat Arianos de Evangelio erasisse, 
 
 quod 
 
79 
 
 in the llth century 77 . Therefore it was not the mere 
 hatred of Heretics which induced Epiphanius to su- 
 spect that the Alogi 1 *, who rejected the Gospel and 
 Apocalypse of St. John, because opposed to their 
 theories, may also have rejected his Epistles. 
 
 To the same effect is the celebrated "Prologue to 
 the Catholic Epistles" which is ascribed to Jerom. I shall 
 investigate its testimony hereafter, when treating of 
 Manuscripts. 
 
 quod Salvator ait : quia Deus spiritus est : quoniam credere nolebant 
 qubd Spiritus sanctus Deus esset omnipotens. Quidam eliam de Epistola 
 Johannis erascrunt : " Et omnis spiritus, qui solvit Jesum, ex Deo non 
 est." Ne scilicet per auctoritatem beati Johannis revincerentur. 
 
 (77) Et de Epistola eraserunt: " Et omnis spiritus, qui solvit Jesum, 
 ex Deo non est, sicut Nestorius." 
 
 (78) Epiphan. Hreres. LI. 
 


 GREEK AND LATIN 
 
 MANUSCRIPTS DISCOVERED, 
 
 WHICH SUPPORT 1 JOHN V. 7. 
 
83 
 
 THE FIRST GREEK MANUSCRIPT. 
 
 IN the Grand Ducal Library at Wolfenbiittle is pre- 
 served a Greek Codex (MS. XVI. 7) which contains 
 the Acts of the Apostles, and all the Epistles of the 
 New Testament 79 . I shall call it Guelpherbytanus C, for 
 the reasons assigned below 80 . In the Appendix (B.) 
 I have given a minute account of its contents, and all its 
 various readings ; some of which merit the particular 
 attention of Critics: e.g. Acts i. 18. eAx/<rc: besides, it 
 omits &>$ KaxoTToiav in 1 Pet. iii. 16. 
 
 Three Questions here occur ; viz. 
 
 1. " How old is this Codex?" 
 
 2." Who wrote it?" 
 
 3. " Is it peculiarly interesting as regards 1 John V. 7 ?" 
 
 To the first, I reply: In this Codex there are 
 prefixed to the Acts of the Apostles, and the several 
 Epistles, those Prefaces which we meet in " the Commen- 
 tary of CEcumenius" Therefore it is posterior to the 
 10th century ; and, judging by the shape of the letters, 
 anterior to the 13th. 
 
 (79) I have already announced it, in my Beytr'dgen zur Kritik uber 
 Johannes Offenbarung, pp. 38 92. 
 
 (80) Having designated the two very ancient Greek Fragments of 
 the Four Evangelists (which I revised in my Ulphilas) by the names 
 " Guelpherbytanus A. & B." I thought it adviseable to call this Codex. 
 " Guelpherbytanus C." 
 
84 
 
 As to the second question, " By whom was it written ?" 
 all that I have been able to ascertain is this At the 
 end of the Manuscript stands the following Acrostichon ; 
 viz. 
 
 r At/xe/s ^>i/TJ7Ts iv TOU 
 E PCDV et-oxcog, xai trrepy&v ex 
 11 Kiorra 7rpaei$ roov $s TOU; jjc 
 P rj/j.(x.TCx)v y 
 1 eypot<j)(x, 
 
 O lovei <j}spct)v xat y8Ae7r<u/ 
 T^/ffToty VOJLLOV ffa<JK*>s &>? 7re<pvKvia<; t 
 M ovoi yap ovrot sv apyovq 
 O iKsioxreus TQV v KO.I 
 
 OJJ.CO 
 
 A yaTTijrovs yap rovrovq xAe< xat <j>iKovq 
 X $ rj %(0 rctiv avTep vreTroiOoTcov 
 O i/? ye x/ 7TjOe<ry8e/s TTjOO? WOTOV 7rpo<rxahovf4<xi 
 Je /$ TOI/ 
 
 From these Iambics, we perceive that the writer un- 
 derstood Greek, and that his name was GEORGE. By 
 putting together the initial letters of each line, we form 
 the words TEQPriOY MONAXOY. 
 
 GEORGE, therefore, was a Monk. The age, as well 
 as the hand-writing, clearly distinguish him from the 
 George whom I have already mentioned in page 43. 
 
 Lastly ; to the question, " Is this Codex peculiarly 
 interesting as respects 1 John V. 7 ?" I reply, Yes ! and 
 for the following reasons : 
 
 (81) It should be, ^otTTjray. 
 
 (82) Instead of rjSvraras. 
 
85 
 
 In this Codex, the same hand which has written the 
 text, has also noted in the margin, opposite those pas- 
 sages of Scripture which are read in the public worship 
 of the Greek Church, the day on which they severally 
 occur. Codices of this kind deserve the attention of 
 Critics in many respects 83 . But what chiefly attracted 
 my notice to this Codex was, that we know, from the 
 Apostolus*\t\iai, in the Greek Church, the latter part of 
 the First Epistle of John (Le. from the 20th verse 
 of the 4th chapter to the end of the Epistle) was 
 read on the Thursday in the thirty-fifth week after 
 Easter. Now, the modern Apostolus, in this Lectio, 
 reads 1 John V. 7. exactly as we have it in our printed 
 Greek Testaments. If the Apostolus had remained, 
 from its origin, without any alteration whatever, it would 
 have been a witness to the authenticity of this cele- 
 brated text, of more than one thousand years standing. 
 But no one can assert that it has so remained. Still, it 
 would be labour well bestowed, to collate several 
 ancient Manuscripts of the Apostolus, for the sake of 
 this clause. 
 
 At the 20th verse of 1 John IV. this Wolfenbiittle 
 Apostatized Codex has a marginal note in red letters ; viz. 
 
 TJ; e T/7s Ae' e/3cJ. 
 
 Eager to ascertain whether it read exactly as the 
 
 (83) This was already perceived by llichard Simon : Histoire 
 Critique du Texte du Nouveau Testament, Part I. cap. xxxui. 
 p. 249 ; viz. " J'ajouterai settlement icy" &c. &c. 
 
 (84) Such is the title of the Greek Liturgy ; wherein are prescribed 
 the several TleptKoirai, or Lessons, out of the Acts and Epistles, which 
 were then, and still continue to be, read in public worship, on stated 
 days. 
 
86 
 
 modern Apostolus does, I carefully perused the Lectio. 
 But ! it wants 1 John V. 7. That clause is written in 
 the margin, and by a much more recent hand. 
 
 In another respect, however, this Codex richly re- 
 warded my industry ; for it reads thus : 
 
 KOU TO TTVev/JLO, IffTl TO fJ.<X.pTVOOVV. OTl TO TTVEVfJia IffTIV 1] d\rj" 
 
 Beta, OTI 01 Tps7$ eiaiv ol /j.apTvpovvT$. TO TTi/evpw. TO v$wp. nai TO 
 aT/ma. KOU ol Tpeis, e/s TO ev elfftv. el TIJV papTvpiav T>V. x. T. A. 5 
 
 Hence it appears : 
 
 First. This Codex augments the list of those which 
 omit 1 John V. 7. At the same time I must observe, 
 that the copyist frequently omits passages of the text 
 of 1 John, but in such a manner as evinces both his 
 negligence and haste ; e. g. 1 John XL 22. wants the last 
 words of the verse TOV UaTspa KM TOV Y<W : in like manner, 
 the TTS, with which verse 23 begins, is wanting. Again, 
 verse 27 wants the conclusion, ^VSITS ev av : verse 28 
 wants the beginning, xat wv Texvia : 1 John IV. 16. wants 
 the conclusion, */ 6 0eos ev my. From these examples, 
 we perceive that the copyist's omission of certain 
 passages of the text may have been occasioned, not 
 always by the various readings of Codices, but also by 
 words of similar sound. Therefore he is not a perfectly 
 safe witness in this matter. 
 
 But further, to our Second point. This Codex has a 
 new reading; one which, as far as I can learn, is hitherto 
 wholly unknown ; namely, OI Tpets ewv ol papTvpowTt-s. 
 The OI in this passage occurs in no other Codex : 
 
 (85) I have retained the accents and points exactly as they are in 
 the Manuscript. 
 
8? 
 
 and therefore it is probable, that the Codex, from 
 which this was transcribed, contained 1 John V. 7 ; for 
 otherwise the existence of this OI is inexplicable. The 
 careless eye of the copyist overlooked the former part 
 of the 7th verse, caught the concluding words, (reading 
 them 'OTI instead of Ou 86 ol rpets,) hurried thence to 
 the following verse (8th), and read in it EIZIN 01 MAP- 
 TYPOYNTEZ &c. &c. The instances of his negligence 
 which I have already adduced, justify this conjecture. 
 
 While in the act of writing this, I am put in possession 
 of the learned Archbishop EUGENIUS'S Criticisms on 
 1 John V. 7 ; which add fresh importance to the read- 
 ing I have discovered ; viz. OI rpeis. It is a voucher, 
 that the Codex, from which this was transcribed, had 
 the 1 John V. 7. Brevity compels me to refer my 
 readers to the Appendix (C.) 
 
 Thirdly. This Codex omits the x/ which generally 
 precedes TO v$&p. The Codex Basileensis (called in 
 Weststein, Cod. 4.) omits it likewise. I shall add a 
 third witness to this reading; namely, the Greek Monk, 
 JOHN DE BRYENNE, as early as the Codex Basileensis 
 just quoted. The oldest testimony therefore for these 
 variations, as yet discovered, is the Codex Guelpherby- 
 tanus C. 
 
 (86) It is perfectly possible that the similarity of sound may have 
 led the transcribers to read ort, instead of ovroi. But there is a fur- 
 ther reason. In all Manuscripts written in Uncial characters, small 
 letters are occasionally interposed between the larger ones, where the 
 width of the line is insufficient for the latter. Thus, for instance, 
 Cod. Guelph.A. Matt. i. 11. BABYAo>Nos. (See my Ulphilas, cap. iv. 
 . 124.) Consequently, if OUTO* were written thus, OuToI, it was easy 
 to read on instead of ovroi. 
 
88 
 
 THE SECOND GREEK MANUSCRIPT. 
 
 IN the Wolfenbtittle Library, there is a Greek 
 Manuscript containing the First Epistle of St. John. 
 This Manuscript is curious, and may be regarded in 
 two points of view. 
 
 In the first, it would seem entitled to no attention ; 
 for, 1st, It was written in the 17th century. 2dly, The 
 text is divided into our ordinary chapters and verses. 
 3dly, The Various Readings of the Vulgate and Syriac 
 Versions 87 , and of Vatablus', Castalio's, Erasmus', and 
 Beza's Latin Translations, are noted underneath the 
 lines of the text, which stand unusually distant from 
 each other. It was therefore the writer's intention to 
 compare those several Versions with the Greek Text. 
 What induced him to do so ? Verily, I cannot guess. 
 But the circumstance is remarkable. 
 
 The Readings of the Greek Text are of no material 
 importance. My readers may consult them below 88 . 
 
 (87) It quotes the Syriac in Latin. 
 
 (88) Variations, according to the Text of Mill : 
 Cap. I. 9. Tu.5 djiapnas * TTKTTOS [* rj/j.cav 
 
 II. 6. o' Ae7&>i/ * avT(f [* / 
 
 7. ao\<poi * juov [* -f- fj.ov 
 
 8. on * (TKoria [* 77 
 
 23. e^ei *o ofj-oXoyow rov Ttov /cat rov riarepa e^et [* + o* 
 6/jLo\oy<4)v TOV Tlov K.O.I TOV Tlarfpa, ex t ' 
 
 III. 19. KOtpSiay *v/J.w [* loco v/J,(0i> 
 20. wa/jStas * vpwv [* loco f]p.<v 
 
 IV. 17. ayain) ^e9' *v/iuv [* loco TJ.UWV 
 V. 14. O.KOV I * V/J.W [* loco /jnivr 
 
89 
 
 But in the other point of view, this Manuscript be- 
 comes worth attention. For, 1st. The text reaches 
 only to the 19th verse of the 5th chapter. Immediately 
 after the verse it adds, 
 
 Icoavvov c7TrroAi) xadohtKtj -rrp&rii eypafa cm^oiq ffoy'. 
 
 It therefore determines the number of the tm^ci to be 
 the same with those of the Codex Montfortianus and the 
 Codices Stephani. 
 
 2dly, This Manuscript transposes the 12th and 13th 
 verses of the 2d chapter ; thus : 
 
 art yvooKare TOV 
 veaviffxot, OTI vevuftjuaTe TOV Trovjjpov. Tpa^xa VJULIV, 
 
 OTl (X.d)S(t)VTOU VfUV Oil yU.jOT// OlOi TO OVO/J.(X, OC.VTOV, 
 
 art evwxaTS TOV 
 
 Now I have not found this transposition in any other 
 Codex. 
 
 Sdly, This Codex has VJUL&V, where all the rest have 
 
 But to the main point: This Codex has UohnV. 7. 
 exactly as we read that verse in our printed Editions. 
 
 I shall here exhibit it in its complete Manuscript 
 form 89 : 
 
 c '0r Tpvs 
 
 eiffiv 
 
 ol 
 
 papTvpowes 
 
 iv 
 
 Quoniam tres 
 
 &nnt 
 
 qui 
 
 testantur 
 
 in 
 
 Quoniam 
 
 
 
 
 
 testirnonium dant 
 
 in 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 testificantur 
 
 in 
 
 (8D) The sign (v) denotes omission ; and ( ) agreement with the 
 Latin Versions which precede. 
 
TCi> 
 
 coelo, 
 
 90 
 
 Pater, 
 
 o Aoyos, 
 Sermo, 
 
 Verbum 
 
 et 
 
 TO c 'A.yiov 
 Sanctus Spiritus : 
 
 Sermo 
 
 nai 
 
 et 
 
 OVTOl 01 
 
 hi 
 
 tres ununi sunt. 
 
 But to explain the Latin Variations, I must here sub- 
 join the first lines of the 1st verse of this Epistle ; viz. 
 
 'O tjv TT' WjO^Jfc, o rxxijxoa/x^. 
 
 Cast. Quod fuit a principio, quod audivimus. 
 Syr. erat 
 
 Vulg. fuit ab initio 
 Erasm. erat 
 
 Bezal. a principio 
 
 This Codex may be called Guelpherlyianus D. 
 True, its testimony, as far as hitherto known, is of very 
 little weight ; but still it contains something remarkable, 
 and deserving further attention. 
 
91 
 THE THIRD GREEK MANUSCRIPT. 
 
 OUR great Luther wrote two Commentaries in Latin, 
 on the First Epistle of St. John. One of them was 
 first published at Leipsic, in 1708, by Dr. Joh. George 
 Neumann 90 . Jacob Sprenger (also called Probst) re- 
 sided at Wittenberg, from 1522 to 1524; and wrote it 
 down from Lectures which he heard Luther deliver. It 
 shews that Luther at that time rejected 1 John V. 7. as 
 spurious; for he says 91 , 
 
 " V, 7. There are Three that bear record in heaven, the 
 Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost ; and these three are 
 one." 
 
 " These words are not found in the Greek Bibles. 
 But it seems as if that verse was interpolated by the 
 Orthodox, on account of the Arians ; and very impro- 
 perly, because John does not speak here, or elsewhere, 
 of the witnesses in heaven, but of the witnesses on 
 earth." 
 
 Luther therefore, at that time, knew no other Greek 
 Manuscripts than such as wanted 1 John V. 7. For 
 the ground on which he admitted any text of the New 
 Testament to be authentic, was its existence in Greek 
 Manuscripts 92 . We see therefore, in the words quoted, 
 
 (90) See the Preface (p. 18.) to the IXth Vol. of Luther's Entire 
 Works : Walch's Edition. 
 
 (01) 1. c . p. 1059. 
 
 (92) In this Commentary, and at the 6th verse of Chapter V. 
 (" And it is the Spirit that bearclh u.'t>iess^ because the Spirit is 
 
 truth") 
 
92 
 
 the reason why this cautious man omitted this text in 
 his German Translation of the Bible. 
 
 The other Commentary, and which is here the most 
 worthy of note, was rendered into German, from an 
 Autograph Latin Manuscript of Luther's, by the late 
 Rambach, when he was Deacon of the High-Church at 
 Halle. It was inserted, for the first time, in Vol. IX. of 
 Walch's Edition of the Entire Works of Dr. Luther. 
 Perhaps the great and venerable Consistorial Coun- 
 sellor, Walch of Gottingen, who is so well versed in 
 Ecclesiastical History, possesses more accurate infor- 
 mation respecting this Commentary. 
 
 It is perfectly evident that Luther prepared this 
 Commentary according to the Original Text 93 . It bears 
 internal evidence that it is junior to the one written 
 down by Jacob Sprenger 94 ; and also, that Luther com- 
 posed it shortly before his death 95 . 
 
 truth ") he says, 24 : " In the Vulgate it reads thus, " Et Spiritus 
 cst qui testificatur quod Christus est veritas" Here, then, the texts vary 
 from each other ; and it is possible, that, in the old Version, the word 
 * Christus' was substituted for ' Spiritus.'' Christ, indeed, coraeth by 
 blood and water ; but yet it must be added, that though this Gospel 
 be preached, still no man receiveth the same, unless the Spirit accom- 
 pany it. Therefore said John, " It is the Spirit that beareth witness in 
 our hearts^ that tlic Spirit is truth.' 1 ' 1 
 
 (93) See Cap. I. 5. 13. Cap. II. 8. Cap. III. 23. 36 ; but 
 chiefly 1 John V. 6, " And the Spirit beareth witness ; the Spirit is 
 truth." 41, 48, 43. 
 
 (94) I ground this assertion on the following words of Luther ; viz. 
 p. 1147. he says, " Mr. Winkler, Preacher at Halle, has been strangled. 
 This also is a piaculum ; the earth being not as yet purified." 13ut 
 this murder took place in 1527. Luther also quotes, in this second 
 Commentary, his War Sermon against the Turks, (p. 1182,) which was 
 printed at Wittenberg in 1532. 
 
 (95) This appears from the following words: viz. In p. 1139, 
 
 Luther 
 
93 
 
 This Commentary then, I assert, plainly shews that Lu- 
 tlier had altered his opinion of 1 John V. 7. shortly before 
 his death, and acknowledged that text to be valid and au- 
 thentic. 
 
 For, on V. 7, " For there are three that bear record 
 in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; 
 and these three are one ;" he says, 23. " This is the 
 testimony in heaven, which is afforded by three wit- 
 nessesis in heaven, and remaineth in heaven. This 
 order is to be carefully noted ; namely, that the wit- 
 ness who is last among the witnesses in heaven, is 
 first among the witnesses on earth, and very properly." 
 And on the 6th verse of the Vth chapter he says, 
 . 15. " This passage is certainly difficult and obscure. 
 John here adduces a testimony that Jesus is the Christ. 
 His theme therefore, or main topic, is, the testimony 
 that Jesus is the Christ ; or wherewith is it proved that 
 he is the MESSIAH or CHRIST. For this purpose he 
 (*. e. John) appeals to a twofold testimony : the one is in 
 heaven, the other on earth. Both also have three wit- 
 Luther says, " Peter admonishes us, ' Let none of you suffer as a thief 
 or a murderer ; but if he suffer as a Christian, let him glorify God on 
 this behalf.' 1 Pet. iv. 15, 16. It is quite notorious, that the Elector 
 of Saxony never acted dishonourably ; and yet, because he confesses 
 Christ, he is rejected, and exposed to great danger." "What Luther 
 here observes of the Elector of Saxony, best suits the times after 1544, 
 when many charges, complaints, and accusations were lodged against 
 the Elector, and they would fain have assaulted him with an armed 
 force. One passage more, p. 1247 : " We see that Satan is not idle. 
 By the revolt of the peasants, he put every thing in commotion (in 
 the year 1525). Then he sent the Turks (1542) : and now we are 
 overwhelmed by the dissensions between numerous princes, republics, 
 and cities," (after 1544.) 
 
94 
 
 nesses; because, * in the mouth of two or three witnesses, 
 truth is established.' " 
 
 " 16. John therefore adduces a testimony where- 
 with he intends to prove that Jesus is the Christ. 
 Now, this testimony is a testimony of God, and not of 
 man : for the Father testifieth of his Son. If we re- 
 ceive the witness of men, (saith John, ver. 9.) the wit- 
 ness of God is greater, which he hath testified of his 
 Son. But this divine testimony is twofold. It is given 
 partly in heaven, partly on earth : that given in heaven 
 has three witnesses, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost : 
 the other, given on earth, has also three witnesses; 
 namely, the spirit, the water, and the blood." 
 
 Unquestionably then, Luther, shortly before his death, ac- 
 knowledged the clause 1 JohnV. 7. to be the words of the 
 Apostle John. Consequently he must, at that time, have dis- 
 covered Greek Manuscripts which contained it. For he 
 rejected it in his first Commentary, as we have already 
 shewn; solely, to use his own words, " because he did 
 not find it in the Greek Bibles." And now I may 
 reasonably ask, " Is it then so great a crime to have 
 inserted 1 John V. 7. in Luther's Translation of the 
 Bible, after his death?" Posterity has done nothing 
 but what Luther himself would have done, had his life 
 been spared. 
 
 Further : It is known that the clause 1 John V. 7. is 
 found in the Codex Montfortianus, in the Codex Ravianus, 
 and in the Complutensian. I mu&t here refer such of my 
 readers as wish to satisfy themselves that those three 
 sources deserve the utmost attention, to Mill; and 
 
95 
 
 more particularly to two Classical Authorities in this 
 department; namely, the Rev. JOHN MELCHIOR GOEZEN, 
 of Hamburgh M ; and the Chevalier MICHAELIS 97 , 98 . 
 
 I had almost forgotten our ancient champion, the 
 PROLOGUS of Jerome ; of whose assistance our fore- 
 
 (96) Goezen's Works on this subject are : 1. Vertheidigung der Com- 
 plutensischen Bibel, insonderheit dcs Neuen Testament, (Defence of the 
 Complutensian Bible, especially the NewTestament,) Hamburgh, 1765. 
 2. Ausfuhrlichere Vertheidigung des Complutensischen Griechischen Neuen 
 Testaments, (Enlarged Defence of the Complutensian Greek New Tes- 
 tament,) Hamburgh, 1766. 3. Fortsetzung des Ausfuhrlicheren Ver- 
 theidigung &c. &c. (Continuation of the Enlarged Defence &c. &c.) 
 Hamburgh, 1769. 
 
 (97) See the 1st Vol. of his Introduction to the Holy Scriptures 
 of the New Testament, 3d. Edit. 106. p. 670682 ; also 95. 
 p. 538540. & pp. 544 560. 
 
 (98) According to the ' Specimen Characteris ' of the Dublin Ma- 
 nuscript of 1 John V. 7. which the learned Irish Bishop, William 
 Newcome, sent to our celebrated Professor Bruns of Holmstadt, the 
 text of that clause runs thus : 
 
 Kal TO Tlvevfj.d e<rn TO /jiapTvpovv, 'QTI o XpiffTos tffriv aArjOem* art 
 T/>e?s flfftv ol fAupTvpovtnfs ev T<$ ovpavw, rior^p, Ao^os, Kal HvevfJia ayiov, 
 Kal OVTOI ol TpeTs, fV fieri '.' Kal rpeTs fiffiv ol iJt-aprvpovvres tv Trj yy, Tri/eu/ia, 
 vSwp, KO/ aT/xa, t rrjv /Aaprvpiav TUV avBowittav Ao/ijSofo/xey, j [Aaprvpta TOV 
 eow jueffajj' fffT\v, on avry tffrlv 97 {.utprvpia TOV eou, 'on /tc^topTuprjKe 
 irepl TOV Tlou UVTOV. May not these two dots ( ) before and after the 
 words o Xpurros IGTIV d\ijOeia,' 6Vt, be intended as a critical mark that the 
 Transcriber had something to notice about them perhaps the word 
 XpiOTos ? I take this observation from Vol. III. of the Repertorium 
 fiir Bibliscne und Morgenlandische Literatur, (Repertory for Biblical 
 and Oriental Literature,) pp. 358360*. 
 
 * [If the " Transcriber" alluded to is intended for the Writer of the 
 Codex Montfortianug, Knitters conjecture respecting " the two dots " 
 is erroneous. They are merely the ordinary signature over the <c?ra, 
 especially in the word HTI. That word occurs seventy-three times in 
 the First Epistle of John (Cod. Montfort); and in seventy-two of these 
 the iwTa is double-dotted. I examined the Codex myself. (See also 
 the Fac-simile in Bishop Burgess's Selection of Tracts on 1 John V. 7. 
 p. 122., and the observations on the dotted t and u in p. 124, 125. 
 TRANS.] 
 
96 
 
 fathers were so proud, and waxed so valiant, when they 
 fought for 1 John V. 7. 
 
 " But surely ! such a palpable Monkish fiction ! 
 and at the close of this enlightened 18th century! 
 What gross ignorance of Modern Criticism ! " 
 
 Unfashionable enough, I confess ; but before you pass 
 sentence on me and my authority, be so tolerant as at 
 least to hear what we have to say. Here is our apology. 
 
 None will deny, that the celebrated ' Prologus in Epi- 
 stolas Canonicas' (Preface to the Canonical Epistles) was 
 already known, as an anonymous work, so early as the 
 7th century. It was not announced to be a production 
 of Jerome's until after-ages. 
 
 The author of this Preface testifies, ' that the Greek 
 Manuscripts read 1 John V. 7.' Such an assertion 
 cannot possibly be regarded as an absolute falsehood, 
 in every point of view ". For we have already re- 
 marked, that MAXIMUS the Confessor, in the 7th cen- 
 tury, and other ancient Greek Authors, quoted 1 John 
 V. 7. And therefore, if we would judge fairly, that is, 
 by the scale of probability (which I conceive we should 
 always do), then it must at least be inferred as certain, 
 from this Preface, that those Greek Manuscripts with which 
 its author was acquainted, read 1 John V. 7. We readily 
 admit that the good man erred, when he argued from 
 the Manuscripts with which he was acquainted, that all 
 other Manuscripts read so likewise. We admit that he 
 was mistaken, when he accused the Latin Heretics of 
 
 (99) Neither is it untrue what he asserts of the order of the Ca- 
 nonical Epistles among the Greeks and Latins. He does not err in 
 his facts, but only in his inferences ; and of these we make no use. 
 
97 
 
 having robbed us of that clause. But we contend, that 
 it appears credible from his testimony that 1 John V. 7. 
 existed in more than one Greek Manuscript, in the time 
 of the Author of the Preface. 
 
 And that we may examine the correctness of this 
 reasoning more steadily, let us apply it to subjects which 
 we and our antagonists regard with greater indifference. 
 I allude to the Ada Sanctorum. These Acta, notwith- 
 standing they sometimes deal in notorious falsehoods, 
 are not, on that account, absolutely destitute of all 
 truth. On the contrary, they continue to this day to be, 
 occasionally, authentic and valuable sources of Hi- 
 story. But when ? When they record occurrences of 
 the times of their Authors : when these occurrences 
 are not unusual; nay, are related also by other writers. It 
 is just so with the Author of the Preface, as regards 
 1 John V. 7. His testimony also evinces that there 
 were many Latin Manuscripts in which that clause did 
 not exist : and this, nobody will question. 
 
98 
 
 LATIN MANUSCRIPTS. 
 
 I HAVE collated Twenty-four Latin Codices in the 
 Wolfenbiittle Library, on 1 John V. 7. The result of 
 my labours I shall now briefly state. 
 
 All these Codices, except one, of which I shall treat 
 last, are posterior to the 9th century, and all contain 
 1 John V. 7. 
 
 TEN of them place the witnesses on earth before 
 the heavenly witnesses. 
 
 THREE of them have the clause 1 John V. 7., not in 
 the text, but inserted either over or under it, or in the 
 margin. It is written however, not by a strange hand, 
 but by the same that wrote the text ; and its place is 
 marked by two small strokes ( ) in the text, after the 
 witnesses on earth. 
 
 ONE Codex reads thus : 
 
 " Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant in ccelo, Pater, 
 Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus, et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres 
 sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, spiritus, aqua, et sanguis. 
 Quidam habent hie ' Et tres unum sunt,' sed non est in glossis. 
 Si testimonium hominis accipimus, testimonium Dei majus 
 est." 
 
 Here the Latin Transcriber has thrust the marginal 
 gloss into the text. The Greeks occasionally did the 
 same with the Original. Witness the Codex Corsendon- 
 censis, in which 2 Cor. viii. 4, 5, reads thus : 
 
 Aea<70/ i?/x9, ev TroAAoi? T&V avTiypot<f>cov OVTWS evptjrat, 
 xou ov xaOctx; 
 
99 
 
 FIFTEEN of them want the words, " Et hi tres unum 
 sunt" in the witnesses on earth. Two have these words, 
 with a line drawn through them. ONE has them writ- 
 ten in the margin, by a different hand. 
 
 ONE has " Films" instead of " Verbum." In this Co- 
 dex it is stated, that "it was written in the year 1315, 
 by a Monachus Ccenobii Eberacensis, named SIGFRIDUS 
 VITULUS." It also contains a picture, representing a 
 calf seated at a table, and writing. In Manuscripts we 
 occasionally find paintings executed by the copyists, 
 which are frequently allusions to their own names. I 
 thought this observation might prove not unaccepta- 
 ble to novices, in the investigation of Manuscripts. 
 
 The oldest of these Codices is designated in the 
 Library, 99 MSt. Weisenb. It reads thus : 
 
 " Quis est qui vincit mundum, nisi qui credit quoniam 
 Jesus est Films Dei. Hie est qui venit per aquam et per 
 sanguinem Jesus Christus, non in aqua solum, sed in aqua 
 et sanguine, et Spiritus est veritas. Quia tres sunt qui 
 testimonium dant, spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis, et tres unum 
 sunt: sicut et in coelum tres sunt, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus, 
 et tres unum sunt." 
 
 This Codex is written in the old Franco-Gallic, or 
 Merovingian letters, and was therefore executed prior 
 to the reign of Charlemagne. Consequently it is false 
 to assert that 1 John V. 7. is not extant in any Latin 
 Codex, hitherto discovered, anterior to the days of 
 Charlemagne. 
 
 It is also worthy of remark, that this Codex reads 
 " Spiritus est veritas" instead of ^ Christus est veritas" 
 Therefore it cannot be said that the reading "Christus 
 est veritas " is peculiar to, and uniformly found in, the 
 
100 
 
 Latin Version 10 . This Codex also omits " in terra" 
 The " sicut et m " and the " in ccelum" as well as the 
 omission of the words " qui testimonium dant" in the hea- 
 venly witnesses, deserve the attention of Critics. Is the 
 " in ccelum " a fragment of some antique and semibarba- 
 rous Version ? 
 
 Meantime, it is evident that, in the days of Char- 
 lemagne, there were two recensions (if I may use that ex- 
 pression) of the First Epistle of St. John 102 . 
 
 (100) At the same time, if we would judge impartially, (as we ought 
 to do when criticizing,) possibly the reading " Et Spiritus est veritas " 
 originated in an omission, and owing to the word ' est. 1 The text per- 
 haps was " Et Spiritus est qui testificatur quoniam Christus est veritas," 
 and the hasty Transcriber may have overlooked the intermediate 
 words ; " qui testificatur quoniam Christus eat." 
 
 (101) Two Codices at Ulm, written in the 19th century, have 
 nearly the same reading as above. One has, " sicut in ccelo tres sunt, 
 Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus, et tresunum sunt" The other has, " sic in 
 ccelo tres sunt, Pater, Verlum, et Spiritus, et tres unum simt." 
 
 Joseph Blanchini gives an engraving of a clause, (Evang. T. I. 
 Vol. II. ad p. DLIX.) from a Codex belonging to Cardinal Passionei, 
 which reads thus : " Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, 
 spiritus, aqua, et sanguis, et tres unum sunt : sicut tres sunt qui tes- 
 timonium dant in coelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus, et tres 
 unum sunt." 
 
 (102) There is a passage relevant to this point in the learned Pro- 
 fessor Adler's (of Copenhagen) Biblische-Critischen Reise nach Rom. 
 (Biblico-Critical Journey to Home): at p. 162, he says, " The Vaux- 
 celles Library of the Philippine Monks (a . Maria inVallicel'a) affects 
 to possess the Original, or at least a Copy, of Alcuin's Bible. This 
 Manuscript (marked B. VI.) is written on parchment, in cursive or 
 running-hand, and has a long postscript : the most important passages 
 of which are : viz. 
 
 ' Codicis istius quod sint in corpore sancto 
 
 Depictse formis litteruke variis, 
 Mercedes habeat Christo donante per sevum 
 Tot Carolus Rex, qui scribere jussit eum.' 
 
 ( In Capit. Carol lib. vi. art. 227.) 
 ' Pro 
 
101 
 
 4 Pro me quisque legas versus orare memento 
 Alchuine dicor ego, tu sine fine vale ! ' " 
 
 It omits the celebrated clause 1 John V. 7, which Alcuin's Recension is 
 said to have recognised : " <$ Sps est qui testificatur qu Sps est veritas, 
 Iju tres sunt qui testimonium dant sps, aqua, el sanguis, et tres unu sunt." 
 The omission " in terra" is supplied in the margin by another 
 hand, which_has also written, close to the " unum sum," "sicut tres sunt 
 q. teslimoniu dant in ccelo. Pater, Verbum, et Sps", et hi tres unum sunt" 
 In the Library of the Benedictines of Casino, (a S. Calisto in Tras- 
 tevere,) there is another Manuscript which perfectly accords with this 
 Bible in all the passages we have quoted, and even in the size and 
 configuration of the letters ; except that it is ornamented with minia- 
 ture paintings. It is actually superscribed, " Biblia ad Recensionem 
 S. Hieronymi." In this also 1 John V. 7. is wanting, both in the text 
 and margin. It is subscribed with the name " Carolus" and is re- 
 puted to be of the times of Carolus Calvus. 
 
SUMMARY AND CORROBORATION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 WHOLE EVIDENCE 
 IN FAVOUR OF 1 JOHN V. 7. 
 
 WITH A FEW PASTORAL OBSERVATIONS RELEVANT TO 
 THE SUBJECT. 
 
SUMMARY &c. 
 
 REVEREND BRETHREN, 
 
 LET us now collect into one series, and in their 
 natural order, as they mutually assist each other, the 
 several statements which we have already adduced and 
 discussed. We shall thus be enabled to discern the 
 whole force of the argument steadily, and at one view. 
 
 * Three are one' 
 
 Thus speaketh, of the Deity whom Christians adore, 
 among 
 
 THE LATINS, 
 
 TERTULLIAN, in the 2d century ; CYPRIAN, in the 3d ; 
 PH^EBADIUS, and AUSONIUS, in the 4th. Thus speak 
 numerous Latin Fathers of the Church, ever since the 
 5th century. 
 
 * Three are one! 
 
 Thus speaketh, of the Deity whom Christians adore, 
 among 
 
 THE GREEKS, 
 
 ORIGEN, in the 3d century; The Author of the Didaa- 
 comenus, and GREGORY NAZIANZEN, in the 4th ; THEO- 
 DORITE, in the 5th; ANDREAS CRETENSIS, in the 6th; 
 MAXIMUS the Confessor, in the 7th; the Greek 
 Nomocanon, in the 8th; MAUROP, in the llth; Eu- 
 THYMIUS ZIGABENUS 103 , in the 12th; the Council of 
 the Lateran, in the 13th; CALECAS, in the 14th; and 
 JOHN DE BRYENNE, in the 15th century. 
 
 (103) See his Panoplia Dogmatica. See the learned Professor Christ. 
 Fried. Matthsei's edition of the Seven Catholic Epistles, p. 141, et seq. 
 
106 
 
 In short, Latins and Greeks, in Africa, Asia, and 
 Europe, from the earliest ages, speak of the Deity thus : 
 ' Three are one.' 
 
 " Whence then, (and the question seems to me as 
 natural as it is important,) whence this uniformity of 
 expression, Three are one 9 " 
 
 This question can only be answered from History. 
 Well ! Let History be heard on the point. And first, 
 for the Latins. 
 
 CYPRIAN says, that this expression, 'Three are one,' was 
 employed in the Holy Scriptures, and immediately of 
 the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And Cyprian knew, 
 valued, and studied, the Original Text. 
 
 The same is attested by many Latin Fathers, his suc- 
 cessors ; among whom, also, are men who understood 
 Greek perfectly well. 
 
 And now, more especially, what say the Greeks of 
 this Three are one ? 
 
 The Author of the Didascomenus introduces these 
 words, in the course of expressions which he manifestly 
 borrowed from the Bible, without intending any alle- 
 gory whatever. 
 
 GREGORY NAZIANZEN used the same words, ' Three 
 are one,' and as the very words of Holy Scripture ! " In 
 this sentence," says he, " the Holy Ghost is connume- 
 rated with the Father and the Son." Neither he, nor 
 any other Greek, discovered any Person of the Godhead 
 in the 8th verse of Chapter V. of St. John's First 
 Epistle ; that is to say, Gregory was acquainted with 
 
107 
 
 1 John V. 7. MAXIMUS says, that these words are the 
 words of St. John. 
 
 The same is certified by EUTKYMIUS ZIGABENUS ; is 
 positively asserted by the Lateran Council ; and like- 
 wise by JOHN DE BRYENNE, Chaplain to the Court of 
 Constantinople. It is further attested by the Apostolus, 
 or Book of Common Prayer, adopted by the Greek 
 Church universally. 
 
 This assertion of the Fathers is corroborated by 
 Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament, now in our 
 possession. Considered indeed as Copies, they cer- 
 tainly are modern ; but still they indicate that the Ori- 
 ginal, from which they were transcribed, was ancient. 
 They have 1 John V. 7. in their text. 
 
 The Complutensian Edition, also, whose origin from 
 ancient Greek Manuscripts cannot be questioned, con- 
 tains that clause. 
 
 We find it in many ancient Manuscripts of the Latin 
 Vulgate ; and from the 10th century forward, it is want- 
 ing in very few. 
 
 Besides this, some Greek Manuscripts, in which it is 
 wanting, have such additions to the 8th verse 104 as 
 betray an omission in the preceding verse. 
 
 Nay, even the grammatical structure of the 8th verse 
 is such, as to be inexplicable without the 7th verse 106 . 
 
 As early as the 8th century, it was currently reported 
 in writing, that 1 John V. 7. had been expunged from 
 the Sacred Text. 
 
 (104) e.g. Cod. Reg. 2247. Guelpherbyt. C-,and the Syriae Version. 
 See Note 71. 
 
 (105) See Appendix (C.) 
 
108 
 
 Such are the grounds for the authenticity of 1 John 
 V.7. 
 
 As to the Difficulty ; viz. that the clause is wanting in 
 all Manuscripts, except those mentioned ; it does not in- 
 validate the testimonies adduced from the Fathers of 
 the Church, that it formerly existed in other ancient 
 Manuscripts. For the inference, that " because 1 John 
 V. 7. is wanting in all the Greek Manuscripts extant, 
 except three, therefore the assertion of a few Greek 
 Fathers, that they had read that clause in their Manu- 
 scripts of the New Testament, is false," such an 
 inference, I say, is as lame as can possibly be. Re- 
 member what I have stated in Notes 12 and 13 (pp. 16, 
 17.) and also respecting the weight of mere Difficulties 
 in pp. 1217. 
 
 The other Difficulty ; viz. that the Greek and Latin 
 Fathers seldom quote this clause, is equally unim- 
 portant. And yet, in reality, these two Difficulties 
 constitute the principal reasons why our antagonists 
 expel this 'OMOAOrHMA of so many Ancient Fathers of 
 the Church from the text of Holy Scripture. 
 
 Consequently, whoever wishes to annihilate the au- 
 thority of this clause, must attack its affirmative wit- 
 nesses; i.e. he must prove, to demonstration, that 
 the Fathers, to whom we appeal, were either in error, 
 or stated deliberate falsehoods ; or else, that the 
 passages in their works, to which we refer, are spu- 
 rious and surreptitious ; or finally, that we misinterpret 
 their meaning. 
 
 He must further allege something more than juniority, 
 or a few readings hitherto peculiar to the Vulgate, 
 
109 
 
 against the Greek Manuscripts above mentioned ; and 
 something more than bare suspicions, unsupported by 
 History, against the Complutensian ; if he desires to 
 render both of no weight whatever, in deciding our 
 controversy. 
 
 This I should imagine the most natural, and conse- 
 quently the surest way for our antagonists to take, if 
 they would thoroughly convince me, -and all who side 
 with me in opinion, that we are in the wrong. 
 
 And, now, one observation more an important one, 
 which should never be lost sight of in this controversy. 
 
 Supposing all that I have urged in favour of this 
 clause were conceded to us by our opponents, we 
 should still have secured nothing more than barely a 
 position ; I mean we should have only gained, 
 FIRST : 
 
 That the clause 1 John V. 7. formerly stood in 
 ancient Manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, which 
 are at present unknown. But we must likewise con- 
 cede to our opponents, what they assert of the ab- 
 sence of this clause in Manuscripts of the Original 
 
 Text now extant. 
 
 SECONDLY : 
 
 That the Fathers who quoted it, believed it to be the 
 Word of God: but whether others, who do not quote 
 it, were acquainted with it, or, if they were, doubted its 
 authenticity, and rejected it altogether, is what neither 
 we nor our adversaries know. 
 
 Therefore, having gained this victory, we should still be in 
 the predicament in which wejind ourselves, when about to pro- 
 nounce judgment upon a Reading which stands in some Greek 
 
110 
 
 and many Latin Manuscripts; or, vice versa, is wanting in 
 many Greek and some Latin Manuscripts. 
 
 Now as every citation of 1 John V. 7. in the Greek 
 Fathers must be considered as indicating that there 
 was a Greek Codex which contained that clause ; and 
 if we add to these twelve testimonies, that of TERTUL- 
 LIAN, of CYPRIAN, and of FULGENTIUS, (which we are 
 bound to do, because those three Fathers understood 
 Greek) ; and finally, if we include the Codex Britannicus, 
 the Codex Ravianus, and the Codex Guelpherbytanus D; 
 then the clause 1 John V. 7. is a passage of Holy 
 Scripture, whose existence, as a part of the Original 
 Text, is certified by EIGHTEEN Manuscripts ; one of 
 which is of the 2d century, two of the 3d, two of the 
 4th, and one of the 5th century *. 
 
 Moreover, as the style and matter of this clause per- 
 fectly accord with the diction, turn of thought, and train 
 of doctrine of the Apostle John, to whom it is ascribed ; 
 as it suits the context of the Epistle in which it is in- 
 serted ; and as the heterodox either controverted it or 
 abused it to cloke their erroneous tenets, or, according 
 to a current report, expunged it from several Manu- 
 
 * [Knittel, like many others, confounds the Codex Montfortianus 
 with the Codex Britannlcus of Erasmus. That they are not iden- 
 tical, is proved by internal evidence. I have alluded to this in the 
 Preface. 
 
 The Codex Ottobonianus (298 in the Vatican Library), discovered 
 by Professor Scholz, containing the Acts and Apostolical Epistles, has 
 the disputed clause thus : 
 
 1 John V. 7. "Ori rpets ciffiv ol naprvpowres airo rov ovpavov, Tlcmrip, 
 A7os, KCU Tlv&ifJM dyiotS) KUI ot rpeis fts TO ev eiffi. 
 
 8. Kairpets eiffiv ot (jLaprvpowres airo rys 77/5, TO rrvevpa &c. 
 It is stated to have been written in the 14th century. (See Scholz's 
 Biblische-Kritische Reise, p. 105.) TRANS.] 
 
Ill 
 
 scripts; while, on the contrary, it was held in high 
 estimation by the orthodox, from the earliest ages; I 
 beseech you, Reverend Brethren, to ponder all these 
 circumstances, and then decide, whether 1 John V. 7. ought 
 to be expelled from, or retained in, the text of the New Testament. 
 
 But perhaps I shall be admonished : 
 4 Dicta juvent alios, varians quae lectio mutat ; 
 Atque alii melius membranas verme peresas 
 Incudi criticae reddant ; in codicis annos 
 Inquirant ; prodant scribarum signa manumque ; 
 Inque palimpsestis dudum deleta reporiant : 
 Tu JESU pavisse greges, oviumque magistrum, 
 Qua fuget arte lupos rabidos, docuisse memento. 
 Hie tibi erunt artes.' 
 
 And therefore, away from Critical researches on this 
 text ! And now to its Pastoral Application. 
 
 " Shall we then (it may be not unreasonably asked), 
 Shall we, in our sermons and catechizings, employ this 
 vehemently-disputed clause, as a proof of the existence 
 of the Holy Trinity ; or shall we not? " 
 
 My answer is, ' I do employ it, because I am con- 
 vinced of its authenticity ; and I presume that every 
 one who thinks with me, will employ it likewise. On 
 the contrary, whoever questions its authenticity, or the 
 exposition affixed to it, and not under the influence of 
 fashion or vanity, but after the conscientious exertion 
 of his best faculties, is bound to select other passages 
 of Scripture in its stead. For no man should act 
 against his conviction.' 
 
