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

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 IIv£i//t«, KO.I ol rpsis etg TO ev
etffi. Kat Tpeis eimv ol papTvpovvTes vni T«S yrjs, TO TTvevpa, x«i
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 n«T»jjO, 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
earthy 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 : cOn 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 y»js, &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. 276—506.)

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. . . . 21—37

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. ... 21—37

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. . . 35—37. & n. 28.

CONTENTS. XXXIX

NEW CRITICISMS ON SOME TESTIMONIES OF GREEK

FATHERS RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7 . . . 41—54

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. Tpioct 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 cEv, 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 cEv 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 the»Heretics (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 Philopatrisy 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 cEi/ — 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 CE»> 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 83—85

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 90—95)

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 118—123

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

225—227
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 . . 233—235

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 e£airoffTei\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 he4, " 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, x«f 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
' x«f 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 earth1 are part of those
wanting in the Greek Manuscripts5, 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 Greek—I 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 indicantia7 : 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 silence—that 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 : CO
, KaOairep SO/CI/AOS Tpa7re£mjs, 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
designatt 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 manda£ur 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 Capitulorumt 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 says19:

" 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 quoted22. 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 passage23, 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-
rodoxy24. On the contrary, the * tria unum sunt,' which
he quotes in his Civitas Z)eit 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 truths25 — 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 Hippocrates27. 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
lost28. 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 «ur»7s
rj x«T<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. $ia rrjv Trhtjytjv TIJS ^aA«£»j$. In the Co-

logne Edition of 1690, it is the 15th31 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 x«Act<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 £vff£ftsffrart]<;
M/^«^A, Kai M«JO/«<J, Ka

The Transcriber's name, therefore, was George;
and he finished his work in the year of Christ 1.315.

I find, in Montfaucon3', 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 engraved33, we perceive, plainly, that the

t

same George who wrote the Martyrium Demetrii also
copied our Fragment.

Enough of the first page34. — 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
APXONY2. TONN BASI'AEION. TO^N
rPHTO'PION. KAf TONN XPYSO~YN

IGA'NNHN. IvA:—

On this Title I shall make three remarks :

1st. It runs differently in other Manuscripts35.

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 centuries36.

3dly. The sign (:-) i.e. two dots vertically with a
hyphen, is commonly found in Manuscripts of the 10th,
11 th, 12th, and 13th centuries37.

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 xPv<ToffroljLOV'

(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/A£v. ax; <$£ Sv<r%£paivetf rd^a /xjj^eV nappe* reray-

TTOV xax£ivovq avrco

Troivv, oi/s ov ^£%cw TTftJ? ovofj.dffoi.1 fia<ri\£iov, xai Tpriyopiov, T«
x«i a-yyeAo/s x«i dv0pa)7roi<; ovo/jiara. TOVT&V y<xp ex«T£-
TOV yu£v, eoprdffafjLev %0sq. rov ^e Ttpo rfc %0e<; avdis ovv
fifjuv £7reiffrj\0£Vf 6 KOI (frtovtjv xai Travra %pvffov<;. x«i TO

%Op£ia T/5 fjfiiffTII $OK£l. 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£/3£iav. £v £pyov

tg iraffi. xai \oyoiq xai rpo-rroi^. a"irov-

£i/i7. Inlays ot rpiis rov QEOV £jm£ya\vvavt £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/$ £v£py£Ta$ avTirt/j.r}ffct)fji£vt 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 :

yu£i/, rrjv

T}/JUV §£, pa£VOtT£ 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 eH/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%£pe0T£pov 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 «TT«J/
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 subject39.

" 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
Trinity40, so the expression, ' We are one in GW41,'
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 them42.

(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$ /JL£v 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» Tp£l$ fJ>£V

Qeoi' e7$ 5s ©£05. on pia QSOTVS x«i 17 avTrj. OVTS ras v7ro<rra-
Ivtaico 43, OL/TS 7r«A<v eKsivais ffvjmirKridvvo-
«AA' 0^^ «xr/Vrx?, o/xo/«s 7rpoj3a\\OfA£vri It-
x«< Tijpov<ra$ iva TOV j]\iov. ov^ev l%ov-
p.ovov £K(x.ffrt]v Ttjv t^iOTrjTfx,9 ov
J <pvff£i xai ool-r], x«i 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.7T£pavTOv.
TOU 7r«»>Tos $v/j.iovpyo<; fj Tpia^. OI/TO? o 0eo? o r}fj,£T£po$° ov Ao-

yi(T0r]ff£TOll £T£pO$ TTjOO? (XVTOV* OV& £T£jO&>? ») OVT&S 7T£pl (AVTOV T/S
<f>pOVOVVTQ)V Op0CtJ$. £^£Vp£ TTaffOiV OOO

Tft> 7T«l/ CClTOl;i, X« <TjO« To) iyaTTt]fJL£Vta VTf (KVTOV.