 But we are further told, that men of the newest and 
 most refined taste in the Pastoral science lay it down as a 
 
112 
 
 general rule of prudence, that " no Preacher should briny 
 forward passages of Scripture in public worship, whose au- 
 thenticity or interpretation are considered dubious, or even 
 objectionable." May I ask, By whom considered so ? Is 
 it by the Clergyman himself, who performs divine wor- 
 ship ? In this case, I have already stated my opinion. 
 But suppose it is not the officiating Minister, but others, 
 persons of distinction and influence, who give the tone 
 to the age in which we live ; whom the hearer, being a 
 literary man knows (aye, and as stars of the first magni- 
 tude), through the means of his circulating library ; pas- 
 sages whose value is depreciated by such connoisseurs 
 are to him destitute of effect ; he smiles when he hears 
 them from the pulpit ; secretly laments his good Pastor's 
 ignorance of modern literature ; takes a pinch of snufF; 
 and, not to appear idle, turns over the leaves of his 
 Hymn-book ! 
 
 So then, this is the reason why the Preacher must 
 suppress Scriptural proofs against his own conviction ; 
 and neglect them in his public discourses, the moment 
 he happens to hear that men of celebrity have ques- 
 tioned, or actually rejected them ! An admirable princi- 
 ple, forsooth ! I should but insult your understanding, 
 my Reverend Brethren, were I to utter another syllable 
 in confutation of such a principle. Blessed be God ! 
 I know (and so do you) many distinguished individuals, 
 but who are also real scholars and honest men (for ce- 
 lebrity too has its rabble) men I say, who, though dif- 
 fering in opinion with me, and many of my Brother 
 Clergymen, as regards this and some other passages of 
 the Bible, would most sincerely, and as Christians, regret 
 
113 
 
 that we should suffer their celebrity to render us blind 
 and faithless to our own convictions. But these are 
 not the influential persons whom the Pastoralist, I al- 
 lude to, intends. No ; his are Gentlemen of a different 
 calibre. Had this teacher of prudence been kind 
 enough to name the parties whom he idolizes, we should 
 more clearly understand what the good man properly 
 means towards us poor Clergymen ! His " distinguished 
 individuals " would soon stop our mouths, on all the 
 truths peculiar to Christianity; because they are un- 
 willing to discover that faith which we confess, in any 
 passage of Scripture ; but are skilful enough, either to 
 reject all such passages as spurious, or interpret them 
 as suits their own views. But in short, if ever a Clergy- 
 man suffers himself to be influenced by the spirit of the 
 age, I see no further need he has of the Bible, con- 
 science, learning, or common sense ! No ! Brethren, 
 No ! If we seek merely to please men, then are we not 
 the servants of Christ ! 
 
 It is with Public Worship as with Schools. An emi- 
 nent character has observed, that " a school constituted 
 according to the prevailing taste of the day, obtains 
 pupils and applause ; but one which improves that 
 taste, is meritorious and opposed." 
 
 And now for one of the newest-fashioned pastoral 
 maxims on this subject ; viz. 
 
 " But bless us! The doctrine of the Trinity!! Is 
 it then actually indispensable in practical Christianity, espe- 
 cially as concerns the multitude 9 Alas ! how many painful 
 disputes, how many quarrels, schisms, and persecutions '; nay, 
 how much bloodshed, would, the Church have avoided, if that 
 
 I 
 
114 
 
 mystery, too sublime for man, had been reverently allowed to 
 repose in the Apostolic pages ; and our pulpits and Professors 
 chairs been wholly silent on the topic l06 / In a word ; Cannot 
 one be a Christian, and love God and man as a Chris- 
 tian, without even knowing that HE, whom we love, 
 worship, and obey as Christians, is TRIUNE?' 
 
 It is thus the Ursacians and Valentines* of the 18th 
 century endeavour at least to disparage a truth of 
 Christianity which they are unable to disprove; an 
 old Sirmian stratagem f, known and practised by the 
 Arians in the 4th century. 
 
 But the Pastoralists to whom I allude, neither deny, 
 nor question, at least publickly, the doctrine of the 
 Trinity. They only ask, as persons usually do who 
 wish to make the answer in the affirmative appear a 
 matter of course, " What ! Cannot one be a real Christian 
 without knowing or believing that God is Triune 9 " 
 
 I answer, No ! absolutely, No ! 
 
 " But why so vehemently No? " 
 
 For the following reasons ; viz. 
 
 1st, To honour and adore God, as He has revealed 
 himself to us Christians in his word, seems to me a 
 matter indispensable in practical Christianity. Now, if 
 
 (106) The good Apostles, it seems, have sadly transgressed this 
 sage rule of our Teacher of Toleration. Had they only permitted the 
 mystery of our Redemption by Jesus Christ quietly to repose within 
 their own breasts, we should have escaped some hundred persecutions ! 
 
 * [Ursacius and Valens were Arian Bishops of the 4th century. 
 TRANS.] 
 
 t [At the Council' of Sirmium (A.D.350.), in which Photinus 
 was condemned, the Bishops who assembled were almost all Arians. 
 (Jortin's Remarks on Eccles, Hist. Vol. II. p.193.) TRANS. ] 
 
115 
 
 God has revealed himself in Scripture, as Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghost, it must be an imperative obligation upon 
 Christians, to adore and honour him as Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghost. And therefore the doctrine of the 
 Holy Trinity thus exercises a material influence on our 
 practical Christianity. Does it not ? 
 
 2dly, To appease my conscience in the practice of 
 those duties which God enjoins on me as a Christian, 
 and also to strengthen my resolutions, are essential 
 parts of my practical Christianity. God, who com- 
 mands me so strictly to " have no other gods beside Him /' 
 God, who so distinctly tells me, both by reason and 
 Scripture, that to remove the guilt and punishment of 
 sin is not the work of a mere creature ; even the same 
 God has commanded me, in the strictest sense of the 
 word, to adore Jesus Christ ; even the same God assures 
 me, that the man Christ Jesus has offered himself a sacri- 
 fice for the redemption of the world ; and that I must 
 believe on Him, in order to obtain the forgiveness of my 
 sins. Now is it possible to appease my conscience, 
 and to strengthen my resolutions, in the duties thus im- 
 posed, without knowing that there is in the Divine 
 Essence, a SON who took upon him human-nature, and 
 became my Redeemer? I say, it is just as impossible, 
 as to obey two contradictory commandments at one 
 and the same moment, with a full sense of their being 
 both obligatory. It was therefore to remove all incon- 
 sistency from the commands which God enjoined me as 
 a Christian, that he revealed his TRIUNITY. 
 
 In a word : I can no more fear, or love, or confide 
 
116 
 
 in God above all things, without knowing his attributes, 
 than I can submit to be baptized in the name of the 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, without knowing that 
 the GOD who commanded me to do so, is TRIUNE. 
 
 Therefore, the Trinity in the Godhead is, to the 
 duties pertaining to the economy of salvation by Christ, 
 what the attributes of God are to the duties inculcated 
 by the light of nature. The acknowledgment of the 
 Holy Trinity includes the judgment, the motive, and 
 the sedative of conscience, in every thing enjoined on 
 us as Christians. How then can it be dispensed with 
 in practical Christianity ? 
 
 As long as it was sufficient for men to navigate 
 merely along the shores of the sea, they required 
 neither the aid of astronomy nor the mariner's compass. 
 But when they had to traverse the ocean, the know- 
 ledge of the magnet and^the stars became indispensable. 
 
 Let us never, then, my Brethren, let us never, I say, 
 propound the doctrine of the Holy Trinity in our pul- 
 pits, or in our catechetical instructions, without ear- 
 nestly impressing on the hearts of Christ's people, its 
 influence on practical Christianity ; '. e. on our hopes 
 and virtues. 
 
 But let us also carefully avoid the fruitless and essen- 
 tially unprofitable, nay, even seductive efforts, to push 
 our researches into this doctrine beyond the limits of 
 Revelation ; and whenever we feel this tendency, let us 
 remember the salutary aphorism of the great Scaliger : 
 
 " Nescire velle quae Magister Optimus 
 Docere non vult, ERUDITA INSCITIA est." 
 
117 
 
 But let us also use it in the inverted sense ; as thus : 
 " Nescire velle, quse Magister Optimus 
 Docere ?ws vult t PERTINAX INSCITIA est.'' 
 
 Finally : Let us devote our entire attention to the 
 passages from which we purpose to deduce the existence 
 of the Holy Trinity, in order to satisfy ourselves fully 
 that they actually treat of that mystery. It is fre- 
 quently with Theologians as with Natural Philosophers. 
 How many of the latter fancy that they discover elec- 
 tricity in nature, where none exists! and how many 
 of the former find the doctrine of the Trinity in the 
 Bible, where the passage relates to something wholly 
 different ! He who discovers this doctrine no-where in 
 the Scriptures, and he who discovers it every-where, alike 
 betray that passion has blinded their judgment. 
 
 And now, Brethren, let me subjoin a few principles 
 on the nature of Mysteries, which I have destined for your 
 Synod. You know what a confused uproar, and what 
 a blind alarm, has been excited, especially by our Cun- 
 ninghame (indeed I might almost say, continues still to 
 be sounded in our ears), against the mysteries of Holy 
 Scripture. I present you, therefore, with " a brief 
 philosophy of what are called Mysteries." 
 
 " But to what purpose ? " you may ask. I answer 
 thus; Distinct ideas of the bearing of any truth fre- 
 quently effect, with those who impugn or defend it, what 
 a clear day does with those who combat sword in hand. 
 If we strike in the day-time, we seldomer beat the air 
 than if we smote by night. Many a blow given by one's 
 enemy in the dark is avoided on the approach of light. 
 
118 
 
 The relative forces of the contending parties are then 
 better adjusted, and more discernible. 
 
 Then, too, the man who, during the darkness, was 
 only a hearer of the strife between the combatants, is 
 enabled to decide upon their respective strength or 
 weakness. 
 
 I therefore present for your acceptance just five-and- 
 twenty Propositions to that effect. After taking all pains 
 to write with brevity and condensation, I find it impos- 
 sible to reduce that number. 
 
 PROPOSITION I. 
 
 No rational man, I presume, can doubt that things 
 exist, whose intrinsic possibility we cannot discern, for want of 
 knowing their connection. Therefore there are MYSTERIES 107 . 
 PROP. II. 
 
 Every thing that exists, must have intrinsic possibi- 
 lity : which, therefore, considered in itself, may be ap- 
 prehended, and conceived. And, consequently, t/tere are 
 no objective mysteries : all mysteries are subjective, 
 
 PROP. III. 
 
 Therefore, to the intelligence which God possesses, 
 there can be no mystery. 
 
 PROP. IV. 
 
 Therefore, that which constitutes a mystery, quasi a 
 mystery, is not founded on the thing itself, but on the 
 relation which our intelligence bears towards it. 
 
 PROP. v. 
 
 The said relation of our intelligence consists of an 
 invincible ignorance. 
 
 (107) What the acute Dr. Less says on this subject, in 40 of his 
 beautiful work on the Truth of Christianity, is exceedingly deserving 
 of attention. 
 
119 
 
 PROP. VI. 
 
 That my ignorance of any subject is invincible, I ex- 
 perience partly by attempts made to dispel it ; partly, 
 and most certainly, by the testimony of HIM who is 
 most perfectly acquainted with the intrinsic possibility 
 of all things, and the extent of the energies of all created 
 spirits. 
 
 PROP. VII. 
 
 Therefore, in mysteries there are two things which 
 must be severally discriminated ; viz. the notion of 
 their existence ; and, the notion of their intrinsic possi- 
 bility. 
 
 PROP. VIII. 
 
 There may be mysteries, whose existence is not 
 known to us : and these may be called Occult My- 
 steries. 
 
 PROP. IX. 
 
 As to Occult Mysteries, there is also a twofold igno- 
 rance ; viz. one as regards their existence ; another, 
 as regards their intrinsic possibility. 
 
 PROP. x. 
 
 The invincibility of my ignorance in mysteries (see 
 PROP, v.) is grounded either solely on a certain state of 
 my intellectual faculties, or upon the essential limita- 
 tions of those faculties. Consequently, there may be 
 Temporary Mysteries, but there may also be Sternal 
 Mysteries. 
 
 PROP. XI. 
 
 Therefore, that which was a mystery to me during 
 this life, may cease to be such, as soon as I pass through 
 death into another life, in which the obstacles which 
 impeded my perceptions here on earth shall be removed. 
 
120 
 
 PROP. XIT. 
 
 That which is an eternal mystery to us human-crea- 
 tures, may be no mystery whatever to Spirits of a higher 
 order. 
 
 PROP. XIII. 
 
 But there may also be mysteries eternal, to all 
 created Spirits. 
 
 PROP. XIV. 
 
 Mysteries whose existence is made known to us, are 
 called Revealed Mysteries ; because nothing further than 
 its bare existence can be revealed to us, respecting any 
 mystery, so long as it continues to be a mystery. 
 PROP. xv. 
 
 Therefore, Revealed Mysteries have a clear and a dark 
 side. The clear side is the knowledge we have attained 
 of their existence ; for we must have a distinct idea of 
 whatever is made known to us. The dark side is the 
 notion of their intrinsic possibility. 
 
 PROP. XVI. 
 
 In revealed mysteries, we know their existence either 
 through the medium of our senses, and therefore by 
 experience ; or we know them only symbolically -, i. e. by 
 evidences. 
 
 PROP. XVII. 
 
 God is an essential object of religious knowledge. 
 But what is God, and what are his attributes, to our in- 
 telligence ? True mysteries ! are they not ? Conse- 
 quently, all [true perceptions of Religion must contain 
 mysteries ; and therefore mysteries are also an essential 
 part of Natural Religion. 
 
 PROP. XVIII. 
 
 The existence of the mysteries which present them- 
 selves in Natural Theology is made known to us by 
 
experience, by contemplating the works of creation. But 
 as creation, however immense, is still but & finite mirror 
 of God and his works, so there may be vastly much in 
 God, and his works, the existence of which we cannot 
 learn from this source of knowledge. Therefore, God 
 may reveal to us mysteries respecting himself, inde- 
 pendent of creation. 
 
 PROP. XIX. 
 
 The knowledge of the existence f such mysteries as 
 are peculiar to the Christian Religion rests on the tes- 
 timony of Holy Scripture, and is therefore symbolical. 
 
 PROP. xx. 
 
 Therefore, the testimony of Holy Scriptures consti- 
 tutes the entire notion which we have of the existence 
 of Christian religious-mysteries. We are therefore 
 bound to subtract nothing therefrom, nor add any 
 thing thereto. 
 
 PROP. XXI. 
 
 As nothing can exist which is self-contradictory, so 
 also there must be no contradiction in that which Holy 
 Scripture has revealed to us concerning the existence 
 of mysteries. In short, they must not be contrary to 
 reason. And therefore, objections which pretend to 
 establish such a contradiction must be confuted, solely 
 and exclusively, from the testimony of Holy Scripture ; 
 for we have no other source of knowledge upon the 
 subject. 
 
 PROP. XXII. 
 
 All true mysteries, and therefore also the Christian 
 mysteries, are above our reason. 
 
122 
 
 PROP. XXI II. 
 
 Consequently, it is vain, and, strictly speaking, un- 
 reasonable, to attempt to illustrate the intrinsic possibi- 
 lity of mysteries by comparisons. For it is impossible 
 for me to illustrate to another person, by any compa- 
 rison, a notion of which I myself am destitute. 
 
 PROP. XXIV. 
 
 Now, as all the knowledge which we have concerning 
 God, is, in the strictest sense of the word, analogical 10 *, 
 so must our knowledge of the mysteries of the Chris- 
 tian Religion be also analogical ; and, consequently, 
 the testimony of Holy Scripture pertaining thereto 
 must be interpreted, understood, and treated accord- 
 ing to that peculiarity ; an important principle, which 
 restricts the inquirer, and curbs the assailant. 
 PROP. xxv. 
 
 Of two objects analogically described, one may have a 
 greater affinity to my sentiments than the other. 
 Consequently, the analogical perception of the existence 
 of one mystery may be clearer to me than the analogical 
 perception of the existence of another. For example : 
 God is omnipresent : God is Triune. Both are mysteries. 
 But my perception of the existence of the first, i. e. that 
 God is omnipresent, is clearer than my perception of the 
 existence of the second, i. e. that God is Triune. Now it 
 was this, I incline to think, which probably deceived 
 our Cunninghame, and betrayed him into the irrational 
 belief that there are no mysteries in our perceptions of 
 Natural Religion. 
 
 (108) Alexand. Gottlieb Baumgarten's " Metaphysical Tart IV. 
 cap. i. sect. 1. 826. 
 
123 
 
 And now, as we are landed on the shores of Analo- 
 gical Knowledge, the Hermeneute (or Scriptural Expo- 
 sitor), and the Logician, invite us to their schools. Both, 
 indeed, deserve to be heard, as well by the Orthodox, 
 as their Antipodes, the Heterodox. 
 
 BUT DO THOU, O SHEPHERD AND BISHOP OF ALL 
 SOULS! SANCTIFY US: SANCTIFY ALL THY FLOCKS : SANC- 
 TIFY THEM THROUGH THY TRUTH : THY WORD IS TRUTH. 
 
 AMEN ! 
 
 FRANCIS ANTONY KNITTED 
 
 Wolfenbuttd, 
 Jan. 7, 1784. 
 
APPENDIX (A.) 
 
 (Seepage 49.) 
 
 I HAVE stated that Maurop interweaves some pas- 
 sages of Holy Scripture into his Discourses. Here 
 follow my proofs. 
 
 2 Tim. iv. 7. 
 
 Ay<uv xaAov ayuviffacrOe "npo<; aAAijAovg avtipes O/JLOV xat 
 
 I Cor. ix. 22. 19. 
 
 O/ Ttavres, TOI/S Ttacri rot -rravrot. yivojAevovg, tva 
 tj 
 
 James i. 17. 
 
 wnav Scepy/Atx, Teteiov av&dev e<rrt xaraflouvov ex TOV ra>v 
 Tlarpoq. 
 
 John i. 9. 
 
 ei p.v TO ^><w? TO ahyOivov -navra avQpcoirov 
 TOV KOfffj.ov, 
 
 \ Cor. xv. 31. 
 
 Tov 9-ava,TOv t 6v JULSTOI Ilat/Aoi/ J/ TO xijpvypa xati* fi 
 
 Rom. x. 18. 
 
 rtjv yqv efyMev 6 <j>0oyyo$ O.VTWV, xai et<; T 
 
 TIJ$ OIKOV/J.SV11S TOt plJ/JLOtTOt <XVTQ>V, 
 
 I Cor. i. 21. 
 
 o xoff/xo oi/x yi/a> TOV 0eo/ - J/a TI;? ffotfrias, o <f>ncrt 
 
 / O 00? Jf TJ? /U<WOI$ TOV XtJV/Ui(XTO$ fftofffX.1 
 
126 APPENDIX (A.) 
 
 Philip, ii. 10, 11. 
 
 'Icoc ev TO) ov opart Itjtrov Xp/oroi/ irav yovv 
 
 xou xara^ov/o>v, xou Troco-a yXaxrffa o/io/a;? 
 
 John x. 14. 
 
 . i$ia KOU ytv6><rxofievo$ VTTO T<WV 
 
 John x. 16. 
 
 &ai ycvijrat fit 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 (See page 82.) 
 VARIOUS READINGS, ERRATA, 
 
 AND 
 
 CORRECTIONS 
 
 OP THE 
 
 CODEX GUELPHERBYTANUS (C.) 
 
PRELIMINARY NOTICES 
 
 TO 
 
 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 THE Collation of the Text is made after Mill's Edition. 
 The Sign $ denotes Grammatical alterations in the Text. 
 denotes omission of certain words or passages. 
 $ denotes the transposition of words &c. 
 + denotes additions to the Text. 
 
 The word Led. signifies the usual additions from the Lec- 
 tionarium to the HepiM-nat or Lessons read in Divine Service. 
 In the Codex they are written in red ink, to distinguish them 
 from the Text. 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 129 
 
 ACT. APOST. Cap. I. & II. 
 
 Cap. I. 4. ffvv<x\ityfjievo<; 7rapjiyy*\\v avrois [* *. + A. 
 8. xi * TTCKffrj [* v recent, superscripsit. 
 11. ? TOV ovpotvov, * OUTQ>S eXevffsTai [* OUTO? o Iij- 
 (Toi/s ava.hr)<t>0i<3 ot(j> VJJLCDV TOP ovpavov, Recent. 
 in marg. adjecit, 
 13. laxoj/Jos, * IcMvvris [* xai. 
 
 16. ypot(f>nv * ^ [* 
 
 17. r\v v ftfj.iv [* ^ pro <TVV. 
 
 18. ysvofjisvoq sAaxi<r /u<ro$, [* ^ loco eAaxf/tr*. Recent. 
 
 in marg. adscrips. 
 
 
 apffafifiav, o? [* + ^ 
 
 24. I/5<^Of * OV ^S\^OJ CK TOVT&V TCOV $VO ll/Oi. fill. 
 
 [* $ pro e'* TOVTCW T&V <$vo eva ov l^eXst-to. 
 
 II. 1. fJffOCP *7Tl/T 0/ULodvjUi(^OV [* - . 
 
 o/ito^f/x5oi' * fin. [* e?r< TO 
 7. W 7rafTe O;TOI [* -f- 
 13. 5e ^^Afft/^ovr$ eAeyoi/. [* + 
 
 fJLfJ.irT(t)/J.VOl l<riV fill. [* }- V. 
 
 13, 14. finem iiiter v.13, et init. v. 14. ap. tv rats i] 
 
 Kiv. Lect. 
 tie 6 IlTpos [* -f- o. 
 17. uyuewv evvKvHMS vv7tvi<A6r]<rovTai. [* ^ 0/5 loco a. 
 
 21. 09 eai' 7r/xA. &C. [* -|- . 
 
 22. init. ev T* fi/mfpats Keivai$, et7T 
 
 TTjOos TovAo/, 'A^5jO<?. Lect. 
 atvopa, fzno()()(y/uivov fin-no TOV QOV f/. [* $ pro TTO 
 
 * nfjii <rtjfj,eioi<; [* xou rspoi.<ri. Recent, in 
 marg. adscrips. 
 27. i$ qdtjv, ovT [* ^ t;/ loco oi/ ; T loco 5. 
 
 ^ 
 
 30. XptffTov xat Kv.0tffai [* 4-x/. 
 
 31. init. 7rpoi$(i>s Kpt rtjs avaffrourecos TOV X ( o<<TTot/ fAA;- 
 
 <rei/ OTI OVK yKf*Thi{f>dti fj &c. [* + e et ? . 
 K 
 
130 APPENDIX (fi.) 
 
 ACT. APOST. Cap. II. & III. 
 
 II. 31. ei$ ^i/, ovre r\ [* $ pro aoov, et * pro ovoe. 
 
 33. TOV Hvevfj.ot.Toq TOV dytov \afiwv [* $ pro rov dyiov 
 
 36. ?rs o/xo>$ I0-0f;A, [* Recent. <o punctis notavit, et o 
 
 superscript. 
 OTf x/ Ki/p<oi> avrov xat Xpiffrov 6 0eo? j $ pro 
 
 OT* Ki/p/oy xa/ Xpiffrov at/Toy o 0eo?. 
 
 38. Trpos avrovq. ev TOUS >//x(0^ CKS/I/. &C. e/7re THerpos 
 TOJ/ AOJ/, &c. Lect. 
 T&> [* < f loco e?r/. 
 ovopart rov Kvptov Itjffov Xpurrov /? [* + rov Kvpiov. 
 40. 7r\eiOffi tiisfuxprvparo, xou. Recent, a notavit, et e 
 
 superscrips. 
 
 7r(0xAe/ avrovs \eyuv '* 
 44. o/ 7r/<rTi/(TvTfis ;<r^ [* < pro 
 
 46. Trpoffxaprepovvres * / T<{) /gjow 6/j.odv/j.a^ov 
 
 [* ? pro opoOvpoibov ev TCW &c. 
 
 47. Ti; KK\t1<ri(f STTl TO l/TO fifl. [* + WI TO l/TO. 
 
 III. 1. / T/S f)fjpa.i$ eattvaiq. Lect. 
 
 init. * IleTpos oe [* err/ TO otvro, hie omissum, 
 
 quia praecedentibus adject. 
 
 ift 
 2. TTOog Tijy ?rt/Ai;i/ TGI* lepov * < Trvfajv loco &upav. 
 
 5. T/ * \afieiv [* Trao' I/T<OI/. 
 
 7. e<rrspE<a6^ffav at fiaaeis avrov KOH [* ? pro fffrspeo>- 
 
 OtJffOiV O.VTOV Oil fi(Affei$ KO.I. 
 
 11. xparovvros tie avrov rov Hsrpov [* ^ avrov loco TOI/ 
 
 x< TOV luavvtjv [* + TOJ/. 
 13. vyue/5 yuev 7rjO5o>xTe [* -f- 
 
 * xara [* I/TOV. 
 18. 7rpo(j>tjT(DV * TtaOttv [* avrov. 
 fin. [* ^ pro OV 
 
APPENDIX (l3.) 181 
 
 ACT. APOST. Cap. III. & IV. 
 III. 19. init. ev ran; ij/xepcc/s exe/Kx/s enre Herpes -npos rov 
 
 \aov. Lect. 
 20. rov npoKS'^eipiffp.evov vptv [* $ loco 7rponKT]pvy/j,evov. 
 
 21 . -navroov rwv aytatv TT' aicovos avrov -noo^r^v fin. 
 
 [* $ TT' auwos . 
 22. init. MawnK/Acy [* + v. 
 
 24. eAaA^o-av * 
 
 25. core ft Y/o/ [* + o/. 
 
 7rTjO5 v/utw*' Atyoii/. [Recent. * L//xo>f correxit 
 
 * r* i 
 
 Xf / T6> T J/< 
 
 26. Trovtjptcov avrov fin. [*<^ avrov pro vficov. 
 IV. 1. init. i> T/S fipepais extivats. Lect. 
 
 \a\ovvrcov tie avrw [Superscriptum est minio : r<av 
 
 2. SidaffKSiv *rov Kaov avrovq nut [ * $ pro avrovs rov \aov. 
 
 5. xat rovg -rrpefffivrepovs [* -j- TOI/S. 
 
 * r* . " 
 
 KOI TOI/S 7jO/U/XT5/ + TOt/?. 
 
 A 
 
 ypot/j,fjuxrei$ ev 'lepovvaht}/* [* ^ f loco ei$. 
 11. Tfov OIKOOO/JWV, 6 [* Recent, linea subducta notavit 
 termination, yucui/, et superscrips. 
 
 1 2. ff&rtjpiok' ovde yap [* ^ 5 pro T. 
 
 ovo/jia erepov etrriv VTTO [* $ pro ovo/ua. e<rriv Irepov 
 
 13. init. / T<? f)/j,epai$ exetvais. Lect. 
 
 5e<u^oi/vTes huic voci minio superscript, nexus Lect. 
 ot lovoatot. 
 
 g| 
 
 14. TOJ/ r avOpwTtov [* ^ pro ^e. 
 
 avOpco-nov aw avrots /3Ar7roi/r? etrrcwra. [* $ pro 
 
 iora>ra. 
 
 16. dvvapeda apveidai fin. [* loco 
 
 17. a-netty a7rsi\r)ffo/jiS0a ai/ro/s [* pro topeda. 
 
 K 2 
 
132 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 ACT. APOST. Cap. IV. & V. 
 
 
 IV. 19. aitoxpiOsvrtq enrov TTpoq avrovs' [* ? pro 
 
 21. TT<U? xoAaowrai avrov$. [* Recent. <w superscripsit. 
 
 22. r\v n i AcwT<yi/ TSffcrapaxovTa [* Rec. terminationem 
 
 o>To)j/ linea delevit, et ovcov superscripsit. 
 
 23. init. ev T/$ rj/uLspfxic exewotu;. Lect. 
 (jntoKvQevreq 5e tjAtfov ob nexum Lect. superscript. 
 
 oi ATTO(TTO\OI. 
 
 24. ffv si 6 0o? [* -f- e/. 
 
 ^ 
 
 32. Kapdia /J.IOL KOH fj ^v^tj' KM [* ? pro tiapbia xat f) 
 
 fj.tr*.' KOU. 
 
 33. Itjffov "Kpiffrov" %|0/? [ 
 
 34. T/S ijv ev [* $ tjv loco V 
 
 35. exa0To> xa^o i/ [* Recent. xaBo correxit super- 
 
 scripto T/. 
 
 37. ^Tra^oiro? O.VTOV aypov, [* avrov loco I/TO>. 
 V. 3. de I mr/oof [* + o. 
 
 8. 5e TTjOos * avrriv 6 Herpoq [* ^ Trpos avryv pro ai/ri;. 
 
 9. Herpes * TTJOO? [* ems. 
 
 12. init. i> T/? rj/jispats SKeivai^. Lect. 
 
 A7ro<rToAa>i/ ey/vero <r/j/i< [* ^ pro eyet/ero. 
 rtpa.ro. TroAAa e/ T^J Aau. [* $ pro repara ev r<a 
 
 15. <u<TT KOU * eiq T? 7rAT<5 [* $ xai /9 loco xara. 
 
 e?r/ K\wapi6t>v xat [* ^ loco xA/fajv. 
 17. o Ap^iepevs xai [* t/ recent, superscrips. 
 
 19. 5/ * VI/KTOS [* TIJS alias hoc superscrips. 
 
 21. xoi/J/xi/TS 3e ev run; r)/j.eprx.t<; eKSivtxiq [* Lect. 
 
 ei<rt)\0ov, ol A7ro<TToAo/, i/TTo [* ob nexum Lect. seq. 
 
 01 A7TOCTTO\Ol. 
 
 22. 5e TTocpayevojuLsi'oi vTujperat, ov% [* $ pro 5e v-jrrjperat 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 133 
 
 ACT. APOST. Cap. V. VI. VII. 
 V. 23. <^>i/Aax<; * IcTTuras [* e<w. 
 
 24. T * o-TjoaTflyos [* tepevs xai 6. 
 
 25. sv * (j>v\a*ri [* TJ? recent. 
 29. fo*nr,,os [* o. 
 
 32. > t/T> <r/if/ [* Recent, linea subducfa notavit 
 U, et superscripsit avrov. 
 
 \\vevfj.a * TO [* tie. 
 
 33. 01 5e f T/$ fj/j.ai<; Exeivai<;. Lect. 
 
 [* <^ loco 
 34. fipaxy * roi/5 [* n 
 36. lavrov fjieyav, &> [* -f-/uy^. 
 
 w 7rpo<reKO\\idnffav avbpcov apiOpos w? rerpax. &c. 
 [* $ pro ^5 Tip(KTexoK\tiO 
 
 TSTptXK. &C. 
 
 39. ov dvvtjarccrtie xar\v(rai. [* $ loco 
 
 41. oTixar^Kadtjarav vntp TOV ovo/j.aro<; rov lijffov arifi. &c. 
 
 [* ? prO OTt VTTSp TOV OVO/JifXTOS OLVTOV Ct -|- I^Of. 
 
 42. cvayy\ioju.evot TOV XjO/<rrov Itjarovv. [* $ pro i/y 
 
 ItJffOVV TOV XjO/OTOI/. 
 
 VI. 8. init. ev T/ fjij.epa.is sxeivat$. Lect. 
 
 nhtjpiis %apiTOs xai [* loco 
 13. 
 
 VII. 2. oMovcraTi jmov 'O [* Recent, subducta linea notavit 
 ymov, et in margine adscripsit : abundat. 
 
 $ pro 
 5. <Wi/af OLVTIJV /5 xaTour%<rtv ai/rcp, xx/ [* $ pro 
 
 10. xai e<f>' 6\ov. [* 
 14. /UTXAO-TO 
 
 pro /u,TxA<rro TOV itartptA avTOv Iaxa>/3 xa/. 
 
 vTot 7TVTe ^i/x/s fin. [* ? pro 
 ffldo/j.tjxovTa -nevTe fin. 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 ACT. APOST. Cap. VII. 
 VII. 15. init. XGM xT/3; [* + nai. 
 * laxwyS [* de. 
 
 16. futyiTt, & &)i/j<TTo [* Recent. delevit, et o su- 
 
 perscripsit. 
 Iy^xO|t) i> Si/^f/u, [* ev loco TOI/. 
 
 17. <fe tiyy'ec o XjOovo? [* $ f P ro <r - 
 
 18. Erepos STT' A/yt/TTTOv, 05 [* + ?:' A/yi/Trro^. 
 20. sysvvtitir) Mwi/Vj??, xa< [* ^ pro Maxrij?. 
 22. xa/ * spyoiq avrov [* v. 
 
 26. xi ffuvrjhAao-ev avrovs [* Recent. fft/^Aaorev super- 
 scrips. 
 
 SffTS 
 
 30. Ki/p/oi/ ev TTI/^O/ ^)Aoyo fiotrov fin. [* $ Kvpiov tv 
 
 TTVQOS flarov fin. 
 3 1 . l&vpiov' * Ey&) [* TJJOOS avrov' 
 
 34. Jei/joo, ct7ro(TTe<A&) <re [* Recent, linea subducta 
 
 notavit, et oreAco superscrips. 
 
 35. SlKafTTVV <j> J7yU5 TOVTOV [* -f" e ^>' iJ/KWS- 
 
 gl 
 
 hvTpooTtiv aTtecrTothKev w [* Recent, in marg. notav. 
 Al. 7r<rT*Aev. 
 
 36. 7ro/^<r? <rij/ie/ x/ reparoi sv [* $ pro -noirvsas, TC- 
 
 poiTa. xat (Tripeta ev. 
 
 37. e<rr/ * Ma>i/<rf;? [* / et o. Recent, i/ et o super- 
 
 scrips. 
 
 * 
 40. yap "Mai/arris OVTOS [* $ M(uvo-j5 loco 
 
 T/ syei/ero OCWTG; [* ^ pro 
 42. /xo< e^ TIJ epijju.(t> erti TCffffapaxovTa, OIKO$ [* $ pro 
 
 >uo/ T7 Teffaapaxovra ev TJJ eptj/meoj o/xoc 
 
 44. TG) Mwi/flr^, TTOHIVai [ 
 
 I/. 
 
 o/ e&paKev fin. Recent, terminationem ei/ linea sub- 
 ducta notavit, et x subscripsit. 
 
 55. TrAijjtwft 7r/ar<s x/ n^ef/xaTO?, [* 4" 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 135 
 
 ACT. APOST. Cap. VIII. & IX. 
 VIII. 2. 7roitj<rav* KOTTSfov [* TO, alius hoe superscripsit. 
 
 5. init. ev rats qjuepfxtg SMivaiq. Lect. 
 
 6. V7TO * ^/A/TTTTOl/ [* - TOV. 
 
 7. POGWTO, fy<avr\ p,eya\ij [* $ pro 
 
 et"t)pxpvTo TroAAo/ [* pro 
 II 
 
 8. 7ei/To 5e %jt> [* -J- Jff. 
 
 12. ovoparos * Itjffov [* rot/ recent, in marg. ad- 
 
 scrips. 
 14. c/Toi/s * nTjOo/ ; [* TOI/ recent, in marg. ad- 
 
 scrips. 
 
 16. ov <Je 7rct> yap [* -J- ^- 
 
 17. TOT enertdea-av T? [* ^ loco &rtsn6ovv, 
 
 18. init. ei/ r/5 fj/nepvus ex.etva.is. Lect. 
 i$o>v 8e [* ^ pro 5<ryuevos. 
 
 21. evBeia evavriov TOV [* ^ loco 
 
 25. e/5 c IffjOoaoAi//u, TroAAa? [* ^ pro 
 
 re xo/xas rwf [* Recent, o delevit, et <o superscrips. 
 
 26. init. / T/ }JyuejO/s exeivotis. Lect. 
 28. urot/, * otveytv&crxs [* xa/. 
 
 30. vay/va><rxoi/TOs 'H<rVav TOI/ 7rpo<f>t]Ttiv, [* ? pro 
 
 aj/ay/vaMrxoi'TO? TOV 7rpo(f>r)Ttiv 'Horaiav. 
 34. o TrpoftjTiis TOVTO heysi ; TTfjO/ [* ? pro o 
 
 fayei TOVTO ; 
 37. ff/7r 5e I/TO>, Ei [* ^ I/TW loco o 
 
 %e<FTlV [* + (TOt/. 
 
 [* TOI/ recent, superscrips. 
 
 39. ai/roi/ %atpov fin. [* Recent, o delevit. et <y super- 
 
 scrips. 
 
 40. init. sv Tat$ fi/u,fpouq exetvais. Lect. 
 
 IX. 2. odov * av$oa$ [* OI/T?. Recent, in marg. ad- 
 scripsit, Al. add. OI/T?. 
 
136 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 ACT. APOST. Cap. IX. 
 
 IX. 3. Ao9u<rx&/ e/^>nfs re OI.VTOV TrepujffTpa^ev (fxas en TOV 
 ) fin. * $ pro Aa/zaaxa)' xou e^a.Kfrvtjs 
 aq TTO TOV ovavov,ftn. $ re 
 
 et sx pro xai et OCTTO. 
 4. ijxovffs (JKDvtis Xeyovaris avreo. [* Recent, ill 
 
 delevit 9, et v superscr. Aeyoi/o-ijs vero termina- 
 tionera <nj<;linea subducta notavit, etai/ superscr. 
 5. o 5e * fy<w [* Kf|0/0s s/Trei'. 
 
 5, 6. 5/<ux/ AA' avacrTtj0t [* ffK\tjpov trot -npo$ 
 
 Kevrpa AxT/^e/V rpe/muv re x* ^a^cov enre' Kvpie, 
 rtfjis ^eAff/s TTOtijaat ; K/ o Ki/p<og 7r/)os avrov. + AA' 
 
 6. <ro^ or/ <re [* Recent, or* linea subducta notavit, et 
 
 in margine adscripsit. (Rect. T/.) 
 
 ft 
 
 10. 7TjOO avrov ev opn^iari o Kvpio$' Avavta. [* $ prOTTjOO? 
 avrov 6 Ki/jOw? ei/ opotfiocrt' Avavia. 
 
 12. ^jO Ai/av/ocv ovojuari eurshOovTOi, [* $ pro avfipot 
 
 OVO/J.OCTI Avavtoti' siffehdovTOi. 
 VT<) ^e/jO5, o^cy? [* ^ pro ^e/(0. 
 
 13. 5e * Avi//s [* o recent, superscrips. 
 15. ffxAoyif? <rr< /uo/ OUTO? [* $ pro 
 
 19. cvt<T%vffev. sv TO.IS rjfAtpais txeivats, syevcro [* Lect. 
 5e * /*rr [* o Si/Ao$. 
 
 20. extipvffffe TOV Iti<rovv, OTI [* ^ Itjarovv loco XjO;0To/. 
 
 21. i/roi/5 onrayayrj eitt [* ^ pro ayayrj. 
 
 22. xc 0ri/i/^e(r TOI/S. [* Recent, ervifexeae linea sub- 
 
 ducta notav. et o-i/i/e^t/ve superscripsit. 
 
 
 24. TrapsTtipovv TO 5e x/ T?7riyA? [* Recent, o punctis 
 
 notav. et # superscripsit. 
 
 25. 5e o/ 
 
 [* $ pro Se avTOv 01 yua0jT<w J/I/XTO?, 
 oia. TOV 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 137 
 
 ACT. APOST. Cap. IX. & X. 
 IX. 28. TOV Kvpiov * cAA [* Itjffov. 
 
 29. ent%tpovv avt\tiv avrov fin. [* $ pro tTTt-^tipovv 
 avrov av\tv. 
 
 32. init. tv rai$ fi/j.spais exetvats. Lect. 
 
 33. avOpoynov * ovofj,an Aivsav, e [* rtva. et $ 
 37. tv TO> vTTpa)<*> [* 4- TO>. 
 
 39. v(rT5 tie 6 IIeT|00^ [* + o. 
 
 40. o IleTpoj, x/ ^e^s [* + x<. 
 
 42. x/ enKTTevffav TroAAo* e?r/ [* $ 
 
 43. eyevero tie avrov fj/tepas laavaf, peivat tv [^ $ pro 
 
 eyevero 5e fyispas ixavas fj.ivai avrov tv. 
 X. 1. init. tv T*S i7/AjO*s exewars. Lect. 
 
 3. (f>avepo>s 6> 7rp/ o> i o' [* < <ws Trepi loco 
 
 4. fj-vrj/jLoyvvov ep-npofOsv TOV Qeov [* ^ loco 
 
 5. TtEplfOV avtipas f/? loTTTTtJV) X(Xt [* $ prO TTfJ,\l/OV /$ 
 
 IOTTTTIJV ttv&paSn xai. 
 
 %ifjLa)voi Tiva. 05 [ -}- T/I//X. 
 
 6. 5A<r<ri/ * fin. [* OUTOS AA^(r< <ro< T< <re 3e/ 
 
 Ttoieiv fin. 
 
 7. AAo>i> ai/Tft), (JKtivtjffots [* ^ pro TCW Ko ( on;A/ct>. 
 9. 6doi7ropovvT<av avrtov, K(M [* ^ pro exeivcav. 
 
 10. Je avTow eyevsro ex' avrov [* ^ ai/Tft)^ eycvero, loco 
 
 11. xarafiouvov * arxevoq [* 7r' ' avrov. 
 
 12. TCTjO7ro5, * xai T j07rT Ti;? -y/js, xew [* 
 
 14. K.vpie' * ov$7tore [* on. 
 
 16. a.v t\r\<$>Qr] 7rvT <c [* $ loco TO 
 
 17. o g/de, * /Jot/ [* xai. 
 aTttffra\fjLtvoi I/TTO rov [* <^ pro TTO. 
 TIJI/ otxtiav rov [* Recent. delevit. 
 
 1.9. FleTjOoi/ ntvOvp.ovfj.tvov * -\-n. 
 
138 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 ACT. APOST. Cap. X. 
 X. 20. (WxjOfyoyuei'os or i syct) [* pro Siort. 
 
 21. init. ey r/5 fip.epa.is sxeivais. Lect. 
 3s 6 IleTjOos [* H~ o. 
 
 avdpas * ente [* rot/s oareffTaty,evovq onro TOV Kop- 
 vtj\iov TTjOos avrov enrev. 
 
 22. axovaai pijyota Trapa <TOI/. [* Recent. pfj/xa linea sub- 
 
 .ducta notavit, et in marg. pti/jLara adscripsit. 
 
 23. eiravpiov ava<na<; 6 Tlsrpos [* + va<rr5. 
 
 r/fes * $5A0<f [* T<uf recent, hoc superscrips. 
 
 OlTtO * I07T7r7$ [* - TJ$. 
 
 24. T/; 5ff eiravpiov [* -f 5e. 
 
 25. 7fo5a$ at/TOt/s < npoffstivvt](rev [* + ^TOI/S. 
 
 26. IleTjOOs tjyeiptv avrov heycav' [* ? pro 
 
 tjyeipe hsycav. 
 avaffTiiQi, xoti yap eya avro$ [* -f -yjO < 
 
 ^ 
 
 28. AAo^>i/Acy* x/xo/ e^ei^sv 6 0eo$ fjn^oeva [* ? pro 
 
 AAo^)t/A(i)' x/ e/ixoz o 0eo? c^e/^e /uujdeva. 
 
 29. /xeT7reyu^>*e/s. itvv0avo/j.ai [* 0. recent, hoc su- 
 
 perscrips. 
 
 30. eon; evai/T/ov yu-oi/ [* loco eva>7rH'. 
 32. x< /j.ETaire/u.\l/at S</ia)i/a [* ^ pro /ueraxA(ra/. 
 
 33. ffo/ t/7ro rot/ Kvptov fin. [* <J pro Geoi/. 
 
 34. init. P ri? ri/j.epais sxetvais. Lect. 
 
 *' r* I 
 
 ffTojma ai/roi/, e/7rev F -p avrov. 
 39. J7/Af$ * ju,aprvpcs [* c<r/xi/. 
 
 e/ * TI; %ay> [* T. 
 oi/ xa/ /eiAoi/ [* -f x/. 
 44. er<, ei/ T/? T)fj.spavi exeivats [* Lect. 
 
 47. v&u/> ^vvarai TI? KcoKvarat, rov jmtj [* $ pro / 
 ri$ rov /u,tj. 
 
 <y x< 17/xus fin. [* ^ loco 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 139 
 
 ACT. APOST. Cap. X. XI. XII. 
 X. 48. ovOfj.ot.rt Irjffov Xpiffrov' rore. [* $ Iqffov Xpterrov pro 
 
 rov JLvpiov. 
 XI. 3. on eiffrjAtfes -npos avdpaq aKpofivarriav s%ovrag, x< 
 
 [* $ pro OTI npos avtipas axpofivanav e%ovra<; 
 
 7. IJKOVffOt O~ X/ <f)Q)Vt1S [* "f" X/. 
 
 8. on * KOIVOV n fj [* ?rav. + T/. 
 
 10. Kfxi aveff-naaBr) iraAtv onravra [* $ pro xeu 
 d-navra. 
 
 12. prioev ^lot-Kpivavra tj\6ov [* ^ loco 
 
 13. ayyehov rov Qsov ev [* + TOI/ Geot/ 
 
 , xa/ [* 
 
 16. eAeyef* or/ Icyavvijs [* + or/. 
 
 17. eyw * T/S [* de. 
 
 18. K/ eoo^affav rov Qeov [* Recent, terminationem 
 
 o-/ linea subducta notavitj ct in marg. tyv 
 adscrips. 
 
 19. ovVy ev rats v/u.epat<; exsivaiq. Lect. 
 StotffTrapevTEs arro rw [* ob nexum lect. ot hnoarohoi 
 
 superscrips. 
 
 20. nvss eKOovres e* [* Recent. \6ovre$ linea sub- 
 
 ducta notavit, et in mar. stcrshOovres adscrips. 
 e\a\ovv xat 7rpo$ [* + ^<- 
 
 21. yuer' ai/Twi/' rot/ ia<rdou avrovs ?roAr/s [* 4- TOI/ 
 
 avrovq. 
 25. Taptrov * avatyrtjo-oit [* 6 Bapm/Socs. 
 
 tvpoiv * l , ijyayev * 2 ? [* ' aurov. * 2 
 28. 
 
 XII. 3. /J ^e OT/ [* ^ ^e pro xa/. $ pro 
 
 7 
 
 5. TOV 0eo/ Treo/ avrov [* ^ loco uT 
 
 6. de e/ueAAe ** npoayayeiv avrov o ' 
 
 [* $ pro 5s e/teAAei' aevroi/ xpoaystv 6 
 
 ** ^ pro Trpoayeiv. 
 
APPENQ1X (fi.) 
 
 ACT: APOST. Cap. XII. & XIII. 
 XII. 8. 5e OVTQ>S. xai [* $ pro our<y. 
 
 10. 5e Tt]i/ Tcpoorrjv [* -j~ TIJI/. 
 
 J?T<? avTOfJMn tjioi^dij [* pro avTopoiTtj. 
 flt 
 
 11. nfiTpos, ev ei/r<w ysyoyuei/os, <TT [* $ pro 
 
 2. init. ev T<S qjj,epou$ exeivous. Lect. 
 
 TS 6 llsTpos r]Kdev [* o IlT|Oos ob nexuin 
 Lect. 
 
 17. oiijyrjffoiTO * Trey? at/ro/$ 
 
 [* 
 $. 
 [* 
 
 19. s * KaTjO;y [* Ti;f. 
 
 20. i/T6>/ * ?ro [* TI;I/ x&pav. 
 
 21. nfup<f * 'llpuSn [* 6. 
 
 25. init. ei/ T/S vjmfpats eKti*ai$. Lect. 
 
 7rAtjpot)<ravT$ [* -f- 
 
 XIII. 1. &*, [* TIW5. 
 
 2. X< * Doct/AO!/ [* - TO!/. 
 
 4. init. avToi psv [* <xt/ro< recent, linea subdue ta 
 
 notavit, et in marg". OVTOI adscripsit. 
 vito TOV fiyiov IIi/etyiATO5, narriKdov [* $ pro VTTO 
 
 TOt/ IIl/l//iaTOS TOV ttyiOV, KMTtJ\6ov. 
 
 eiq * 2>e\cvKiav, [* TIJV. 
 
 /5 * Kl/TTjOOI/ [* - T;v. 
 
 6. tie ohtjv rtjv vrja-Of [* + oA^v. 
 
 3fc 
 
 7. Aoyoi/ TOI/ Kvptov, fin. [ loco 
 
 $ 
 
 8. o /uotyos, OI)T<U? yap [* $ pro-ouTtu. 
 
 12. 7riffTv<reV) X7rAijTToyu^og ?r/ [* <^ loco 
 
 13. init. / T<S tifj-cpais tK.eiva.is, Lect. 
 [* TO^. 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 141 
 
 ACT. APOST. Cap. XIII. & XIV. 
 
 XIII. 15. fx.TreffTsi\av Trpos O.VTOV$ oi apxiffwayayot, \syovr s^' 
 [* $ pro onrsffTeihav 01 ap^iffvvaycoyoi 
 
 15. ei T/S tar iv ev v/uuv Ao-yo? 7rapaK\ncrect)^ [* $ pro et 
 
 sarri Aoyog ev vfJ.iv 7rapaK\iiff(*)<;. + T/S. 
 25. init. et> T*$ rju.e(xis exsivais. Lect. 
 
 TTO&COV OtVTOV KvffOt.1 * 4" O.VTOU. 
 
 26. ravrtjs eJ-onreffTahti fin. [ 
 
 29. TeAe<T^ *7rvr r [* . 
 
 31. olrtveq vvv eurtv avrov ftaprvpes TT/OO? [* $ pro oirives 
 
 etffi /AapTvpes avTov 7rpo$. { vt/r. 
 33. \f/a\ju.q) yeyponTTai T& SevTepai' Y/o? [* $ pro 
 
 TO) Sei/TfjOto yeypa-mai' Y/o?. 
 39. vo/u<u M&ji/<rf<y tiKaicatirivai, [* ^ pro 
 
 41. SavfjiafffXTe, xaie7rifi\e\}/(XTe, xat 
 
 42. 5e t/T<yv **, TT/xpextxhovv 7 ^ /? [* -j- 
 
 ** ex TJJ 
 
 43. avrovs irpofffjLevetv T;; [* ^ pro 
 
 44. TO) '* p%0fji*oi> [* 5e. 
 
 Aoyov TOI> Ki//p<ot> fin. [* < pro 
 45. Aeyo/xsvo/? * /8A<r^);/xot/fTe? [* 
 47. /v< * e/s [* <r. 
 
 49. init. x/ ^is^epero * o Aoyo? [* ^e. -f- x/. 
 
 ^14, 
 
 Ki/jOioi; x'I(?' oAij? [* ^ pro 5/'. 
 
 50. KO.I * ftapvfxflotv [* TOV. 
 
 51. 7ro5a)v * TT' avrovt; [* -- 
 XIV. 1. Iot/d/<ui/ * T [* x 
 
 <rai lovdaiuv. Recent, haec in marg. adscript. 
 .'Ehhiiv&v TrAjj^o? TroAt/, fin. [* $ pro 'E\\nvcov 7to\v 
 
 TrAijtfo?. fin. 
 2. <$e onrei6ijffavT<; lovfiouot. [* < loco a.-nei6ovvTt<;. 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 ACT. APOST. Cap. XIV. 
 XIV. 4. 7r\t]0os * xai [* Tfjs TroAetyj. 
 
 6. (n/vfcWres, ev raig fi/j.fpais SKeivaiq. Lect. 
 
 xaretyvyov ol A.7roarro\oi $ [* -J- o/ A7ro<rroAo/, ob 
 
 nexum Lect. 
 
 8. avrov o>v, d$ [* $ loco vTtapxwv. 
 ovdeirors TtepteTrarrjffev fin. [* pro 
 
 9. euros rjKOVffs rov [* ^ pro IJXOVE. 
 
 * 
 
 OT/ S/ 7TKTTIV TOV $ rO OT/ TT/ffT^ / TOl/. 
 
 ] 0. <f)o)vti y So/ Aeyw ev ro> ovo/j-art TOV Kvpiov Itj<rov Xpur- 
 TOV, AvaffOtjTt [* + So; Aeyw e/ T<U ovofj.oi.rt rov 
 Kvptov Itjaov X|0<(Trof . 
 
 13. 7roAfo>s *, ravpovs [* -aur<yi/. 
 
 14. I/TCUI/, s^e-nriotjcrav e/s [* pro ef<r7njijffw. 
 
 15. QS.OV * ^OI/T [* rov. 
 
 ft 
 
 17. a^tjxcv) ayaOovpyoov, ovpavoOzv [* ^ pro 
 
 ft 
 ijyiui/ l^ocs veroi/s x< [* $ pro ^/x/i/ vero 
 
 19. iilit. 
 
 cx,7ro AVTIO%CIOIS *< ixovtov lovo"ouoi t xat 
 vav avroiv Ttappjjffirx, avs-mffav TOI/S o^Aoi/s TTO- 
 (rrijvai ait avrenvj Aeyoi/re? or/ oi/^ a\ij0es \syov- 
 ffiv AA Trai'Ta \j/ev<$ovrai, xai hiOaaavre*; avrov 
 Te6i/ijKvai, fin. + oiarpifi. &c. ad fin. 
 
 20. enavpiov, ev rats vpepais SKSIVOUS. [* Lect. 
 
 * 
 e^tjhOsv, 6 Ilai/Ao?, <ri/i/ [* 4- o Dai/Aos ob nexum 
 
 Lect. 
 
 21 . KOCJ <? \KOVIOV [* + e<j. 
 
 fH 
 KO.I /? 
 
 22. 
 
 23. I/TO/S xar KK\rjfftav Trevflvreovs Ttoyevaj.. &c. 
 
 [* ? pro C/TO/S irptarjfottpovs XT' tKKhtjfftav Trpoa- 
 maotdtvro [* $ pro 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 14-3 
 
 ACT. APOST. XIV. & XV. 
 
 
 XIV. 27. ocra 6 Geos STro/ij^e /uer' avroav, [* $ pro o<r 
 
 6 00? /AST' OCI/TCOV. 
 
 XV. 2. ytvojjLSvtis oe ffTaarcus [* < pro ot/i/. 
 
 41 
 
 4. /urr'i/T<uv' x< or< rjvoi^e roiq sQveffi Svpav 
 
 fin. [* -f- x/ <m ij/o/e TO/? tOveai Svpav TritrTe&q fin. 
 
 5. init. ey T/S jjpcpotts enswats. Lect. 
 
 7. 5e &TT]<TCGt)<; yevojuisviji;, [* ^ loco ffufyrtjarecos. 
 
 ev vju.iv ee\ea.TO 6 Geog ^/ [* $ pro 
 
 12. effiytiorav $e TO -nhrjOos aTtav, xat [* $ pro eaiytjcrs 
 
 nav TO Trijog, x/ 
 
 17. oTTtus * eK&iTtjffacriv [* y 
 
 *** 
 
 18. init. * e<TT/ yvoMrrex ** ai/Tw OCTT' oucevos fill. [*-f- 
 
 **+ t/TQ) *** - T<U GCU 7TVT T jOy (ZVTOV. 
 
 20. AA' eiri<TTi\fxt [ < pro AA. 
 
 * < 
 
 a/ TOV /UTO? x/ rot/ TTf/xroi/, xou 
 
 $ pro TOW eft)A<uv, xi TT;? 
 
 KOC.I TOV 7TVIKTOV) KOil TOV //iTO?, 
 
 
 
 x< o<r txv /Arj ^sKcofftv I/TO/ yiveff0(xi t e 
 fin. [* + x/ usque ad finem 
 
 25. 6/j.o6vju.a<!)ov, exAe^o/aei/o/s i/5jO [* < 
 
 ^LJ. 
 
 26. T i/T<wf \ltv%as oitiTotv vTtep [* $ pro TS 
 
 28. ptjbev itteiov t-niTiQsffOat [* ^ loco 
 
 TrAfjf TOVTCOV TCdv eTravayxes fin. [* $ pro 7rA;i/ 
 
 fin. 
 
 29. onTe%eff$<xi siocoXodvTOv-, KOCI [* ^ pro 
 
 . Post hanc vocem add. xi o<ra yu7 
 yivecrOaty eTSpoig /jitj TtoieiV e% &>v. 
 
 30. aTTohvOevTes K<x.T*ti\0ov ei$ [* ^ XT'?A^OI/ pro r\\6ov. 
 33. TT^OOS Toy? a7TOffTi\avTas OIVTOVS fin. [* ^ loco 
 
 rot/s 
 
144 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 ACT. APOST. Cap. XV. & XVI. 
 XV. 34. ZTtifjisivai avroOt fin. [* $ pro avrov. 
 
 35. init. tv rats fj/jL&pai<; eKSivaig. Lect. 
 
 36. a$\<f>ovq * Kara Ttaeav [* riptov. 
 
 $fc 
 
 37. $s efiovhero [* $ pro efiov Aei/<rTO. 
 ffVfJ.7TfApot\(j(.l3civ * Ict)avvr)v [* rof . 
 
 38. /XT; ffvfJ,TT(jip(jiA(x/u./3(xveiv TOVTOV [* < pro <ri//x?r|0Aa- 
 
 XVI. 1. Y t/ * /a/x S * Jot/5/S [* - 
 
 3. /x7rai/T or/ 'EAAiji' o -not-rrif) MVTOV vTTtip^ev, fill. 
 
 [* et -f pro a-TTou/Teq rov -narepa. avrov on 
 'EAAiji/ i/TTtip^sv fin. 
 
 4. 7rjOe5/^oi/' I/T<S (frvh.o'.crcreiv [* ^ pro 
 
 5. x* STrepiffffeuovTO TO* [* < pro 
 
 7. STTSlpwtyv <S Tfjf [* ^ prO XT. 
 
 TTOpevscrtiat * fin. [* x< ot;x etacrev avrovs TO 
 fin. 
 
 9. T<? Mxe&yf ;f eo-rtw?, x< -napaKah&v [* $ pro 
 
 10. e/s * Mx$owv [* 
 
 o Gees evayyehiffaffOai [* < loco K 
 
 12. xoweidev . * e<? [* re. 
 fjisptbos * Mxoi//s [* TJS. 
 
 13. T^g TTI/A^S ?r|oa [* ^ pro 
 
 ^ 
 
 14. 0ov, riKOv<rev' 17? [* < loco 
 
 15. xj 7r5 o o/xog [* 4- TT$. 
 avTijs, 7r|0xaAi, Af-yot'o-a' [* 
 
 16. init. / T<? fisaiq sKswats. !Lect. 
 
 17. Kfx.T(x.yy\\ova'iv vp.it> ofiov [* ^ loco tifj.iv. 
 
 26. %ff/u,a aveiOri. C^VTTVOS [* ^ pro 
 
 3fc 
 
 28. Trpat-Tis i/ro) xaxof [* ^ pro O-I/TOJ. 
 
 31. Xf 7T? O 0/XO? [* -f 7T?. 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 145 
 
 ACT. APOST. Cap. XVI. & XVII. 
 XVI. 32. TOV l&vptov, ffvv TraffT) Tt] oixiff avrov fin. [* $ pro TOV 
 
 '- , . fin- 
 
 tyu? fin. [* $ pro 
 fin. 
 
 38. init. omriyysiXav [* $ pro 
 
 
 os 01 pafioovxpi TO/? crTpaTtjyois TI/T* [* $ pro 
 
 X(Xl TTOifft TOl$ KV TT] OIKICK, (XVTOV 
 
 37. avroi cJ-rxyayeTCDaav i7/x? fin. [* $ pro avroi IJ 
 
 ffTpfZTijyois 01 pcxovxot T pjjjmaTO, ravroc. 
 
 39. rjpuTcov wne\0eiv onto TIJS 7ro\e<ys fin. [* pro 
 
 deiv. 
 40. ^e 7ro T^? [* $ pro ex. 
 
 Sl<rtJ\00V TTjOO? T7V [* ^ lOCO /. 
 
 XVII. 1. init. ff T*$ fi/mepaiq exeivai^. Lect. 
 
 JF 01 oiTiotTToAoi rtjv [* -J- o/ omoffToXot ob uexuin. 
 
 Lect. 
 4. x/ T/VS * 7rrT7<rv, x* [* e^ avrwv. ** pro ?rf /- 
 
 ?roAi/, yi/i/a/xa)!/ [* $ pro ' 
 
 5. <fe o/ Ioi/^x/o< o/ a7ti0ovvTs, xai [* $ pro e o/ 
 
 xoti. 
 
 ayopou&v av8pa$ nvas -novtipovs [* $ pro ayopaicav 
 
 TlVaS f^|0S 7!OVTJpOV$. 
 
 rrjv TTohiv XT' WT<WV* xf 7r/<rT^T? ** rrj [* ? XT' 
 i/T<yf x/. ** re. 
 
 atyroiy? Trpoayayetv eiq [* ^ loco ayotyetv. 
 
 it 
 7. /8<r/Ae erepov fayovres EIVOU, Itjffovv fin. [* $ pro /S- 
 
 <r/Ae Aeyo^Tg? erepov etvat Irjirovv fin. 
 
 10. <W * Vl/XTOS [* - Tlfi. 
 
 11. 7TjOO^i//x;?, * xd ripepav [* TO. 
 
 13. craAevovreq xai TapaarcrovTes TOV$ [* -f- x/ rapacr- 
 
14-6 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 ACT. APOST. Cap. XVII. & XVIII. 
 XVII. 14. $a\<3ur<raV vTce^ivav ds [* $ pro v 
 
 15. IIi/Aoi', ehdov &$ [* $ loco rjyayov avrov. 
 
 16. K^-^0/J.VOV TOV IIt>Aoi', OtVTOV$ TTOtpCa^VVErO [* 
 
 CKO%OJLLVOV avrovs TOI; Ilai/Aot/ 
 tv I/TO>, Becapovvros KaTei$a>\ov [* loco 
 
 17. TO/S Ioi/5/0/5 * KOtl [* - X/ TO/S <r/3o/Ul/0/?. 
 
 e xa/ T&jy [* -f- xa<. 
 
 ai/a<TTa<ni/ avrov tvriyye^ero avrots fin. [* $ pro 
 
 ai-Gt<rTa<Tiv avroiq evtjyyehi^sTo fin. 4- avrov. 
 
 19. re at/Toy, TT/ [* ^ pro avrov. 
 
 20. yfft^a/ T/J^ 3eAo/ [* ^ loco T/ av. 
 
 24. 717? vTrapx&v Ki/ ( o<o?, oi/x. [* $ pro -yi;? Kupios virap- 
 
 OVK. 
 
 26. Trai/ ysj/og j/^|0ft>7raji/. [* $ pro 
 
 
 reroty/uevovs x/jOOf$. [* ^ loco 
 
 
 27. TO/ 0eo^, / [* $ pro 
 
 ye \jsXa<pri(riEv avrov [* ^ pro 
 
 fJMxpav a<f> e/os X<TTOI/. [* < pro ?ro fi/ 
 
 i7/xwi/ air^ovra fin. [* ^ pro v-napyovra. 
 
 31. init. xaffori <rrti<rav [* pro &or/. % 
 
 32. <roi/ ?T/M rovrov -na\iv fin. [* $ pro <roi/ 
 
 rovrov fin. 
 XVIII. 1. yu T * rai/ra [* fc. 
 
 2. x/ n/o/<rx/Ai/ yvvaixa [* A. 
 
 TO -npoarzrayzvai Khavdiov [* ^ pro 
 Ioi/5/oi/5 ?ro T;? [* < pro ex. 
 
 5. Iot/5/o;? eivai rov [* + eivat. 
 
 6. KTiva!'<x/j.vos avrov ra [* -f- avrov. 
 
 7. SKt0ev etfft)A0v ei$ [* ^ pro 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 147 
 
 ACT. APOST. Cap. XVIII. & XIX. 
 
 XVIII. 9. 6 KvptOS V VVKTt &' 6pap.Ol.TOS TQ) [* ? prO 
 
 i y opa/jiaroq ev vvKTt TOJ. 
 13. VO/JLOV rxva-neiOsi ouro? TOI/S [* ? pro VO/JLOV OVTO$ 
 
 TOI/S. 
 
 14. /UV * IJJ/ [* - OVf, 
 
 3fc 
 
 15. <$ ^TT7/AT <TT/ [* < p 
 
 17. TOVTODV e/J.\\ Tft) FAA/6>f/ fin. [* $ prO TOfT<yi/ T<W 
 
 Ta\\tct)vi e/j.\ev fin. 
 
 18. 7roT^/ii/o? octnro*s, e^eTrAe/. [* + WTO<?. 
 
 i% [* ? pro 
 
 TIJV 
 19. tt<rt\06>v 7ri rtjv [* ^ pro (?. 
 
 o TO/? [ loco 
 
 21. ocAA' 7roT^/xej/o? at/ro/?, x< 7raji/ TraAtv' [* ^ loco 
 
 ro. ** + xa/. *** 
 loprtjv TIJV pxp/j.vtjv iroirjffott t 
 22. \l\\t. V raiq rj/j-epait; SKtivaic.. Lect. 
 
 * KOLTtKOutV 6 Ill/A0? /? [* - X<X/. ** + O IIl/Ao? 
 
 ob nexum. Lect. 
 oiff7ratra/u.evos TOV$ afi\<j>ov<; xoiTefiri [* ^ loco Tt;^ 
 
 25. XT^^I;/UPO? TO/ AoyoK TOI/ [* <^ pro TIJV 
 rov Iri<rov, 7rtffTajj,vo<; [* ,J pro Kvpiov. 
 
 26. KVTOV * xi [* Axi/As x 
 
 XIX. 1. init. / T/S f}/J.pai<; exii(xt<;. Lect. 
 /ueprj, XT' sA$tiv ett; [* -f xar'. 
 
 3. T * fi*S [* - TTjOO? l/TOl/?. 
 
 4. loaavvris * efifXTrno-e [* /n/. 
 
 7. &)<r 5<u$x fin. [* < pro ^x$fo fin. 
 10. Kvptov *, Ioi/5/oi/g [* Iqo-ov. 
 
 fll 
 
 12. a<r0vouvTa<; anofpepeffdfjfi TTO [* ^ pro 7r*. 
 L 2 
 
148 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 ACT. APOST. Cap. XIX. & XX. 
 XIX. ] 2. K7topsvff6ai * * eTrs%ipij<roiv [* $ pro 
 
 7T 
 
 13. Tiveq aai ro)v [* + xi. TTO. 
 
 v/tas [* < pro ' 
 
 14. eTTTOC WOI TOl/TO [* + VIOt. 
 
 % %& 
 
 15. enrev avToi? Tov [* -f- i/. ** avroig. 
 
 16. xi emhaojievos ** o * 
 
 t/TOt/5. 
 
 r ,, 
 , KO.I iff^yye. \_ 
 
 ** <J pro *** 
 
 17. eyevero 7r<r/ i y i/a)0 ' TOl/ lovbouoiq [* $ pro 
 
 
 21. x/ riyv A^i'/ [* + TIJV. 
 
 /? 'ifilOoi/o-oAt/yua, e/7ro)i' t [* ^ pro ' 
 
 26. JJ.OVQV TIJ$ E0e<rot/ [* -f- TTJ?. 
 
 27. faayiffOqvaiy yueAAe/ ** x/ [* ^ pro yueAAe;i/. ** 
 
 ?, [* ^ loco 
 
 28. ^t/xoi/, expat-ov, Afyoi/re?' [* ^ pro expa^ov. 
 
 33. o^Aoi/ ffvvefiifiaffav Atet-avdpov [* < pro Trpoefit- 
 
 35. <TT// txvOpooTrav o? [* ^ pro a 
 
 * [* - 
 
 36. TTjOOTTfiTfiS TrpaffffSlV, fin. [* ^ loCO TTpOiTTStV. 
 
 37. rijv-Qsov V/ACDV [* ^ pro 5ei/. 
 
 38. re%viTou e%pv<ri wpos T/V Aoyoj/, ayopaioi [* ? pro 
 
 Aoyoi/ e^ovfftv, ayopaioi. 
 39. e'repoi/ * ^ijreire [* CTT/. 
 
 XX. 1. init. 3o(0t//3oi/, /Aerao-Te/Acu/xej/o? o Oi/Aos 
 
 [* , pro TOI/ Sopvfiov, TTjOOO-xaAeo-a/zeyos o IIi/Ao? 
 
APPENDIX (B.) H9 
 
 ACT. APOST. Cap. XX. 
 XX. 3. yevopevrit enipovhriS avrco VTTO [* $ pro 
 
 STTI TIJV [ $ loco e/$. 
 
 &. $. $fc 
 
 4. So>7rT|OOS Trvppov J$eppoiotos' 
 
 [* + TTvppov. ** pro Bspoiotios. 
 
 6. Tpaadoi a%pt fifjLSpav [* ^ pro %|0/s. 
 
 7. ffocfifiar&v, ev rats f)/j.epai<; exivai$. Lect. 
 
 ^ 
 
 (ri/^Y/Aefa)!/ ij/xcyf ** xAao-/ [* ^ pro T 
 
 haec superscrips. ** rot/. 
 Aoyov ^(0/ pecrovvxTiov [* ^ loco ftexpt. 
 
 8. OV T7/iV <Tf I'I7Y/ 1I/O/ [* ^ P r 
 
 9. init. xaOetyjmevos tie [* ^ loco 
 
 TT/ [* < pro veavias, ovofj.ot.ri 
 
 * STTeirsv [* Kareve^deig O.TTO rov VTTVOV 
 
 10. ffvfjLTiepiXafitov avrov e/7re, [* + avrov. 
 
 $ 
 
 11. OUT<US e^A^e. H-yocyoi/ [* ^ pro ct-ijXtiev. 
 13. yap S/aTfiTa-y/xfi/os i;v , yueAAcuv [* $ pro yap 
 
 15. Sayuov' * TJJ de ep%ojjivri [* 
 
 yiyAA/a). ** + de. 
 
 16. init. xexptvei yap [* ^ pro expive. 
 ^vvarov eitj avrta [* ^ loco i^. 
 
 21. 7r/<rT/v * e/s [* rtjv. 
 
 ik 
 
 22. <$ot/, SfiSfyufii/os ey<w TO> 7rvev/j.aTi [* $ pro /Jot 
 
 d<feyUfOS T0> TTVSVfJUXTt. 
 
 avrrj <rviJ.l3nffo/jLvot fMi [* ^ pro ort/vai/Tj<roi/T. 
 
 n 
 
 24. /il/TO> ft>0-T TA/G)0-< [* ^ 1OCO O>?. 
 
 Itjffov 
 
 25. xrjpvorcrwv TO evayyshtov rov Qeov [* ^ TO evayye- 
 
 \iovj pro TIJI/ fiacrihetav. 
 
 26. ya> </x< a?ro [* -4* ' 
 
150 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 ACT. APOST. Cap. XX. & XXI. 
 XX. 28. TOV Ki/p/oi/, r\v [* $ pro 0ot/. 
 
 TOt/ //AT0$ TO!/ /5/01/ fin. [* 
 
 fin. 
 29. o/3a *, ort [* TOI/TO. 
 
 32. <Wo/CAl/G> V/iS C7TOlKodo/U.TJffOU [* 
 
 34. ai/7-0/ * -y/l/<yO-XT [* - <$. 
 
 35. re TOV hoyov rov ~K.vpiov [* loco TO>I/ 
 
 37. tie xAi/0/AO eyei/ero Travrtui'* x/ [* $ pro re 
 
 xAi/#uo$ 7rai/TO)i/* xa/. 
 XXI. 4. avevpovres $s TOI/S [* + ^e. 
 
 flk 
 
 e/? r lepo(ro\v/ji<x fin. [* pro 'lepovaafaj/j. fin. 
 
 5. auytaAdy, Trpoffev^ajmevoi fin. [* 
 
 6. init. ijorTraffafAstia aAAi^Aoi/?, ou*E/3ri/jLev y xa/ 4/5 [* pro 
 
 xa/ a<77ra0"ayu.ei/o/ aAAjyAoi/s, 7rf/S7/if e/s. 
 
 84 ^eA00/TS V7r(0/ TOV [* ^ 1OCO O/ TTEjO/. 
 
 Ilat/Aoi/ qKOofiev /? [* ^ ^A^ov. 
 
 9. 5c/yTjO5 Tea-trapes Trapdsvot Trpo^tjrevovffat fin. 
 [* ? pro Svyarepei; Ttapdevoi reo-crapes xpofartv- 
 
 OVffOU. 
 
 1 1 . <Ji7<ras * eotvrov [* re. ^ pro at/roi/. 
 )(etpa.q e^0pct)v fin. [* ^ loco edv&v. 
 
 1 3. Ilai/Aos, xa/ e/?r, T/ [* xc/ /TT. 
 
 (jt.-noda.vsiv * ro//x<y{ [* e/s 'Iepovffa\tj/u.. 
 15. rai/ras Trajoaaxfii/atra/xevo/ otvefiotivofjiev [ ^. 
 
 e/5 'lepoffohv/ma. fin. [* ^ loco 'Iepovffa\tj/Ji. 
 
 17. aarpevcus onredet-avTo j/xa?. [* ^ pro e$e 
 
 18. TIJ T STTOLVplOV Clfftjet. [* ^ T 7TOtVpWV, 
 
 , 
 
 T o/ TTpecrpvTtpot -napeytvovro -rrpos avrov fin. 
 
 [* $ pro 7rai/Ts T Trapeyevovro ol npefffivrepoi fin. 
 
 ** 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 ACT. APOST. Cap. XXL & XXII. 
 XXI. 20. rov efov enrov [* $ loco Ki//><ot/. 
 
 eiffiv ev rots louSaiois ruv [* $ v TOH; Ioi/5<o/? pro 
 
 22. dc/ ffvvehfatv Kudos' aKovffovrai [* ? pro c< 
 axova-ovrai. 
 
 24. J-vtiffCDvrai rag xA$' x/ 7J/&jffor/T/ Travre? [*_ pro 
 
 njf K<j>ahtiv. [** < pro 
 
 * r* 
 
 OTI 7TjOi &>V L T WfijOI. 
 
 <f>v\a(rffc0v rov vop-ov fin. [* $ pro 
 
 vXaffffcv fin. 
 25. ai/roi/s, AA (f>v\acrorcr6ai ** TO [* pro 
 
 ;* avTov$. 
 xai * alfjLfx. [* TO. 
 
 26. TOT, ev T<$ i?/xo. x/r. o [* Lect. 
 
 27. eTrefiahov STT' O.VTOV T? %'pa? fin. [* ? pro 
 
 fin. 
 
 28. 7ri>Ts Trai/ra^i; ^^ao-xcwv, [* ^ loco 
 
 30. init. emvnOei re [* pro 
 
 31. TJ5 (TTTe/jOaS, OT/ [* # <T7Ilptl<;. 
 
 A 
 34. TI e7Te<j>a)vovv ev [* ^ loco efiouv. 
 
 36. Aaoi/, x ( o^ovT5* A/pe [ < pro Kpatyv. 
 
 37. T /? T7/ 7rapju./3ohtji/ Eiffayscrtiai 6 IIi/Aos, [ $ pro 
 
 re euraysffdai eiq TJJV Trapsjm/SoXijv 6 IIi/Ao?. 
 40. TToAAij; 5e yvojuivr)<; o-tyw, Tfpoff<f>a)vij(r [* $ pro 
 
 XXII. 2. 3/AejfT(u TTpoffftycDvtitTW avrots [* ^ loco 7rpoff(f>CDvet. 
 1 2. fj;|0 V\a/3rj<; xara [* <J pro i/o-/3/7S. 
 
 xaTO/xoM'Ttyi' v Aa/xao-xcu Iot/5/<wf , [* -f- 
 13. otvafiteyj/ov. K/ y<u avry. [* ^ pro xa- 
 
 fll 
 
 16. ovojma avrov fin. [* # loco Kvpiov fin. 
 
 17. X* 7TpOffVXO/Jil><p ** / T6) [* ^ pr 
 
 ** - 
 
152 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 ACT. APOST. Cap. XXII. & XXIII. 
 XXII. 18. oov * /j.aprvptav * rrjv. 
 
 20. TOV TTpCDTOftOtpTVpOS [* ~f- TTjCWTO. 
 
 22. a%pi TOV \oyov TOI/TOI/, xa/ [* $ pro a^o/ TOJ/TOI/ TOI/ 
 
 Aoyoi/, xa/. 
 yjO tiaOrjaei avrov [* < loco xotOtjKOv. 
 
 3fc 3fc 3fc 
 
 23. i/T6)i/ 717 TrAefoi/, x/ pnrrovrtav T [* -4- 
 
 ** ^ prO plTTTOVVT&V. 
 
 fc & & 
 
 24. %thifjtpxpq eiffaycarOat avrov tiq [ $ pro 
 
 * + t/TOI/. 
 
 25. 6 7Tp(0TtVOiV aVTOV [* ^ prO 7TpOETlVV. 
 
 g| 
 
 TOI/ <j>ffT6)T<X. SKOiTOVTap^OV [* ^ loCO OT<yT. 
 
 26. TtpoffeKdtav r^t) %<A/|0%6) aTrijyye/Ae, Aeytur. [* $ pro 
 
 Tayxaiog eani/ fin. [* pro ear/. 
 
 27. /xo/, * o-w [* e/. 
 
 28. onrexptBti oe 6 xtKutpxps [* 3e pro T. 
 
 30. xoiTtjyopfiTai VTTO TODV lovdai&v, [* < loco 
 
 avrov *, xa/ [* a?ro T&>f 
 
 [* $ pro 
 
 xa/ Trai/ TO [* $ loco o 
 ffvvetiptov *' xa/ [* 
 XXIII. 1. init. ev Ta/5 fjfj.spot.is exf/i/a/s, ar&vtaas [* -f Lect. 
 
 o 
 
 TO) <Tl/l/ep/&), ITTV. 
 
 , snrv. [* ? pro 
 
 fin. [* $ loco f?/ 
 2. Avav/a? exeA/<re TO/? [* ^ pro enera^e. 
 
 4. Geot/ Ao/|0e/g ; [ < pro Ao/5ojoe/? ; 
 
 5. OT/ Ap%lpVS fffTIV' yypOC7TTOil. [* ? pr 
 
 6. <TT/ 3>api<rvuv, TO d~e irepov 
 [* $ pro <T 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 153 
 
 ACT. APOST. Cap. XXIII. 
 
 7. avrov siTTovros, eyevero. [* $ loco \a\ti<ravroq. 
 
 g| 
 
 9. oivaffravres r/i/eg r&v TpajUfj.aTect>v [* < pro 
 req o! TpoifjL/j,aretq. 
 
 10. <TT<recy$, <j>ofttjdet$ 6 xi\iap%os [ < pro 
 
 11. Ga/xre/*' <y? [* ILxi/As- 
 
 ^ 
 
 12. 7[otn<ra.vTes crv<TTpo<j>tiv lovdatot, aveOsju.. &c. [* ^ pro 
 
 7Toui<ravTe<; rives TCOV lovbatcov crv 
 6ep. &c. 
 iavrovs *, /u;;r [* Aeyoi/rs?. 
 
 13. rrjv ffvvojuLOfffav Ttoiii<raju.evoi fin. [* $ pro 
 
 fin. 
 
 15. arrtos * KO-Tatyaytj OS.VTOV ei$ iv/xag. [* oivptov. 
 
 ** $ pro f rov noi.rtx.yoi.yrj. *** ^ pro 
 
 16. ITai/Aof T;V evedpav, TratpoiyevojLLevos. [* ^ loco TO 
 
 18. TOV veav/o-xof ayaystv [* ^ pro 
 * 
 
 [* o/. 
 avpiov rov Tlavhov xatrayaym ei$ ro <rvve1>piov, [* $ pro 
 
 avptov e/s TO ffw&ptov Karayaytjs rov 
 cug /xeAAovToc T* [* <^ pro /aeAAovTe^. 
 
 21. yap * e% oivrav [* aiyTO/. 
 
 vi/i/ e/a/ eroijuioi 7rpoff^s^oju.voi [* $ pro vi/v iroip-ot 
 etffi Trpoff^s^o/nevoi . 
 
 41 
 
 22. TOV i/eav^o-xov Trapayyeihou; [* ^ pro 
 
 24. TTjOos <E>/Ai;x TOI/ [* < pro 
 
 25. crnaroAiji' *s^oi/<r' [* 
 
 26. r)yejj.ovi ^lAijxt %aipetv. [* < pro 
 
 27. e^e/Ao/Aijj/ *, fxaOav [* 
 
 28. Ss eirtyveovai rtjv [* ^ loco 
 
 5 [* 
 
154 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 ACT. APOST. Cap. XXIII. & XXIV. 
 
 XXIII. 29. <W/zft>i/ e%pvToi yxA7/za fin. [* $ pro 
 
 e%pvTa fin. 
 30. av^pa * tvevOai ** er/Ttt>i/ [* /xeAAe/i'. ** 
 
 T<yy lovdaiuv. *** < pro 
 33. 7rap<rTt](rav * TOI/ [* xat. 
 
 35. TTpfJUT&plCp * 'HjOOiSoi/ [* - TO!/. 
 
 XXIV. 3. KpaTKrre <frihtjj- t /uera [* 
 
 6. jjOehtj(rajuiv xptvou fin. [* < loco xpiveiv. 
 
 8. xfAet/ora? x/ TOI/S [* -f xa/. 
 xoiTTjyopovs * epxecrBou. [* 
 
 xfc, 
 
 9. init. ffvv7T0evTO 5e [* 
 
 10. ctTTCxptdij re o [* loco de. 
 
 11. fjfj.tpa.1 * <Jx5i/o [* ij. 
 
 13. -napouTTJicrai * ^vvaviai [* /ue. 
 
 14. alpeffiv, OVT&S ATjOi>G>. [* <^ pro 
 
 15. ex^y TTjOos TOV. [* ^ pro e/s. 
 
 16. ev roc/To) xa/ OCI/TOS [* ^ loco 5e. 
 
 * 
 
 <TXO), tXTTpOffKOTTTOV [ J prO tXTTpOffKOTTOV 
 
 (rvveuHtjffiv %<t)v 7Tpo$ [* ^ pro e%etv 
 
 17. ra)j/ * 7rA/oi/<yv [* Se 
 
 18. T/I/S * oaro [* 5s. 
 
 19. OU$ / 7T/ 
 
 21. JS XK|0 <TTa)5 [ 
 
 e-y<w ertj/uLspov KpivofMtxi vfi V/ULUV. [* ? pro 
 
 22. o $/Ai7^ ai/y8ATO (*) [* pro 
 
 24. o $iAj^ <ri/i/ [* ^ pro $i;Af. 
 
 T; /5/a yvvaiM ovtrrj [* ^ loco yvvouxi avrov. 
 
 25. o $iA?7^ a-neKpidtj [* ^ pro 4>^A/^. 
 
 26. Ilai/Aoi/, /Va <*7TO\vffT] avrov [* < loco OTTCWS 
 
 * The Complutensian Edition, and the CWea? Ravianus, also read 
 
APPENDIX (fi.) 155 
 
 ACT. APOST. Cap. XXIV. XXV. XXVI. 
 XXIV. 27. J ftftyg IIopxj0 [*^pro 
 o ftihrji; Karehnre [* < pro 
 
 XXV. 2. 6 T Ap%lpV$ [* + T. 
 
 # ** r* 
 
 5. TOl/Tft) ttTOTTOl/ KOiTyOplTO)ffav O.VTOV. * -J- OCTO7TOV, 
 
 "" d pro 
 8. 'Or* * ovre [* oi/rs e<s rof i/o/iOJ> T<UI/ 
 
 13. Tiv&v, sv r/5 rijuLpai$ Kivai$, AyptTtTTots. [* + Lect. 
 
 * 
 
 14. VTTO ^>/A/;xo5, oc<r/j.ios' [* < pro <E>ijA<xos. 
 
 i/TOf, x/ -nepi. 
 
 20. 7T|Oi TOl/T(UI/ fylTIJOriV [* prO TOl/TOt/. 
 
 * * 
 
 23. Ty ($ enavptov [* $ loco owi/. 
 
 24. Ttept TOVTOV TTOiv [* ^ loco ou. 
 
 . * .Ji 
 
 25. oe \afiofjievoq /u/jdev [ ^ loco 
 
 XXVI. 1. init. >/ T/S ij/ie/o. exe/^. Lect. 
 
 Aypnrrras 5e o /3<rAet/? Trpos [* + o 
 
 $ 
 2. fjifAKfxpiov, 7Tt aov /zeAAtuv aTCO\oyicrOai triyuujpov' fin. 
 
 [* $ pro yuaxocjO/ov, /ueAAtui' fX7ToAoyi(r0ott tret crov 
 ffr]fj,pov. 
 
 7. i)?ro * lotsdaftuv [* TOJ^. 
 12. e*s * A/z<rxoj/ [* TI^P. 
 14. tjKOVffoi. (fxovtjs teyovcrtis itpos [* ^ loco <(><0vtjv Aa- 
 
 Aoi/<rav. 
 
 xai Aeyot/o-jjs TIJ [* ^ loco Afi'y ot '< r / ' 
 16. init. AA' avatrrtjOi [* < pro aAAot. 
 
 17. oi/5 * eya> o-e aTrocrreAft) fin. [* vvv. ** -f- ^V '- 
 
 *** $ pro 7ro<TTeAA<u. 
 
 18. xou awo TI;? [ -f- TTO. 
 
 21. yue ov\X<*fiofjLevoi ot lovdouoi ev [* ^ pro /u ol lov- 
 Xouoi <ri/AA/3o/xei/oi ev. 
 
156 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 ACT. APOST. Cap. XXVI. XXVII. XXVIII. 
 
 XXVI. 22. eVrijxoc, papTvpo/uLevos yu<x0a> [ 
 
 8 
 
 xcu Movers fin. [* $ loco 
 
 25. aAAa aAijfejas [* pro a A A'. 
 
 26. ai/rof * rovT<av ** -nttdop.ot.1 [* T/. ** ou. 
 yap e> yawa ireTrpay/jievov TOVTO effTt fin. [* $ pro 
 
 yap eartv ev yuvux. -nsirpaypevov TOVTO fin. 
 30. xai 7rf res o/ [* -f. Travreg. 
 
 XXVII. 1. IraA/ccf, -nap&ioov TOV [* ^ pro Ttapsoibovv. 
 
 2. ?rAo/<u A.<$pa/jivT*tjv6>, yueAAoir/ TrAe^v c/s rot/5 [* T. 
 
 ** 
 3. Iot/A<os ^jOijo-otyuevos r&) Ilai/Aa), e-ntrpe^e [* $ pro 
 
 OV$ <f>ih.ov$ [* + TOI/S. 
 6. TrAoKH/ AAe^v5|Oijvoj/ TrAeoi/ [* $ pro 
 8. eyyi/s 7roA/5 rjv Aaaaict. [* .$ pro 
 
 Aao-a/a. 
 9. &a TO 17^ xi Ttjv vricrrziav TTapeXrj^vdevai. [* $ pro 
 
 ota TO KOII Ttjv vrjffTSiav 17^17 7T(x,pe\ij\v0vai. 
 
 gl 
 
 10. TOt/ <j)OpTlOV KOtt [* ^ prO <f)OpTOV. 
 
 %. 
 
 17. TI;I/ iSi/OTiji/ exTrco-fwo-/ [* <^ pro St/p-ny. 
 
 23. /*o/ ToivTr} Ttj VVKTI ayyffAo? [* ? pro yuo* T^ 
 
 29. TOTTOI/S K7re<ra)jj.ev,, ex [* ^ loco 
 39. e/ Ji/varov, e^cUfffjii [* ^ pro 
 42. exxoAi/yay3i7(T5 S/a^i/yij fin. [* <J pro 
 XXVIII. 1. K/ o'ia<ra>0VT, TOTS [* ^ pro 
 
 3. efl/u7s 3/^eA^oi/<r naOrj^e [* ^ pro 
 
 3fc 
 
 6. eAeyov I/TOI/ Geoi/ /// fin. [* ? pro eAeyoy Geov 
 
 avTOv etvoti. 
 
 7. ij/ueoas * ^>iAo^>oovft>5 [* 
 
 8. tivffevTspiot * xTx<r0a< [* 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 157 
 
 ACT. APOST. Cap. XXVIII. 
 XXVIII. 8. xat 7ri//zei/o$, x* err^e/s [* < pro 
 
 ** xa/. 
 
 * r* 
 
 11. /urji'5 tij^dtiftev ev $ pro 
 
 [ 
 
 14. /$ * 'PiUUTJV [* Tt]V. 
 
 23. 0/5 ee0To S/a/zajOTi/po/ieyos [* pro 
 
 [ T. 
 
 26. KOII etTTov' AKOTJ [* ^ loco 
 
 g| 
 
 30. TTOpeuo/jLevovq '? ai/Tov [* ^ pro -npo<;. 
 
 AD ROMANOS. 
 
 Cap. I. 7. cey/o/s' oe^eA^oi* Xp/? [* -f Lect. 
 
 11. 12. (rTtjpi^0r}vat * ev vfj.iv 5/a &c. [* C/x?* Touro 
 
 13. /i/ T<V xapTTOv ffy^co [ 
 
 15. init. Oi5T<ws TO [* -f 5 (*). 
 
 18. init. adeA<<M awoxAi/7TTeT/ [* -f- Lect. 
 28. init. atietyot ** xa&u? ot/x [* -j- Lect. ** xa/. 
 edoKijjuxcrav ol ourefieis rov Qeov [* + Lect. 
 
 II. 5. 7roxAi/>/'ews xa/ StKatOKpifftas [* + xa/. 
 10. init. SeA<o< 5o^ [* + Lect. 
 
 14. init. 5eA0o* orav [* + Lect. 
 
 17. init. eiSe, <rv [* ^ loco /5e. 
 
 20. init. IIs^fii/Tiji/ aQpovoiv [* ^ / in e. 
 
 ^ 
 
 28. init. aSstyot n [* -f Lect. 
 
 29. ex * Geou [* rot/. 
 
 III. 7. etfs n [$ pro yap. 
 
 8. ^Aaff^Tjaotyxe&x, * xa^<y$ [* xa/. 
 