TavTa $£ TO?? Tpiffiv avTOv TOVTOIS A«TjO£i/T«r5 xrxi T
e<$£t yup 7r«vTo>5 T^ J/' >7? T« 7r«vT« y£yov£v dyiav
piOp.ov<; lavTtj Qepa7T£VTas vTTOffrfjffai' xat /U£T« 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.ove£aTroffT€t\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 X«T« TIJV inrep rt<; rjp.£-

I >/ . T ,v. V ~ ' ~ <•/

<ret>Ttipiat$ (nrovorjv »?$ ovosvt TCUV iravrtov roffovrovj OGOV
re x«xe/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 below45.

(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 T0* 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 exemplars47.

(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) : CEN TA TTIA Qeorim, x«i TO 'EN TPIA
rats i$(OTti<rt. Further, in his 51st Discourse, which has

the superscription Kara ATroXtvapiov Trpos KA»j<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$ 7r«0a>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 CEN 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 Discourse48, " 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 Essence49. 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^oovma50): 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 volentest 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
them51."

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 Scripture53, 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 e£ovffias 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
absurdity53. — 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
masculine55?"

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 ^Xcav <"-^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 e7T€j/67/ceiV, i) eVa «at Iva. /cat eva \tyovra, jur; rpeis
aAAa rpia Trpoffayopeveiv, oirep avros a-na£iois 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.

Origen66, 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 CEN TA TPIA, his TA TPIA eEN, (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&> /3c«r-
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 Note57.

* [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 he58, " 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 words09: " 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 Gregory60 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 number01; 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 definition02; 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 says63, " 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 T€ToAjitr;/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 himself64.
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 <rwTa£is 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 CEN TA TPIA is of such a nature, that
neither the CEN 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 it66. 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. CEN TA TPIA ©eorrjTJ, KUI TO kv Tpia, rats
', ba (M}T* TO CEN 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 * greater1 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 Scripture68.
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, o»s TO ftev «ij
TW rpiffffav faeoov <T£TTTOV 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 belonged70.
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 ffvyxfufj-*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 ei»pe07j 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 CEN 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« 0£ov, yueyai/, ufi/Sporov^ ovpavicovot.) Y/ov YIvtTpo$t

\\VEVfJLO. ex n«T(OOS £K7TOp£VO/Ji£VOV, '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 CEN 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 n«T|OOs etnrop£vofj.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 e£t}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: THt, 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
Paris74, reads,

'Or/ Tpsis eiffiv ot /uapTvpovvT£<; EN THt 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 Socrates75, in the 5th century;
Hinkmar, in the 9th76; 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: eOrt rpeis eiffiv EN THt FHt, 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 •)(<aPlfclv 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 0€OU TOV 0.vQp03irOV 0f\OVT€S.

(76) Quidam autem ex eisdem scripturis quredam eraserunt, de
quibus revinci timebant, sicut constat Arianos de Evangelio erasisse,

quod

79

in the llth century77. Therefore it was not the mere
hatred of Heretics which induced Epiphanius to su-
spect that the Alogi1*, 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 Testament79. 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. eA«x/<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/TJ7T«s iv TOU
E PCDV et-oxcog, xai trrepy&v ex
11 Kiorra 7rpa£ei$ 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 x«Ae< 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 TT«S, 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
Versions87, 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 below88.

(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 c7T«rroAi) 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
form89:

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
Neumann90. 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 says91,

" 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-
nesses—is 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. 670—682 ; also § 95.
p. 538—540. & 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. 358—360*.

* [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 :

Ae£a<70«/ i?/x«9, 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 etm" 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. John102.

(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. 12—17.