 (*) In every place where the printed edition reads oura>, this Codex 
 has 
 
158 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 AD ROMANOS, Cap. III. IV. V. VI. 
 
 III. 10. yeyponiTai ** Owe [* OT. 
 13. 6 hotpv*!- avTcav [* y. 
 
 19. init. (jtoeA<f>oi oidapev [* -f Lect. 
 
 20. EVMTTIOV TOV Qeov fin. [* < loco avTov. 
 
 g| 
 
 28. init. aoeA<f>oi Aoy/b/z0 ]* -f Lect. 
 30, 31. finem inter v. 30, et init. v. 31 nonnulla sunt 
 era?a, textus vero integer. 
 
 IV. 1. T/ epov/nev ovv Afipotafj. [* $ oiyi/ pro TI ovv. 
 
 tt 
 
 4. init. a$E\<f>oi TO> [* + Lect. 
 
 XT * O(j)t\tJfJLO(. [* TO. 
 
 7. &/ a^eidtiffctv at [* ^ pro 
 i o ** 
 
 [*?** Tlf. 
 
 13. init. aosA(j)oi ov [* + Lect. 
 
 * 
 15. opytjv KfjtTEpya^tjTai' ov [ ^ 17 pro 5. 
 
 25. Tfjv $iKouoffvvt]v fifj.(t)v \_ $ o pro a>. 
 
 V. 10. init. aoefyoi EI [* 4- Lect. 
 
 14. At%/0* Mat/<rsft)sx/ [* + ^ et super <y ultim. script, o. 
 
 15. %apiTi * TOW [* Ttj. 
 
 &. 
 
 17. init. aoehtyoi ei [* -f- Lect. 
 
 19. o/7roAAo/, ovro)s x/ [* -f- s- Post ?roAAo/ bis script, 
 verba : x* 5/ T^^ Traoaxoi;? usque TroAAo;, quae 
 autem daleta sunt. 
 
 VI. 3. OTI a.dsA<f>ot otroi [* + Lect. 
 
 OffOl / XptffTOV **, (3oi-nTl<TOl1fJ.V [* ? ** \1}GOVV . 
 
 4 7TT OUTCy*X/ f* 4- 
 
 1.1. aoeA(j)oi OVTOX; KO.I [* + Lect. 
 
 18. init. $A<^o/ A t /(?p. &c. [* -h Lect. 
 
 r* < 
 
 19. ffotpxos vpcov' * Joi/Aa TJ; x00<r* [* dxnrep 
 yap TrfxpsffTriffare ra yueAi; I>/A<UV. Alius hsec 
 omissa in marg 1 . adjecit. 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 159 
 
 AD ROMANOS, Cap. VII. VIII. IX. 
 VII. 1. ao^A^o/, * yivot)ffKovfft t [* -f- Lect. TO/S Minio su- 
 
 perscrips. 
 VIII. 2. init. 5eA>os o [* -f Lect. 
 
 11.' & TOt/ Cl/O/XOl/VTOS O.VTOV H/ei//UTOS l> [ 
 
 &c. 
 
 14. init. o>A0o* d<ro/ [* -f Lect. 
 
 15. init. ev <x> ixpafyfjiev [* + * 
 
 19. Gfoi/ **d"e%T/ fin. [* air. 
 
 22. init. adeA^o* otdapev [* + Lect. 
 
 23. vioOecriav *x^e^o/xero/ [* TT. 
 26. aaBevciais VJULCDV' TO [* ^ pro ri 
 
 TI 7Tpoffv^ofj.e0a Kfxdo [* ^ o pro 
 , aAAa i/ro [* -f- a. 
 
 28. init. a&ftpii ottiotfiev [* 4- Lect. 
 
 g| 
 
 e/? TO ayadov [* -f- ro. 
 
 28, 29. ayadov * Trposyva* [* ( T<M$ xara -npodtcriv xAij- 
 T<M? ovcrtv. on ov$) in marg. adscrips. 
 
 34. CO-TIV ex 5e^<ut/ TOI/ [* ^ pro ev defyfx. 
 
 35. -y a7rj 7? TOl/ Qeof ; 5A<^/? [* ^ pro XJO/O-TOI/. 
 
 IX. 3. 7TO * XjOttTTOU [* - TOt/. 
 
 6. 0eof aoeA<f)oi ov [* -f" Lect. 
 
 1 1 . exAc^f irpodcffis TOV Qeov pevr}, [* ^ 
 
 * 
 
 15. yap Mffii/Vfii Aeyer [* ^ MOJO**;. 
 
 16, 17. p ot/v ot/ * TOI/ 0eot/ Aeye/ [* TOI/ 
 
 ot/5e TOI/ Tpe^ovToq, AA TOI/ 
 haec omissa in marg. adjecta sunt. 
 18. init. 5eA^>o/ apa [* + Lect. 
 
 27. I<r0i;A* owre/ a/x/xos [* ^ pro o>? 17. 
 
 32. AA' o>* e% epyuv [* ?. 
 
 A<^<u TTpoaxofjfiaTos fin. [* /x secundum.) TOI/. 
 
 33. \tdov 7T|00(rxo/**aTo?, x< [* /u secundum. 
 
160 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 AD ROM ANOS, Cap. X. XL XII. XIII. XIV. 
 
 X. 19. fjuj OVK eyvoo IffpatjA [* ? pro /xij l<rpottj\ OVK 
 
 XI. 8. crrifjLEpov * fin. [* i7y 
 
 9. Aeyer Ffw^ijTcy 17 [* -f v. 
 13. init. 5eA0o/ tyx/i/ [* + Lect. 
 
 1 9. ExA0-0i7<rK * xAa^o/ [* o/. 
 
 ey<u ei/KevTpiffOeo fin. [* ^ pro eyx. &c. 
 21. XT ^)i/(r/ * icAaSa;^ [* v. 
 
 arov (freurcToii fin. [* $ e pro 17. 
 23. yap o Qeo5 O-T< TtaKiv [* $ pro eoTiv o 
 25. init. abehfyoi ov [* -f Lect. 
 33. <TO</$ Gsot/ x/ yi/cu<reft)s <yg [* $ 
 XII. 1. init. aSsA^o/ 7rjOxA&) [* + Lect. 
 4. init. oiSeAtpol xaOa-nsp [* -f Lect. 
 6. init. ottie\(j}oi %OVTS [* -j- Lect. 
 
 18. init. * e/jO^ei/oi/res [* 3i/^TOj/, TO e 
 
 yuera Travroji/ avOpcoTT&v in marg. adscrips. 
 20. TTfjOO? o-cDpevffTis em [* ^ 17$ pro s/$. 
 XIII. 1. init. 5eA^)o/ 7raa- [* + Lect. 
 
 JJLE VTTO QeOV [* < 7TO. 
 11. X/ TOl/TOl/, /3oT5 [* -f- I/. 
 
 a^^<poi vvv [* + Lect. 
 
 * OT [* - }?. 
 
 XIV. 6. oi/ (ppovef xai 6 <r0icov [* + */. 
 9. init. 5A^)o/ e/s [* -f- Lect. 
 * onT0av [* xa/. 
 V [* /. 
 
 14. <$/' *OtVTOV 1 [* - . 
 
 15. Ktvov 7roA*iy, t>7Tp [* A alterum. 
 
 ^ 
 
 19. ot/v 5fA(/>o/ T [* 4- Lect. 
 
 22. XT fffaVTOV ^ [* "H . 
 
APPENDIX (fi.) 161 
 
 AD ROMANOS, Cap. XIV. XV. XVI. 
 
 XIV. 23. dfjifxpTia. effTiv fin. ["* + finem hujus cap. excipiunt 
 versus tres posteriores cap. 16, variantibus 
 carentes, (vid. MILLIUS et WETSTEN.) viz. To> 
 
 fie <$vvfx/nVfa usque *<Uf$* afj.r\v. 
 
 XV. 7. init. adsAfat, 810 [* + Lect. 
 
 13. x a P a $ Kfxt *P$powv*$ v [* $ pro eiptjvrjs. 
 
 14. dwocftetoi xfM aAAou? VOV&ETEIV [* $ loco 
 17. init. deA<o/ e^'o> [* -J- Lect. , 
 
 7T|OOS TO!' 0OI/ [* }- TOV. 
 
 it 
 
 20. /u7 7r< aXXorptov * + ' 
 
 24. TI;*' 'JaTrat'/wv, \evaofj.fx.i [* -f- ' 
 
 * < pr 
 
 28. T*7i> 'lo-Trav/ai/ fin. [* + /. 
 
 HI 
 30. init. a^eA^o/, 7rjOxA(u ** J/ia? o/ [* -j- Lect. 
 
 & TOf O^O/XTOS TOl/ Kt/jO/Ol/. [* -f- TOf 
 
 XVI. 1. init. abehfyot, <rvvi(TTtifju [* -f- Lect. 
 
 5, 6. enKhrjo-Mv. * A(T7r(76ccr^e Maptaju. [* 
 aacrds ^L-nauverov rov aanrirov xoi>, o$ 
 
 9. KffTra.ffa.a6e Ovp*v.vov rov [* yQ. Sed post ot/ 
 litera fere extincta et formam rot/ ,0 prae se 
 ferens aliquantulum perlucet. 
 j;/i<y/ e/g "Kpiffrov [* ^ pro ei/ XjO/flrra). 
 20. t/xa>v a/xrji/ fin. [* + (XJUHJV. 
 
 25, 26, 27. * .......... [* Hi tres ultimi vers. 
 
 To> $e ^i/i/a/zei/aj usque y/as /xjt/ desunt. Vid. 
 cap. XIV. finem, cui adliaerent. 
 Subscript. SUXKOIOV * fin. [* TIJ$ 
 
162 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 AD I. CORINTH. Cap. I. II. III. IV. 
 
 Cap. I. 3. init. a<)eK<f>oi, %|0/s [* + Lect. 
 
 10. init. adfiA^o/, TrapaxaAw ** v/xa? <W [* 
 ** os. 
 
 fll 
 
 15. ovofj,a cpairrttf0T)Te fin. "* pro t^a-nriffa. 
 18. init. aSefyoi ol [* + Lect. 
 
 yap * TO u [* o. 
 20. K0ffp.ov * fin. [* rovrov. 
 26. init. aSeA^o/, fite-neTe [* -f Lect. 
 * or/ [* 5eA0o/. 
 
 yyevef? oi/ ?roAAo/ 5t/j/TO/ AAa [* $ pro 
 ?roAAo< Sfi/aro;, oi/ TroAAo/ ei/yej/e/^. 
 29. ev&TTiov TOV Qsov fin. [* $ pro avrov. 
 II. 2. expiva TI e/5ev/ ** v [* < TOf. ** T/. 
 3. init. xa-yo) ev [* # pro xa/ ey&). 
 
 4. o-o^*s * AA' [* 
 m 
 
 6. init. a^sA^oi, <ro(j>. [* + Lect. 
 
 7. \aJ\ovfiev Oeoiy (ro<f>i(xv EV [* $ pro aofyiav Qsov. 
 9. yeyponrTott* $eA^)o/, C A [* -f Lect. 
 
 ^ 
 
 10. 5 7rxAt/\/'e o 0eo$ 5/ [* $ pro o 0eo? 7rexA. &C. 
 1 1 . ot//$ eyvcoxev, ei [* ^ pro 
 
 III. 1. init. xy<y, 5eA^o/ [* pro 
 
 \aKrjffai [* $ pro \ex\tjarai vfj.iv. 
 
 3. ept$ *, oi/^/ [* xa/ 
 
 9. init. 5eA(^o/, Geot/ [* + Lect. 
 
 1 1 . IlffTOI/S * XjOJOTOS [* - O. 
 
 18. init. adsAfoi, /uijfe [* + Lect. 
 
 IV. 1. init. adeA^o/, OUTOS [* -|- Lect. 
 
 5. oKTre, <x$\<f>oi, JUHJ [* -f- Lect. 
 
 9. or/, 5A^)o/, o [* 4. Lect. 
 
 iu. 
 
 1 1. xa/ yvfj.virsvofj.ev, x/ [* < / pro 17 
 
 14. evrosTTcav f)fj,a$ yp<f)ci) [* pro i' 
 
 17. init. 5eA C 0o/, J/a [* + Lect. 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 163 
 
 AD I. CORINTH. Cap. V. VI. VII. 
 V. 2. iva *<xp$ri ex [* e. 
 
 6. ort, acfeA^o/, /u/xoa [* + Lect. 
 9. init. ocdeA^o*, eypa^a [* -f Lect. 
 
 VI. 2. init. tj ovx [* + 17. 
 
 3fc 
 
 u/u/y xpivere 6 [* < pro xptverat. 
 
 4t 
 
 5. ei/Tpo7rji/ v/xa)!/ Aey&j [* ^ pro t/z/y. 
 
 iM 
 
 oi/x ew / [* ^ pro <TT/I/. 
 
 V/A/V oi/^e e/5 0-0^)0? [* ? pro u/ui 
 
 7. /aev * oAw? [* oc/f. 
 ;TTT7yua * ij/uii/ [* ei/. 
 
 8. init. AA* i5/xe/5 [* . 
 
 10. 7rAeovxT/, oi/ pedvaoi [* ^ pro oi/re. 
 12. init. aSeA^oi -rravra [* + Lect. 
 
 
 
 15. m/; |0 oi/*/ [* ^ pro jO?. locus radendo cor- 
 
 rectus videtur. 
 VII. 5. Iva ff%o\a<rijTe ry [* ^ <r pro ^. 
 
 I/TO ffvvep^eaOsy Iva [* ^ e pro 
 
 7. ft)? * efjiavTOv' [* x/. 
 
 8. xa\ov I/TO/S [* + e. 
 
 
 9. yotfAtjcraTcoffav. Kpeirrov yap [* ^ TT loco trtr. 
 
 12. Ki/0/o?' aeA>o/ / * Lect. 
 
 1 3. ffvvevdoxet eixeiv /Lter' [* ^ e/ pro o/. 
 
 14. eirEion apa [* + $;. 
 
 18. axpofivffTia KexhrjTai T<S yuij [* $ et ^ loco axpo- 
 
 24. init. oedcToi, exaffroq [* -f Lect. 
 
 * / [* a^eA^o/. 
 
 0e<w [* TW. 
 29. <fvvfffTah/j.evos' earn TO AO/TOJ/ a/ac [* ? pro 
 
 /XffO? 4 TO Ao/TTOf (TT// /V. 
 
 ^ 
 
 34. fJL/j.fpi(TTai xat fj [* + *' 
 xai TO> ffcajmart * -f- T^W. 
 M 2 
 
164 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 AD I. CORINTH. Cap. VII. VIII. IX X. 
 
 VII. 34. K(Xl TO) 7TVVJU.aTl [* + T > 
 
 35. ($, a$eA^>o/, -rrpos [* -f- Lect. 
 
 xou EVTiape^pov T&> [* loco evTTpocredpov . 
 37. aapbifx. eSpouog /U.TJ [* -{- edpaws. 
 
 rtj i5/ xjo5/, rot/ [* < pro Kvpdia. avrov. 
 89. 5e x/ xotfj.i]0ri [* + x/. 
 
 VIII. 2. ei * T/S [* 3s 
 
 ovdev eyvto* x^o>? [* xe. 
 
 41 
 
 8. init. A^>o/, fipwjma [* -f Lect. 
 oi/re * ev [* 7|0- 
 
 11. x/ 7roAAt/Ta< o [* $ loco 7roA*r<. 
 
 IX. 1 . Ot/^/ ItJffOVV * TOI/ [* - Xp/OTOI/. 
 
 ^ 
 
 2. e//*/, aSeAQoi, fi [* + Lect. 
 
 9. /3ot/ j/ Aooi/vr. Mi? [* <J loco aAocyrra. 
 float/ yueAAfi TOJ [* -f- A. 
 
 13. init. atfeA^o/, oi/x [* + Lect. 
 
 g| 
 
 ecrOiovffiv ; AW* o/ [* + x/. 
 
 18. cvayye\iov *, / [* TOI/ Xpitrrov. 
 
 19. init. a5A(^o/, ehevQzpos [* -j- Lect. 
 
 * 6>I/ [* - 7jO. 
 
 24. fipafleiov ; Ourcu? rpe^ers [* # pro OVTO>. 
 
 ^ 
 
 26. TOIVVV OVT(t>S TjO^<y, [* ^ loC 
 
 X. 1. ^fAo) 7|0 4u$ [* ^ pro <$. 
 
 2. TOV Moi/<riji/ efiaTTTtffavro [* ^ pro Mcy<r;/. 
 
 g| 
 
 3. I/TO msvfjwiTiKov /8jO&>/i efrtyov [ $ pro ai/ro fiptopa 
 
 5. AA', a()e\<f>oi f OVK [* + Lect. 
 7. axTTTfijO yeypa-nrai' [* -f- 7Tp. 
 9. x0<u$ * T//e? [* xa<. 
 
 OLVTQ)V %7TtpOl<rOtV [ -|- ^. 
 
 10. XOC^tt)? * T/f$ [* --- Xi. 
 
 ^ 
 
 11. TfiAi; rot/ /cyi/o^ xxT>)^Tr7a'' [ $ loco T<WV aiwvtov. 
 
 12. w<rT, aJeA^o*, o [*'+ Lect. 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 165 
 
 AD I. CORINTH. Cap. X. XL XII. 
 X. 13. ov K(x.Ti\ri<pEv et [* $ ov pro OVK. * + XT. 
 
 14. TTK &uA0Ai7>z$ [* pro 
 
 21. ^aufwvtw* MI ov [* -f x/. 
 
 23. init. oe*^0f, ira* [* -f Lect. 
 
 26. rot/ Kt/p/oi/ -yjO r; [* ? pro TOI/ yo Ki/o<oi/ 17. 
 
 28. init. adeA^oi, ev [* -f Lect. 
 30. '* eyro [* 7jO- 
 
 XL 2. l//AS *, Or/ [* - fJi^\(j>Ol. 
 
 5. K<f>fxhr)v *i/ri79 * e. 
 
 YjO TO fxvro effrt ** r/7 [* $ pro 
 
 l/TO TfJ. ** - X/. 
 
 6. X/ Ketpcfrtlcu' 1 [* ^ 1OCO KSlpfXffOct). 
 
 ^ 
 
 TO xetpsoQat rj [* ^ pro Kipa<rdou. 
 8.' init. ^eA^)o/, ot/ [* + Lect. 
 14. ^>i/<r*$ I/TJ 5<5<rxe/ [* -f- 
 
 15. 7repi/3o\ai ov avrrj o"ecW/. [* $ pro 7reo//3oA<oi/ Je- 
 
 
 
 20. Off IJJLUI/ ?r/ [* ^ pro v 
 
 23. init. 5eA^o/, e-yo> [* + Lect. 
 
 25. -notem *, <5 [* oa-axig a 
 
 26. yajO ei/ effditjre [* ^ pro av. 
 xaToc-yyeA^re, [* A. 
 
 27. x * //UTO? [* TOI/. 
 
 g| 
 
 29. ai/^/co?, TOI/ lit/p/ov xo</x [* -f- 
 31. init. a$eA^)o/, e/ [* +Lect. 
 
 ft 
 
 XII. 2. OTI OTfi ^1/17 [* -f- OTf. 
 
 6. evepyrj/juxTcov euri* t 6 [* + v. 
 
 7. init. ao>A^>o/ [* -f Lect. 
 
 9. Tft) Vt Hvev/JLfJtTl [* ^ loCO l/Tft). 
 
 12. init. fx<l\(f>oi, nadonrsp [* <^ Lect. 
 
 13. fV Flfl/xa 7TOTur0ti/nt/ [* ^ loco 
 21 . Jf o o^)^xA/xo? [* -h o. 
 
166 
 
 AD 
 
 XII. 23. 
 
 25. 
 27. 
 
 28. 
 
 XIII. 4. 
 
 9. 
 
 10. 
 
 11. 
 
 XIV. 6. 
 
 7. 
 
 9. 
 12. 
 15. 
 21. 
 23. 
 26. 
 
 29. 
 35. 
 
 37. 
 
 40. 
 
 XV. 1. 
 
 7. 
 
 10. 
 
 12. 
 
 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 I. CORINTH. Cap. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. 
 
 t'i/j.a)v TTpiff<roTpav v<r^tjfj.offvvrjv %/. [* ? pro fi/u.<uv 
 
 init. 
 
 ev 
 
 init. 
 init. 
 
 Treptfffforepotv %*. 
 y ff^ifffiaTa ev [* -f- T. 
 init. 5eA^>3/, vpets [* -f- Lect. 
 
 <W/U<$, 7TIT(A ^jO/0/tT [* < loCO < 
 
 init. $ V>/, 17 [* + Lect. 
 irjAoi * ' ov [* 17 aya-Trfj. 
 /j,pov$ d yivcoffKOfiw [* ^ loco y/t>. 
 
 * TO [* - TOTfi. 
 
 , OT [* -{- Lect. 
 Ai/\f/, j .[* a superscript. 
 TTCDS [* ^ loCO J^y. 
 
 xa< [* ^ pro O^TW. 
 xi [* $ pro 
 ovy * ; 7Tpoffv!-ojjLai [* 
 xcu oi/^e OI^TWS [* <pro oi/ 
 y\a)ffffais AA<w<r<, /o-A^a>o-/ [* ^ loco 
 
 [* V/ULCDV. 
 fin. [* 
 [* + 17. 
 
 [* $ pro <TT<. 
 [* TOV. 
 
 [* -f ^e. 
 
 w y/iu>', TO [* $ 
 , TO. 
 
 [* + A 10 ^- 
 TOI? [* ^ pro e/T. 
 
 Ilai/ra 
 
 vju.iv, 
 
 Ixft)/3<u' 
 
 7TSptffffOTpOV TCavTCOV OiVTCOV tKOTTKXffa' [* ? prO TTBptff- 
 
 <roTpoi/ avTtov TTotvTav 
 , aAA' [* 
 tv vju.li', rives OTI [* $ pro Aeyoi/a< 
 
 U/i/I/, OT/. 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 167 
 
 AD I. CORINTH. Cap. XV. & XVI. 
 XV. 13. init. * ovde [* E/ 5e avaoraais vexptov ovx 
 
 haec omissa alias in marg. adjecit. 
 14. xevtj * x/ * 5e. 
 
 |k 
 
 20. 5e, aSeA^o/, XptffTOq [* + Lect. 
 
 23. Ol TOV XptffTOV [* 4- TOl/. 
 
 29. init. /uerw, aSeA^o/, T< [* pro ewe/. ** + 
 
 vTrep oiVTcov fin. [* $ loco TGW vexptov. 
 
 jH 
 31. TIJI/ vfisrspav Kav%r)oriv, [* ^ pro ripeTepav. 
 
 33. ijtfij xptiarra 6fj.i\iai [* < loco %p7<r^' o/x/A/a<. 
 
 34. yap T<^ 0foi/ e%ovcri [* $ pro -yap Geoi/ 
 
 evTpoiti]v vjj.(t)v \eyco [* <J loco y/ 
 
 41 
 
 39. init. otie^oi, ov [* + Lect. 
 
 i/, [* <rap!" 
 
 <Jff o~up^ TTTIIVWV, AAi; ot f^Gvcov, aAAi; 
 
 fin. [* ? pro aAAi; Je i\0vwv t aAAij 
 
 ** + <r|0^ et aAArj 5e Tre-mi/aw. 
 45. yeyponrrat' Eye*ro o [* ve recent, superscrips. 
 47. init. deA<o/, o [* 4- Lect. 
 
 57. TG> 3oj/TI 17/XfI' [* ^ 1OCO dl^OI/Tf. 
 
 XVI. 4. init. flc^eA^o/, ey [* + Lect. 
 
 ^ 
 
 5g ottov t] TOV [ ? pro 5e /? a^i/ TOI/. 
 13. init. a&rA^o/, yptiyopetre, [* + Lect. 
 17. Sre^xxva x< <&ovpTOvvaTOv xoti A^atxoi/, or* 
 
 [* + xew $ovpTOvvaTOv xat Ayaixov. 
 19. affTra^oi/ra* * [* iJyuag / exxA^<r// TI;? 
 TroAAa ev KfjO^w Axi/A?. [* $ pro 
 
 ?roAA Axt/A5. 
 22. Kt/p/ov r}fjMV Itjcrovv [* + ^/x<ui/. 
 
 Subscript. OCTTO ^/AITTTTOI/ J/a [* $ loco 
 
168 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 AD II. CORINTH. Cap. I. II. III. 
 Cap. I. 5. i7/u$, OVTUS 5< [* $ pro OVTQ>. 
 
 5/ TOV Xptffrov [* + rov. 
 6. 7r<xff%ojj.v' n.at 17 ^ATT/S fijMuv fiefi'tit* vTtep V/UCDV tire 
 
 ' fin. [* $ pro 7rtxff%o/j.v' ene 
 KO.I 
 fin. 
 
 8. init. 3eA^>o/, oi/ [* 4- Lect. 
 12. init. adeA<f>oij fi [* 4- Lect. 
 15. /3ot/A0/x}> Trporepov, \6sit> npos v/x?, *V [* $ p r 
 
 efiov\ofj.nv 7T(00? v/u? s\0ew -rrpoiepov, tva. 
 1 6. v/u<uv ehbziv /? [* < pro 5/eA^erf . 
 
 i^^)' 7/ua>i/ 7rp07T/j.<j>0rivou /? [* ^ loco t- 
 i etq. 
 
 21. init. aSeA^o/, o [* -f Lect. 
 
 22. init. * x* [* 6. 
 
 24. Kvpievo(j.ev rrjs -niareco^ v/mouv AAa [* $ 
 
 V/J.COV ri7 Tr/prews, AA. 
 II. 1. TraA^i/ ev AI/TTJ; TTJOOS 5yUs ehti&iv, fin. [ ? pro 
 
 eh&etv ev AI/TTI? TT/JOS v/xa?, fin. 
 3. AI/TTIJC e?r/ At/Trrji/ f^cw [* + 7r/ AfTT^i^. 
 
 or/, a<*\(f>oi, r\ [* + Lect. 
 5. AfiAi/TT/jxsi', AA TTO [* < pro AA'. 
 10. ^jO/^<T^, jcotyte / [* ^ loco KM/ eya*. 
 
 13. /AOI/' AA' 7ror/u'os [* ^ pro AArx. 
 
 14. init. a&:A<o<, TO> [* + Lect. 
 
 17. O/ Ao/TTO/, X7T^AfOVT? [ ^ loCO 7ToAA0/. 
 
 III. 1. ffvvfffTaveiv ; ? /u; [* ^ pro ei. 
 
 3. qfuuf) xa/ ytypf>fM(j.evr} ov [* ^ loco JT/AG)*', eyyeypap- 
 
 ov. 
 
 y fin. [* ^ pro 
 4. init. ^A^>o/, -neTrorftjfftv [* + Lect. 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 AD II. CORINTH. Cap. III. IV. V. VI. 
 
 ft 
 
 III. 6. ypKfji/uirjt (XTTOKTevei, TO [* $ pro 
 
 9. yap rrj oiatKOviat [* $ loco f) 
 10. yap ov 5fio<rrvx/ [* $ pro 
 
 1 2. init. $A<o/, r^oj/Tfs [* -f- Lect. 
 
 9 
 
 13. xadaTrep Mtuvartis endei [* + " 
 
 TTpO&COTTOV fKVTOV, TTjOO? [* <^ pFO laVTOV. 
 
 15. a^ay/KU(TxT/ M<yoV^?, xAfyu./ta [* + i/ 
 18. TTO 5o^<5 e/? [* ^ pro <Wfj?. 
 
 IV. 4. avyacrou avrovs rov [* <^ loco O.VTOK;. 
 
 Oeov rov aoparov fin. [* + Tol/ <*-oparov. 
 6. or/, oibehfyoi, o [* -}- Lect. 
 
 TOI/ [* T;;? oot)$. 
 7rpo<r<i>7r<p Xp/oroi/ ITJO-OI/ fin. [* $ pro Trpofftoirtp Irjtrov 
 
 XplffTOV. 
 
 13. init. aos\<f>oi, e^ot/Ts [* + Lect. 
 
 14. Itjaov e&yepet, x.at [ ^ pro eyepei. 
 V. 1. init. adeAfoi, oioa.fj.ev [* 4- Lect. 
 
 4. fiapovjmevoi' e<f> a oi/ [* <J e<^)' w loco eTrei^t?. 
 10. yp aosA<j>ot Travras [* -f- Lect. 
 
 7^ 
 
 12. v/x/i', AA' a<f>op/uuiv [* a. 
 
 15. X/ XOKTTOJ VTrfjO [* -}- XjO/<TTO$. 
 
 V7TjO TTOffTfyi/ O.7TO()avOVTt [* (^ lOCO t/T&<!/. 
 
 16. eyv&Kotjuisv * OXTTS [* XT <ra,pKot yLpiffTov, aAAa 
 
 i/i/i/ OJ/K er/ y/v6><rxo/xef hsec omissa alia quidem, 
 sed vetusta manus in marg. adscrips. 
 
 ^ 
 
 17. xr^s* avaxa/v^co-^s' T [* -j- vxa/v^eor^e. 
 19. Kofffiov xrAA*(ra>j/ eai/Teu [* <r. 
 
 VI. 4, ev avayxats, tv ^/ewy/uoi?, ev (Trevo^. &C. [* 4* '^ 
 
 11. init. 5fA^o/, TO [* -{- Lect. 
 16. 0oi> /XCT /^<yAft>^ [* ^ pro /U 
 
170 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 AD II. CORINTH. Cap. VII. VIII. IX. 
 VII. 1. otyoarriToi, 5eA0o/, xadapiffcopev [* + Lect. 
 6. i7/ts * ev [* o Qeoq. 
 
 10. init. a$*4>o/, rj [* -f- Lect. 
 
 11. naTeipyaffa.ro * J-TTOI/^I/ ; [* t/*/. Alius hoc 
 
 omissum superscrips. 
 
 12. ov-% lvKv rov [* < dvKv. 
 ov<$ lvxv rov [* ^ e/Vexei/. 
 AA ivEKfv rov [* ttvexev. 
 
 16. &appce> * v/u/ [* ev. 
 VIII. 1. init. aos^oi^vccpi^ofjLsv [* + Lect. 
 yy^iO^o/Aei/ 5e * TI;/ % ( o/' [* 
 
 vpiv superscript, minio. 
 4. eey/oi/s, * fin. [* $%aff6 
 
 $fc 
 
 6. Ttapaxateaat v/x? T/TOI/, [* $ ;?/ 
 
 7. init. * &<r7Tp [* AA\ 
 
 e^ jj/ifov ev U/LWI/ ay7r;j. [* pro ty 
 9. d/' ijyuag^ eTTTfu^et/tre [* ^ pro t>yu$. 
 /Va 7/i/s TIJ [* ^ pro i^/ue/s. 
 
 nrw-xjEia 7T\ovrtjcra)^v fin. [* ^ pro ir\ovrij<rtjT. 
 14. 7TpiffffVfj.a * e/5 [* yvijrat. 
 16. init. 5eA^o/, ^pi s [* 4- Lect. 
 1 9. m? f T^J/ rot/ [* $ avrov. 
 
 fin. [* $ pro V 
 
 21. i/<w7r/o^ T<UV a^jOcyTrwi/ [* -f- rtov, 
 
 22. 5e * ffTTov^aiorepov. [* ?roAt/. 
 24. voia<r6e, * e/s [* xa/. 
 
 IX. 2. o * i^uui/ [* e. 
 
 4. x/ e^joco iJ/x$ [* ^ svpcotrtv vitiose scriptum, sed 
 
 correctum esse videtur. 
 
 a7T<xpa<rKvovs, aaraiff^. &c. [* $ pro 7r/)a- 
 
 [* <^ pro v 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 171 
 
 AD II. CORINTH. Cap. IX. X. XI. 
 
 IX. 4. VTTOO-TaffSt TUVTIK TtJ$ [* $ ptt> T<KVTT]. 
 
 5. /XT; o>s Trhtovet-iav [* < pro coffirep. 
 
 6. init. adeA5>o/,**o (nreipcov [* -f Lect. ** Tot/ro 3. 
 10. T yev*tifiara TK [* i/ alterum. 
 
 1 1 . $ VJJ.UV V%aplffTiaV [* 
 
 12. or/, SeA<o/, 17 [* + Lect. 
 
 15. 
 
 X. 6. iraorav Trapafioiffiv nai Tiaaav -napaKotjv [ 
 /3a<riv xat. 
 
 7. ySAcTrere ; 5fA^>o/, e/ [* + Lect. 
 
 8. Ki/jO/o? ^/xtui/ e/s [* # 17/u/K. 
 
 9. Iva^epn [* + &. 
 
 12. <riy//<rTvoi/T<wv* ?vA't/To< [* . 
 
 oi/ ffvviovfftv fin. [*-f-oiy ffvviovffiv linea subducta 
 notata sunt. 
 
 ^ 
 
 13. ov efj,Tpijffev fjfj.iv [* ^ pro sf^epiffsv. 
 
 j& 
 
 17. Kt/jOto Kav%tiffaff6co fin. [* ^ pro Kavy^aydo)- 
 XI. 1. init. adehpoi, o<f>e\ov [* + Lect. 
 
 a<f>poffvvtjs' AA [* ^ pro TJ; fK<j>poarvvrj. 
 
 2. ^jAo)' fipfj.offafj.lv yap [* ^ / pro 17. vit. et correct. 
 
 ^ * 
 
 3. 7rAoTi7Tos xi TIJS oc-yvoTijTog TJJS [* + x/ TT;S 
 
 T?ro?, qu?B et linea subducta notata sunt. 
 
 J|| 
 
 5. init. 5eA^>o/, AoY/^o/ua/ [* + Lect. 
 7. 7ro/i7<r, ai/ro/ T7rf/vfyv [* ^ pro I 
 
 10. oty (frpaytjerereu e<s [* ^ pro or (f) pay t<r er at. 
 14. oi/ 5t//ua* t/TO? [* ^ pro SavpaffTov . 
 
 16. <V xay<y pixpov rt xav%tj(rci)fj.ai. [* $ pro a/a ftiKpov 
 
 rt xayco xai/^;<r(yya/. 
 
 17. oi/ xara Ki/p/oi/, AAa> AA' [* $ pro oy AA&> xara 
 
 21. riff0vtjcrafj,v' 5A^>o/, ei/ [* + Lect. 
 25. Tp/5 ep^afidiffOtiv, a7ra [* p alterum. 
 
172 
 
 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 AD II. CORINTH. Cap. XI. XII. XIII. 
 
 XI. 26. 7ror/AGn>, Kivfiwois * e edvcov [* Ajj<rTa> / , xtvdvvot$ 
 x yevoi/s, xwtWo/g.) 
 
 31. init. aSeA^o/, o 00? [* -f Lect. 
 
 32. Ttjv TroAii/ A/U<TXJI/(WI>, [* $ pro Ti7> / 
 
 XII. 9. 
 
 10. init. a 
 
 [* . 
 [* + Lect. 
 
 [* + x '- 
 
 11. yap i/ffreprjua T<*>V [* < x pro <r. 
 
 12. T fjievTOi <rtiiJ.ia [* ^ pro /uev. 
 
 VTTO/iOVp, * 0-IJyU.e/O^S T6 X< [* - V. * + T. 
 
 14. TptTOV TOVTO TO/yU<US [* 4. TOVTO. 
 
 [* + a ultimum. 
 
 itytv, [* + i/, s<f>ch.KvcrTtKOv. 
 
 g| 
 
 16. v/Lia?' AA v7rjO^ui/ [* + ultimura. 
 
 [* + Lect. 
 
 , AA U 
 
 20. init. 
 
 XIII. 1. init. /Sot/, 
 
 [* + 
 
 5t/0 XfX* TplCeiV fJ.fX.prVp(OV [ 
 
 2. TraA/v, TIVO? oi/ [ 
 
 3. init. 5eA(^oi, eTre/ 
 
 4. AA 
 
 sic mutat. 
 
 x/ytxo/ 
 
 7. 
 
 10. 
 11. xi 
 
 Subscript. 
 
 [* -f Lect. 
 [* ^ pro 
 
 ro xAoi/ [* / 
 
 [* ? pro 
 TJ?. 
 J/ [* r/;? 
 
 &C. 
 
 Correctura 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 173 
 
 AD GALAT. Cap. I. II. III. 
 Cap. I. 3. init. 5sA^o;, %o/s [* + Lect. 
 
 K.vpiov * Irjffov [ ri/Ji&v, 
 
 4. eavrov 7Tpi rcav [* $ pro wrep. Quod autem ra- 
 dendo sic mutatum videtur. 
 * r* i_ 
 
 W/cyi/OS TOl/ TTOVlJpOV _ + TOl/. 
 
 7. o/ Tapaff*ovTs v/us [* <r alterum. 
 
 8. ovpavov ei/yyeA^ijr t/A/v [* $ pro 
 
 11. init. ou$e\<j>oi, yv&pifa [* -f Lect. 
 
 U/X/I/, * TO [* - deA^>O*. 
 
 12. AA' 5/ 7roxAi/^<u5 [* + in 3/. 
 
 1 7. ot/ aTTtj\0ov sis [* ^ pro avijAtfov. 
 
 
 AA aTTfjAtfoy [* + in 
 
 18. init. 7r/T /uera rp/a er^ avrj\0ov [* ^/ pro 
 
 ** $ pro erij rpia. 
 
 II. 6. init. 5eAo/, ?ro [* + Lect. 
 
 9. ij/xs;?, /uev e^s [* +/xe^. 
 11. init. aSeA^>o/, ore [* -f- Lect. 
 13. x/ Bapi/a/Sav arvwnnt.'xOriva.i otvrwv [ pro 
 
 14. 77$ * or/x [* xa/. 
 
 16. init. adeA^o/, e/Sore? [* -}- Lect. 
 
 * Irjarovv Xpicrrov 7TKrTsv<rfxfj.ev [* 
 ** ? pro XpiffTov Ijjarow. 
 
 ov e!" epytvv VOJJ.QV 5/xa/cw^ij(reT< [*? pro ov 
 <$iKrxia>0ii(reToti e% epywv VO/AOV. 
 
 |k 
 
 21. init. 5eA^>o/, ot/x [* -|- Lect. 
 III. 1. V/A$ efiaaMivev Tr\ [* ^ pro sfiaffxotve. 
 
 ptj TieiGeatie ; 0/9 [* ^ pro rceiOsffOai. 
 8. init. 5eA^>o/, -npol'lova-a [* -f Lect. 
 10. yeypanTou yap' * 'Or/ e^ 7r<r< [* 
 
 ** -f- OT/. 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 AD GALAT. Cap. III. IV. V. 
 
 III. 15. init. adshipoi, Kara [* + Lect. minio enim ad- 
 script. Millio tamen legitur. 
 
 ^ 
 
 17. /xT rerpaKoa-ta xai rpiaxovra CT>; [* $ pro 
 
 erij rerpa. &c. 
 
 18. eTrayyfiAfa? e^apiararo 6 [* $ pro 
 
 19. a> 7ri7yye/ATO, J/araye/s [* < pro 
 
 21. o>T<ys ex vopov otv ** 17 SmoiKHrvvtj [* $ pro 
 
 23. TOV * ehOetv [* de. 
 
 * T * * r* 
 
 2o. 7r/0TG>s iriffov JLpiffrov \_ e>. ^ 
 
 IlJ(TOl/. 
 
 28. fi/?*^ [* <TT. 
 
 IV. 2. init. AA* into [* ultimum. 
 
 8. init. 3eA0(M, ** OT yav [* -f Lect. ** AA. 
 
 *** ^ prO TOT. 
 
 13. affdeveiav * aapxoq [* TIJ?. 
 
 22. init. ysypaTrre yap, adeA^>o/, *** Afipoux/j. [* <^ pro 
 
 ** -f Lect. *** OT/. 
 24. Tffoc ffT/* aAAiryO(Ooy/ii/a [* v, 
 
 yap etffi * Jt/o [* v, a/. 
 
 ^T/S sari * Ayap [* i/, s<f>e\KV(r. &c. 
 28. init. adetyoi, tjiyue/? ** XT [* ? pro 
 
 V. 3. 5e * wv [* 
 
 g| 
 
 4. ^jO/TO? ^7re<rT fin. [* < pro 
 
 7. i5/x VKO\j/ rrj [*. ( pro etveno^E. 
 
 10. AAo <f>povti<rTai' 6 [* ^ pro <f>povjio"Te, 
 
 11. ya> * 5A^>o/ [* <$. 
 
 7TSplTOJU.lv STl [* ^ prO 7TplTO/J.tlV. 
 
 15. yui7 VTT* aAAjjAwi/ [* o ultimum. 
 
 
 17. ce v Sshtire, ** Troajre [* ^ pro >/. ** 
 
 ravra. 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 175 
 
 AD GALAT. Cap. V. VI. 
 V. 20. init. ei&yAoAaTp/a, ^>a,oyuaxe/a [* $ pro e/&uAoA- 
 
 Tpstot. 
 20, 21. cpets, * 3>6o*oi [* 
 
 22. init. adeA^o/, o [* -f Lect. 
 
 23. 7T|0OTj?, cyxpana' Kara [* < pro 
 26. /x7 yvcafj.eda xefoJo^o/, [* < pro 
 
 VI. 2. init. a$A<o/, aAA^Aoi/ [* + Lect. 
 
 * 
 /3jOij /SaffTa^ertxt, KOU [* ^ y3<TT^ET 
 
 11. init. <feA^>o/, /jTe [* + Lect. 
 
 ^ 
 
 12. vayxa^ot/<r/v ijyua? itepiTepveffBat, [* ^ pro v 
 
 ^ 
 
 13. ol neptrsrp.rifjLSvoi avrot [* < pro 
 
 * 
 Subscript, init. ? -Trpos [*+? 
 
 AD EPHES. 
 
 Cap. I. 3. init. 5eA^>o/, ev\oytjros [* + Lect. 
 
 exovpaviois ev XpurTto [* -|~ v - 
 5, 6. 5eA^LtTos avTOi/, * iv y [* E/s ETTOUVOV Sofas 
 
 rrjg %aptTOS avrov. 
 
 7. v $ t aoA<f)Of, ^ofj.ev [* + Lect. 
 10. rot/ TrAijjoayuaTos TWI/ [* rasura quadam facta sic leg. 
 T e?ri TO/S [* ^ pro T ev. 
 
 12 eTra/voi/ * So^nc F* TMC 
 
 13. ffwrtjpuxs fifj.cav' sv [* ^ pro i5/ 
 16. init. 5eA^o/, ov [* -f Lect. 
 18. T;$ x(0(W$ J/x<uv [* <^ pro 
 
 21. SvvoifjLeas *, xi TTWI/TOS [* x< 
 
 22. xai, aSeA^o/, TTVT [* -|- Lect. 
 
 23. rot/ T 7ri/ra [* + T. 
 
176 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 AD EPHES. Cap. II. III. IV. 
 II. 3. quf$ * ai'sffrpa^tifjisv [* 7rire$. 
 4. init. abetyoty 6 [* -f Lect. 
 
 7, 8. Post finem v. 7. et init. v. 8. errore scribae, 
 initium v. 8. et v. 6. et7. occurrunt, quse autem 
 lined deleta sunt. 
 10. avrov * efffisv [* yap. 
 
 Itjffov rrr* epyois [* i in err*. 
 1 1 . Jio, adeA^oi, ^vn/jLOvevsre [* + Lect, 
 
 TIJS Aeyo/xei'0/s Trffp/ro/ui;? [* pro Aeyo/tfi/fl?. 
 14. vjt), adeA^oi, XJOTTOS eoTiv [* + Lect. ** +. 
 
 17. ctptjvijv fifMtv TO< [* ^ pro vfj.iv. 
 
 18. "npo<rayeaytjv * oyj-fyorepoi [* o/. 
 
 19. ot/i/, a$e\<j>oi, ovxsTt [* + Lect. 
 21. w<ra * o/xodo/tr} [* n. 
 
 Til. 5. o * erepaus [* cv. 
 
 Hi fi'/xT< dytco. fin. [* + yw. 
 8. init. adeA<oi, e/uo/ [* -f Lect. 
 navrw * yu' [* TODV. 
 
 16. n^vftaTO? c/roi/, e/$ [* ^ pro avrov. 
 
 19. i/7re/o/8aAAoi/(r>' ayounjv TTJS yvtooreeos rov [* $ pro 
 
 u7re/o/8aAAoi/<ra' TI;? yKftxrea)? ayairrjv rov. 
 IV. 1. init. adeA</K><, TrapaxaAcw [* + Lect. 
 
 13. av5|0 reA/ov, e/? [* ^ loco TeAoi'. 
 
 14. /Va, 5eA^o/, fjajKsrt [* + Lect. 
 
 17. ov* Arywv xou [* ^ pro Arya>. 
 voos iot.vT(t>v' fin. [* < pro i/'ra> . 
 
 25. (Jio, adeA^o', aito$)j.evoi [* + Lect. 
 28. T<$ <$/a s - yepffiv [* -i- idi'uc. 
 32. s^pi-jaro ryjuv fin. [* ^ loco v/x/i/ fin. 
 V. I. init. a^eA^tw, yivevde [* -f Lect. 
 
 8. Ki/,wa>- aSeA^o/, w? [* -f Lect. 
 20 init. udeA^o/, *i/^;|0/(rToi/i'T? [* -f Lect. 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 177 
 
 AD EPHES. Cap.V. & VI. 
 V. 23. on* avnp [* o. 
 
 24. XpiffTw, OVTOH; x/ * $ loco ovr<*>. 
 
 25. init. 5eA^>o/, o* [* + Lect. 
 
 
 29. e/ju<Tij<Tv, AA exrpefet [* + pro a A A*. 
 33. eV, aJeA^H>/, exaoTos [* + Lect. 
 VI. 6. AA' a> doi/Aw [* pro &?. 
 7. Jot/Aei/oi/Te? a>s TW [ -f- 0*5. 
 
 9. l/TCWV * Kt/jf><0 * - O. 
 
 10. evtivvafjiOvffOe * ei/ [ -- ev 
 13. init. ^A^o*, ^/ [* + Lect. 
 19. xa/ 7re/p< e/uot/ [* $ pro vTrep. 
 
 /to< $0611 Aoyo? [* ^ loco $o0etr). 
 21. Je etbetre xai [* < pro etbirre. 
 Subscript, init. 17 
 
 AD PHILIPP. Cap. I. & II. 
 Cap. I. 6. r//j.epa<; XP/OTOI/ Itj<rov fin. [* ? pro 13 
 
 fin. 
 7. xou / T/7 7roAoy/a [* -f 
 
 12. init. adeA^o/, y/j/awrxe/i/ [* -f Lect. 
 /, * OT< [* 
 
 20. or/, a^eA^o/, ev [* + Lect. 
 23. awexpfMiu 3e ex [* ^ pro yap 
 26. L/MW nepiffffevffrj ev [* ^ loco 
 
 II. 1 . e< T/ <T7rAyx' [* ^ p 
 
 2. ai/ro (fipovctre, rrjv [* $ loco <f>poviiTe 
 
 27. /JLOVOV, aJeA^o/, a^/ty? [* + Lect 
 ro T//a. 
 $ loco <f>povi 
 fin. [* pro xa< ra trtp<*>v 
 
 fin. 
 5. init. adeA^oi, TOI/TO [* 4- Lect. 
 
 N 
 
178 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 AD PHILIPP. Cap. II. III. IV. 
 II. 16. on, adeA^o/, oi/x [* + Lect. 
 
 19. ev XjO/crra) Iijffov [* $ pro Kvpita. 
 
 20. offrts T Trept vfjicov -yvrjffi&s /jispi^vtjffei fin. [* $ pro 
 
 OOT/S yvnffiwq TO. Trepi VJJMV fiept/jLVtjorei fin. 
 
 21. T * X/wffrou [* TOIA 
 
 24. init. adeA^oi, mt-noiOa. [* -f Lect. 
 
 ft 
 
 26. V/AS /^c/i/, xat [* -f- /5e/. 
 
 27. aAAa x yue, /va [* $ pro xar ffyue. 
 
 III. 3. TTvev/MiTi Qeov AT|oei/oi/Ts, [* $ loco Gecu. 
 4. TreTToiOtifftv * ev [* xcu. 
 
 r/5 aAAos doxei TTSTroidevat [* ? pro T*S 5oxe/ AAos 
 
 5. 0i/Aij$ "Bsviotfujv, c EySjO/os [* < pro 
 
 
 8. aAAa /iev o/v xa< [* $ pro /j.svovi/ye. 
 
 ov t a3eA^>o/, T [* -f Lect. 
 12. e^>' 9> * Kare\ii(f)driv [* x/. 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 VTTO * ItJffOV XplffTOV fin. [* - TOO. ** 
 
 fin. 
 
 17. Tovg OVT&S TrepnraTOvvras [* ^ pro 
 20. init. a5*^o/, ^/xwv [* + Lect. 
 
 IV. 1. fiov f OVTCOS ffTtjKSTe [* $ pro ovra>. 
 
 2. init. evodiav TrapaxaAta, [*<pro 
 n 
 
 4. init. 5eA^>o/j %oupre [* -}- Lect. 
 
 % 
 10. init. 5eA<^>o/, s%&pijv [* -4" Lect. 
 
 12. o/da x/ raTTEivovffdai [* ^ loco ^. 
 Subscript, init. 77 TT^OOS [* "I" j;. 
 
 ^. 
 
 AD COLOSS. 
 
 Cap. I. 4. ayatrtjv rjv e^erou e/s 7rvr5 [* $ tjv loco 
 ** + e^grat. 
 
 5. a-noKEifjiwriv vpsiv ev [* ^ pro 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 179 
 
 AD COLOSS. Cap. I. II. III. 
 
 I. 6. K'Xp7TO(f>OpOVfJiVOV, KW.I OtV%aVOfJiVOV X0ft>S [* -f- X/ 
 
 12. init. a<$\<poi, v%apiffTovvT<; [* + Lect. 
 
 TO) 9ffG> KOtl TTOlTpl [* + 0a> Xl. 
 
 
 18. init. * GCI/TOS XjOICTTOS <TT/I/ [* - X/. ** -f- XjO/<TTO. 
 
 22. 5i/Tot/ avrov, TrapaffTtjffou [* + avrov. 
 
 23. V7TO * OVptXVOV [* - TO I'. 
 
 24. init. adeA^o/, fi/j/ [* -j- Lect. 
 
 TO<? nadtj/j.ourt * vTrep. [* yuoi/. 
 M 
 
 27. yv&piffou n TO TrAoi/ro? [* < TI TO pro T/? o. 
 
 28. J^o-xovTeg * 7rai/T [* -navra. 
 
 <ro<j>iot, iva 
 II. 1. init. adeA^o/, 5eA<u [* -f Lect. 
 
 aycava * Treo/ [* *%< 
 
 4. ei/ TttOav ahoy toe, fin. [* < pro TTtdavohoyiff fin. 
 8. init. 5eA^o/, ySAeTreTff [* -J- Lect. 
 
 13. t/xs, 5eA^)o/, /expoi/? [* + Lect. 
 <ri/i/e^y07ro^o- j/us ow [* -f- i^tas- 
 
 14. at/To ^oei' ex [* ^ pro tjpxev. 
 10. ; * 7ro<ri [* ev. . 
 
 1 7. <T<y/A * XjO^CTTOC/ [* - TO!/. 
 
 20. init. adVA^o/, / [* + Lect. 
 
 ffl/l/ * XjO/(TTG> [* - T&). 
 
 21. opjtrj, fuj y Vff ?l> W &*y*K [*<^pro /uij5e. ** ^ loco 
 
 /uj5e. 
 
 23, Aoyov /u^ E%OVTOI [* ^ pro /ue/. 
 III. 2. STT/ *7i7S [* Tijs. 
 
 4. init. a5eA^)o/, OTI/ [* + Lect. 
 
 gH 
 
 5. effriv e/5<yAoAT|0/a fin. [* ^ pro e/d^uAoAaTpewt fin. 
 
 12. init. afatyoi, v$v<raff0 [* + Lect. 
 
 ^c 
 
 13. ea/<rTO )7u/i/ OI/TWS x/ [ ^ pro 
 
 16. ei/ v%fxpicrTiqt aSovTSS [* <^ loco %f*piTt 
 N 2 
 
180 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 AD COLOSS. Cap. III. & IV. 
 
 III. 17. init. 3 A0o/, ** 7r [* + Lect. ** *at. 
 tj * epyu [* ev. 
 
 1JL 
 
 OVO/AOlTt TOV KvptOV [* -f- TOV. 
 
 24. TIJV avTa-noSatxrtv TJJS [* $ pro avromobofftv. 
 
 &. 
 
 IV. 1. Joi/Ao/s Trappers, ei^orsq [* pro 7raps%eff0. 
 2, init. a^eA^o/, TT; [* -j- Lect. 
 5. init. deA^>o/, / [* + Lect. 
 
 ^ 
 
 10. init. ads\<j>oi, aa-nofyrai [* + Lect. 
 
 ^ ^ ^t 
 
 Subscript, init. ; -npos KoAo-<re/? eypoufrn [* 4 >i 
 ** ^ pro KoA<r<re/s. 
 
 AD I. THESS. Cap. I. & II. 
 Cap. I. 1. Ili/Ao? KUI TifAo0eo$ *o" 2/Aoi/avos [* ? pro xac 
 
 2. 0fO) 7T*jO/ TTOIVTCOV VfjLMV TTOtVTOTS j[ 
 TOT 7TO/ &C. 
 
 6. &\l\}sl TTOAAO/, /XT [* $ pro 7TOAA7. 
 
 7. x/ ei/ TI; A^ai. [* -f" v. 
 
 9. TrejO/ v/utuv a7tayyt\\ov<rtv [* ^ pro 
 
 10. ex Ttwi/ vexpcov [* + TWI'. 
 II. 1. y/o, aSeAfoi, otdare [* + 
 2. AA * TrpOTtadovTss [* xa/. 
 
 g| 
 
 0ft) -narpi tj/j.ct>v [* + 7TTjO/. 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 7. init. * eyevt}0r]/u.i/ VJITTIOI ev [* A/Y. ** ^ pro 
 
 IJ7T/OI. 
 
 8. ayonrrjToi ijjuuov eyevridriTe fin. [* # pro 7; 
 
 9. init. ^A^>o/, jmvtijuioveveTe yap, TOV [* $ pro 
 
 yap, 
 14. yotjO, ocdfA^o/, (j.ifj.riT(x.t syevtititire, [* $ pro yap fjufitirou 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 181 
 
 AD I. THESS. Cap. II. III. IV. V. 
 
 FT i ft * * r r* * 
 
 II. ID. x/ r/yu/xS xo<a>sflc* / TftH', ^ pro f/z$. 
 
 19, 20. Ttapovcrif* ', ocdeA^o/, 5jU/$ [* -f Lect. 
 
 III. 1. 5/o K<X.I fj.nKS.ri [* -J- x/. 
 
 8. ^<w/uei/, a$A<pot, eav [* + Lect. 
 
 c * rdt ^> 
 
 i'/ue/ <TTtjKere ev I $ pro o. 
 
 9. 0eoi/ * fin. [* fi/Licov. 
 
 
 
 IV. 1. (JtosAcboi, spear co vjuots f ^ pro po)Tc0iLv. 
 
 * 
 
 2. ItJffOV XjO/0"TOl/ fill. + XjO/ffTOI/. 
 
 5. 7r0/ T//X/S, xatiarrep ** T [* <J pro 
 
 6. x/ Trpoenroftev i/fjuv [* ^ pro 
 
 8. e/s v/us fin. [* pro i7yug. 
 
 13. init. a5eA0o/,ou 5eAto/xi/^ [* -f- Lect. ** 
 
 18. ware, 5sA^>o/, -rrapaKwAsire [* + Lect. 
 
 * 
 
 V. 8. OfT, 1//O/, Vtjtyw/itei', [* 4" WO*. 
 
 9. or/, 5eA^>o/, oi/x [* + Lect. 
 
 13. / ai/ro/5 fin. [* # pro ei/ ei/ro/?. 
 
 ft 
 
 14. oA/yov/'i/xoi/s, ave^sffde TCDV F* < pro 
 
 ^ ^, < 
 
 21. TTatvTa tie 5ox//x^oi/Tes* TO [* + ^ 
 
 24. TTottiaei rtjv ehTTitia v/jioiv ^e^aiav fin. [* -f- 
 
 27. Ki/p/oi/, avayvcopt<r0tjvai rt]v [* ^ pro 
 
 Syllaba p/ erasa est. 
 Subscript, init. 17 ?rpo? [* -f ^. 
 
 AD II. THESS. Cap. I. 
 
 
 Cap. I. 4. x* r>75 TriffTeoos [* + TIJ?. 
 
 8. f/(Wf TOl/ 00f [* 
 
182 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 AD II. THESS. Cap. I. II. III. 
 I. 9, 10. iff%vo$ avrov' * x/ Savpaffdnvai [* orav 
 
 \6ri evdot-ao-drivai ev TO/? ayiois avrov. 
 12. Itjffov * ev [* 
 
 II. 1. init. a$eA(f>oi, epcoTai^ev [* -f- Lect. 
 
 1. 5e J7/ug, ** u7TjO rift [* 
 
 5. or* * <ov [* en. 
 13. init. 
 
 [* 4- 
 
 [* 
 
 III. 5. f T^V VTTOJUiOVtJV * -j- TJV. 
 
 6. init. 5eA^)o/, Ttapayyehho/jiev tie V/JLIV, ev. [* ? pro 
 
 i7/ irapehafiov Trap [* ^ o^ pro . 
 
 * 
 Subscript, init. 17 Trpos [* + o. 
 
 AD I. TIMOTH. Cap. I. & II. 
 Cap. I. 8. init. rexvov TipoOee, oi^ajmev [* + Leet. 
 
 ^fe <lj.^. 
 
 9. fiJ3tj\ois, 7rTjOAo//s x< /XIJT^)AO//? [* < o/ pro 
 
 GJ. ** ^ o/ pro 6>. 
 
 13. vfiptffTijv' aAA i;Ae^iji/, [* + vit. 
 
 15. init. rexvov Tiju.o0ee, Tticrroq [* + Lect. 
 
 18. init. TSXVOV T//io^, TI/TJ;I/ [* + rexi/ov 
 
 <ro/, * xar [* renvov Ti/modee, qusB a prima 
 manu quidem hie scripta, sed ob lectionis init. 
 erasa esse videntur. 
 II. 1. init. rexvov T//io^<, 7rjOxA<u [* -J- Lect. 
 
 <^ 
 
 2. TravTcui/ avOpuTTcov reov [* -f- quod autern linea 
 
 deletum est. 
 8. xai ^ia\oyurp.Q)v fin. [* $ pro 
 
APPENDIX (ii.) 183 
 
 AD I. TIMOTH. Cap. III. IV. V. VJ. 
 
 III. 1. init. Texvov T/yuo0, TT/O-TO? [* -f Lect. 
 10. ^laKOveiTcacrav, i/e*xA/To/ ovres [* y. 
 13. init. TSXVOI/ T/yuotfee, o/ [* -f Lect. 
 
 IV. 1. TIVSS 7TO TIJS [* -{- OC7TO. 
 
 [* 
 
 7. de ffavrov Ttpoq [* pro creavrov. 
 
 |k 
 
 9. init. rexi/oi/ T//xo^e, TT/O-TO? [* + Lect. 
 
 10. /uaA/<rr de Tr/orcyp' [* + 5e. 
 
 16. init. 7rpo<r%e asavrto [* < pro ewe^e. 
 
 2 
 
 V. 1. init. rexvov T/yao^ee, Trpeo-fivTepw [* -J- Lect. 
 4. <rr/ * aTroSexTOf [* xaAoi/ xf. 
 
 <^ ^ VI, 
 
 11. init. rexi/of T//xo0ee, veoTfjO 5e [* -f Lect. 
 
 ** ^ o pro cy. 
 14. veoDrepas xnp(*S yotpetv, [ 
 
 18. Bot/i/ Aooi/i/T ot> [* pro Aoa>/Ta. 
 
 21. XT 7TpOffK\TJfflV fin. [* < pr 
 
 tt 
 
 22. init. rex^ov T//uo^ee, %//o? [* -f- Lect. 
 
 VI. 5. init. 5/7rjOTjO^/ ^te^Oapf^evcov [* ^ pro TTJO- 
 
 11. favye' Text/oi/ T/yUotfee, J/cuxe [* + Lect. 
 
 12. ^ * fxAi^w, [* xou. 
 15. deifei o paxapioq [* + o. 
 
 17. init. Ttxvov Tytotiee, TO/? [* + Lect. 
 7yu/v TravTa 7rAoi/<r/a>$ /? [* $ pro 
 
 g| 
 
 20. TIJI/ TtapotfriKtiv <f>v\a%ov [* ^ pro 7T(xpaKaTa0rjKtjv. 
 Subscript, init. ^ TT^OS [* 4- ^. 
 
 x/ 17 ex Aao&xs [* -f- Hiec 
 verba addita sunt. 
 
184> APPENDIX (fi.) 
 
 AD II. TIMOTH. Cap. I. II. III. IV. 
 
 Cap. I. 5. ffov TLuvtxri' 7T7ret(r/j,ai [* $ pro 
 7. Trvevpa <taA<s, AA [* < pro 
 15. <rn ^(Oi/yeAo? x/ [* pro 
 
 II. 1. /UOf TSKVOV Tf/U00e, CV - [* 
 
 ^ 
 
 9. <w KOt-KO-nadc^v yue^pi [* ^ pro 
 11. init. rexvoi/ T//uo^fe, Tr/aros [*+ Lect. 
 ' xa/ Tratrtjs 7roSo^^ ^/os' e< [* 
 
 14. rot/ XjO/orot; /u^ [* pro 
 19. ?rs * oj/o/ia^iyi/ [* - o. 
 
 20. init. rexvov T//zo0e, ei/ [* 4- Lect. 
 III. 6. x/ a/^/uAG)T/^oi/T ** yvvaixapia [* <J pro 
 
 ** 
 
 T. 
 
 * 
 8. aireoTfjdrai/ Mcoi/V^, oCTws [* $ pro Mwi/o-e/. 
 
 10. <fe, TXI/O/ TifjLotiee, Tra^ijxoAoi/^xag [* -}- Lect. 
 14, 15. finem inter v. 14. et initium v. 15. tota liuea 
 
 est erasa. 
 16. init. rtKvov Ti/jLofae, Ttaaa [* + Lect. 
 
 IV. 5. de TK/OV 'fipotee, vn<f>e [* + Lect. 
 
 13. TOV <pe\ovtjv t 6v [* ^ pro 
 
 [* 
 19. affiracrat TlpivKihav xai [* ^ pro 
 
 20. Tpo<f>ifjLOv * onrehtTtov [* 5e. 
 Subscript, init. 17 TT^OJ [* + 17. 
 
 C * L* 
 
 exxA7<r/a? TrpotTOv ^TTIOKOTIOV %ipo &C. 
 [* 
 
 (*) This seems to be taken from 1 Tim. i. 1 5. 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 185 
 
 AD TITUM, Cap. I. II. III. 
 
 Cap. I. 5. x/, rexj/oi/ T/re, xaT<TTi70-$ XT [* .4. Lect. 
 $ P r o xT0Tf7<n7s. 
 
 9. XT * 5f5^7f [* TJV. 
 
 * ** r* 
 
 10. TroAAoi * vi/7roTxTO/, x/ iJ.fjt.raioKoyoi [/* x*. 
 
 ** + x/. 
 15. init. TSKVOV T^Te, TTVT [* + Lect. 
 
 * r* 
 
 II. 2. 7rjOe(r/8i/T5 vi7^>Aeoi/5 sivai \ $ pro 
 7. TI/TTOV xoAoi/ epyov, ev [* ^ pro xaAtyv 
 
 , fin. [* < loco a<f>6apaiav, fin. 
 
 8. 7TjO< i7yucy*' Aeye^i/ [* < loco VJJLWV. 
 
 11. init. Tfxvoi/ T/Tff, swpavn [* + Lect. 
 
 III. 5. xow avaxaivtaeax; TIvevjuiaTOs [* ^ pro 
 7. xAfljOoyo/xo* yevo/meOa XT' [* < pro 
 S. init. rffxi/oi/ T<re, TT/O-TO^ [* + Lect. 
 
 12. init. *3a<rov [* OTI/ 7re/x^a> Apre/uwtv -npos as. tj 
 TV^IKOV, ffTTOv, haec omissa alia quidem, sed 
 vetusta manus in marg. adscrips. 
 Subscript, init. i$ 7r/)os [* + ij. 
 
 AD PHILEMON. 
 
 Cap. I. 1. ctar/i/os ITJO-OI/ XP^TTOI/, xi [* $ pro Seo/x/o? 
 
 xat. 
 
 6. ev J7yu.iv e/s [* <^ pro vfj.iv. 
 
 7. init. %pv y|0 7roAAi;i/ e%oi/ x/ [* ^ pro xotptv yap 
 
 10. 7rjOxA< 5e TrejO* [* <^ loco <re. 
 20. ev Xjofarw fin. [* ^ loco 
 Subscript, init. ^ ?rpo^ [* + 
 
186 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 AD HEB. Cap. I. II. III. IV. V. 
 
 r 1 T i j. ' * 
 
 l-^ap. 1. 1. 7TpOd)r]T(iil$ t 7T CfY(X,TOV TCs)V $ prO 7 
 
 4. U.VTOV $ lAtl(f>V OVOJJ,a [* 1OCO KKht1pOVO/UUJKV 
 
 r * r* * 
 
 O. yap <7T/ 7TOT [* ^ prO <7T. 
 
 II. 2. init. ^A^o/, [ + Lect. 
 3. To>f xoi/ovrctjv iq [* ^ pro 
 
 rrx epyot TCOV %tpo)v trov. 
 
 10. TI;S ^&>7S avTcov [* ^ loco 
 
 att ^ ^& 
 
 11. ya^, a$\<j)oi, 6 dyia&v [* + Lect. ** -f o. 
 
 16, 17. 7nAyU/3l/Tf, * 0^/ [* - AA 
 
 Afipaafji 7ri\(xp/3avTai. Alius in marg. adjecit. 
 
 5^ 
 
 III. 1. ;/*&>/ Iiyo-oi/j/ XptffTov fin. [* $ pro Xptrrov 
 
 2. x< M<uv>i}s / [* $ pro MOMTIK. 
 
 3. 7r|0 Mwvffti* n&toTou [* ^ pro M<u<n;i>. 
 5. x/, a^A^o/, Mtuo-^s [* + Lect. 
 
 A 
 8. fir} ffK\tJpVVT T$ [* ^ 1OCO ffKAt1pVVtJT. 
 
 10. x/ /7ra* A/ [* ^ pro entov. 
 
 12. init. a$A<o/, fiteirEre, fitj TTOTC [* $ pro 
 
 13. ffK\r}pvv6rj e^ i/Aa>/ T/? TTTIJ [* ? pro 
 
 15. VJUUDV, * !/ [* - <y$. 
 
 * 
 
 16. o/ M&>i/V<y$ fin. [* ^ loco 
 
 17. xcyA eTTfO-Of / [* $ pro 7tcrv. 
 
 41 
 
 IV. 2. /LW; <TfyxXjOyuvoi/5 TIJ [* <J pro <rvyKxpafj.vos. 
 6. iff\0ov bia a.Tti$iav [* ^ loco &'. 
 
 g| 
 
 14. init. ab&fpoi, K-^OVTES [* + Lect. 
 V. 4. x/, SeA0o/, oi/^ [* -f- Lect. 
 TIJJLIJV, AA' o [* ^ pro rxAA. 
 XOM * Aap&v [* o. 
 5. init. OUTO>S x< [* ^pr 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 187 
 
 AD HEB. Cap. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. 
 
 V. 10. VTTO * QSOV [* TOV. 
 
 11. init. $*<<>/, irepi [* + Lect. 
 
 VI. 1. ,o%i7S * Aoyoi/ [* TOV XpKrrov. 
 
 9. init. $A<o*, 7r7r*o/u,0 [* + Lect. 
 x< OVTG>S AaAot/yLifi*' [* < pro OI/T<W. 
 
 13. init. aSfiA^o/, TG> [* + Leet. 
 
 15. xi OI/TOJS /Axj000i/yui;<rs [* < pro OUT& 
 
 VII. 1. init. afefyoi, oi5TO [* + Lect. 
 
 3. Oeoi/, /jL.va>v tcpevg [* 1CO jj.evei. 
 
 4. Kfipaafj. 3e^&)Kv ex [* ^ pro 
 
 7. init. a^eA^o/, %6>jO<s [* + Lect. 
 
 14. lepacrvviis Mo)i/o-7? eAA^<re [* ^ pro 
 16. ei/ToAjj? (rapKivtis yeyovsv [* ^ pro 
 
 18. init. adeA</>o/, aOeTrjoris [* -f Lect. 
 
 v^. 
 
 26. init. a^A^o;, TOIOVTOS [* + Lect. 
 
 r<yj/ a^cwy Yei/ojaej/os (*) [* ^ pro ovpavtav. 
 VIII. 3. xa/ TOIOVTOV 6 [* ^ loco TOI/TOV. 
 
 5. Ks%prifjia.Ti<rTat Mcyvirij?, /ueAAcui/ [* ^ pro 
 
 <f>t1ffl, TTOlTJffSlS TTaVTO, [* ^ 1OCO TTOMJtrTJS. 
 
 7^ 
 
 6. 5/a^)OjOfUTjOS TTV%tJK \lTOVpyia$ [* ^ p 
 
 7. init. 5eA^)o/, / [* 4- Lect. 
 
 8. o<xof * lot/Ja [* Io-|0ijA xa/ err/ TOJ/ OIKOV. 
 IX. 1. init. 3eA0o*, /%e [* + Lect. 
 
 ^ 
 
 5. av M^V ot/x OTT< xara /xepos Ae-ye/v fin. [* ? pro a>/ 
 
 oi/x ear/ vt/v Aey/i/ xara /u.po$ fin. 
 
 6. 5e oiyrtus xTe<TXi/cr/uei/<wi/ [* ^ pro OVTW. 
 
 7& 
 
 8. init. aSfiA^o/, TOVTO [* -(- Lect. 
 11. init. aSfA^o/, XJO/O-TO? [* 4- Lect. 
 
 ^ 
 
 14. n^efyuaTO? oiyiov eavrov [* ^ loco aicavtov. 
 
 (*) The oup may have been omitted ; or else, awy is an abbrevia- 
 tion of a.vQp<aif<t)V. 
 
188 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 AD HEB. Cap. IX. X. XL 
 
 IX. 14. Gety, naQapiffsi rt]v [* < pro 
 
 18. odev ou8s f) [* < pro oi/5'. 
 
 19. oiijaa * /u.oor%cov [* TCOV. 
 fjisra xai vSaros [* -f- xou. 
 
 24. init. aSeA^o/, ov [* 4- Lect. 
 
 25. init. oi/5e /V [* pro ou5'. 
 
 * 
 
 
 6 [ 
 
 X. 1. init. a^eA^o/, <T/J/ [* -/-Lect. 
 TI$ * Svcriais [* ai/ra/s. 
 
 2. 7T/ * f [* - OJ/X. 
 
 fj.rjbe(jiiav en e%eiv <rvvet$rj<riv [* $ pro ju.ti8sfj.iav 
 
 10. eo/tei/ * &a [* o/. 
 
 ffwfjiotTOq * Irjffov [* TOI/. 
 1 1 . /ue/ wpx^i/s IffTtjxs [* ^ loco /epei/s. 
 
 ^ 
 
 19. init. 5eA^>o/, e%oi/Te? [* + Lect. 
 
 oi/v, * Trappijfftav [* adetyoi. 
 26. Kafieiv rm Ai7^e/5, TI?I/ 7T*'yi><u<r<j/ ot/x [* $ pro 
 
 , oi/x. 
 32. av(x/ju/ju>ti<rxe<r0e * T$ [* 5e. 
 
 34. %> * l/TO/5 [* - >/. 
 
 35. init. adetyot, p,tj [* + Lect. 
 
 36. 7p %T/ xpetav [* <^ pro 
 
 vLj, 
 
 XI. 1. <$ 7r<ffTi;?, A7r/^o/ij/f)i/ [* ^ loco 
 
 ^ 
 
 4. T/ AaAe/re fin. [* ^ pro AA/T<. 
 
 IjL 
 
 6. ^< TtptOTOV TOV [* + TTpaTOV. 
 
 8. init. a^fA^o/, TT/<TT/ [* + Lect. 
 
 9. 7Tp6)x^o-t/ Afipaap ei$ ** -yiji/ [* -f Lect. ** T;I/. 
 
 12. x< wffi; a/u/uos [* ^ pro ar/. 
 
 13. *OI/TS, * X< [* - XOU 7Tlff0VTS. 
 
 16. init. i/vi/ 5e [* <^ pro i/t-v/. 
 
 17. init. adstyoi, nurrst [* + Lect. 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 189 
 
 AD HEB. Cap. XI. XII. XIII. 
 
 XI. 18. e\a\ndn, * Ev [* 'Or/. 
 
 23. iriffTet Mtwvtnjs yevvtideis [* $ pro 
 
 * ** 
 
 24. init. 5eA>o/ Tr/o-re/ MawV^s xe? * + Lect. 
 
 ** 
 
 $ pro 
 
 33. o/, ot$\(j>oi t dyiot TTavres & [* -f 5e 
 
 7ri/T$. .Lect. 
 
 34. 7rjO/t/3oAs KK\ivtxv a\\OTpi6)v [* <^ pro 
 XII. 1. init. a$A<J>oi, Toiyapouv [* 4- Lect. 
 
 2. 0eoi> KsxaOixev fin. [* ^ pro exaOtcrev. 
 
 3. v7ro/j.ejm.vr]KOTfx vitsp TCWV [* < pro UTTO. 
 5. Y/e *, /mi [* /uoi/. 
 
 9. I7/XWV * fXpfJLV [* - 7rTjO?. 
 
 20. A^o^oA^fl-fira/ * fin. [* 
 
 ffSTOU. 
 
 21. x/, oi/T<y? (ftofifpov [* + ? 
 
 eiirev [* 
 
 24. pOtVTl<r/J.OV KplTTOV foxhoVVTl [* pI'O Kp$lTTOVfX. 
 
 25. init. 5eA^o/, /SAeTrers [* + Lect. 
 
 7N * 7^? [* - T*7S. 
 
 25. 7rapaiTtj(ra/uLvoi %prijjia*%ovTa, TroAAw [* syllaba 
 
 T/. Sed superscript. 
 
 7r' ovpftvov a7roarTp<po/j.vot [* < pro ovpavcov. 
 28. ^o, 3eA^o/, flatffiteuKv [* + Lect. 
 
 175 AT|0i/OyUf vapffTO)<; [* ^ o pro ey. 
 XIII. 5. eipn*w * M^ [* Ot/ yu; <r /&), o/5' oi/, sed in 
 
 marg. eadem manus adscript. 
 7. init. dA<f!>0/, /jLvryj-ov. &c. [* + Lect. 
 
 Ml 
 
 9. /x7 -napafapeaO? xahov. [* ^ pro ireptfap. &C. 
 
 13. TOI/ ovi$Kr/j.ov (X.VTOV $ i pro e/. 
 
 15. &>, XapTTOV [* TOI/T(TT/. 
 
 1 7. init. A<o/, 7t.6sff0 [* + Lect. 
 22. 5ffA^)o/, av^eff6ai rov [* ^ / pro 
 
190 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 AD HEB. Cap. XIII. 
 XIII. 23. /uXtos (eav [* $ pro /*0' ov. 
 24. 01 fiyioi a-no [* + y/o/. 
 
 ^ 
 
 Subscript, init. 17 Trpos [* -f- 17. 
 
 [* # pro 
 
 JACOBI, Cap. I. & II. 
 
 Cap. I. 1. QSOV TTIXTpOS X/ [* -f 
 
 6. p.r$sv a-niffruv on A^erai 6 yap [* ^ pro 
 
 . ** -f- or/ Aq^erou. 
 
 11. V00S * ^7T(r [* - OiVTOV. 
 13. OT/ U7TO ** 60l/ [* ^ prO 7TO. ** - TOV. 
 
 &. 
 
 17. OVK (TTI TcapaKkayn [* ^ pro evi. 
 
 18. flov\ij6eis eTTOirjcrev ij/xag [* ^ pro 
 
 
 
 22. /AI? axpoarat, JJLOVOV [ $ pro yui; /J.OVQV 
 
 23. ow TTOHJTI^, OVTOS [* ^ i pro ;. 
 
 II. 1. TTlffTlV TIJ5 3ol7S TOI/ &C. [* ? prO TTlffTIV TOV 
 
 24. xarei/oijo-e * **I/TOJ/ [* yap. ** e. 
 
 J5 3ol7S TOI/ &C 
 
 lijffov X/)/<TTOI/ 
 tfih\},r]T 8e e 
 
 <LJ. 
 
 TTJV \afj.7Tpav, effOijTOi [* $ pro 
 
 3. init. * e7Ttfih\},r]T 8e em [* xai ** 
 
 *. 2 V p _ 
 
 ** r* < * 
 
 em TO |_* o)0. ^ pro I/TTO. 
 
 4. init. * ov [* x/. 
 
 ft 
 
 5. xoi/<rT /xor/, octoA^o* [* $ pro octoA^>o/, /ioi/. 
 
 KOfffMOv *, TrAoi/er/oi/s [* rovrov. 
 
 * r* 
 
 o. 7TTey^oi>* ot/^/ o< L o pro oi>^. 
 
 7. TO xA?^V ^>'. [ ^ prO 7T/xAlJ^l/. 
 
 * r* ^ 
 
 10. VOfJLOV 7T\t1p(t)(Tl, TTTOKTei _ $ prO Ttjptjffl. 
 
 * * 
 
 11. fi/TT&H'* MIJ (pqvevfftiSj enre xai' Ov /xo/^i/<r [* 9 P ro 
 
 MIJ fjLOi'XSVffiriS) enrt KM' Mi; ^o*'. &C. 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 191 
 
 JACOBI, Cap. II. III. IV. 
 
 
 II. 13. e\soq' * xo-raxavxarat e\eov xptffe&q. [* x/. 
 
 ** 
 
 $ pro 
 
 14. w ff-xri ; W [* $ pro exn- 
 
 16. f fjfj,(av' "YTrayere [* ^ pro vpuv. 
 
 17. /; x?7 W* [* ? P ro W* X?- 
 
 18. <rov %a>p/s TCW 0y<uv **, xaytu <ro/ e*<y [* ^ pro 
 
 ** ffov. *** ^ pro de/cw (TO/. 
 
 * fin. [* - yUOt/. 
 
 19. on * 5 Oeog <TT/ [* $ pro 0eo? e/? ** 6. 
 
 tt 
 
 22. epycav avrov fi [* 4- 7 [* + otvrov. 
 *23. Emffrevae * Afipouxf*, [* e. 
 [* pro 
 
 * 
 
 24. O/>T * oro$ ^ joya)f [* TO/VI/I'. ** ^ pro OT/. 
 
 26. effTiv, OVTCO xai fi TTKTTU; [ + 17. 
 
 ^|0/5 * |Oyft)V [* - T<UI>. 
 
 III. 2. divtjp, <W/zi/os ^a\iva.yct)yri(rai [* <^ pro 
 * 
 
 3. init. /^, Tyv [* ^ pro /^oi/. 
 
 4. UTTO (X.VS/J.COV crxXtipoov [* $ pro 
 svOwovroq POV\OITO fin. [* ^ pro 
 
 8. ^vvarai 5/x<r< av^jOwTrtui/' [ $ pro 
 
 11. TO Trtxpov, xat TO y\vxv ; [* $ pro TO yAi/xt/, x< TO 
 TTixpov ; 
 
 14. /xij *xai/%(r^ xa/ [* XT. 
 
 * 
 
 15. <m> >7 cro<f>ia avrtj [* $ pro CCVTIJ 17 (ro<f>ia. 
 
 17. adlfXXplTOS * OtVVTTOXptTOS [* - X<. 
 
 18. 5fi * dixaioo-vvw [* TIIS. 
 IV. 1. xa/ 7ro0i/ yu^a/ [* -f- TtoQsv. 
 
 2. 7ToAyU/T, X< Ol/X ^T **, 5/. [* -f- X/. ** - 5. 
 
 4. os v ** fiov\j]0r] [* ^ pro /. ** ow. 
 
 6. O o/^6>? ytftpiv [ ^ pro 
 
192 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 JACOB!, Cap. IV. & V. 
 
 7. init. dVA^o/, v-noraytjTS [* + Lect. 
 avTtffTtjre de T&> [* + ^ s - 
 
 8. xai dytacrars x(o5/s, [* $ pro dyvfffare. 
 
 9. irevdos /jLETaTpoarriTta, xa/ [* 
 xai ev; Karij^eiav fj %|0 [* 
 
 10. ei/aft/op * Kvpiov [* rot/. 
 
 11. o y|0 xTAAet)j/ [* + yjO. 
 5eA^oc/, ; Kptvcov [* ^ pro x/. 
 
 1 2. VO/*00eTtJS KOil XplTK 6 [* 
 
 o x/5/i/<uv TOI/ TT^tjcriov fin. [* ^ pro 05 xpivets rov 
 
 eTepov. 
 
 14. ETTiffrafftie rot rtjs avpiov [* ^ pro TO TK. 
 3 OCT/LUS [* ^ pro tj/ 
 
 * 
 
 [* 3e. 
 
 1 5. Ki/jO/o? eAi7, xa< [* ^ pro 
 16. K(xv%a<r0e em T/ [* pro et> 
 [* + ot/I/ ' 
 
 V. 8. Kvpiov f)fj.ct)v tjyyiKe [* 
 
 9. ffTSva&re, a$eh<poi, XT' AA;Acyv [* ? pro 
 
 fJiTJ * Kpl0t}T' [* - XT. 
 
 * 
 
 l5oi/, O KpfTIJS [* + O. 
 
 10. A/3eT, 5eA^)o/, ** r7S xxo7r0e/a5 [* ? pro 
 
 ** 
 
 / T^> [* -f- ev. 
 OVO/JLOLTI rov Kvpiov [* + TOI/ ' 
 11. rot/5 v7TO(j.eivavTas. Ttjv [* # pro v-nop.vovTa$. 
 
 on TTohveuffTrhayxvos SffTtv [* <^ pro TroAi/crTrAay^f 05. 
 
 16. J-o/j.o\oyei<r0 ow AA;Ao/s [* -f- ot/i/. 
 * .** 
 
 nat L * ,J pro T 
 
 -f- VjU.Ci>V. 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 103 
 
 JACOBI, Cap. V. 
 V. 19. (*.$c\(f>oi, fjiuv eav [* *\-fJ,ov. 
 
 Ad finem minio adscriptum. TeAos rtis lawfiov eTriffTohtjs. 
 Millii subscript, deest. 
 
 I. PETRI. 
 
 ft 
 
 Cap. I. 3. TroAu eAeo? avrov [* $ pro TroAt/ avrou eAeo?. 
 
 5W,/ &a ^i/aorao-ecw? [* -f a, sed lineola deletum. 
 
 
 4. ev -TOK; ovpavois [* 4- TO/?. 
 
 
 
 e/S i/yus fin. [* $ pro j7/ig. 
 
 6. e<rn, At^rtj(?ixT? ev [* Recent, a delevit, et e su- 
 
 perscript. 
 
 7. TO %OKI(J.OV fjfjitov [* ^ pro oMfj.tov, sed omissum 
 
 / subscript. 
 x< $o^ai/ */ TI/JUJV, ev [* $ pro x< 
 
 11. init. e^epi/i/G>i/re? ? [* -j- e^. 
 
 ft 
 
 12. av^y-ysAij M/I/ v/uii/ [* $ pro 
 
 ft 
 
 16. dyioi ecreoOe, on [* pro yefetrfe. 
 
 18. u/xwi/ TrotTpoTTfApatioTov fxva<rTpo<f)r)<;' [* ^ pro v/ 
 
 24. 
 
 [* ^ pro 
 
 * fc^Trecr*' [* 
 II. 2. Aoy/xoi/ x<x< ^oAo^ [* 
 
 fill. [* -j- 5 (rcorrjpiav. 
 * ** 
 
 6. init. J/OTI TTspiexet ) ypaQrj [* ^ pro 
 
 ** ^ pro sv TI; ypa^j;. 
 
 ft 
 
 7. TTlffTevOVfflV' OtTTUrTOVffl $S [* ^ prO a 
 
 OVTOS tyevrfn '? [* f alterum. 
 
 8. init. <ro< 7Tpo<rKO7rTov<ri [* ^ pro o/. 
 
194 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 I. PETRI, Cap. II. & III. 
 
 Mk 
 
 II. 8. e/s 6 r]v 7mpffxv<x(roiv IOLVTOVS TOI^IV, KM 
 [* + fjv 7T(XQ<rxva<rav iavTOVs ra^iv. 
 
 11. napttibtJfJ.OVS, TOV KOff/ULOV TOVTOV OtTTE^ffdal [* -f" TOV 
 
 XOffjJLOV TOVTOV. 
 
 3 s^-^r 
 
 12. init. -napaxaXo) <5e x/ TOI/TO TIJV ev Tots $ve<riv 
 
 V/J.G*V avacrrpofitiv %iv xAi;t/ [* 
 Jc KO.I TOVTO. ** $ et # pro T^ 
 
 VJJUUV V TO/? 
 
 epyce>v [* -f- V/JLCOV. 
 
 18. VTTOTOtffffOfJLVOl tjT V [* + JJT 
 
 19. 
 
 Ai/trs T/S 7ra<r%(wr [* ? et < pro 
 ffvveibriffiv QOV v7ro<j>pi TV; AI/TT$, 
 20. xa< xoAa^aeFO/ vTro/xevere ; AA* [* ^ pro x 
 
 ^l^OfJLtVOl V7TO/J.VtT J 
 
 24. yu<oAft)7r/ * totOrjTe [* avrov. 
 
 25. e7rffTp\^aT [* ^ loco 7recrTpa<j>t]Te. 
 III. 1. /V * [* x/. 
 
 5. A7ri^oi/<ra< <$ TOI/ [* ^ loco e?:/. 
 
 6. (u? SjO vTrexovffe [* < pro 2jt)pa vTrrjxovare. 
 
 7. ffVyx\1JpOVOfJLOl 7TO/X<AlJS ^jO/TO [* -f- TTO/X/Ai;?. 
 
 8. t/(T7rAay^'o/, T(*7Ttvo<f>pov<; fin. [* <^ loco 
 
 9. hoioopiav Tiva avTi [* -f- 
 
 
 10. x< rjpepas tdetv ayatfas, [* ? pro 
 
 [* avTOv. 
 
 11. exxA/vT<y 5e ?ro [* 
 
 12. or/ * o<f)0a\poi [* o/. 
 
 xaxa. TOV I^o\o0pvaai <XVTOV<; ex -yj^ fin. [* -f- rot; 
 &c. usque ad finem. 
 
 13. otyadov ^ijAwfa/ yevtj<r0 ; [* pro fitfunou. 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 195 
 
 I. PETRI, Cap. III. & TV 
 
 III. 14. xat rrfxff^sre 5< [* $ pro 
 
 
 <f)O/3tJ0t1Te, XOIl OV fJUJ TfXpa%0t1TE [* $ K(Xt OV /J,tJ 1OCO 
 
 1 5. TOV Xpiffrov aytayare [* < loco 
 
 * as/ [* <$. 
 
 , AA /xT Trpfxorrjrog xai [ 
 ** loco TrpavTtjTOs. 
 
 &. 
 
 16. ^> xaraAaAgfffc ** Karat ff^vvOcafftv [* ^ pro xara- 
 
 rtjv ev XjO/<rra> ayadtjv avaffrpofav. [* $ pro 
 ayatitjv ev XJOWTG) avaffrpofav. 
 
 3fc 3fc $fc 
 
 18. dfj.apTiQ>v imep V/J.CDV aiteOave, foxatos [* - 
 
 ** ^ pro 
 Iva v/uuxs Ttpotfayayri [* ^ pro 
 
 20. TTore, OT< 7r J e^ed^TO 17 [* ^ pro ore. ** ^ pro 
 
 
 IV. 1. init. ayaTWTot XJOTTOI/ [* -f- Lect. 
 
 
 2. eAj/uaT/ TOC/ Geoi/, [* + TOV. 
 
 3. -ya/j iJ/ji/ o [* $ loco 17/tui/. 
 
 TO fiovhtjjuux rcov [* ^ loco 
 
 tt 
 
 xareipyaffOai, -nsTtopevfj-svov^. [* ^ loco xar- 
 
 * fin. [* ^ pro 
 r/oe/a/?. 
 
 tt 
 
 4. Jyua>i/ ai/ro/5 / [* -f- avTOtq. 
 
 
 
 5. TO//UW? XplVOVTl oi/TS [* ^ pro ^OI/ 
 
 7. et$ * 7tpo<rev%(xs. [* T?. 
 
 8. aya-nn xaXvirrei TihtjOos [* ^ loco xa\v\j/t. 
 
 9. !// yoyyvfffj.ov fin. [* <^ pro 
 11. TXI/O$ * xopiiyiav *** /Va [* fc. ** ,J pro 
 Xoptjyet. *** o 
 o2 
 
196 APPENDIX (n.) 
 
 I. PETRI, Cap. IV. & V. 
 
 
 
 IV. 11. EV irafft 6 00$ <Wfr;T/ 5< [* $ pro ev 
 
 * ' fjt/j.rjv [* 
 
 14. init. AA' ei nai ovetbtfyvOe [* -f- AA\ * + x 
 
 X* <WyU<US ** TOU [* + Sl/l/tt/xeft)?. ** - TO. 
 
 ^ 
 
 Qeov ovofj.a xai Hvevpot [* + ovo/uux xat. 
 e^>' uyu5 7raya7ri;eTe ** fin. [* ^ pro 
 XOCTOC yuei 
 
 fin. 
 
 1 5. init. yui7 Tf? 7jO uytt&>i/. [* $ pro 
 
 tj xxoi/|0 j yo, 7 [* $ loco XXOTKMOS. 
 