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,
A»7os, 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 vultt 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 MYSTERIES107.
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, analogical10*,
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,TOvt 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 0£0? Jf« T»J? /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. x«i * TTCKffrj [* — £v recent, superscripsit.
11. «? TOV ovpotvov, * OUTQ>S eXevffsTai [* — OUTO? o Iij-
(Toi/s ava.hr)<t>0£i<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 *7T«l/T£§ 0/ULodvjUi(^OV [* - «.

o/ito^f/x«5oi' * fin. [* — e?r< TO
7. «W «7rafTe§ O»;TOI [* -f- «
13. 5e ^«^Afft/«^ovr£$ eAeyoi/. [* +

fJL£fJ.£irT(t)/J.£VOl £l<riV fill. [* •}- V.

13, 14. finem iiiter v.13, et init. v. 14. ap. tv rats i]

£K£iv. Lect.
tie 6 Il£Tpos [* -f- o.
17. uyuewv evvKvHMS £vv7tvi<A6r]<rovTai. [* ^ 0/5 loco a.

21. 09 eai' £7r/x«A. &C. [* -|- £.

22. init. ev T«*§ fi/mfpats £Keivai$, et7T£

TTjOos TovA«o»/, 'A^5jO<?. Lect.
atvopa, fzno()£()£(y/ui£vov fin-no TOV Q£OV 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. 7rpo£i$(i>s K£pt rtjs avaffrourecos TOV X(o<<TTot/ fA«A»;-

<rei/ OTI OVK £yKf*T£h£i{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. ?r«s o/xo>$ I0-0«f;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/ A«OJ/, &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«(0£x«Ae/ avrovs \eyuv '*
44. o/ 7r/<rT€i/(T«vTfis »;<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)fj£pa.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 7r«jO«5o>x«Te [* -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 7rpon€KT]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/.

7r«T£jO«5 v/utw*' Atyoii/. [Recent. * L//xo>f correxit

* r* i

X«f £»/ 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/X«T5/§ ™ + 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 •niA«cwT<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 0£o? [* -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 Aa«u. [* $ pro repara ev r<a

15. <u<TT£ KOU * eiq T«? 7rA«T£<«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/T£S 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*n«r,,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-/u£y«»^.

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€\i£oju.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, x«x/ [* $ pro

10. xai e<f>' 6\ov. [*
14. /U«T£X«A£O-«TO

pro /u,«T£x«A£<r«ro TOV itartptA avTOv Iaxa>/3 xa/.

vTot 7T€VTe ^i/x«/s fin. [* ? pro
ffldo/j.tjxovTa -nevTe fin.

APPENDIX (B.)

ACT. APOST. Cap. VII.
VII. 15. init. XGM x«T£/3»; [* + nai.
* laxwyS [* — de.

16. futyi»Tt, &» &)i/»j<T«To [* Recent. £ delevit, et o su-

perscripsit.
Iy^xO|t) £i> Si/^f/u, [* £ ev loco TOI/.

17. <fe tiyy'£ec o XjOovo? [* $ f Pro <r-

18. Erepos STT' A/yt/TTTOv, 05 [* + «?:' A/yi/Trro^.
20. sysvvtitir) Mwi/Vj??, xa< [* ^ pro Maxrij?.
22. xa/ * spyoiq avrov [* — «v.

26. x«i 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> J7yU«5 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/ £T»7 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 * n«TjOo»/ ; [* — 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««<r«yuevos.

21. evBeia evavriov TOV [* ^ loco

25. e/5 cIffjOoaoAi//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<r«Vav 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/T«W 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 A«xT/^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/jO«5, o^cy? [* ^ pro ^e/(0«.

13. 5e * Av«i//«s [* —o recent, superscrips.
15. ffxAoyif? £<rr< /uo/ OUTO? [* $ pro

19. cvt<T%vffev. sv TO.IS rjfAtpais txeivats, syevcro [* Lect.
5e * /*rr« [* — o S«i/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 yua0»jT<w J/I/XTO?,
oia. TOV

APPENDIX (B.) 137

ACT. APOST. Cap. IX. & X.
IX. 28. TOV Kvpiov * cA«A« [* — 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> vTT£pa)<*> [* 4- TO>.

39. «v«(rT«5 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/A£jO«*s exewars. Lect.

3. (f>avepo>s 6>§ 7r«p/ o>io«»' [* <£ <ws Trepi loco

4. fj-vrj/jLoyvvov ep-npofOsv TOV Qeov [* ^ loco

5. TtEplfOV avtipas f/? loTTTTtJV) X(Xt [* $ prO TT£fJ,\l/OV £/$

IOTTTTIJV ttv&paSn xai.