 * 
 
 18. o /x|t>Ta>Aos xa* affefitis TTOV. [* $ pro o 
 
 TTOl/. 
 
 v [* ^ pro ei/T6)v. 
 V. 1. init. irpefffivrspovs ovv 7rpxaAto ey v/t/v a>5 
 
 fivrepos [* $ et ^ pro Trpefffivrepovs TOI/? ev 
 
 TTWpaKOihCD 6 ffVjU.7rpCF/3vTpOS.' 
 
 g| 
 
 2. 00l/, fiTr/O'XOTrfil/OVTfi? /XIJ [* ^ 1OCO 7Tl<rXOTTOVVT<;. 
 
 &. 
 
 Kara Qeov /mtjSe [* -f- xara 0ov. 
 
 5. 0/XO/ft) # X<XI O/ VCOTpOl [* -f- 5fi X/ O/. 
 
 o KJ/JO/OS v7Tpn<j>avoi<; [* ^ loco 0eo$. 
 
 6. iVae v\Jsco<rr) v/us / [* ? pro iV v/i5 inl/caffy ev. 
 
 7. wippi^avTES t$ avTov, [* < loco TT<. 
 
 8. k)ji/o/uevo?, 7rjW|0%ST/, ^rjTtyv [* ^ loco Tr 
 
 g| 
 
 9. </SoT? OT/ T [* + OT/. 
 
 ^ 
 
 xo<r/xfo adeJ\.(j)OTriTi VJJMV 7tiThio6ai fin. [* $ pro 
 xoo/u&) u/xwt/ (x$eh<f)OTr)Tt 7riTe\t(r0M fin. 
 
 7^ 
 
 10. xAs<ra$ Vyaa? /? [* ^ pro i?/u$. 
 
 , ohiya TtaQovTas, [* Irjffov. ** $ pro 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 11)7 
 
 I. PETRI, Cap. V. 
 
 V. 11. aVTM TO KpCKTOS KOit f] (fo 6/S [* ? pFO Otl/Tft) T] 5o 
 KOU TO XjOTO? /S. 
 
 12. vfj.iv adetyov TOV ntirtov, o>s [* $ pro vfj.iv TOV 
 
 Subscript, deest. 
 
 II. PETRI, Cap. I. 
 
 Cap. I. 1. init. Si/xcoi/ UsTpos, [* loco 
 2. init. 3eA<o/, x a P'? [* 
 
 * TOU Ri/|0<oi/, ^yctwi/ Itjorov Xp/orot/* tin. 
 [* rot/ QsoVj xoa. ** $ pro Itjffov TOV Kvpiov 
 
 *** -} 
 3. 5e/s avrov dvvafj.sa)<; T [* $ pro 
 
 ofa KOH oipT)i' fin. [* $ pro 5/ 
 fin. 
 4. T Tt/Aia xoii fj.eyKTTa r,fjnv eTrayyetyaTa [* $ pro 
 
 ijj.iv xai Ttpiot 
 
 &. $/. <Jt ; 
 
 fv TO> xoojucp ** e7Ti0v/u.ia$ Kat <j>0opas fin. [* + Tc p- 
 ** /. . *** ^ pro emdv/ua. **** + x/. 
 
 5. OIVTO be TOVTO <nrovbriv ** "napeicreveyxavTes, [* ^ pro 
 I/TO TOVTO tie ff-novtirjv. ** 
 
 9. TraAai * djUMpTieov [* aCrot/. 
 
 10. ffTTovdocffotTe iva 5/ T&>I/ xA<yi/ epycov fiefiaiav 
 
 [* + ' <</a ^ /a i"o>i/ xaAtoi/ epycw. 
 ex\oytjv 7rotti<r0e' rai/ra [* ^ pro Troieitrtiai. 
 
 11. f)fJ.<0V * ItJffOV [* - X/ ffCOTtJpOS. 
 
 12. aueA^o-co intomiAvttTKeiv vu Trf^/ [* $ pro 
 
 nspt. 
 
198 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 II. PETRI, Cap. I. & II. 
 I. 15. i)/x$ Tuvra Kat /uera [* + ravra, xai. 
 17. TTfxpa, TOV Qeov [* + rov. 
 
 , ev w ** i/5oxi;j. [* # loco /$ ov. 
 
 19. xai ^o'joos ecus MfacreiAi) [* < pro 
 
 
 20. init. ayaTttjToi TOVTO [* -}- Lect. 
 
 7r<r ypa<f>rj Trpofareiots i5is [* # pro 
 <f>rjTia ypoufrtjs, i5<?. 
 
 ^ 
 
 21. rtv)(6tj TTpotytiTeia -nore, *A\' [* ? pro 
 
 t . 
 eAAi7T> TTO ** 0eoi/ [* + ** ol ay tot. 
 
 3& 
 
 II. 1. eTrayovres avrots ra-^tvtjv [* ^ pro eai/ro/?. 
 
 2. TC$ acrehy e/a/?, 5/' [* loco 7r<yAe/a/?. 
 
 3. TrAaffTO/? v/us Aoyo/s e/mnopevaovTat' [* $ pro 
 
 7rAOTO/S Ao^O/? V/X? ejU.7TOpVffOVTO,t. 
 
 4. Kptfftv Ttipovju.vov$' fin. [* # pro TSTtipiyuevovs. 
 
 $& ^ ^ 
 
 5. xarocxAt/o/xov xoa/uoo XT affe/Suv [* ^ pro xo<r/ia>. 
 
 ** + XT. 
 
 6. /j.\\ovT6)v affepffi reOeiKW [* ^ pro 
 9. init. a-yaTr^TO/ o<5e [* -J- Lect. 
 
 x 7Ttpaarfj.ct)v pv(rdou [* ^ pro 
 1 1 . XT' ai/rcwv * /3Aa<r^j/uQi/ [* 
 12. co ytyevv^fj.sva <t>v<riK<x, e/g [* $ pro 
 
 13. evrpvfytoVTes * T/S [* 
 
 * r* i 
 
 EV V/JLIV, * -j- 
 
 15. xTA/7rorr$ * evdfiav [^ Ttjv. 
 
 * * 
 
 16. <^>0ycfyUj>0i', eK<ah.vffTC Ttjv $ pro sxcohvae. 
 
 18. crapKOs, aff\yta<;, TOI/? oXtyov airpotyvy. &c. [* ^ pro 
 
 ao*Ay/c. ** ^ pro 
 20. Kt/jO/of fi/u.<uv tiat [* -f *?/ 
 
 TOl/TOf$ * 7TA/I/ [* 
 
APPENDIX (li.) 199 
 
 II. PETRI, Cap. II. & III. 
 
 II. 21. emyvovfftv e/s rot 07ri<ra> siriffrpe^ai GOTO T;S [* + W 
 T OTiiareD. ** $ loco ex, 
 
 T T;S [* < loco TO. 
 
 x/ [* # loco e%epa/j.a. 
 
 KvKia-fiov fiopfiopov [* ^ pro 
 
 
 III. 3. r' (rxT<ui/ T(wi/ [* < pro 
 
 
 4. TrarfjO*? J7/x<wi/ eKOifj.v6ti<rav, [ 
 
 J7< ., * 
 
 7. y>7 TW i/T6) Aoy^i [* ^ T<^) I/TW pro avrov. 
 
 8. ^/uffjoa * Ki/jO/a> [* 7ra/). 
 
 9. jj.axpo6viJ.et Si fjfws [* ^ loco <$. 
 
 10. 17 * ovpavoi [* o/. 
 
 ai/Tj * xrxi;<reTa/. [* joy alius superscript. 
 
 11. Toura)!/ ovTft)? ** \vo/u,ev<ov [* ^ pro oi/i/. ** -nav- 
 
 TO)V. 
 
 12. \v0tjorovTou ; * fin. [* xi o-roi^eia xavaovpsva 
 
 Ttjxerat ; fin. 
 
 13. 5/xaw<rf j/i; e/o/x/. fin. [* # pro XTO/X. 
 
 14. xa< a/xa/uo* i/rcp [* ^ pro ayua>/x>7ro/. 
 
 15. y7ri;Tos 5eA^)O5 ijyawi/ Ili/Aos [* $ pro 
 
 j[j.<MV 
 
 <ro(j>iav [* $ pro TIJI/ I/T&) 
 
 16. v /s <TT/ [* # pro 0/5. 
 
 17. oi/v, * rrpoyivcoffxovTes, [* ayonrijTot. 
 
 18. ai/^v^re * / [* de. 
 
 u >) [* 
 
 IIT|OOS. ** ^ pr 
 
 ^& 
 
 si$ flp>ep<*S ouctvos [* ^ pro ri 
 Subscript, deest. 
 
200 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 I. EPIST. JOANN. Cap. I. & II. 
 Cap, I. 3. xoivtovux. * 17 [* Je. 
 
 4. %jO v/j.a)v tj [* $ pro r)fj,ci)v. 
 
 tt 
 
 5. KUI eanv avrtj f} [* $ pro xi avrtj effnv 17. 
 
 x* 7ryyAAOjUei> v/z/i/, [* pro avayy\\o/j.v. 
 7. Itjffov * TGI/ .[* Xjworoi/, quod alius in marg. 
 adject. 
 
 8. init. eA^o/, ei/ [* + Lect. 
 
 ahtjOettx, rov Qeov ev ryj-tv OVK effTtv fin. [ -f- TOI/ 
 Qeov. ** $ pro ot/x ta-civ ev fjfj.iv fin. 
 
 9. a/u|0r/a? fymcov, KOU [* + np-<*>v- 
 
 10. (X.VTOV V fljU.IV OVK fffTl fill. '[* $ prO O.VTOV OVK (TTl 
 
 ev rifJ.iv fin. 
 
 x< [* ^ pro d 
 
 4. Ae-ytui/, Ore e-yi/wxa [* -f- ore. 
 13. TTovtjpov. E^jOa^a t'/x/v * ^ loco Ypa<j>co. 
 16. ei/ * xoo/xcw, [* TO>, quod alius superscript. 
 
 18. 7r/5/, 5eA<^o/, <r^T7 [ 
 
 * 
 
 
 19. -yjO e^ jj/utu*', J/^wv /ue/xenyxf/ffav [* $ pro 
 
 Ivot. <f>a.vpajdr) on [* ^ pro (fr 
 OVK etffi $$ [* 7TfTes. 
 
 22. T/S <rr< * ^ei/oTi??, [* o quod alius superscript. 
 a.pvovfj.vo$ * TOP [* TOI> TTarepa. xat. 
 
 23. * o apvov/uLwos [* ?r5 haec omissa alius in 
 
 marg. adscript. 
 
 e^er o ofj.ohoye0v rov vlov xat rov Trarepot e%ei fin. 
 [* _|_ o o/uioXoyuv rov viov xat rov -narcpa c%/. 
 
 24. vyue/? * o [* oi/v. 
 
 27. VfJLtV fJ.vTQ), KfXl [* ^ prO fJ.V(. 
 
 * r* -* 
 
 TO cu/roi/ xjpiafj.a _ ^ pro I/TO. 
 
 27,28. t/iex$, * IJ.&V&TC. [* fj-evsirt ev <XVT<U. Kai vuv, 
 . Htcc omissa alius in marg. adjecit, 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 201 
 
 I. EPIST. JOANN. Cap. II. III. IV. 
 II. 28. atar^vvdeofjiev -nap* avrov [* $ pro ait\ 
 
 29. TTOIOOV * diKouocrwtiv, [* rtjv, quod alius su- 
 perscript. 
 
 avrov yyev*9irai fin. [* i/, hanc. lit. alius 
 superscript. 
 
 * r* ^ 
 
 oi/x eyj/tyi/ avrov ~ ^ pro ey^u. 
 5. fj/xcyr /|0j' x/ [* ^ loco aprj. 
 
 6. ot/5e eyvco avrov. [* ^ pro 
 9. init. aSeAipot, -nas [* -} Lect. 
 11. ^ eTTfxyyehta r\v [* ^ loco ayye\ia. 
 
 14. aJgA^ov at/TOi/, /zet/f/ [* + avrov. 
 
 15. ei' eavrep fisvovfffxv [* ^ pro at/ra;. 
 
 18. TSKVUX. *, /xij [* JULOV, alius superscript. 
 
 TJ yAcyiTO-jj [* 4- T?. 
 e^ jOyw [* 4 e^' 
 
 til 
 
 19. x* sx TOVTOV yvcoorojjitOa on [* ^ pro xou ev TOI>T&> 
 
 ywcayxofjiev OTI. 
 O.VTOV Tretffuju-ev rag [* ^ pro Tre/o-oyuev. 
 
 22. Ayu/3vo/xi' ?r' ai/roi/, or/ [ ^ loco Trap' WVTOV. 
 
 23. iVa 7riffTVQ)/j.ev TQ> [* ^ pro Tr/o-Tet/o-a/iej/. 
 
 24. oi5 t^wxei' ij/u/i/ fin. [* $ pro oi5 ^wv eob&Mr fin. 
 
 IV. 2. TOI/T^ ytrfuo-xo/ief TO [* <J pro 
 
 3. Itjffovv * ev [* 
 
 5. cr/' x/ <W [* -|- x<. 
 
 ^ 
 
 11. o Oeo$ o^Tco? ;y7rr;<Ti/ [* ? pro ei OVTQJS 6 Qeo$ 
 
 12. avrov ev fjp.tv rereheicoftevri effrtv fin. [* $ pro avrov 
 
 TT\etCt)[J.VtJ SffTIV V fjfJ.IV fin. 
 
 ft 
 
 15. o? tai' 6jj,o\oyri<rri [* pro af. 
 
 Ml 
 i/ro$ i/ I/TO> fin. "* $ loco T<W 0&) fin. 
 
202 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 I. EPIST. JOANN. Cap. IV. &. V. 
 
 IV. 16. fievst * fin. [* KOU 6 0eos ev avru. Alius hiec in 
 marg. adjecit. 
 
 $ i 
 
 17. > TovTQ) TCO Mffpy fin. [* $ pro tv T&> xo<r/x&> 
 Tovrtp fin, 
 
 19. ayaTrtufisv rov Qeov, on [* rov Qeov, pro GCI/TOJ/. 
 OH/TOS TTpvrov rryaTTtjvev [* pro TTjOcyros. 
 
 20. init. aya-nrjroi eav [* -f Lect. 
 
 ot/^ ea>pa.Kv ov tvvarai [* ^ pro ou^; <y|0ax TTW? 
 
 V. 1. yevvtjfffxvTa avrov, aya-nn. [* + 
 
 2. avrov TTOi&ju.ei/ fin. [* loco 
 
 * 
 
 5. T/S ^>e effriv [* ^_ $g. 
 
 6. a//Aaros x/ 7ri/i//tTo?, I^o-oi/s [* + xat -nvev^aro^. 
 
 7. Deest nempe art rpsi$ etfftv 01 ftrxpTupovvres tv TCO 
 
 ovpavc,), 6 UoiTtjp 6 Aoyo$ nai TO dyiov Hvevfj.a, 
 KOii ovT3t ol T/>f/s iv eta-i. Alius haec in marg. 
 
 adscripsit. 
 
 .* *f , 
 
 8. on 01 Tpei$ t etcrtv ol papTvpovvrss ***, TO [* on 
 
 loco x/. ** 4. 01. *** ev TIJ yi;. 
 wei/yua, * TO [* x/. 
 
 11. <&)i//ov J3(wxei/ fan, [* ^ pro eotoKsv. 
 
 12. wW TOI/ 6or/, e^ [* -f T oi/ 6eot/. 
 
 13. <oqv atcaviov ex er ^ K0 " [* ? pro 
 
 mat. 
 
 15. o eav atrofjisOa. [* # loco av. 
 
 1O. OCt)(Tl ya)|JI/j T6> VjJLOLQTOt.VOVTl LUJ F^ ftl/Tft) rCCCnt 
 
 hoc in marg. adscript. ** $ pro TO/? dfiapra- 
 
 VOVfft. 
 
 20. init. x< oibapev ** OTI [* -j- x /. ** J . 
 
 i* tifj.iv [* ^ pro dc^euxei/ alius hoc super- 
 script. 
 
 x/ 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 203 
 
 I. EPIST. JOANN. Cap. V. 
 V. 20. (*\ii0tvov Qeov' xai [* 4- 
 
 ct)tj r) atct)vio$ [* 4' >? 
 Subscript, deest. 
 
 II. EPIST. JOANN. 
 
 4. ffov Trepma-TovvTa ev [* $ pro TrepntaTovvra<;. 
 
 
 5. evrohtjv ypa<f>o0v <roi [* 
 
 xouvtjv, AA' iji/ [* ^ pro AA. 
 
 ft 
 
 7. ffapKC et r/5 01^ 6/j.ohoyet Itjaovv ep^ofisvov ev 
 [* + e/ T^S &c. usque ad OUTO?. 
 A' eArr/^w [* ^ pro AA. 
 if [* $ loco j$yu<y>. 
 13. exAfXT;$ tj yapis yuera <roi/' /AI;I/ [* -f- >) 
 
 ffOV. 
 
 Subscript, deest. 
 
 III. EPIST. JOANN. 
 
 4. ptityrepav ravrvs OVK [* ^ pro 
 
 XjOv, 17 /i/a [* + 7- 
 7. oj/o/xT05 avrov e^t]\0ov [* 
 
 8. ffvvepyoi ytvo^sda rrj [* ^ loco 
 
 11. O * KaKOTTOlCOV [* 5ff. 
 
 Subscript. fnicrro\n * T/O/TT; [* x0<wA(x>;. 
 
 EPIST. JUD^E. 
 
 3. 7r|0axaA<u HTayo>vieaOai rrj [* $ pro 
 
 5. x Ttjs AtyvTiTov [* (f pro ex y;$. 
 
 6. ap%tjv, AA' onrohniovTus [* ^ pro 
 
 fin. [* < pro TeTtiptiKev fin. 
 
204 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 EPIST. JUD^E. 
 
 7. TTpoxeivrat tietypara, nvpos [* $ loco Je/y/ua. 
 9. TOI/ Ma>i/<rc<u <rea/j.arog [* pro Mcyo-ecyg. 
 
 11. TOI> BaAayu, fiiffdov [* # pro BA/x. 
 
 12. avvSpoty v-n avejuav 7rapa<f>epo/j.evai' [* ^ pro 
 
 J * ^ pro Ttepujtepopevou. 
 
 13. $a\affffns, ^ST^pt^ovTa T S [* ^ pro STta^pt 
 
 /S * a/CUt'CK [* TOV. 
 
 14. ev dyiaus fj.vpta<Ti* avrov [* $ pro ev pvpiafftv 
 
 l/TOf. 
 
 * 
 
 15. xa/ ffAey^a/ 7rj/rs [* pro 
 
 16. yoyyvtrrou, fUfulnpvpoi, Kara [* 
 
 STTidvpias eavTcw Tropevo/mevot [* # pro t/rcyj/. 
 24. <l>v\a$ai v^i 7rra/<7TOi/s [* ^ pro 
 
 Subscript. Ioi/5 xadojfiKJK eraToArj? [* 
 lovda 
 
 Here follows the Apocalypse of St. John. I have 
 published its Various Readings, in my Beytrdgen zur 
 Kritik iiber Johannes Offenbarung. 
 
 I have still a few observations to annex.' 
 
 1st. This Codex, Guelpherbytanus C, has many Read- 
 ings peculiar to itself; and some of them are important. 
 
 2dly. It has also Readings which have hitherto been 
 found in only one Codex besides ; e.g. Rom. xii. 20. 
 
 1 Pet. i. 4. TO*S : ii. 8. ei$ fiv -napt-ffm-vaaav eavrovs 
 
APPENDIX (B.) 205 
 
 T/V : Ver. 1 1 . TOV KOff/JLOV TOVTOU I HI. 7. 7TO/X<Al7? I lv. 4. l/- 
 
 TOIS : v. 9. OT<. These Readings are found only in the 
 Codex Havniensis 109 , which was written in the 13th cen- 
 tury. 
 
 3dly. It also has Readings which have hitherto ap- 
 peared only in Translations, Editions, and Works of 
 the Fathers. 
 
 (109) Hensler, " Specimen Cod. N. T. Grsecorum, qui Havniae in 
 Bibliotheca Regia adservantur. Specimen I." Havnia, 1?84. 
 
APPENDIX (C.) 
 
 (See p. 87.) 
 
 PROFESSOR MATTH/BI of Moscow, in the Preface to 
 his Edition of the Seven Catholic Epistles 110 , has in- 
 serted a " Fragmentum Epistolce Eugenii, Chersonis et 
 Sldbinii Archiepiscopi." In that Letter, the Archbishop 
 makes the following very interesting remarks on 1 John 
 V.7. 
 
 " Hoc ego tantummodo in praesenti addere possem, quod 
 a nemine (quod sciam) hactenus observatum. Tantum sci- 
 licet abesse, per interpolationem locum ilium surrepsisse, ut ne 
 quldem versus octavus, qui sequitur, staret, nisi versus septi- 
 mus prcecederety de quo agitur. Quod enim in versione La- 
 tina recte exprimitur masculino sermonis genere, id in ipso 
 textu Grseco original!, non praesupposito superiore versiculo, 
 baud plane consisteret, nisi cum violentia quadam dictionis, 
 ac per solrecismum patentissimum. Cum etenim TO -nvtv^a. 
 KOI TO vSap xai TO aifiot. nomina neutrius generis sint, qua ra- 
 tione concordabit cum iis, quod immediate prsecedit : Tpeig 
 etfftv 01 fj.apTvpowTs ; et quod illico sequitur : Kou ovTot 01 
 Tpsts x. T. A. Masculina equidem nomina, et foeminina, no- 
 minibus adjectivis, pronominibusque in neutro genere ex- 
 pressis construi, respectu habito ad T -npayfjioiTa, id sane 
 
 (110) The Title of this Work is, " SS. Apostolorum Septem Epi- 
 stolse Catholicse ad Codd. MSS. MOSQQ. primum a se examinatos re- 
 censuit, varias lectiones, animadversiones criticas, et inedita Scholia 
 Graeca adjecit, Versionem Latinam Vulgatam Codici diligentissime 
 scripto conformavit et edidit CHRISTIANUS FRIDERICUS MATTH^I, 
 Litterarum Huraaniorum in Universitate Caesarea Mosquensi Pro- 
 fessor P. O. Riga?, sumptibus .T. S. Hortknockii, 1782." 
 
APPENDIX (C.) 207 
 
 linguae nostrae peculiare genium esse, omnibus earn callen- 
 tibus notissimum est; sed quod etiam reciproce neutra no- 
 mina substantiva adjectivis vel pronominibus masculinis aut 
 fcemininis indicentur, nemo dixerit. Porro hie versu octavo 
 sic legimus : Tpeis euriv oi papTvpovvTeq " TIJ yy, TO Trvevpa xai 
 ro vbup xai TO /yu* xoti of TjOe/? sis TO ev eiffi. Sed nonne 
 dictio naturalis hie et propria potius esset : Tpiot ei<rt TO. 
 TvpovvTa ev TT) yy, TO itvevjuM xai TO vb&p xai TO a!ju.a' xai TO, 
 eiq TO ev eiffiv ? At illud tamen est scriptum non hoc, Quae 
 igitur alia ratio occurrentis istius axaraAAijA/as afferri potest, 
 nisi sola praecedentis versus septimi expressio, quae per hunc 
 immediate sequentem versum octavum, symbolice explicatur 
 et plane replicatur, allusione facta ad id, quod prsecesserat ? 
 Tres, igitur, qui in coelo testimonium perhibent, primo positi 
 sunt versu septimo : Tpst$ etanv 01 papTvpovvTeq ev T<p ovpotvc*, 6 
 Ilari/jO, o Aoyo?, xat TO otytov Qvevpa,' xat ovTOt oi Tpei$ ev eiffi, 
 Deinceps vero immediate adducti, iidem ipsi testes, quatenus 
 in terra etiam testimonium idem confirmerit, per tria hsec 
 symbola versu octavo: Kou Tpct$ ei<riv oi papTvpovvTes ev TTJ yq, 
 TO TTvevfj-ot xai TO vticop xat TO a/pa' xat oi Tpetq ei$ TO Iv eiariv. 
 Ac si diceret Evangelista noster : O/ avTot exeivot oi ev TA> ov- 
 pavt* fMKpTvpowTts (quod satis indicatur per particulam xat, 
 cujus vis in praesenti non simpliciter copulativa est, sed plane 
 identifia) itept <uv ev TCO av&Tepw e<$a<j)i(p etptjTai' dijAoc^t; 6 HaTtjp 
 6 Aoyo? xai TO Hvevpa' oi avTOt papTvpovvTeq stfft xat ev TIJ yy t 
 5<' <*)v fifj.iv <rvjj.l3o\ct>v airexa\v(j>0ii<rav' TI/T Js T (rvju./3o\a effTt 
 TO 7rvevfJ.a, Si' ov dtjhovTat o TlaTijp' TO //u, oY ov 6 Y/os* TO vticop, 
 Ji' ov TO Hvevpa TO riytov. Kat ol Tpetf OVTOI, oiTives avooTepcp /mev 
 avaxfxa\vfJL/j.evct)g df avTav TCDV ^eap^txtov OVOJMXT&V, ev TCO ovpavc* 
 iraptarTavTai ol avTot ev TJJ ytj dia Ttj$ ev TV oixovojuufx. 
 , ffvjuij3o\ixa>$ eTravahafj,/8avopevoi' ol Tpets OVTOI ei$ TO ev 
 eifft. Sed ohe ! urceum institui, non amphoram ! " 
 
 Poltavioe, ad d. 10 Decemb. 1780 
 
 Therefore, the Reading in our Codex Guelpherbytanus C. 
 
 OTI OI Tpei$ eiffiv oi papTvpovvTes &C. &C. Confirms the 
 
 Archbishop's opinion : and it is, at least in my judg- 
 ment, exceedingly remarkable, that Gregory Nazianzen quotes 
 
208 APPENDIX (C.) 
 
 an objection of his opponents against the 8th verse, drawn from 
 this identical solecism. 
 
 And what says the venerable Greek Bishop in reply ? 
 He says, " It is indifferent to me whether we say Tpeis 
 or Tpia, in speaking of things of the neuter gender". 1 " 
 Yet, surely, the Linguists of his day would scarcely 
 have conceded that point to him. Neither Gregory, 
 nor any other Greek, as far as I know, confirms this 
 rule by their style of writing. Neither can we attempt 
 to call the rpetg papTvpovvres, a Hellenism: at least, St. John 
 has distinctly shewn, that he cannot be liable to such 
 an imputation in the present instance; nor, indeed, 
 throughout his First Epistle 112 . 
 
 (111) See Note 55. 
 
 (112) For instance, in verse 6, John says, TO nVev/ua eart fiaprvpovv, 
 not napTvpav. Dionysius Alexandrinus (in Eusebius) certifies that the 
 First Epistle of John is free from solecisms. I do not remember 
 having found such a construction in the Alexandrine Version. 
 
APPENDIX (D.) 
 
 (See pp. 35, 36.) 
 
 IN speaking of CYPRIAN, I stated that Tertullian 
 understood Greek, and regarded the original Greek 
 Text of the New Testament as the arbitrator, or 
 umpire, between the Latin and all other Versions m : 
 therefore, that he did not blindly follow the African 
 Version, but compared it with the Original Text. I 
 shall now adduce a striking instance to that effect. 
 
 In his Treatise " De Monogamia" cap. xir., in ex- 
 plaining 1 Cor. vii. 39., he says 
 
 " Sic ergo in eodem ipso capitulo, quo definit unum- 
 quemque, in qua vocatione vocabitur, in ea permanere de- 
 bere, adjiciens : Mulier vincta est, quamdiu vivit vir ejus ; si 
 autem dormierit, libera est. Cui volet nubat, tantum in 
 Domino. Hanc quoque earn demonstrat intelligendam, quae 
 et ipsa sic fuerit inventa, soluta a viro, quomodo et vir solu- 
 tus ab uxore, per mortem utique non per repudiurn facta 
 solutione. Quia repudiatis non permitteret nubere adversus 
 pristinum praeceptum. Itaque mulier, si nupserit, non de- 
 linquet, quia nee hie secundus maritus deputabitur, qui est a 
 fide primus. Et adeo sic est, ut propterea adjecerit tantum 
 in Domino, quia de ea agebatur, quae ethnicum habuerat, et 
 
 (1 13) Tertullian. adv. Marc. lib. iv. De Prescription. adv. Haeret. - 
 That Tertullian understood Greek, no one can possibly doubt. Nay, 
 he actually wrote Works in that language. In his De Corona MUitis,^ 
 he says, " Sed et huic materise propter suaviludios nostros Grsecos, 
 Graeco quoque stilo satisfecimus." And in his De Baptismo ; " Sed 
 de isto plenius jam nobis in Grseco digestum est." 
 
 P 
 
210 APPENDIX (D.) 
 
 amisso eo crediderat, ne scilicet etiam post fidem ethnico se 
 nubere posse preesumeret, licet nee hoc Physici curent. 
 Sciamus plane non sic esse in Grceco authentico, quomodo in 
 usum exiit per duarum syllabarum aut callidam aut simpli- 
 cem eversionem, si autem dormierit vir ejus, quasi de futuro 
 sonet, ac per hoc videatur ad earn pertinere, quse jam in fide 
 vifum amiserit." 
 
 This passage deserves attention, in many respects. 
 I subjoin another example of the same kind. Tertul- 
 lian, lib. iv. advers. Marcionem, cap. xvin. says, " Beati 
 mendici, sic enim exigit interpretatio vocabuli, quod in 
 GTGBCO est, quoniam illorum est regnum Dei." Who 
 now will venture to assert, that Tertullian blindly fol- 
 lowed an African Version, and never troubled himself 
 with the Original Text m ? 
 
 CYPRIAN, a most obsequious disciple of Tertullian, 
 does the very same thing. If we compare the several 
 passages which he cites in his Works, we shall find that 
 he frequently quotes a different Latin Version of the 
 same passage. Consequently, he did not slavishly fetter 
 himself to an African Version, but consulted the Ori- 
 ginal Text, (for he understood it,) according to what- 
 ever Greek Manuscript he happened to have. 
 
 This, indeed, was already noticed by R. Simon. In 
 his Hist. Critique des Comment, du Nouveau Testament. 
 chap. i. he says 
 
 " II (namely, the Bishop of Oxford) n'a pris garde, que 
 cette ancienne traduction, (namely, the Latin Vulgate in 
 Africa,) qui etoit entre les mains du peuple, et qu'on lisoit 
 dans les eglises, n* empechoit point ceux, qui savoient la langue 
 
 (114) See Note 116, below. 
 
APPENDIX (D.) 211 
 
 Grecque, dp traduire le Grecque des septante et celuy du Nou- 
 veau Testament, a leur manier, quand Us le jugeoient a 
 propos. C'est principalement a cela, qu'on doit attribuer 
 cette diversite de version des memes passages ; qui est dans 
 les difierens livres de ce savant eveque (namely, Cyprian)." 
 
 That Cyprian, wherever he quoted passages of the 
 New Testament in Latin, had the Original Text be- 
 fore him, is proved by a passage in his works, which, 
 to my judgment, seems very striking. The context is 
 to this effect ; viz. 
 
 In 1 Tim. ii. 9, 10. the Apostle regulates (so to speak) 
 the dress and ornaments of Christian females by the 
 standard of fashion which prevailed, in his days, among 
 the Greeks ; and avails himself of terms then in use m . 
 The African female attire (as appears from Tertullian 
 and Cyprian) differed in very many points from that 
 described by St. Paul: but the Apostle's main object 
 in this passage was, to recommend modesty, and pro- 
 priety of dress, to Christian females. Cyprian there- 
 fore says, " Paul enjoins the opulent Christian ladies, 
 in his own language, (that is, the Greek,) to be moderate 
 in their attire." The passage in Cyprian, lib. ir. De ha- 
 litu virginum, runs thus : 
 
 *' Locupletem te dicis et divitem : sed divitiis tuis Paulus 
 occurrit, et ad cultum atque ornatum tuum justo fine mode- 
 randum sud voce praescribit. Sint, inquit, mulieres vere- 
 cundia et pudicitia componentes se, non intortis crinibus, 
 neque auro, neque margaritis, aut preciosa veste, sed, ut decet 
 mulieres, promittentes castitatem, per bonam conversationem." 
 
 It appears, therefore, from this passage, that Cyprian 
 
 (1 1 5) e. g. KaTacrroXrt, cv 
 
 r 2 
 
212 APPENDIX (D.) 
 
 had the original Greek Text before him when he quoted 
 this extract from St. Paul. Moreover, in quoting Hi- 
 storical parts of the New Testament, he alludes to ex- 
 pressions which were in the original Greek Text. For 
 instance ; in lib. iv. Epistolarum, epist. vii., beginning 
 with " Qusesisti etiam Prater," he says, " Porro autem 
 quod quidam non CHRISTIANOS sed CLINICOS vocent, 
 non invenio unde hoc nomen assumant, nisi forte qui plura 
 et secretiora legerunt apud Hippocratem, vel Seranum, 
 Clinicos istos deprehenderunt. Ego enim, qui CLI- 
 NICUM de Evangelio novi, scio, paralytico illi et debili, 
 per longa aetatis curricula in lecto jacenti, nihil infirmi- 
 tatem suam obfuisse," &c. This extract shews that 
 Cyprian referred to the word KAINH, which occurs in 
 Matt, ix. . and Luke v. 18. 116 I have already proved, 
 in p. 35, that he understood Greek. 
 
 Therefore, it is unfair to class all the Latin Fathers 
 indiscriminately in one list, and deprive them of all 
 voice whatever in controversies respecting the Original 
 Text. Such of them as understood Greek, rank on a 
 level with the Fathers of the Greek Church, as regards 
 the Original Text of the New-Testament Translation, 
 from which they quote 117 . 
 
 (116) I wonder, therefore, how a Doctor, in other respects so 
 learned, could have dogmatically published to the world, that, " with 
 regard to Tertullian and Cyprian, it is undeniable that they merely 
 used the Latin Version, and never collated the Greek Text." 
 
 (117) I cannot see why Jerome should be the only one to whom 
 this justice is rendered: and yet, not even to him throughout; for it 
 is denied him, when he writes as a Polemic or an Ascetic. Strange 
 suspicion ! Was, then, the Latin Version any way more serviceable 
 for these purposes ? 
 
APPENDIX (D.) 213 
 
 Eminently certain we are, that these what shall I call 
 them? Latin-Greeks, when proving any articles of Faith, 
 would never have quoted passages which were wanting in all 
 the Greek Manuscripts then in their possession. 
 
 I am well aware, that many of our modern Critics 
 maintain the contrary. Michaelis, in his Introduction 
 to the New Testament, has stated the grounds of their 
 suspicion, in the clearest and most specious manner. 
 Let the Reader decide between them and me. 
 
 But to give this decision a proper bias, I must add a 
 few words on the Latin Version of the New Testament 
 current in Africa during the first four centuries, and 
 the uses to which it was applied. 
 
 When it is desired to prove that the passages quoted 
 by the Ancient Teachers of the African Church (even 
 allowing that they understood Greek) are still useless 
 to the criticizing of the Original Text, it is asserted, 
 that the African Version is a parallel to the Vulgate of 
 the Lutheran Church (excuse me for thus designating 
 Dr. Luther's German Translation of the Bible) ; and, 
 therefore, that the old Ecclesiastics of Africa used the 
 former, precisely as German Protestants do the latter. 
 Consequently, passages cited by Tertullian, Cyprian, 
 and Augustin, have no weight whatever in criticism; 
 nor are they any proof of what these Fathers may have 
 read in the original Greek Text. 
 
 I reply, The parallel is false ! For the Vulgate of the 
 German Protestants is how shall I express myself? r- 
 a closed Version ; of which it is said, ' Thou shalt add 
 nothing thereto ; thou shalt subtract nothing therefrom.' 
 Not so, however, with the African, at least unto the 
 
214< APPENDIX (D.) 
 
 clays of Augustin and Fulgentius : for Augustin ex- 
 pressly tells us, that improvements had always been 
 made, and were continuing, even in his own time, to be 
 made in the African Version, in order to render it more 
 correct, and conformable to the original Greek Text. 
 
 Let us hear him. In the 16th Chapter of his 
 32d Book against Faustus the Manichaean, he writes 
 thus : 
 
 " Quid faceretis," (i.e. you Manichseans thus he writes 
 against Faustus, who lived in Africa, and consequently knew 
 only the Latin Versions current in Africa,) " Quid faceretis, 
 dicite mihi, nisi clamaretis, nullo modo vos potuisse falsare 
 codices, qui jam in manibus essent omnium Christianorum ? 
 Quia mox ut facere coepissetis, vetustiorum exemplarium ve- 
 ritate convinceremini. Qua igitur caussa a vobis corrumpi 
 non possent, hac caussa a nemine potuerunt. Quisquis enim 
 hoc primitus ausus esset, multorum codicum vetustiorum 
 collatione confutaretur : maxime quia non una lingua sed 
 multis eadem scriptura contineretur. Nam etiamnum noti- 
 nullcB codicum mendositates vel de antiquioribus vel de lingua 
 prcecedente emendantur. 
 
 Here let me remind you of the example which I have 
 just adduced from the works of Tertullian. 
 
 One instance more. Augustin, lib. n. Retract, cap. xxxu. 
 says, of the Epistle of James, " Ipsam epistolam, quam 
 legebamus, quando ista dictavi, non diligenter ex Grseco 
 habebamus interpretatam." A proof that he collated 
 the Original Text. He says further : De Doctrina Chris- 
 tian, lib. n. cap. xiv. " Codicibus emendandis primitus 
 debet in vigilare sollertia eorum, qui scripturas divinas 
 nosse desiderant." See also lib.xv. cap. xin. " Cum di- 
 versum aliquid in utrisque codicibus " &c. In short, 
 the Teachers of the African Church, who understood 
 
APPENDIX (D.) 
 
 Greek, did not blindly follow a Latin Version ; but 
 consulted the original, and noted wherein the African 
 varied from the Greek Text. Therefore, their quoting 
 passages from the New Testament is a proof of their 
 discernment in the Original Text. 
 
 That there was no African Vulgate, strictly speaking, 
 from the days of Tertullian to those of Cyprian 
 I mean, no generally-received Latin Translation of the 
 New Testament in that quarter of the globe will appeal- 
 evident, if we compare the passages found in the Works 
 of these two divines. 
 
 LUKE XXII. 31,32. 
 
 In Tertullian, de fugd in persecutione, cap. in., this 
 passage runs thus : 
 
 " Si quidera Dominus in Evangelic ad Petrum : Ecce, 
 inquit, postulavit Satanas, ut discerneret vos velut frumentum : 
 verum ego rogavi, ne dejlceret Jides tua." 
 
 On the other hand, Cyprian, Sermone vi. de Orat. 
 Dominica, has it thus: 
 
 *' Orabat autem Dominus, et rogat non pro se, (quid enim 
 pro se innocens precaretur?) sed pro delictis nostris. Sicut 
 et ipse declarat, cum dicit ad Petrum : Ecce Satanas expeti- 
 vit, ut vos vexaret quomodo triticum : ego autem rogavi pro te, 
 ne dejiciat Jides tua" 
 
 \ THESS. IV. 13. 
 In Tertullian, lib. de Patientia : 
 
 " Praeponendus est enim respectus denuntiationis Apostoli, 
 qui ait : Ne contristemini dormitione cujusquam sicut na- 
 tiones y qua spe carent." 
 
 In Cyprian, lib. iv. de Mortalitate : 
 
 " Improbat denique Apostolus Paulus et objurgat et culpat, 
 si qui tristentur in excessu suorum. Nolumus, inquit, igno- 
 
216 APPENDIX (D.) 
 
 rare vos fratres de dormieritibus, ut non contristemini sicut et 
 ceteri, qui ftpem non habent." 
 
 LUKE XII. 20. 
 Tertullian, advers. Marcionem, lib. iv. 
 
 " Ab eo ergo erit et parabola divitis blandientis sibi de 
 proventu agrorum suorum, cui Deus dicit : Stulte hac node 
 animam tuam reposcent. Quce autem parasti, cujus erunt." 
 
 Cyprian, Sermone I. de Eleemosyna : 
 
 " Patrimonium cumulas, quod te pondere suo onerat, ne 
 meministi, quid Deus respondent diviti, exuberantium fruc- 
 tuum copiam stulta exsultatione jactanti : Stulte, inquit, hac 
 node expostulatur anima tua a te. Qua ergo parasti, cui 
 erunt?" 
 
 GALAT. I. 6. 
 
 Tertullian, advers. Marcionem, lib. v. 
 
 " Miror, vos tarn cito transferri ab eo, qui vos vocavit in 
 gratiam ad aliud Evangelium. 
 
 Cyprian, lib. ir. Epist. in. 
 
 ** Miror, quod sic tarn cito demutamini ab eo, qui vos voca- 
 vit in gratiam ad aliud Evangelium." 
 
 From these examples, therefore, it is apparent; 
 1st, That Tertullian and Cyprian gave each a different 
 version of the same expressions in the Original Text. 
 
 2dly, That the Codices which they employed, had 
 different readings : e.g. in Luke xxii. 32. Tertullian read 
 cxAfirib as many Codices do still. On the contrary, 
 Cyprian read exAeiVi;, like our ordinary Original Text. 
 In Luke xii. 20, Tertullian read with us & ; but 
 Cyprian ovv, like the Codex Cantab. In 1 Thess. iv. 13, 
 Cyprian read i\opev, as many Codices do still. 
 
 I shall close this Appendix with two remarks; to 
 
APPENDIX (D.) 217 
 
 guard what I have said against all possible miscon- 
 ception. 
 
 First, I grant that no conclusion can be drawn, as to 
 the individual structure of the Original Text which 
 they possessed, from every instance of quotation occur- 
 ring in the Works either of the properly Greek, or ancient 
 Latin-Greek Fathers of the Church; for both occa- 
 sionally quoted texts of the Bible from memory ; 
 either condensing or paraphrasing the subject-matter of 
 those texts. I only assert in general, that whenever 
 Greeks or ancient Latins, who understood the Original 
 Text, quote passages of the New Testament, we may be 
 sure such passages (at least in substance) were actually 
 in the Greek Manuscripts then extant. To suspect 
 the contrary, is evidently to stigmatize men of probity 
 with the imputation of a stupid fraud. " But But 
 Pia fraus /" Well, be it so ! But you must not merely 
 suspect fraud in all the Fathers of the Church : you are 
 bound to prove it, demonstratively, in each individual 
 whose credit you endeavour to impeach ; else you con- 
 vert history into romance. 
 
 My Second observation is this. I shall adduce a 
 very remarkable example, from the history of Various 
 Readings, which is somewhat parallel to that occurring 
 in the 1 John V. 7; and furnishes historical evidence, 
 that Readings which are at this day actually peculiar to 
 the Latin Fathers exclusively, did also formerly exist 
 in Greek Manuscripts. 
 
 The African divines, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustin, 
 and other ancient Latin Fathers, read, at the end of 
 1 John iii. 6. the words " Quia Deus Spiritus est." 
 
218 APPENDIX (D.) 
 
 These words are not found in any Greek Manuscript. 
 They are wanting in the Latin Manuscripts, some few 
 excepted. They are unknown to almost all the Greek 
 Fathers. Ambrose says that the Arians had expunged 
 them from the Text. But still it appears, from Euse- 
 bius, that they formerly stood in Greek Manuscripts. 
 For that bishop writes, (in his Treatise De Ecclesiastica 
 Theologia, lib. I. cap. XTI.) To yeyevvtyj-evov ex TJ owjoxos 
 ff<xp$* eoTi' xoit TO y.yvvr}fj.tvov ex TOV JIvefyuocTOs, TlvVju.oi tcrri, 
 I1NEYMA AE C O 0EO2. Aio eTrerat voiv } o>? TO yeyevvtj/mevov 
 
 SK TOV QeOV, 0OS OT/. 
 
 But why have we no controversy in the present day 
 upon the authenticity of this pretended passage of 
 Scripture ? Are we not bound by the same arguments 
 which prove the authenticity of 1 John V. 7. to admit 
 this passage also into the Sacred Text ? I answer, No ! 
 For besides that it has only one Greek testimony to its 
 existence in the Original Text, it is also palpably inconsistent 
 with the context on which it is obtruded. 
 
APPENDIX (E.) 
 
 (Seep. 69.) 
 
 I HAVE stated above, that Gregory's Writings shew 
 that the Heretics had misapplied 1 John V. 7., and 
 transgressed the limits of Biblical ideas, in the meanings 
 which they affixed to the words 'EN and TPEIS. I shall 
 adduce only one proof to that effect. Gregory praises 
 the Carthaginian bishop, Cyprian the Second, for 
 having restored to its primitive notion the Godhead of 
 the Trinity, which some had disunited, and others con- 
 founded. But how had he restored it? Because, in 
 stating that doctrine, he adhered, like a man of piety, 
 stedfastly within the limits of the two notions of the 
 Unity and the Connumeration, (exactly the two ideas of 
 the EI2 and TPEIS.) In his 18th Discourse, (a 
 panegyric on the African bishop, Cyprian the Second,) 
 
 he Says, K< TTJS otp^iKrjg KO.I fiao-iAixys Tjo/ados rt]v 
 Tfj.vofj.vt]v <fe vfi a>v xoci ffvvot\et<f)o/j.evtiVj s TO 
 rjyaysv, ev opoi$ /ut,eiva$ Ev<refiou$ 
 
 It appears, therefore, that the early Anti-Trinitarian 
 Heretics took all possible pains, by overstrained inter- 
 pretations, to invalidate the testimony in 1 John V. 7. 
 (for it is in that text, the 'ENQ2I2 and 2YNAPI0MHZIS 1I8 
 occur together and in connection) ; and that, on the con- 
 trary, the Orthodox laboured most strenuously to pro- 
 
 ( 1 18) See what I have stated about the word (rwa/H0jo;0-js, in pp. 66, 67. 
 
220 APPENDIX (E.) 
 
 tect the meaning of the two remarkable words in that 
 passage, the 'EN and the TPEIS. 
 
 Nay, even among the Orthodox there were some 
 who could not satisfy themselves about this verse ; and 
 frankly communicated their doubts, to be solved by 
 their brethren. Of this class was the Monk EVAGRIUS. 
 Let us hear what Gregory says of him, at the opening 
 of the 49th Discourse, " etq Evaypiov Mova%ov" He ob- 
 serves : E^odpa T 9-av/ma^o) xai \iav X7T\tjTTO/j.ai TTJ<; vn<j>a- 
 
 xadiaraarai Tai$ axpifieffiv epaiTVffsmv, i$ avayxtjv r^as TOV 
 heyeiv xai aycoviav aTrode/ifecwg Trepiioraq, epa)Ttj(reis avayxaia$ 
 ryj.iv ETraycov. TLaffai ^tjhovori Xontov 
 
 xai vvv TOIVVV TO 7rpoffV%0v |Oa)Ti7/xa Trapa ffov, ro/ov^e, xai 
 
 7Tpt TOVJ> V\V. t( *Q? TlVfX. TpOTTOV V.V ltj TLotTpOg T KOU Y/OU X(Kl 
 
 dyiov TlvEvjuaTOs 17 <j>vffi$) r\v av riq op0co$ ovariav /xaAAov 17 <f>v<riv 
 xAo/Tj, 7TOTpov aTT\ij Tiq f) ffvvOeros ; i fj,v yap aTT\tj } Trcyg TOI/, 
 TPEIS, 7ri$%Tai TOD v 7rpoiptiju.vcov api0ju,ov ; To yap a-rr- 
 hovv, /xovoe/Ses xai avapiOpov. TO ^e apiBfj.oiq inroTmr- 
 Tov t avayxri Tfj.vffdai, xav /mtj apiOpou; inrofiahriTat, ro Se 
 Tfj.vo/uivov , /j.7ra6$. TLaBog yap f\ TOJULIJ. E< TOIVVV a7r\ij TO>J 
 
 XplTTOVO$ f] <pvffig^ 7TplTTtJ TCOV OVO/J.aT6)V f) -^$. El $S TO)V 
 
 ahijtiijs f} 9-ffi$ xat <$i TOiq ovopaffi 7Ti6ff0ai t TO povo- 
 xai a7r\ovv v0v$ exTToowv oi%ETai. T/s ovv av ttj TOV 
 <f>vcriq ; TI/T 7rpo$ J7/zs e^><rxe$. 
 
 Tn short, Evagrius could not reconcile the proposi- 
 tion, " TJiere are Three that bear record in Heaven, the Fa- 
 ther, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these Three are One ;" 
 which, in his view, involved a contradiction. He con- 
 ceived, that the number Three, and the names of the Di- 
 vine Persons, destroyed the Oneness, the singleness, of the 
 
APPENDIX (E.) 221 
 
 Godhead : and this number, these names, this oneness, 
 occur conjointly in no other passage of Scripture, but 
 1 John V. 7. 
 
 Therefore 1 John V. 7, was a mighty apple of dis- 
 cord between the Orthodox and the Heretics ; nay, the 
 meaning of that verse disquieted even some of the 
 True Believers. What wonder, then, that it ultimately 
 disappeared from the majority of Manuscripts. Hi- 
 story informs us, that Scriptural passages of that kind 
 shared a similar fate; e.g. John vii. 53. viii. 11.; also 
 Matt.xxvii. 16,17. IHZOYN 
 
 (119) In Professor Adler's Biblische Kritischen Reise nach J?om, 
 pp. 121, 123., we find an important discovery of this Reading. 
 
APPENDIX (F.) 
 
 (See pp. 75 77.) 
 
 THE Author of the Didascomenus was well acquainted 
 with the Bible. Besides the actual quotations which 
 I have already noticed, he makes several other un- 
 questionable allusions to various passages of Scripture ; 
 e. g. to 2 Cor. xii. 2, 4 Thus ; 
 
 Triephon says 12 , " When I met the Galilaean 12! with 
 the bald pate and aquiline nose 122 , who ascended into the 
 third heaven and there learned unspeakably excellent 
 things, he renewed me by water." 
 
 Again, Gen. i. 3. and Exod. iv. 10. " GOD," says 
 Triephon 123 , " brought forth light by a single word." 
 
 (120) 'Hw/fa Se juot Ta\i\aios evervxev, avwpaXavTias firippivos, 
 Tpnov ovpavov aepojSaTTjo-as, KCU ra KaAAitrra eK/ieyuaflrjKcos, Si' uSaros rj/ 
 
 Critias also says to Triephon : Et wot TCC^O ireSo/xnos 
 rov Si5affKa\ov KO.I TO OTroppijTa ejuurj07js. 
 
 (121) That is, " the Christian," according to the phraseology of 
 that day. 
 
 (122) Paul is described exactly in the same manner, in the Acts of 
 Thecla. (See Joh. Ernest. Grabe's Spicilegium SS, Patrwn, Tom. T. 
 p. 95.) lSoiT6S Se TOV avSpa cp^o/tei/oi/, rov ITavXoi/, /ut/cpo/ie^e^rj, i//iAov TTJJ/ 
 Kei|)aA7jf, ajKv\ov rais /cvrj/xats, (Two^pui/, eirtppivov. 
 
 (1 23) 'Hi> </)wy a<p8iTov, aoparov, a.Ka.'ra.vot)Tov, ' \vei TO ffKoros KO.I tt\v 
 ravrnv airi)\affe \oy<p IJ.OVK pvjQcvri UTT' OUTOV. 'Cis jSpa- 
 
APPENDIX (F.) 223 
 
 This is recorded, for our information, by the man "ofa 
 slow tongue "*." 
 
 He repeatedly speaks of " the Book of God;" a phrase 
 which frequently occurs in Holy Scripture. 
 
 He mentions " the Lord's Prayer 125 ." 
 
 He says, that he adored the Unknown God at Athens 126 ; 
 a manifest allusion to Acts xvii. 23. It is notorious, 
 that the Emperor Julian embraced Paganism at Athens, 
 and became a worshipper of the Deities honoured there. 
 Does not Triephon, in the foregoing quotation, intend 
 a sly allusion to that event ? Critias, the Catechumen, 
 also swears by " the Unknown God of Athens." 
 
 It has therefore been supposed, that the Didascomenus 
 (otherwise called Philopatris] was written with the 
 intent of turning Christianity into ridicule, and that 
 Critias personates the scoffer. It is further believed 
 to have been composed by a Pagan, perhaps the Sophist 
 Lucian, to ingratiate himself with the Emperor JULIAN ; 
 and therefore that the Philopatris was written in the 
 lifetime of that apostate. All this I also had believed. 
 But having perused the Didascomenus, for the fourth 
 time, and with closer attention and maturer deliberation, 
 I have now adopted a different opinion. Triephon, 
 who represents the Christian, is really the victorious 
 combatant ; consequently the hero of the plot, which 
 the author of the dialogue contemplated ; for what he 
 urges against idols, strikes at the root of Paganism, 
 
 (124) According to the Alexandrine Version, Moses says of him- 
 self, Exod. iv., that he was ppaSvy \uffffos, " of a slow tongue." 
 
 (125) 'no-re facrov TOUTOUS, rijv eux*?" AllO I1ATPO5 apj-a.fj.evos. 
 (126') 'H/xeis 5e rov ev AQyvuts ayvuffrov fQevpovres Kai 
 
APPENDIX (F.) 
 
 and covers it with deserved ridicule. On the other 
 hand, the little which is regarded as a scoffing at 
 Christianity, in the mouths of Triephon and Critias 
 (especially the latter), is really such, that part of it is 
 unworthy the name of sarcasm; and the residue is 
 merely those conceits to which a Pagan is liable, when 
 he commences Catechumen (the character which suits 
 Critias in the dialogue), and hears for the first time 
 some of the doctrines of Christianity. Among the 
 former, I reckon the description which Triephon gives of 
 Paul's personal appearance, " The Galilaean, with the 
 bald pate and aquiline nose, converted me." Now, this 
 cannot possibly be meant in ridicule ; for even the pri- 
 mitive Christians describe the Apostle's aspect in the 
 same terms. I appeal to the Martyrology of Thecla, 
 from which I have already quoted a passage to the 
 point. It was quite in the manner of Lucian (whom 
 the Author of the Philopatris studiously imitated) to 
 give a description of the person, rather than his name. 
 True, when Triephon bids him swear by the Triune 
 God, Critias says, " He teaches him numeration, and turns 
 his oath into arithmetic, like Nicomachus Gerasenus" If this 
 be meant as a sarcasm, it does not affect the Orthodox, 
 but the Arians, who disputed with them, (as I have 
 already shewn,) about the Synarithmesis, or Connumera- 
 tion, in the doctrine of the Trinity. Moreover, when 
 Critias is told of a " book of God," in which the deeds of 
 men are recorded, he says, " There must needs be a 
 vast many scribes in heaven." Both these retorts are 
 so stupid, that the utmost they deserve, is to be called 
 " childish jokes." The Author of the Dialogue would 
 
APPENDIX (F.) 
 
 have put very different sarcasms into the mouth of his 
 Critias, out of the abundance then in vogue, had it 
 been his object to revile Christianity. To expose the 
 abominations of Paganism, as the Author of Philopatris 
 does, was not the way to recommend himself to the 
 Emperor. To censure Astrology and Necromancy, as 
 he does, would have grievously incensed the supersti- 
 tious Julian, who was extravagantly addicted to both. 
 Therefore, Philopatris cannot have been ivritten in the life- 
 time of that Emperor. 
 
 When was it written ? 
 
 In my opinion, this Dialogue describes the various 
 sentiments entertained by Pagans and Christians, ac- 
 cording as the rumours of Julian's death and victories 
 alternately prevailed, and assumed such diversities of 
 aspect. History informs us, that the Christians were 
 apprised of the Emperor's death sooner than the Pa- 
 gans. This intelligence, say the Fathers, was conveyed 
 to them by dreams. In this Dialogue, the Ascetic 
 Christians relate a dream to Critias; according to 
 which, the Christians should again enjoy peace and 
 tranquillity, in the month called, by the Egyptians, 
 Mesor. Critias, indeed, does not distinctly explain the 
 purport of this dream ; but it renders him quite frantic ; 
 he is exasperated against those dreamers, and considers 
 their predictions a fabrication. The month Mesor 
 begins on the 25th July ; and Julian died on the 
 27th June, A.D. 363. Libanius states, that the Pagans 
 disbelieved the first account of the Emperor's death, 
 and were vehemently enraged against those who brought 
 the tidings. 
 
22(3 APPENDIX (F.) 
 
 When, at length, the impostor Cleolaus arrived with 
 the intelligence that the Emperor was alive and victo- 
 rious, then Critias's heart is relieved of a load. Cleo- 
 laus exclaims with exultation, " The arrogance of the 
 Persians is levelled to the dust ! " This is exactly the 
 tone of the Pagans, when they speak of Julian's cam- 
 paign against the Persians : witness, Gregory Nazianzen, 
 and Libanius himself. (Gesner has already made the 
 same remark.) Triephon, the Christian, discredits this 
 intelligence : he says, " He would leave to posterity to 
 witness the downfall of Babylon, and the captivity of the 
 Egyptians and Persians." He thanks the Unknown 
 God of Athens, whom he acknowledges to be God, for 
 having vouchsafed his protection to the Christians : he 
 lets the people trifle and chat as they please; and sticks 
 to the aphorism, " Too little for Hippoclides." 
 
 Besides, it is plainly visible that the Author of the 
 Philopatris represents Triephon as a convert from Pa- 
 ganism. There were many such, after the death of 
 Julian. He forgets himself once ; and makes Triephon, 
 in an ecstasy, invoke Hercules, according to Pagan 
 custom li7 . 
 
 Perhaps we have not the Philopatris entire. It seems 
 to want the Conclusion, which contains the confirmation 
 of Julian's death : for Triephon says ns , " that the dream 
 of the Ascetics, which so terrified Critias, (namely, that 
 the Emperor was dead,) was not altogether to be de- 
 spised ; that their assertions were really of importance ; 
 
 (127) 'Hpo/cAets Td)v Qavp-affitav eneivoiv 
 
 (128) Meya yap e^rxrav^ /cat 
 
APPENDIX (F.) 227 
 
 and it might still be questioned, whether the dream was 
 not true." I take this as an intimation, that something 
 was yet to follow, in confirmation of what Triephon 
 said : and this leads me to conjecture, that we want the 
 conclusion of this Dialogue, describing the commotions 
 which prevailed, among Pagans and Christians, when 
 the death of Julian was publicly and authentically 
 announced. Perhaps some Manuscripts may yet be 
 discovered, to confirm my conjecture, and supply the 
 deficiency at the end of our Manuscripts of the Di- 
 dascomenus. 
 
APPENDIX (G.) 
 
 (See pp. 6670.) 
 
 I HAVE treated at some length (pp. 66 70) of a 
 Synarithmesis, with which the Heretics of the 4th cen- 
 tury upbraided the doctrine of the Trinity, and which 
 was refuted by the Orthodox Christians. On this sub- 
 ject I have yet to remark, that even in the present 
 century (18th), a What shall I call it? Trinity- Syn- 
 arithmesis, has been started anew. It made its first 
 appearance in a Work now become very scarce ; and 
 which excited more attention, at its publication, than it 
 intrinsically deserved : I mean the " Tractatum Philoso- 
 phicum, in quo pluralitas Personarum in Deitate qua omnes 
 conditiones ex soils rationis principiis methodo Mathemati- 
 corum demonstrata est." The Preface is dated, " Leuvardice, 
 April 4, 1735." See the 26th Definition, and its Scho- 
 lium, 93, 94; also 133 140. The late CLEMM 129 
 has abridged what is there stated, but without men- 
 tioning this Tractatum Philosophicum : and presents it as 
 follows; viz. 
 
 " W r e have likewise a so-called Algebraic Demon- 
 stration, and Counter-demonstration : but they are not 
 
 (129) See his Vollst'dndige Einleitung in die Religion und Gesammte 
 Theologie. (Complete Introduction to Religion and General Theology.) 
 The passage above quoted, is from Vol. III. p. 15. 
 
APPENDIX (G.) 220 
 
 strictly applicable ; because Mathematics concern quan- 
 tity, and therefore treat of parcels of parts. For 
 suppose we call the Father, a ; the Son, b ; the Holy 
 Ghost, c ; and the Divine Essence, or God, x. 
 
 The Objection is as follows : 
 a = x 
 b = cr 
 
 C = X 
 
 a + b + c 3 jr. 
 
 And the Answer is this : 
 
 a x (b + c) 
 b = x (a + c) 
 c = x (a + b) 
 
 = 3x 2a - %b 2c 
 Add 2a + 2b + 2c = 
 
 = oc. 
 
 " But, however, the reasons already assigned, why 
 Mathematical Quantities are wholly inapplicable to 
 Logic, render this Algebraic proof almost superfluous." 
 
 I quote the above merely as matter of History. The 
 whole calculus intends only to shew, that the Scriptural 
 statement of the doctrine of the Trinity involves no 
 contradiction to the doctrine of the Unity of the Divine 
 Essence. 
 
DESCRIPTION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CODEX GUELPHERBYTANUS (E.) 
 
 1. 
 
 THE Ducal Library at Wolfenbiittle possesses, among 
 its Manuscript treasures, a Greek Manuscript of the 
 1 1 th century, containing the Four Evangelists, and a 
 few other matters. Its designation in the Library is 
 MS. XVI. 16. This Codex, which may be ' called 
 Guelpherbytanus (E.) is not altogether unknown to the 
 literary world. It was first announced by the late 
 Heusinger, the learned Rector of the Arch- Gymnasium 
 (Head Grammar-School) at Wolfenbuttle, of which I 
 have the honour to be Epliorus (Visitor). He published 
 a Dissertation 13 , in which he describes and explains the 
 portraits of the Four Evangelists, found in that Codex ; 
 makes some remarks on the orthography of the Text ; 
 has printed the Prefaces which are prefixed to the 
 Evangelists ; and has annexed a Latin Translation of 
 
 them. 
 
 2. 
 
 I shall not repeat what this learned man has said 
 concerning this Codex. My object is wholly different 
 
 (130) It is entitled, " De Quatuor Evangeliorum Codice Grseco, 
 quern, antiqua manu in membrana scriptum, Guelpherbytana Biblio- 
 theca servat." Guelpherbyt. 1752. Michaelis mentions this Essay, 
 in his Introduction *o N. T. Vol. I. 94. p. 471. 
 
232 
 
 from his. I contemplate it solely in a Theologico- 
 Critical point of view. 
 
 3. 
 
 This Codex begins with the Eusebian Canons, on the 
 Harmony of the Four Evangelists. I have compared 
 them with those in Mill's New Testament. The num- 
 bers occasionally differ, and some are omitted ; for 
 instance, the First Canon wants the wf ', ph0', ov', ,O/A'. On 
 the other hand, the Scripture passages, which I have 
 quoted, stand in the Text. 
 
 4. 
 
 There next come, before the Text of each Evangelist, 
 its so-called K^A/OI/, (Heading, or Summary of Con- 
 tents.) I have compared them with those in Mill, and 
 discovered some Various Readings; as also one very 
 remarkable addition : e.g. 
 
 &'. Matthaei, Tlepi rvirov 131 /mvOTixov. 
 
 &'. Marci, Hep/ rris <boivixt(r<rtis. 
 
 vd'. LUC3D, Ev TCO SetTTvta. 
 
 oy. Lucae, IlejO^ TIJ? rov Kvpiov 
 
 on'. Lucae, Our Codex omits the words K< 
 
 apvr)ff<us Herpov. 
 
 . ^'. Lucae, npefrfivTepwv, instead of Ypa^aTecDv. 
 
 The remarkable addition is this. In the Gospel of 
 John, Mill has xe^A/ in'. Our Codex, on the other 
 hand, &' : consequently, one chapter more than Mill. 
 
 (131) See Suiceri Thesaur. Eccles. Tom. II. p. 1338. Claud. Sal- 
 inasius in lib. de Transubstantiatione, p. 10. 
 
233 
 
 The extra xe^>A/ov, which ours has, and Mill's wants, 
 follows after xe^A. ', and is called, 
 
 I'. Tlept TIJS yu.oi^A/o$. 
 
 Therefore, the Author of this xc<j>a\aiov must have 
 had a Greek Codex which contained the history of the 
 Adulteress. 
 
 5. 
 
 Before each Evangelist there is a Prologus or Pre- 
 face. I do not recollect having seen them anywhere 
 else. The Preface to Matthew runs thus : 
 
 on TO XT MT0/ov HLwx,yy\toVf ' 
 
 evj VTT' otvrov ev 'lepovffahtifjt. e^eSotfi;, sp^vevOr] 5e VTTO 
 Icootvvov. Efyysirai Ss rtjv XT' avdpcoTTOv rov Xp/sroi/ yeveatv, 
 xai sffriv av6pco7ro/uiop<f>ov TO Evayyshsov. Tswapa 5e ear/ Evay- 
 xoti ov TrAefoya, ovre \otTTOva. ETremep reffcrapcx. 
 
 EfyyA/, na.vra.y^odsv 
 ^(*)7Tv povv T 
 
 (132) Let us hear Richard Simon on this extraordinary addition. 
 In his .//is*. Critique du Texte du Nouveau Testament^ chap. xiii. pp.147 
 & 148, he says : 
 
 " Ce qui merite d'etre observe, c'est qu'il y a des Manuscrits ou 
 non seulement on lit ces versets de la meme maniere que le reste du 
 Texte ; mais on a aussi marque le Kf<pa\atov ou Chapitre a la marge 
 des ces exemplaires, qui repond a cette histoire. C'est ainsi, que dans 
 uii des MSS. de la Bibliothec du Roi (Cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. n. 2863) 
 on lit en cet endroit au bas de la page ces mots irepi rrjs fj.oixa\i8os, de la 
 femme adultere ; et au commencement de 1'Evangile de Saint Jean, 
 ou Ton a mis, selon Tordinaire des MSS. Grecs, tous les e0oAa<a, 
 cJiapitres, ou Sommaires de cet Evangile, celuy de irepi TTJS /J.oixa\i5os, 
 de la femme adultere, a'y trouve avec les autres chapitres. Mais d'un 
 assez grand nombre de MSS. que j'ay consulted /A-dessus, ou les 
 fC<J>oAota, sommaires, sont marque's a la teste de chaque Evangile, 
 je n'ay eu trouve que deux, qui sont dans la bibliotheque du Roy, ou il y 
 eut un ice(f>a\aiov sommaire particulier pour cette histoire" 
 
234 
 
 on o xatiMSvos 7ti T<t)v 
 
 lfJ.IV TTpafJ.Op(>OV TO vayy\lOV , X0>S O A/* aiTOV/JLE- 
 
 vo$ Ttjv Trapovfftav avTOv <j>ticriv' " 'O xatitipevos em TCOV %povfii/u, 
 ejj.(f>avTj6i. K/ yap rot. %povj3i/j, TerpaTTpoffca-na. xai T TTpoffwTra 
 avTcov Eixoveq rrjq 7rpay/j,otTtot$ rov Y/W TOV QEOV. To yap 
 opoiov \sovn TO e/iTTjOaxroi/ xi fiaffihixov xai rjy/movixov %apax- 
 tyi. To 5e ofj.otov yao<r^cp TIJV ispovpymnv nai Upartxtjv EJJ.- 
 To 5s v00<y7ro/dVs Tjf ffaxcomv Siaa<>et. To Je 
 
 ofj.oiov aerft) TIJI/ e7roi<ftoiTtjfftv 133 TOI; 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1st. The greatest part of this Preface, from the 
 words Twcrapa $ effri ra Evayy\ia, &c. &c. are found in 
 the Appendix to a Liturgy of the Greeks, entitled 
 TUTT/XOS, at the $'. page of the Venice Edition 1738. 
 Much of this Preface occurs also in Theophylact's 
 Preface to the Gospel of St. Mark. The notion 
 respecting the Four Gospels is borrowed from Irenaeus, 
 lib. in. cap. xi. 
 
 2d. According to this Preface, Matthew published 
 his Gospel first at Jerusalem. 
 
 3d. This Preface further testifies that Matthew wrote 
 his Gospel in Hebrew. It proves the same again, 
 towards the close of the Gospel; adding, that it was 
 written eight years after the ascension of Christ ; viz. 
 
 MT^/OV dyiov 
 TOV Qeov 
 
 4th. Theophylact had previously been the only wit- 
 ness that John was the translator of Matthew's Gospel 
 
 (133) This should be 6iri<f>otTri<ni>. 
 
into Greek : therefore, the Author of this Preface is a 
 second attestator to that fact, Michaelis remarks, from 
 Richard Simon, that the Codex Regius, 2871, certifies to 
 the same effect, in a Postscript. 
 
 The Preface to Mark's Gospel runs thus : 
 
 To Kara MJOXOI/ Evotyyefaov tiriysypattrai, STTSI fie Mapxos o 
 /u.0jjT7js Tlerpov xai owexo^/xos Hoci/Aoi/ oweyjOa^aTO TO Ei/ayye- 
 AIOI/ TOVTO. Attjystrat tie ej0%7S Agycov, ap^v eii/ai rov Ei/a-y- 
 yeAioc/ TO TOO Icyawoc/ xrjpvyju.oi xai /3a7TTi<ryu,a, Aa/8a>i/ (Js /afjipTv- 
 piov Trapa '}i.(ra'iov rov 7rpotf>rjTOv. Zi/yuowei Se xai at/ro?, ori 
 e7Tipa<r0r] ev reu opzi 9 ov xaraAeyei 5e TOI/S Tre/jOao/AOi/g. K-nay- 
 ye\\ei tie TTJV exhoyrjv r&v /madtjTcov , xai ffij/meiot xat repara yivo- 
 TI;V 5e rov /u.v<rrtjpiov Trapaboo-iv, xai reAo?, art 
 
 xa/ o/ u 
 
 picravro rot. t/j.ana avrov, TO e <r<yyu reev ef fj.vriiJ.si6> 
 rpiri/mepoV) xai TOVTO rai$ yvvai^iv ayyehos 6 xr/3s 
 /V xai avTon onrayyeihcofftv roi$ 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1st The Author of this Preface must have had a 
 Codex in which the Reading in Mark i. 12. was /$ TO 
 o/>os, instead of ets rnv epiyuLov. The former Reading is 
 unknown to our Manuscripts, as far as I can learn. It 
 really deserves attention ; for it confirms what WET- 
 STEIN says, in Matt. iv. 1. on the word eptipov : " Solitudo 
 Judaeae, in qua Johannes praedicabat, erat campus, qui 
 ab oriente Jordanem, ab occidente regionem monta- 
 nam habebat. Jesus ergo, Johannem relinquens, regionem 
 montanam petiit, qua etiam solitudo. Joshua xvi. 1." Still, 
 however, this Reading is not the true one, but only an 
 interpretamentum (so called). A mountainous desert is 
 
236 
 
 called in the New Testament sometimes tpnpos, some- 
 times opo$. Matt. xiv. 13. John vi. 3. 
 
 2d. 'H TOV pvarTvpiov 7r,o<W/s, means the administration 
 of the Lord's Supper 134 . 
 
 3d. It appears, from the conclusion of this Preface, 
 that its Author made use of a Codex in which the 
 Gospel of Mark terminated at the 8th verse of the 
 xvith chapter. On this subject, consult MILL and 
 WETSTEIN. Traces of such Codices are worth at- 
 tention. 
 
 4th. The foregoing circumstance shews that those 
 Prefaces to the Gospels were not compiled from the 
 Text which follows them in the Wolfenbiittle Codex, 
 but are of earlier date ; for that Codex has the Text of 
 Mark entire. 
 
 5th. The Author of the Preface must have read, in 
 Mark i. 2. ev HZ AT A, TO> 7rpo<ptirrj. This likewise con- 
 firms what we have said in 'the preceding remark; for 
 the text of the Codex has the ordinary reading. 
 
 The Preface to the Gospel of St. Luke is as follows : 
 
 lareov, on TO Kara Aovxav Evayyshiov eTriyeypaTTTai, meion 
 Aovxa$ 6 jmadtiTtis Hsrpov, o xai ^sipoTov^Oeig crvvKOtifj.o$ Hav\ov, 
 xai /j.apTvpr)0ts Trap' avTOv ffvveypa^aro TO EvayyeTuov TOVTO. 
 A ( o^T/ ?ro Ttj$ \coavvov yvvrj(rCt>s } xat et- 179 SitjyeiToii TIJV 
 AT vapxa yevvijffiv TOV ZatTrjpoq, yevea\oy<0v xat avafiaivuv 
 aTro TOV Qeov ETII TOV kavio. Ej-tjyeiTai 5e 7ia\iv xai avTO$ TO 
 xai TOV$ v T&> opei yevo/j.evov$ Ttapa TOV $/- 
 
 (134) Vide Athanasius in Synopsi Scripturse, Tom. II. p. 124. 
 OV louSav o Xpurros Trapa8:5orj TO /wo-Typiov, \tyfi' Ov p.y iriu tK 
 afj.ire\ov Tavrrjs. 
 
fiohov Treipaff/jiovs, -cr\v re x\oytji/ TC 
 
 oiva^ei^iv. 2j/z/ rs xi Tsprxroc. TroAAcc yevo/uLeva^ xi rrjv rov 
 
 /U.V(TTt)plOV TTOipa^OfftVy KfXl TCAo?, OTt TloVTlto II/AaTty TTOtpedotiri X< 
 
 frof. Ttui/ tie crT(zvpci)0VT(t)v Svo Arjorcov, o i$ avrctiv fj.T(*voiia-fx<; 
 co/j.oh.oyrjff. K/ art TO <r<w/A re^ei/ ev yuj/ij/xe/a) tjyp6rj Tptrjju.pov. 
 
 TCOV 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1st. C O XipoTovti0is <ri/j/x<Jij/xos ITi/Aoy seems to have 
 been taken from 2 Cor. viii. 19. 
 
 2tl. The Author of this Preface also says, that the 
 temptations of Christ took place on a mountain. 
 
 3d. This Preface makes Luke a disciple of Peter. 
 
 Preface to the Gospel of John : 
 
 IffTov, OTI TO XT looavvtjv Evex.yy?\iov ev TO 
 vov v7rriyopv0ri VTTO IQHXVVOV v IlaTyua) rt] vriffo). A/^yexra/ ^e 
 rtjv "ni rov Harpos riy(j.oviKrjv xat TrpaKTiKtiv K<XI ev^o^ov TOV 
 
 X|0TTOl/ yVOLV. 
 
 REMARK. 
 
 This Preface asserts, with Dorotheus, that John was 
 banished to the Isle of Patmos, in the reign of the 
 Emperor Trajan, and wrote his Gospel there. 
 
 6. 
 
 Immediately after the Preface to each Gospel, there 
 is prefixed a portrait of its Author. These portraits 
 have been fully described by the late Rector Heusinger, 
 in the Dissertation already alluded to. I shall now 
 only observe, that they strongly resemble those found 
 in Lambeccius's Biblioth. Caesar, lib. n. ad pp. 570,571. 
 lib. iv. ad pp. 316, 320,321. 
 
238 
 
 Under the portrait of John, is 
 
 XHP. NIKToT. 
 But I do not know what it means. 
 
 7. 
 
 After the portrait of each Evangelist, follows the 
 Text of his Gospel ; on which I have to observe: 
 
 1st. A modern hand, later than Erasmus's N. T. 13c 
 has corrected the Text in several places; a most 
 abominable officiousness, where Manuscripts are con- 
 cerned ! 
 
 2d. My collation of the Text is made with Mill's 
 Edition. 
 
 3d. The Text seems occasionally Latinized. 
 
 4th. The Copyist frequently omits parts of the Text ; 
 at other times, repeats those almost immediately pre- 
 ceding; and occasionally commits manifest mistakes 
 in writing. 
 
 5th. But this Manuscript also contains many re- 
 markable Readings, peculiar to itself. The most striking 
 is in Luke xvi. 8 ; where, instead ol vloi rov aiwos TOVTOV, 
 it reads, ol vloi -rov NYM$&NOS TOVTOV. What can have 
 been the origin of this extraordinary Reading ? I ven- 
 ture to give my opinion ; as thus : 
 
 Possibly there were Codices in ancient times; and 
 perhaps some may yet be discovered, which read vloi 
 TOV vw aiavos, instead of vloi TOV aicovos TOVTOV. See Mill 
 on Matt. xii. 32 ; where very many Codices, as well as 
 
 (135) This appears from Matt. iv. 22. where our Codex reads 
 adores TO SiKTva. The same hand, which has occasionally corrected 
 the Text, has here written in the margin, " Erasmus TO TT\OIOV legit:' 
 
239 
 
 ours, read ev T&> vw KIWI, instead of zv TOVT& TOO 
 The Codex, from which ours was transcribed, joined 
 the two Readings together ; a case of frequent occur- 
 rence. See Michaelis's Introduction, Vol. I. 46. p. 278. 
 Now, if the Codex in which both Readings were com- 
 bined was one of high antiquity, then the words were 
 written in Uncial or capital letters, closely following 
 each other, without any intervening space ; and would 
 have this appearance : 
 
 YIOITOYNYNAIQNOZTOYTOY. 
 And if the lapse of time had defaced a few letters, or 
 strokes of letters, (a very common case see my Ulphilas, 
 cap. iv. 134,) the Text would appear thus : (N.B. I dis- 
 tinguish by dots the letters which time had defaced) ; 
 
 viz. 
 
 YIOITOYNYNAI&NOZTOYTOY. 
 
 The Transcriber then filled up the lacunce, or gaps, 
 by conjecture ; and, being misled by Matt. ix. 15, read, 
 YIOITOYNYM^&NOSTOYTOY. 
 
 Such is my critical conjecture as to the origin of 
 this extraordinary reading. 
 
 Tu, si quid npvisti rectius istis, 
 
 Candidus imperti ; si non, his utere mecum. 
 
 In Mark ii. 16. this Codex reads earfiovra nai nivov-rn. 
 yuera another remarkable Reading, as respects omissions. 
 In Luke xi. 1 1. Mill says, " Sunt et exemplaria MSS. 
 quae ab ei xai ixtiw, ad finem versus, omnia omittunt." 
 But he quotes no Codex by name ; and Wetstein cites 
 only one, viz. the Codex Leicester ensis, as favouring that 
 omission. Therefore this Wolfenbiittle Codex, which 
 
210 
 
 likewise omits those words, is a second witness to what 
 Mill asserts. 
 
 In Mark xiv. 58. it omits, like the Codex Montfortii, 
 
 the words on V/JU-H;, down to Asyovro?. 
 
 In Matt, xxvii. 35., like a great many Codices, it 
 
 omits the words Iva, TrA^tyfy, down to sfia\ov xXtipov. 
 
 In John xiv. 12., like many other Manuscripts, it wants 
 
 the Words xat /z/oj/ TOVTCOV TTOitjffet. 
 
 The following omissions are, as far as I know, pecu- 
 liar to this Codex; viz. 
 
 1. Matt. V. 31, 32. want the words dor<y avry to yv- 
 
 2. Matt. xii. 47. wants snre 5e, to the end, aoi AA>j<r/. 
 
 3. Matt. XX. 25. wants x* ol fMya\oi to avrtuv. 
 
 4. Matt. xxi. 21. wants x/ ^ 5/x^/?Te. The Codex 
 
 reads thus : X^ T 7r/<TTII/ *w? KOKKOV <r/v7re<w* ov p.ovov &C. &C. 
 
 The words o>? xoxxoi/ ffivonreax; seem introduced from 
 Matt. xvii. 20. 
 
 5. Matt. XXvii. 11. want o de Ir;<roi/s effTt] to T<UK Ioi/J/cy/. 
 
 6. Mark i. 5. wants Trai/re? ev TO> To|oJi/j 7ror/xfe>. 
 
 7. Mark ix. wants the whole of the 10th verse: *< 
 T0v Aoyov to v<mji//. 
 
 8. Luke xvii. 33. wants x* o? zav a7ro\e<rti aurtiv. 
 
 9. John i. 10. wants x* o xoo-yuo? ^/' avrov eyevero. 
 
 10. John i. 21. wants xou Ae-ye, Oi/x //i/. 'O TT^O^TJTTJS <">; 
 
 1 1. John iii. 26. wants /-tera <roi/ to <u <ri/. 
 
 12. John xii. 45. wants the whole of the 45th verse : 
 
 xai 6 to the end 
 
 Many years ago, I collected all the Readings of this 
 Codex ; and, please God, I shall have them printed in 
 some Critical Journal ; but cannot yet determine which. 
 
Gth. The conclusion of the Gospel of St. Matthew 
 is written aTavporvTro*;, cruciform ; and shews thus : 
 
 7tpOff- 
 
 Kf TTjOO- 
 
 6 \n<rov 
 
 \eyow' E&>0i7 /uo* -naff a e^oveux, ev 
 ovpavt? xfxi STTI y 
 
 aars 
 iravra 
 rot 
 
 TO OVOfJLa TOV ITT|00? 
 
 xa/ TOI/ Y/ov x< TOV 
 
 uyiov Tivsv paro? 5/^a<rxov- 
 
 re? avrovs Ttipetv -navrot 
 
 off a eveTeiha/JLtjv V/JLIV* xott 4- 
 
 5oi/, e^co yued' vpwv etfj.i 7ra<ra$ 
 
 rag i5ya(09, ;? T;5 fffi/reAe/- 
 
 rot/ aicovas* (*/J.rjv *{* "j" "j* t 
 
 May not this cruciform style of writing have also 
 been a prolific source of Various Readings, on account 
 of the frequent disruption of the words ? 
 
 7th. There is occasionally an uncial letter in 
 the middle of the words 136 ; a proof that the origi- 
 
 (136) e. ff. Matt. xv. 1. trpoff'E'pxovrai. v. 22. yvvti Xcu/aNcua,. 
 V. 25. 
 
242 
 
 nal of this Manuscript must have been an ancient 
 Codex 137 . 
 
 8th. The N ^>eAxi/<mxoi/ is used even sequente consond, 
 i. e. when a consonant follows. 
 
 8. 
 After the Gospel of John, comes 
 
 AifAaxr/s <^AyUy8voi/0" rrjv TOV %povov 
 fxvayv&fftv xat TY\V TUV Ei/ayyeA/0-Ttof ^la^o^ijv -noQev TS 
 KOII TTOV KaTa\tjyovffiv. 
 
 This AqAftxn; is taken from Dorotheus ; and is also 
 found in the Typicum. 
 
 Then follows : AlfA&xns anifitis rav x 
 
 But we are mistaken if we expect here the Lcctioms 
 (Lessons^ from the Apostolus ; that is, from the Acts and 
 Apostolic Epistles. They are merely portions from 
 the Gospels ; e. g. 
 
 TOV 
 ev. I<u. x. 
 
 TOV , T 
 
 ev. lea. 
 
 X OV 
 
 Xpovov fl'. ev, Io>. x. /3'. 
 
 y'. EV. Aot/x. x. piy' '. &C. &C. 
 
 9. 
 
 Then Comes Apxn TOV /j.tjvo\oyiov VTOI TK>V e^ovatov evay- 
 yshta lopTav. 
 
 This Calendar of Festivals begins the year with the 
 month of September. It omits many Festivals of the 
 Modern Greeks. 
 
 (137) See my Bey triage zur Kritik iiber Johannes Offenbarung, p. 41. 
 also my Ulphilas, cap. TV. 134. n. 6. cap. v. 165. n.4. 
 
243 
 
 The whole of March, and the beginning of April, are 
 stated thus ; viz. 
 
 Mrjv MOT<OV. 
 
 S . TCOV dyiCOV /UeyAoyU0TV0<yy /A. rCOV 0"/83Te/. ev. MT. X, TT'. 
 
 xe'. 6 evayyeAffljuos rrjs t/Trepayiaq Georoxov. 
 
 ev. Aovx, x. y . 
 
 TOV opdpov v 
 
 , rov opvpov. ev. Aovx. x. d . 
 Aot/x. x. py . 
 
 ev. Aoi/x. 
 x. Ay . 
 
 x^3'. TOV ocrtov Trarpoq TI/ACOV QeoSwpov rov Zt/xeo/roi/. sv. I<u;" 
 x. A^. &C. &C. 
 
 10. 
 
 The whole terminates with the following Summary of 
 the Ecclesiastical Calendar ; viz. 
 
 Ei/yyeA/ e/s titoi(j>opov<; fj.tjvas dyiotv* 
 E/5 ATroffToAoi/?, ev. MT. x. A^'. x< Aovx. x. va '. 
 
 , ev. MT. x. Af '. x< Aovx. x. py . x/ pr . 
 , ev. Aovx. x, /ud'. x/ Iw. x. v/J'. &C. &C. 
 
 All these Liturgical notices are written in a hand 
 visibly different from that which wrote the Prefaces and 
 Gospels. 
 
 The Dissertation of the late Rector Heuslnger 138 , in 
 which he has given a description of this Codex, is a 
 Congratulatory Epistle to the late Chief-Superintendant 
 Hassel, when he was appointed Principal Court- Chap- 
 lain, and Counsellor to the Consistory. It has been 
 long out of print, and not to be procured. I shall 
 therefore subjoin what my late friend says in it, of this 
 Wolfenbiittle Manuscript ; viz. 
 
 (138) See Note 130. 
 
Nee igitiir Tua persona indignum, nee nostris literis alie- 
 num facturus mihi videor, si hoc tempore, quo Tibi novos 
 eosque tarn insignes honores gratulaturus ad Te accessi, 
 Codicis quatuor Eva?igelia Graca in membrana luoulenter 
 scripta exhibentis, brevem descriptionem praemittam. Habet 
 ille membranas octojuges, quae tamen paginis nostris qiiadri- 
 geminis parum magnitudine cedunt. Jam ante Gudianorum 
 librorum accessionem in Guelferbytana Bibliotheca sub nu- 
 meris 16. 6. adservabatur. Scriptus est literis nexis inter se 
 quidem, quarum tamen ductus, cum reliquis antiquitatis argu- 
 mentis, prohibent aetatem ejus saiculo post Christum natum 
 decimo inferiorem ponere. Non literarum solum munditia, 
 sed picturae etiam elegantia, qua nitet hoc non contemnendae 
 vetustatis monumentum, oculos spectatorum haud imperito- 
 rum in se convertit. Quatuor enim scriptores sacrorum Evan- 
 geliorum, singuli suis libris eleganter depicti, praefiguntur. 
 Imagines Matthaei et Marci coloribus floridis in auratis tabu- 
 lis (in aureo fundo vulgo dicunt) repraesentatae prae caeteris 
 pulchritudine et integritate conspiciuntur. Scriptores sacri 
 adsident mensis, quibus -navra. evypoupsos re^vtjq opyava impo- 
 sita videas. MATTHJSUS dextra mento admota, sinistraque 
 manu xaAa/iov aKpofiafa .tenens, meditantis vultum habi- 
 tumque jam mine scripturi praefert, pulpitoque, quod stat 
 pone mensam, membranam virginem suspensam habet. MAR- 
 CUS ad librum jam literatum, pulpitoque impositum conversis 
 x)culis, eidemque inistra manu admota, dextra vero calamum 
 tenens, librumque atramento intactum, ex more prisco, e-ni 
 yowa<ri $r}xa<;, speciem praebet scripturi, et quod pictor videtur 
 designare voluisse, v7roypa\l/ovTo$ xoii E7riTe/j.ovvTos TO xocra MT- 
 Oatov evayyf\iov. Instrumenta scriptoria, quae in utraque 
 jnensa picta esse dixi, longe sunt plura iis quae in imaginibus 
 XrtiCjE DiONYSiique Halicarnassei apud MONTFAUCONIUM in 
 Palaeographia Graeca deprehenduntur, ut etiam hinc appareat, 
 vel ho? nomine has imagines Montfauconianis digniores esse, 
 quae tabulis aeneis incisae in plura exemplaria transcribantur. 
 MARCI praesertim mensa exhibet omnem librarian! supellecti- 
 lem, quin etiam copiosiorem ilia, quae in ANTHOLOGIA Epi- 
 grammatum Graecorum, lib. vi. cap. xxvi. recensetur. Singula 
 instrumenta ista, quamvis Tua attentiorie, quae rebus gravio- 
 
215 
 
 ribus debetur, non sint admodum digna, si breviter emimera- 
 vero, spero Te, benignissimum virurn, facilem veniam datu- 
 rum hiiic obscurae forsan diligentiie hominis antiquitatum 
 studios!, eaque superstitione capti, nt sibi persuaserit, vix 
 ullum prioris temporis monumentum superesse, cujus accura- 
 tior contemplatio non aliquantulam utilitatem adferre possit 
 literis. In utraque igitur scriptorum sacrorum mensa, con- 
 spicimus KIGTI\V Svo o?rs e%ovffav, rtjv p.ev /tAi/<Woi>, rrjv tie 
 Kiwafiapeax; TrhtjOovcrav. Adest prseterea laguncula plane si- 
 milis vasculis, quorum alterum sub mensa S. LUC^E, alterum 
 in mensa HALICARNASSEI apud MONTFAUCONIUM depictum 
 videre memini. Censet vir doctus haec vasa cinnabari reci- 
 piendae fuisse destinata. Quod ad DIONYSII imaginem attinet, 
 nihil contradicam MONTFAUCONIO, quia ibi, ut ipse testatur, 
 liquor in vasculo vitreo ruber depingitur. In LUOSE lagun- 
 cula nondum sentio cum vlro antiquitatis alioqnin peritis- 
 simo. Primo enim vas istud in scrinio sub mensa repositum, 
 si cum atramentario mensse imposito conferatur, longe majus 
 est quam pro usu cinnabaris, cnjus minore etiam quam atra- 
 menti copia scribentibus opus erat. Deinde similem lage- 
 nam et in MATTHJEI et in MARCI supellectile animadvertimus, 
 quum tamen ut supra adnotatum est, utriusque atramenta- 
 rio cohaererts aliud vas cinnabari, quod pictura manifeste de- 
 clarat, repletum, lagenos Kiwafiapecos 5o%e/^> locum ibi vix 
 relinquat. Omnem vero dubitationem eximere potest, quod 
 lagena ista, quaa colore albo in utraque imagine picta est, 
 apud MARCUM os habet colore nigro maculatum, indicio 
 satis aperto vas hoc atramento majore copia servando inser- 
 visse. Praeter haec exhibent picturae nostrae : 
 
 Koci ^Ai//3 ffK\tjpov xA/x;>ayoj/, aa xou avrov. 
 
 xavova, 
 
 ex 
 
 Tpiravoq a. 
 