%ifjLa)voi Tiva. 05 [ -}- T/I//X.

6. 5«A«<r<r«i/ * fin. [* — OUTOS A«A^(r«< <ro< T< <re 3e/

Ttoieiv fin.

7. A«Ao>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. TCTjO«7ro5«, * xai T« £j07r«T« Ti;? -y/js, xew [*

14. K.vpie' * ov$€7tore [* — on.

16. a.v t\r\<$>Qr] «7r«vT« £<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<rr«5.

r/fes * «$5A0<«f [* — T<uf recent, hoc superscrips.

OlTtO * I07T7r»7$ [* - T»J$.

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 -y«jO <

^

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. /xeT«7reyu^>*e/s. itvv0avo/j.ai [* — 0. recent, hoc su-

perscrips.

30. eon; evai/T/ov yu-oi/ [* £ loco eva>7r«H'.
32. x«< /j.ETaire/u.\l/at S</ia)i/a [* ^ pro /uerax«A£(ra/.

33. ffo/ t/7ro rot/ Kvptov fin. [* <J pro Geoi/.

34. init. £P r«i? ri/j.epais sxetvais. Lect.

*' r* I

ffTojma ai/roi/, e/7rev F -p avrov.
39. J7/A£f$ * ju,aprvpcs [* — c<r/x«i/.

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 e«i/r<w ysyoyuei/os, £<TT£ [* $ pro

2. init. ev T«<S qjj,epou$ exeivous. Lect.

TS 6 llsTpos r]Kdev [* o Il£T|Oos ob nexuin
Lect.

17. oiijyrjffoiTO * Trey? — at/ro/$

[*
$.
[*

19. «s * Ka«T«jO£;«y [* — Ti;f.

20. «i/T6>»/ * «?ro [* — TI;I/ x&pav.

21. nfup<f * 'llpuSn [* — 6.

25. init. ei/ T«/S vjmfpats eK£ti*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/etyiA«TO5, narriKdov [* $ pro VTTO

TOt/ IIl/£l//iaTOS TOV ttyiOV, KMTtJ\6ov.

eiq * 2>e\cvK£iav, [* — 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. £7riffT£v<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«^ *7r«vr« 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)vtiy 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<r£7nj§ijffw.

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"ouoit 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/ijK£vai, 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 X«T' 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 0£0? /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 e£e\e£a.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 G«CU 7T«VT« T« £jOy« (ZVTOV.

20. «AA' eiri<TT£i\fxt [ <£ pro «AA«.

* <•

a/ TOV «/U«TO? x«/ rot/ TTf/xroi/, xou

$ pro TOW eft)A<uv, x«i TT;?

KOC.I TOV 7TVIKTOV) KOil TOV «//i«TO?,

•

x«< o<r« txv /Arj ^sKcofftv «I/TO/§ yiveff0(xit 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 T«S

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. x«i o<ra yu»7
yivecrOaty eTSpoig /jitj TtoieiV e% &>v.

30. aTTohvOevTes K<x.T*ti\0ov ei$ [* ^ X«T'»?A^OI/ pro r\\6ov.
33. TT^OOS Toy? a7TOffT€i\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/<r«TO.
ffVfJ.7TfApot\(j(.l3civ * Ict)avvr)v [* — rof .

38. /XT; ffvfJ,TT(jip(jiA(x/u./3(xveiv TOVTOV [* <£ pro <ri//x?r«|0«Aa-

XVI. 1. Yt/*/a/x°S * Jot/5«/«S [* -

3. /x7rai/TǤ 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. 7r«jOe5/^oi/»' «I/T«<S (frvh.o'.crcreiv [* ^ pro

5. x«* STrepiffffeuovTO TO* [* <£ pro

7. STTSlpwtyv €<S Tfjf [* ^ prO X«T«.

TTOpevscrtiat * fin. [* — x«< ot;x etacrev avrovs TO
fin.

9. T<? M«xe&yf »;f eo-rtw?, x«< -napaKah&v [* $ pro

10. e/s * M«x£$ow«v [* —

o Gees evayyehiffaffOai [* <£ loco K

12. xoweidev . * e<? [* — re.
fjisptbos * M«x£§oi//«s [* — T»JS.

13. T^g TTI/A^S ?r«|oa [* ^ pro

^

14. 0«ov, riKOv<rev' 17? [* <£ loco

15. x«j 7r«5 o o/xog [* 4- TT«$.
avTijs, 7r«|0£xaA£i, 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. X«f 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 T«I/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? T»7V [* ^ lOCO €/£.

XVII. 1. init. ff T«*$ fi/mepaiq exeivai^. Lect.

JF 01 oiTiotTToAoi rtjv [* -J- o/ omoffToXot ob uexuin.

Lect.
4. x«/ T/V«S * £7r«rT»7<r«v, x«* [* — e^ avrwv. ** pro «?rf /-

?roAi/, yi/i/a/xa)!/ [* $ pro '

5. <fe o/ Ioi/^x/o< o/ a7t£i0ovvT£s, xai [* $ pro §e o/

xoti.

ayopou&v av8pa$ nvas -novtipovs [* $ pro ayopaicav

TlVaS «f^|0«S 7!OVTJpOV$.

rrjv TTohiv X«T' «WT<WV* x«f €7r/<rT«^T€? ** rrj [* ? X«T'
«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;«?, * x«d 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. II«i/Aoi', ehdov £&$ [* $ loco rjyayov avrov.

16. £K^£-^0/J.£VOV TOV II«t>Aoi', OtVTOV$ TTOtpCa^VVErO [*

CKO£%OJLL£VOV 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/U«l/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 \js£Xa<pri(r£iEv 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/A«i/ 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. SK£t0ev etfft)A0£v ei$ [* ^ pro

APPENDIX (B.) 147

ACT. APOST. Cap. XVIII. & XIX.

XVIII. 9. 6 KvptOS £V VVKTt &' 6pap.Ol.TOS TQ) [* ? prO

iy opa/jiaroq ev vvKTt TOJ.
13. VO/JLOV rxva-neiOsi ouro? TOI/S [* ? pro VO/JLOV OVTO$

TOI/S.

14. /U£V * IJJ/ [* - OVf,

3fc

15. <$£ ^TT7/A«T« £<TT/ [* <£ p

17. TOVTODV e/J.£\\£ Tft) F«AA/6>f/ fin. [* $ prO TOfT<yi/ T<W

Ta\\tct)vi e/j.£\ev fin.

18. «7roT«^«/i£i/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 Il«l/A0? £/? [* - X<X/. ** + O II«l/Ao?

ob nexum. Lect.
oiff7ratra/u.evos TOV$ afi£\<j>ov<; xoiTefiri [* ^ loco Tt;^

25. X«T^^I;/U£PO? TO»/ AoyoK TOI/ [* <^ pro TIJV
rov Iri<rov, £7rtffTajj,£vo<; [* ,J pro Kvpiov.

26. KVTOV * x«i [* — Axi/A«s x

XIX. 1. init. «/ T«/S f}/J.£pai<; ex£ii(xt<;. Lect.
/ueprj, X«T' 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<r0£vouvTa<; anofpepeffdfjfi «TTO [* ^ pro £7r*.
L 2

148 APPENDIX (B.)

ACT. APOST. Cap. XIX. & XX.
XIX. ] 2. €K7topsv£ff6ai * * eTrs%£ipij<roiv [* $ pro

«7T

13. Tiveq aai ro)v [* + x«i. — «TTO.

v/tas [* <£ pro '

14. eTTTOC WOI TOl/TO [* + VIOt.

% %&

15. enrev avToi? Tov [* -f- i/. ** avroig.

16. x«i emhaojievos ** o *

«t/TOt/5.

r,,
, KO.I iff^yye. \_ —

** <J pro ***

17. eyevero 7r«<r/ iyi/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 5e«i/.

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 O«i/Aos

[* ,£ pro TOI/ Sopvfiov, TTjOOO-xaAeo-a/zeyos o II«i/Ao?

APPENDIX (B.) H9

ACT. APOST. Cap. XX.
XX. 3. yevopevrit enipovhriS avrco VTTO [* $ pro

STTI TIJV [ $ loco e/$.

&. $£. $fc

4. So>7r«T|OOS Trvppov J$eppoiotos'

[* + TTvppov. ** £ pro Bspoiotios.

6. Tpaadoi a%pt fifjLSpav [* ^ pro «%|0/s.

7. ffocfifiar&v, ev rats f)/j.epai<; ex£ivai$. Lect.

^

(ri/^Y/Aefa)!/ ij/xcyf ** xAao-«/ [* ^ pro T

haec superscrips. ** — rot/.
Aoyov «^(0/ pecrovvxTiov [* ^ loco ftexpt.

8