 His adjiciuntur utroque loco, praeter circinos quibus jn 
 chartis dimetiendis utebantur, alia instrumenta quibus figura 
 
246 
 
 non valde dissimilis cst binis circinis, quorum capita perforata 
 funiculis inter se constricta sint. Haec organa, parallelisne 
 ducendis, an secandis chartis, an alii usui destinata fuerint, 
 parum definire ausim. Finem describendi apparatus scrip- 
 torii faciam, si unum hoc addidero, in mensa MARCO apposita 
 satis clare depictum esse : 
 
 d. ov rpo^oevra yuoA//3(W, o$ arpomov 
 \JpQ<A TTapa^vtav tOvr&vtj Kavora" 
 sive, ut alius poetae verbis utar : 
 
 IjOayU/xaTfxto T:\r\Qovra. yueAao/zar/ xt/ 
 Haec posterior descriptio stili plumbei quo lineas duce- 
 bant, adeo imposuit MONTFAUCONIO, ut in Palaeographia, 
 p. 24, atramentarium plumbeum inde confinxerit. Poterat 
 ab isto errore virum doctum revocare, non id solum, quod in 
 eodem epigrammate, unico versu interjecto, sequi viderat 
 ypa<f>tKoio ^oy^eta Kshanvoraroio petdpov ; sed etiam quod in reliquis 
 omnibus taehygraphorum epigrammatis, primo loco plumbum 
 lineis signandis accommodatum, commemoratur. Ne quid 
 tamen dissimulem, pro primo vocabulo hujus carminis ypaju.- 
 /uar/xo) in HENRICI STEPHANI exemplaribus Anthologiea ex- 
 scriptum, video ypajmjmoiTOKa). Tantum abest ut hanc vocem 
 minus obviam ex priore vulgari omnibusque nota temere 
 ortam credam, ut potius pro certo affirmare ausim, pro post- 
 eriore parum intellecta priorem illam imperitia describentium 
 esse substitutam. Nee tamen TO ypa^aronov ex rov ypm/jLjjMTos 
 KOI rov TtxTetv, compositum arbitror, quum ex comparatione 
 similium, ypafjijuaTOTOKov inde dicendum fuisse videatur, sed 
 potius yjOo/u./zocToxoi/, idque ?ro TJJ$ ypaj*/j,tj$ formatum, in priscis 
 exemplaribus fuisse existimo. Ita hoc poema reliquis taehy- 
 graphorum epigrammatis omnino consentiens, et vocabulum 
 poeta longe dignius habemus. Sed missis picturis, ad reli- 
 quam codicis nostri descriptionem accingar. In fronte libri 
 occurrunt sine nomine tamen et sine epistola EUSEBII, rubro 
 colore scriptas decem tabulae istae TIJ? TCUI/ evayyehto-rav o-v/mfa- 
 vias, quas MILLIUS exemplaribus suis adjecit. His responden- 
 tes numeri, quos et ipsos MILLIANA exemplaria servant, per 
 totum codicem marginibus inscripti sunt eodem rubro colore, 
 quo etiam majusculae liters?, ad quas singuli numeri pertinent. 
 
217 
 
 Antegrediuntur unumquodque Evangelium Priefationes quas 
 quia alibi legisse non recorder et breves eunt, hue transcrip- 
 tas Tibi, vir eruditissime, qui in maxima exquisitissimorum 
 librorum copia plurimum legifcti judicandas proponam cer- 
 tissime nimirum indicaturo, publicatae istae jam apud alios 
 habeantur, an ex hoc demum codice in publicum producantur. 
 MATTH^EO haec Prsefatio praemittitur. 
 
 (I have given the Greek Text already, in p. 233.) 
 Erunt fortasse nonnulli amicorum Tuorum quibuscum has 
 literas communicabis, qui majore cum voluptate Latina quam 
 Grseca leg-ant ; etiam his, si possim, gratificaturus interpreta- 
 tionem subjiciam. 
 
 " Scias Evangelium MATTHJEI Hebraica lingua scriptum 
 " ab ipso, Hierosolymis editum esse interprete JOANNE. Re- 
 '* censet secundum humanam naturarn Christi generationem, 
 " et est humanae formse Evangelium. Quatuor enim sunt 
 *' Evangelia, nee plura, neque pauciora. Quia quatuor venti 
 " cardinales, etiam quatuor sunt Evangelia, undique spirantia 
 " incorruptibilitatem et inflammantia homines. Unde mani- 
 ** festum est, eum qui sedet supra Cherubinos, quum apparuit 
 " hominibus, dedisse nobis quadriforme Evangelium, quemad- 
 " modum DAVIDES precatus adventum ejus : * Qui sedes supra 
 *' Cherubinos, appareas,' inquit. Nam Cherubinorum quatuor 
 4 ' sunt facies, et facies eorum sunt imagines actionum Filii Dei. 
 " Ea enim quee similis est leoni, actuosam et regiam et im- 
 " peratoriam virtutem exprimit. Quae similis estvitulo, sacri- 
 '* ficium sacerdotiumque indicat. Humana forma carnis as- 
 '* sumptionem dcclarat. Aquilina facies accessionem Spiritus 
 " Sancti deformat.' " 
 
 In fine MATTH^I rubro colore ista adscribuntur : 
 (The Greek Text is already given, in p. 234.) 
 
 " Scriptum est sanctum MATTHJEI Evangelium, octo annis 
 " post Christum Deum nostrum in coelum receptum. Editum 
 *' est Hierosolymis lingua Hebra'ica. Versus bis mille sexcenti." 
 
 Ne quis eorum qui post hac codicem istum Evangeliorum 
 manibus versabuntur, mala me fide egisse existimet qui nu- 
 merum versuum /8 /x '. ediderim, quum legere sibi ^%'. videan- 
 tur, brevi adnotatione occasioncin male de nobis opinandi 
 
uvertam. Scripta est prior numeri nota ad hanc v//. Fere simi- 
 litudinem. Hsec vero figura orta est ex antiqua forma literae 
 fi', et subscripts, lineola, quse milliarii valoris nota addi solet. 
 Notissimum autem est his qui antiques libros baud fugitivis 
 oculis perlustrant, jam inde a nono saeculo, in scriptis et in 
 impressis sseculi decimi-quinti codicibus, frequentissime li- 
 terae /3 hanc yu esse figuram, quae in ipso etiam TSTpaeuayyeA/a* 
 nostro ssepissime occurrit. Huic literse si inferius lineolam, 
 milliarii numeri indicem, adjeceris, facile eflfeceris figuram, 
 quam duo millia exprimere affirmamus. Et mirum videri 
 queat, formam priscam, quarn dixi, literae fi non absimilem 
 literae ju. hodie adeo ignotam esse plerisque ; ut doctos etiam 
 viros pro diversa scriptura adnotare non pigeat in aliis exem- 
 plaribus A/jnva^aju. legi pro Afjuvo&ap, et quae his sunt similia. 
 Sed ad praefationes codicis nostri revertimur, qui sub initium 
 Evangelii Marci talia disputat. 
 
 (The Greek Text is already given, in p. 235.) 
 " MARCI nomine Evangelium hoc inscribitur, quia MARCUS, 
 " discipulus Petri et comes itinerum Pauli, conscripsit illud. 
 " Narrationem vero ab initio instituens docet, initium esse 
 ** Evangelii, praedicationem etbaptismum JOANNIS sumpto ab 
 ** ESAIA propheta testimonio. Declarat et ipse Jesum tenta- 
 " turn esse in monte, non enumerat vero tentationes. Praeterea 
 " tradit electionem discipulorum, quaeque miracula et prodigia 
 " facta sint, et arcani traditionem, tandemque corpus Jesu 
 *' traditi Pilato cruci suffixum esse. Milites vero divisisse 
 " vestimenta ejus, et corpus positum in monumento tertia die 
 " surrexisse, idque mulieribus angelum, qui coelo descenderit, 
 ** nuntiasse, ut hae nuntiarent discipulis." 
 
 Evangelic Luc-B antiquus, quicumque is fuit, auctor ista 
 prsefatur : 
 
 (The Greek Text is given, in p. 236.) 
 " Memineris hoc Evangelium, Evangelium LUCJE inscriptum 
 " esse, quia LUCAS discipulus Petri, lectusque comes itine- 
 " rum Pauli, cujus etiam testimonium tulit, conscripsit illud. 
 *' Incipit autem ab ortu Joannis, ac deincepsenarrathumanos 
 " Salvatoris natales, generis seriem enumerans, et ascendens a 
 *' Deo ad Davidem. Rursus et ipse enarrat bapti'sma Joannis, 
 
219 
 
 " factasque in monte a diabolo tentationes, et electionem dis- 
 " cipulorum, aliorumque LXX. designationem, et. tandem 
 " corpus Pontio Pilato traditi, in crucem sublatum esse, ac 
 " milites divisisse vestes ejus. Latronum cruci affixorum 
 " alterum, qui resipuerit, confessum esse. Corpus Jesu posi- 
 " turn in sepulchre, surrexisse die tertio. Post omnia, in 
 " coelum eum receptum esse, in conspectu discipulorum." 
 
 JOANNEO Evangelio haec adnotatio prsefigitur : 
 (The Greek Text is given, in p. 237.) 
 
 " Tenendum est JOANNIS Evangelium temporibus Trajani 
 " exceptum esse ab JOANNE in Pat mo insula. Enarratvero a 
 " Patre principalem et actuosam et gloriosam Christi genera- 
 " tionem." 
 
 Annexa sunt codici quern describimus, opuscula quaedam 
 anliqua quidem, ea tamen, quae scripsit Evangelia, aliquanto 
 recentiore manu exarata. Haec quia lectu parum Tibi jucunda 
 fore arbitror, nee ea transcribere raihi vacat eorum titulos hie 
 posuisse suftecerit. Primum est: A^Aoxn? J/Ayu/3/oi/(r rtjv 
 TOV xpovov TG)v evayyehicov avayvcoffiv xat rrjv TCOV evayys\iffrct)v 
 dtatSo'xtjv, TTotisi/ TS apxovrai, x<xt TTOV xara\riyov(ri. Tune sequi- 
 tur : AjjAwa/s exxpi/3r]S TCOV Ko.ff eKOtffTriv fijmepav xe<j)fjt\fjttG)v T&v 
 uyicov a7roaToAa>i> xat TOV evayyshtffTOv ap^oju^vtj airo TI;S fjieyothtjs 
 Kvpiaxijq. Iliiiic excipit brevis tractatio, cujus hffic est in- 
 scriptio : Ap%tj TOV /urivokoyiovj IJTOI TG>V e^ovyoov evayyehiot. 
 topTwv. Agmen claudunt : Et/ayyeA/a ei$ dtatyopovs /xn^yua? dyt&v. 
 
 Hi libelli lectiones certis diebus destinatas indicantes, nu- 
 meros capitum sequuntur longe diversos ab istis, quos manus 
 prima, MILLIANIS consentientes, marginibus codicis Evange- 
 liorum adscripserat. Is vero librarius, qui Appendicem 
 scripserat, pertotum fere Evangelium MATTH^EI, etperpaucas 
 paginas MARCI, numeros preelectionum, cum suis e-niypafrus 
 marginibus minio notatos adlevit, secundum quam distinc- 
 tionem MATTH/EI opus in cxv. capita dispescitur.. 
 
 Nunc ut appareat qua diligentia, qua negligentid in co- 
 dice isto descripti sint libri sacri, generatim quaedam fnonuisse 
 sufFecerit. Tituli primoaque Evangeliorum literae auro fulgent. 
 Evangelii MATIILEI titulus, vetustate quidem. valde detritus 
 est, .ita tamen, ut ex ycstigiis literarum, spatiisque, et ex 
 
250 
 
 collaiione reliquorum titulorum, facile appareat, nihil aliud 
 scriptum fuisse quam hoc: EBANrTEAlONKATAMAT- 
 0AIONKE4>. A. MARCO vero satis perspicue praescriptum est : 
 EBAITEAIONKATAMAPKONKEfcAAAION A. Utroque loco 
 vocabulum EYAITEAION loco rov Y habet B. Error natus est 
 ex prisca ilia pronuntiatione, quae calligrapho nostro sexcento- 
 rum aberrationum praebuit occasionem. Sic ssepissime e et 
 /, sic tit i t et <>h sic o et w innumeris locis inter se permu- 
 tavit. Et nisi plurimis aliis rationibus eruditi grammatici 
 antiques diphthongorum sonos dudum confirm assent, vel hoc 
 solum, quod prisci librarii tarn frequenter opofavovs syllabas 
 confuderunt, omnem nobis de ea re dubitandi locum praeripe- 
 ret, pracsertim quum MONTFAUCONIUS atque KUSTERUS e libro 
 quinto circiter sseculo scripto, pluribusque antiquissimis mem- 
 branis easdem aberrationes passim adnotaverunt. Vides, 
 Vir Summe, quanta vetustis monumentis religio hoc etiam 
 nomine debeatur, quod vel errores hominum priscorum tarn 
 amplam imperitioribus discendi materiam prsebere possint. 
 Quod vero chrysographus in MATTH.EI titulo, vocabulum 
 EYArrEAION scripturus, N ante TF posuit, ne id quidem 
 peculiar! suo errore fecisse videtur. Nam etiam apud GRU- 
 TERUM p. LXXI. ex antique marmore 2YNXAIPOMENOY pro 
 SYPXAIPOMENOY adferri recordamur. Cseterum codex nos- 
 ter, quod ex festinata ejus ac tumultuaria inspectione animad 
 vertere potui, plerasque optimorum criticorum emendationes 
 suffragio suo egregie comprobat, et si quando ab his dissentit, 
 raro tamen pejores receptis scripturas sequitur. Passus est 
 identidem correctorum, etiam recentissimorum, manus ; sic 
 tamen, ut prior scriptura plerumque satis clare cognoscatur. 
 Ita spiritum reciproci avrov, quern antiquus calligraphus te- 
 nuem constantissime dederat, ineptissimus emendator seape 
 in asperum mutavit, idemque iota, quod manus prima voca- 
 libus nunquam subscripserat, subinde adjecit. N e0e?ut/<r- 
 TIKOV frequenter addit librarius, sequente litera consonante, nee 
 id solum in fine sententiarum, verum etiam in oratione con- 
 texta. Multis etiam locis sequente vocali N istud omittit. 
 Nee ista temeraria, et optimis quibusque, etiam in prorso 
 sermone atque Attico, usitata esse, passim a viris doctis, ad 
 alios scriptores Gra3cos adnotatum est. Etiam in his plura 
 
251 
 
 antiqua monumenta habcnt membranae nostrae sibi consen- 
 tientia, quod voculam OUTS nonnunquam ante consonantem 
 exhibent, quodque compositas particulas plerumque dijun- 
 gunt. Ita scite ubique separant : o? T/?, <u? re, a>q txvrcoq, Sta T/, 
 iva rt, TTocpa Xjp r H Jia > et similia. Alibi tamen conglutinantur ab 
 eodem librario, ea quae nos hodie divellimus, ut ista: e-ni- 
 TOOIVTO, e^ajO^i;?, KaTot(jMT$ouov t xarahovKav, xsiTibiavy Karotcrapxa, 
 
 XTT07TOf?, X. T. A. 
 
 Sed haec atque his potiora, illis disputanda relinquimus 
 qui id sibi negotium sument, ut praeclarum hoc principalis 
 Bibliothecae xetptihiov cum Vulgatis libris majore cura con- 
 tendant, atque inde eruant, si quid publicis usibus profuturum 
 hinc colligi posse arbitrabuntur. 
 
 F i N 1 S. 
 
GENERAL INDEX OF NAMES, 
 
 [App. means Appendix, n. Note.] 
 
 ACTA SANCTORUM, (Junius',) referred to; p. 41. n.29. when 
 admissible as Historical Evidences; p. 97. 
 
 ADLER, Professor, of Copenhagen his " Biblische-Kritisch 
 Reise nach Rom," ( Biblico - Critical Journey to 
 Rome) referred to, respecting a supposed Alcuin's 
 Bible ; p. 100. n. 102. his discovery of the Reading 
 lijffow ~BMprxfil3av in a MS. (Matt, xxvii. 16, 17); 
 Appendix (E.) p. 221. n. 119. 
 
 AFRICANA, or Fetus Itala, a Latin Version of the Bible, current 
 in Africa during the 1st and 2d centuries, not inva- 
 riably quoted by Cyprian ; p. 36. not a closed version, 
 like Luther's German; App. (U.) p. 213. 
 
 ALEXANDRINE Version of the Bible, not free from Gramma- 
 tical Solecisms ; App. (C.) p. 208. n. 112. quoted ; 
 App. (P.) p. 223. n. 124. 
 
 ' ALCUIN'S Bible, said to be in the Vauxcelles Library ; but 
 the Book so called omits 1 John V. 7,, which his Re- 
 cension is said to have recognised as authentic ; p. 100. 
 n. 102. 
 
 ALOGI Heretics, who rejected the Gospel and Apocalypse 
 of St. John, and possibly also his Epistles ; p. 79. 
 
 AMBROSE his interpretation of 1 John V. 8. not mystical; 
 p. 63. says that the Arians expunged a clause from 
 John iii. 6 ; App. (D.) p. 218. 
 
 ANDREAS CRETENSIS, a Greek Author of the 6th century, al- 
 ludes to 1 John V. 7. ; p. 105. 
 
 ANTIOCH, Council of, (A.D. 273,) rejected the erroneous sense 
 of ojmoovffios ; p. 59. n. 50. 
 
 AposioLUS,The, or Liturgy of the Greek Church. The modern 
 Apostolus reads 1 John V. 7. desirable to collate 
 MSS, of it Apostolized Codices, what ? valuable to 
 Critics; p. 85. & n. 84; p. 107. 
 
 AQUINAS, Thomas his Note on 1 John V. 8 ; p, 61. & n. *. 
 
254 INDEX. 
 
 ARIANS, The, acknowledged 1 John V. 7. authentic ; p. 62. 
 n. 54, 
 
 ATHANASIUS disregarded the Edicts of Councils, and appealed 
 solely to Scripture ; p.71. n. 70. not the author of the 
 Nicene Disputation ; p. 74. nor of the Twenty Ques- 
 tions ; n. 72. supposed to be Author of the Dialogue 
 against the heretic Macedonius ; p. 75. his * Synopsis 
 Scripturse' quoted ; p. 236. n. 134. 
 
 AUGUSTIN, St. his maxim " In rebus ob&curis &c." ; p. 6. 
 explained 1 John V. 8. mystically of the Trinity ; 
 p. 32. manifestly alludes to 1 John V. 7 ; p. 33. 
 his work against Maximin, probably written later 
 than the " Civitas Dei " ; p. 34. n. 24, 25. his Com- 
 mentary on the 1st Epistle of John does not extend 
 to 1 JohnV. 7 ; p. 35. 
 
 AUSONIUS, a Latin of the 4th century, alludes to 1 John 
 V. 7 ; pp. 77, 105. 
 
 BASIL the Great Maurop's panegyric on; p. 41 . his festival 
 in the Greek Church Calendar; p. 45. n. 38. Menaean 
 narrative of; p. 46. 
 
 BASILEENSIS CODEX, called by Wetstein Cod. 4. omits */ be- 
 fore vSap, in 1 John V. 8. ; p. 87. 
 
 BAUMGARTEN,A. G. his Metaphysica quoted ; p. 122. n. 108. 
 
 BENEDICTINES', Library of, at St. Casino, has a MS. Bible, 
 superscribed ' Biblia ad recensionem S. Hieronymi" ; 
 p. 101. n.102. 
 
 BERNOULLI, JAMES, the great Calculator of Probabilities, 
 recognises Augustine's maxim " In rebus obscuris &c." 
 his own rule in similar cases ; pp. 6, 11 (& n. 7), 12. 
 
 BEZA, THEODORE. his rendering of 1 John V. 7. in the Co- 
 dex Guelpherbytanus D. ; p. 88. 
 
 BIBLICAL CRITICISM advanced by the attack on 1 John V. 7 ; 
 p. 5. 
 
 BLANCHINI, JOSEPH, gives an engraving of the 1 John V. 7. 
 as found in a Codex of Cardinal Passionei ; p. 100. 
 n. 101. 
 
 BRITANNICUS CODEX has 1 John V. 7. ; p. 110. not identical 
 with the Codex Montfortianus ; ditto, n. *. 
 
 BRUNS, Professor, of Helmstadt his hint to Investigators of 
 Manuscripts; p. 43. n. 34. his Fac-simile of 1 John 
 V. 7. from the Codex Montfortianus; p. 95. n. 98. 
 
INDEX. 255 
 
 BRYENNE, JOHN DE, (BRYENNIUS,) a Greek Monk of the 13th 
 century, quotes 1 John V. 7. was an opposer of the 
 Latin Church consulted Codices ; p. 72. omits the 
 x* before vdwp in 1 John V. 8. ; p. 87. asserts 1 John 
 V.7. to be the very words of the Apostle ; pp.105, 107. 
 
 BURGESS, Dr. THOMAS, (Bishop of Salisbury) quotation from 
 his "Letter to the Clergy of St. David's"; p. 78, n. * 
 and tk Selection of Tracts on 1 John V. 7.'' ; p. 95, n.*. 
 
 CALECAS, MANUEL, a Greek of the 14th century, quotes 1 John 
 V. 7. ; pp. 73, 105. 
 
 CANTABRIGIENSIS CODEX, reads ow, Luke xii. 2.; App. (D.) 
 
 p. 216. 
 CAROLUS CALVUS ; p. 101. n. 102. 
 
 CASSIODORUS' Complex. Canon. Epist. alludes to 1 John V. 7. ; 
 p. &2. n. 45. 
 
 CASTALIO, SEBASTIAN his Version of 1 JohnV. 7. in the 
 
 Codex Guelpherbyt. D. ; p. 88. 
 CAUTION recommended in discussing the Controversy on 1 John 
 
 V. 7. ; p. 6. 
 
 CAVE his remark on the Philopatris of Lucian ; p. 76. 
 
 CHARLEMAGNE, in his Letter to Pope Leo, alludes to 1 John 
 V. 7. ; p. 52. n. 45. 
 
 CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN Maurop'sPanegyric on; p. 41. Menaean 
 Narrative of ; p. 46. 
 
 CICERO, M. T. his remarkable quotation of a lost line in 
 Homer ; analogous to 1 John V. 7 ; deserves critical 
 examination ; p. 16. n. 12. 
 
 CLEMM, in his " Vollstandige Einleitung in die religion und 
 Gesammte Theologie," (Complete Introduction to Re- 
 ligion and General Theology,) gives the Algebraic 
 Formula of proving the Doctrine of the Trinity ; 
 App.(G.)n. 129. 
 
 CODEX, Basileensis, p. 87. Britannicus, p. 110, & n.*. Can- 
 tabrigiensis, App. (D.) p. 216. Colbertinus, p. 43. 
 Corsendoncensis, p. 98. Guelpherbytanus, A. B. C., 
 p. 83. n. 80. D., pp. 88, 110. E., p. 231. Havnien- 
 sis, App. (B.) p. 205. Leicesterensis, p. 239. Mont- 
 fortianus, pp. 89, 94, 110 & n. *. Ottobonianus, 
 p. 110, n. *. Ravianus, p. 94, 1 10. Regius, p. 235. 
 Stephani Codd., p. 89. Ulm. Codd., p. 100, n. 101. 
 (See under these heads respectively.) 
 
INDEX. 
 
 COLBERTINUS Codex, (No. 2493,) written by George, writer 
 of the " Martyriurn Demetrii," and of Maurop's Pane- 
 gyrics ; p. 43. 
 
 COMPLUTENSIAN Edition of the Bible contains 1 John V. 7. ; 
 p. 94. ably defended by Goezen of Hamburgh; p. 95. 
 n. 96. was printed from ancient Greek MSS.; p. 107. 
 must not be impeached on mere suspicion, unsup- 
 ported by historical evidence; p. 109. 
 
 CORSENDONCENSIS CODEX remarkable interpolation of a mar- 
 ginal gloss into the Text of ; p. 98. 
 
 COTELERIUS ad Apost. Constit. ; p. 17. n. 13. 
 
 CUNNINGHAME, a German Author, opposes the doctrine of 
 Mysteries; pp.117, 122. 
 
 CYPRIAN, TASCIUS C^CILIUS, Bishop of Carthage early in the 3d 
 century his quotation, " Tres unum sunt &c." taken 
 from 1 John V. 7. and not an allegorical application of 
 1 John V. 8. ; p. 21. various extracts from his Works, 
 in proof; pp. 22, 23. n, 15, 16, 17. extract from his 
 Letter to Jubaianus; p. 29. n. 21. Cyprian under-* 
 stood Greek well; p. 35. would not be likely to 
 quote texts against the Heretics, which did not exist 
 in the Original Text; p 36. his testimony proves that 
 1 John V. 7. existed in Greek MSS. of the New Testa- 
 ment of the 3d century ; p. 37. uses the words " Three 
 are one" as words of Scripture designating the Holy 
 Trinity; pp. 106, 110. often quotes different Latin 
 Versions of the same text ; therefore, did not slavishly 
 follow the Africana or Veins Itala Version proofs 
 that he actually had the Greek Original before him, 
 though he quotes the text in Latin occasionally 
 plays on the words in the original varies from Ter- 
 tullian in his mode of quoting the same text quotes 
 a clause of John iii. 6. not found in extant MSS. ; 
 App. (D.) pp.209 218. 
 
 'C YRiL,Presbyter of Alexandria, quotes a clause (iThess.V. 21.) 
 not found in extant MSS. -, p. 17. n. 13. accuses the 
 Heretics of having perverted Scripture; p. 69. n. 67. 
 
 A?A<y<ns, appended to Codex Guelph. E. ; p. 242. 
 
 DIDASCOMENUS, or PHiLOFATRis, a Dialogue so called its 
 author possibly not Lucian the Sophist ; p. 75. n. 71. 
 evidently took the phrase iv ra ipux. from 1 John V. 7. ; 
 p. 76. Criticism upon it its author well acquainted 
 with Scripture, &c. &c. App. (F.) ; p. 222227. (See 
 the Analysis of Contents of App. (F.) 
 
INDEX. 257 
 
 DIFFICULTIES and OBJECTIONS, distinction between; pp.10 14. 
 DIONYSIUS, Alexandrinus, proves that the First Epistle of 
 
 St. John is free from grammatical solecisms; App.(C.) 
 
 p. 208. n.112. 
 
 Halicarnassensis, referred to by Heusinger; p. 244. 
 DOROTHEUS ; quoted, p. 242. 
 
 "Evans, or Unity in the Trinity Gregory Nazianzen's re- 
 mark upon asserted in 1 John V. 7. that text mis- 
 interpreted by Anti-Trinitarians ; App. (E.) p. 219. 
 
 EPIPHANIUS de Haeres. ; quoted, p. 79. n. 78. 
 
 ERASMUS, DESIDERIUS, important services rendered by gave 
 first occasion to the Controversy on 1 John V. 7. 
 Restored that clause in his 3d Edition of the New 
 Testament ; p. 5. his Latin Version of it in Codex 
 Guelph.D. ; p. 88. 
 
 ERPENIUS, his Edition of the Arabic Version; p. 8. 
 
 EUGENIUS, Archbishop of Cherson, his Criticism on I John 
 V. 7. ; p. 87, and App. (C.) p. 206. 
 
 EUSEBIAN Canons, prefixed to the Codex Guelph. E. ; 
 p. 232. 
 
 EUSEBIUS, his report that Pantaenus left the Gospel of St. 
 Matthew, in Hebrew, among the Indians; p. 1 3. quotes 
 a clause in John iii. 6. not in any extant MSS. of the 
 New Testament ; App.(D.) p. 218. 
 
 EUTHYMIUS ZYGABENUS, a Constantinopolitan Monk of the 
 12th century, quotes 1 John V. 7. ; p. 74. his Pano- 
 plia Dogmatica referred to; p. 105. n. 103. asserts 
 that 1 John V. 7. are the very words of the Evangelist 
 St. John; p. 106. 
 
 EVAGRIUS the Monk, Gregory Nazianzen's Address to Could 
 not reconcile 1 John V. 7. to his ideas of the Godhead ; 
 App. (E.); p. 221. 
 
 EVIDENCE in favour of the Authenticity of 1 John V. 7. stated 
 in Seven Propositions ; pp. 9, 10. 
 
 FABRICIUS, Cod. Apocryph. Nov. Testament.; p. 17. n. 13. 
 
 FACUNDUS, Bishop of Carthage, denies that Cyprian quoted 
 1 John V. 7. His denial shewn to be inconsistent with 
 Cyprian's own words ; p. 24 27. 
 
 FRANCO-GALLIC, or Merovingian Characters, used in the 
 Latin Codex Guelph. (99 MS. Weisenb.) ; p. 99. 
 
 FULBERT, Bishop of Chartres, asserts that some Heretics 
 mutilated the First Epistle of St. John ; p.78. & n. 77. 
 
258 INDEX. 
 
 FULGENTIUS, Bishop of Ruspa his remarks on Cyprian's 
 quotation " Hi tres unum sunt" The word " conf,- 
 tetur" which he uses, misunderstood by opponents of 
 1 John V. 7. its right interpretation ; p. 26. & n. 18. 
 he must have read 1 John V. 7. in his Greek New Tes- 
 tament ; p. 29. his work against the Arians, p. 29. 
 n. 19. he usually quotes the testimony of antecedent 
 Orthodox Fathers; ib. n. 20. quotes a clause in 
 1 John IV. 3. not found in any extant MSS. ; p. 36. 
 n. 28. 
 
 GEORGE, the Writer of the Codex Colbertinus, also of Mau- 
 rop's Orations, and the " Martyrium Demetrii ;" p. 43. 
 
 the Monk, Writer of the Codex Guelph. C. ; p. 84. 
 
 GERHARD, J., his Essay <c De tribus Testibus in Coelo," 
 quoted ; p. 8. n. 6. 
 
 GESNER referred to ; App. (F.) p. 226. 
 
 GOEZEN, JOHN MELCHIOR, of Hamburgh his Works in de- 
 fence of the Complutensian Bible ; p. 95. n. 96. 
 
 GRABE, J. E., his " Spicilegium S. S. Patrum," referred to ; 
 App. (F.)p. 222. n. 122. 
 
 GREGORY NAZIANZEN, Maurop's Panegyric on ; p. 41. Extract 
 from his 15th Discourse e/s TOV UoiTepei &c. : occasion of 
 it explained ; p. 42. & n. 41. his Festival in the Greek 
 Church Calendar; p. 45. n. 38. Extracts from his 
 Works prove that he was acquainted with 1 John V. 7. 
 and actually quoted it as the words of that Evange- 
 list; pp. 55, 58, 65, 71. Never applies 1 John V. 8. 
 to the Trinity ; p. 58. Asserts the Homoousian doc- 
 trine against the Anti-Trinitarians ; also dwells on 
 the trvvapt6fjLtjffis, or Connumeration of the Divine Per- 
 sons ; p. 59. Does not quote the last clause of 
 1 John V. 8. ; p. 63. Asserts that the Holy Ghost is 
 ffvvTtra.yiJ.evov and ffvvapt0ju.ovfj.evov with Father and 
 Son; pp. 65, 67. his argument against the Sabellians 
 and Nestorians; p. 69. Remarkable passage from 
 one of his Hymns; p. 70. Replies to the grammatical 
 objection against 1 John V. 7. ; App. (C.) p. 208. 
 Extracts from his Works, and his Address toEvagrius; 
 App. (E.) p. 219 221. 
 
 HASSEL, Rev. Mr. ; p. 243. 
 
 HAVNIENSIS CODEX ; App. (B.) p. 205. 
 
 HELLENISMS none in St. John's First Epistle ; App. (C.) 
 
 p. 208. n.112. 
 HENCKEN, Dr., Editor of " Annales Literaris ;" p. 43. n. 34. 
 
INDEX. 259 
 
 HENSLER, his " Specimen Codd. N. T. Gr&corum qui Havnite 
 in Biblioth. Reg. adservantur," quoted ; App. (B.) 
 p. 205. n. 109. 
 
 HERODIAN, the Historian his silence respecting the Chris- 
 tians how to be rightly interpreted; p. 15, 16. 
 
 HERODOTUS makes no mention of the Romans; p. 15. 
 
 HEUSINGER, Rector of the High School at Wolfenbiittle his 
 Description of the Codex Guelph. E., with Extracts 
 from that Essay ; p. 231, 243251. 
 
 HINCKMAR asserts that the Heretics expunged certain passages 
 of Scripture; p. 78. n.76. 
 
 HOFFMANN'S Lexicon referred to ; p. 46. n.*. 
 
 IGNATIUS, his testimony to the existence of the Apostolic 
 Autographs in his time ; p. 11. 
 
 ITALA VETUS, the Latin Version so called. (See AFRICANA.) 
 
 JEROME, ST. understood Greek; p. 31. the Prologue to the 
 Canonical Epistles (ascribed to him) certainly existed 
 in the 7 th century How far its testimony available 
 Asserts that the Heretics expunged 1 John V. 7.; 
 p. 95, 96. His Recension of the Bible supposed to 
 exists in the Library of the Benedictines at St. Casino ; 
 p. 101. n. 102. See also App. (D.) p. 212. n. 1 17. 
 
 JOSEPHUS, FLAVIUS, his testimony to the existence of Jesus 
 Christ ; p. 14. n. 11. 
 
 JULIAN, the Apostate Emperor See the Criticism on the 
 Didascomenus ; App. (F.) p. 222227. 
 
 JUNIUS. (See ACTA SANCTORUM.) 
 
 JUSTIN MARTYR, his Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew, re- 
 ferred to ; p. 14. 
 
 KALENDAR of the Festivals in the Greek Church In Cod. 
 Guelph. E. p. 243. 
 
 Ke^aA/a. Ib. ib. 
 
 KNITTEL, FRANCIS ANTHONY, his " New Criticisms on Jo- 
 sephus's Testimony to Christ ; " p. 14. n. 11. his 
 " Beytrage zur Kritik &c." (Contributions to Criti- 
 cism on the Apocalypse of St. John) ; p. 55, n. 47. his 
 ULPHILAS. (See ULPHILAS.) 
 
 KUSTER, referred to by Heusinger, p. 250. 
 
 LAMBECCIUS, his Comment. " de Biblioth. Caesar." referred to ; 
 
 pp. 41, 44, 237. 
 LAODICEA, Council of, its 60th Canon investigated by Spittler ; 
 
 p. 6. n. 1. 
 
260 INDEX. 
 
 LATERAN, the Council of 1 JohnV. 7. quoted at ; pp.73, 105. 
 LATIN VERSION, the Ancient Ante-Hieronymian ; p. 9. 
 LEICESTERENSIS CODEX, remarkable Reading in Luke XI. 11. ; 
 
 p. 239. 
 
 LEO the Great, Pope, his explanation of 1 John V. 8 ; p. 63. 
 LESS, Dr. his Work on the Truth of Christianity; p. 118. 
 
 n. 107. 
 
 LIBAN.US, referred to ; App. (F.) p. 226. 
 LUCIAN, the Sophist; p. 75. n. 71. (See DIDASCOMENUS.) 
 
 LUTHER, Dr. MARTIN, omitted 1 John V. 7. in his Editions 
 of his German New Testament ; pp. 2, 4. but evi- 
 dently recognised its authenticity before his death, and 
 must therefore have seen it in Greek MSS. His two 
 Commentaries on First Epistle of St. John ; when 
 respectively published, and by whom extracts from 
 the Second; pp. 91,94, and notes 90 95 inserted 
 the ev rrj yy in 1 John V. 8. in his last Edition of his 
 German N. T. p. 78. n. 73. (See Analysis of Con- 
 tents.) 
 
 MARSH'S, Bishop, Translation of Michaelis ; p. 7. n. 4. 
 
 MATERIALS of Inquiry into the Authenticity of 1 John V. not 
 exhausted ; pp. 5, 6. 
 
 MATTRffii, Dr. J. F., of Moscow, his Edition of the Seven 
 Catholic Epistles; p. 1 05. n. 103, and App. (C.) p. 206. 
 
 MATTHEW, St., Gospel of, supposed to have been written in 
 Hebrew; pp. 13, 234. 
 
 MAUROP, JOHN, Archbishop of Euchania in the llth cen- 
 tury his Oration on Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, &c. 
 proves him acquainted with 1 JohnV. 7. ; pp. 41, 54. 
 was well acquainted with Gregory's Works on the 
 Trinity, and coincided with him in opinion on that 
 subject; pp. 72, 74, 105, 125. (See Analysis of Con- 
 tents.) 
 
 MAXIMIN, the Arian. (See AUGUSTIN.) 
 
 MAXIMUS, the Confessor, in the 7th century, Author of the 
 Nicene Disputation quotes 1 John V. 7. ; p. 74. 
 uses the words TO lv as Origen does ; p. 77. 
 
 MENJEA (Gr. Mijvata) what ? p. 46. n. 
 
 MICHAELIS, his statement of the ground of the Controversy 
 
 upon 1 John V. 7. ; pp. 7. 11, n. 8.-^referred to ; p. 95. 
 MILL asserts that no Greek Father uses 1 John V. 8. of the 
 
 Trinity; p. 94. His New Testament referred to; 
 
 p. 128, 232. 
 
INDEX. 261 
 
 MONTFAU^ON, his Palceographia referred to ; pp. 43, 44. 
 
 MONTFORTIANUS, CODEX, agrees with Codex Guelph. D. as to 
 the number of anyoi in 1 John; p. 89. contains the 
 verse 1 John V. 7. specimen of it ; p. 94 ; n. 98. 
 agrees with Codex Guelph. E. in Mark xiv. 58 ; p. 240. 
 
 MOSES, Author of the Pentateuch ; pp. 10, 11. 
 
 MYSTERIES, Brief Philosophy of, in 25 Propositions, by F. A. 
 
 Knittel ; pp. 117 123. 
 NEUMANN, Dr. G., published Luther's First Commentary on 
 
 1 John; p. 91. 
 NEWCOME, Archbishop, sent a Specimen of 1 John V. 7. in the 
 
 Codex Montfortianus to Professor Bruns of Helm- 
 
 stadt ; p. 95, n. 98. 
 NICOMACHUS GERASENUS, referred to in the Didascomenus ; 
 
 p. 76. App. (F.) p. 224. 
 NOMOCANON, the Greek the Author of it lived in the 8th 
 
 century, and refers to 1 John V. 7. ; pp. 74, 105. 
 OBJECTIONS to 1 John V. 7 ; pp. 1, 2. 
 CEcuMENius' Commentary referred to ; p. 83. 
 'O/LtoAoyi7/u, or Universal Agreement of Ancient Fathers in 
 
 the Authenticity of 1 John V. 7. ; p. 108. 
 'Opoovffios, erroneously interpreted by the Anti-Trinitarians ; 
 
 p. 59. n. 50. 
 ORIGEN an ancient Scholium of his quoted ; p. 52. n. 45. 
 
 the first Greek who has quoted I John V. 8.; p. 63. 
 
 n. 56. His Scholium on Psalm cxxii. 3. proves he 
 
 was acquainted with 1 John V. 7. ; p. 77. 
 OTTOBONIANUS CODEX, discovered by Professor Scholz, con- 
 tains 1 John V. 7. ; p. 110, n.*. 
 PANTJBNUS, said to have left the Gospel of St. Matthew, in 
 
 Hebrew, with the Indians; p. 13. 
 PASSIONEI, Cardinal a Latin Codex of his, containing 1 John 
 
 V. 7, referred to ; p. 100. n. 101. 
 PHCEBADIUS, a Latin of the 4th century, quotes 1 John V. 7. ; 
 
 p. 105. 
 
 PHILOPATRIS, The. (See DIDASCOMENUS.) 
 PHOTIUS' Epistles referred to ; p. 68. 11. 64. 
 RAMBACH, of Halle, translated Luther's Second Commentary 
 
 on 1 John, into German ; p. 92. 
 RAVIANUS CODEX contains 1 John V. 7. ; pp. 94, 110. 
 REASONS suggested by the Opponents of 1 John V. 7. for dis- 
 pensing with that verse ; pp. 2, 3. Answered; pp. 3,4. 
 
262 INDEX. 
 
 REGIUS CODEX, No. 2247, does not contain tv TJ; yy, in 1 John 
 V. 8., though Simon asserts that it does ; 'p. 78, n. *. 
 referred to p. 107. n. 104. 
 
 CODEX, No. 2863, referred to; App. (D.) p.233. n.132. 
 
 SALMASIUS " de Transubstantiatione" referred to ; p.232. n.131. 
 
 SCALIGER JOSEPH, his maxim " Nescire velle &c." ; p. 116. 
 
 SCHOLZ, Professor, his " Biblische Kritische Reise " referred 
 to discovered the Codex Ottobonianus, containing 
 UohnV. 7.; p. 110. n. 
 
 v SIMON, RICHARD, his " Histoire Critique du Nouveau Testa- 
 ment" referred to; p. 78, n. 73. Remarks on Quota- 
 tions of Scripture in Latin by Greek Fathers ; App. (D ) 
 p. 210. 
 
 SIRMIUM, Council of, (A. D. 350) Bishops then present almost 
 all Arians ; p. 114. & n. *. 
 
 SOCRATES, the Ecclesiastical Historian, asserts that some 
 persons used to mutilate St. John's First Epistle ; 
 p. 78. n. 75. 
 
 SPITTLER, his Inquiry into the 60th Canon of the Council of 
 Laodicea, referred to ; p. 6. n. 1. 
 
 SPRENGER, JACOB, alias PROBST, wrote down Luther's First 
 Commentary on 1 John; p. 91. 
 
 STEPHENS, HENRY, referred to by Heusinger ; p. 246. 
 
 Codices used by ; p. 89. 
 
 SUICER'S Thesaurus Eccles. referred to ; p.17. n.13; p. 50. n.*. 
 p.232. n.131. 
 
 explained ; p. 66. (See GREGORY NAZIANZEN.) 
 ib. ; and App. (E.) p. 219. & (G.) p. 228. 
 
 SYRIAC VERSION contains the 1 (ct) in 1 John V. 8. j p. 8. n. 6. 
 its (Latin) rendering of 1 John V. 7. in the Codex 
 Guelph. D. ; p. 88. (See also p. 107. n. 104.) 
 
 TERTULLIAN recommends the consulting the Original Greek 
 Text of the New Testament; p. 35. uses the phrase 
 " Three are One" in allusion to 1 John V. 7. ; 
 pp. 105, 110. quotes Latin Versions of Texts dif- 
 ferent from those that Cyrian quotes; App. (D.) p. 215. 
 
 THECLA, the Martyrology of, referred to ; App. (F.) p. 224. & 
 | n. 122. 
 
 THEODORITE, Bishop in the 5th century, alludes to 1 John 
 V. 7. Extract from his Dialogue against Macedonius 
 the Heretic ; p. 69. n. 66 ; pp. 75, 105. 
 
 THEORISTS, Modern, frequently built their triumph over an- 
 cient truth upon imaginary difficulties ; p. 13. 
 
 THEOPHYLACT referred to ; p, 234. 
 
INDEX. 263 
 
 TYPICUM, (TWixos), the Greek Liturgy so called ; p. 234. 
 
 ULM, Latin Codices at, their reading of 1 John V. 7. j p. 100. 
 n. 101. 
 
 UNCIAL or Capital Letters, occasionally the cause of Various 
 Readings ; p. 87. n. 86 ; p. 239. 
 
 ULPHILAS' Gothic Version of the Gospels referred to; p. 37. 
 n. 28 ; p. 87. n. 86 ; p. 242. n. 137. (See KNITTEL.) 
 
 URSACIANS, of the 18th century; p. 114. 
 
 URSACIUS ; ib. note *. 
 
 VALENS ; 26. ib. 
 
 VALENTINES, of the 18th century ; p. 114. 
 
 VATABLUS' Latin Version of 1 John V. 7., in Codex Guelph. D. ; 
 p. 88. 
 
 VAUXCELLES Library; p. 100. n. 101. (See ALCUIN.) 
 
 VITULUS SIGFRIDUS, Writer of a Latin Codex Guelph. ; p. 99. 
 
 VULGATE VERSION, its Reading of 1 John V. 7. in Codex 
 Guelph. D.; p. 88. Many ancient MSS. of it con- 
 tain 1 John V. 7. few after the 10th century omit it; 
 p.107. 
 
 WALCH, Dr.,- of Gottingen, Editor of Luther's entire Works ; 
 p. 92. & n. 90. 
 
 WETSTEIN, J. J., his New Testament referred to ; p. 55. n. 47. 
 his Note on the word Iprymov, in Matt. iv. 1. ; p. 235. 
 
 WINKLER, Preacher at Halle, strangled ; p. 92. n. 94. 
 
 ZYGABENUS EUTHYMIUS. (See EUTHYMIUS.) 
 
LONDON: 
 
 PRINTED BY RICHARD WATTS, CROWN COURT, TEMPLE BAR. 
 
YC 40852 
 
 1st- 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY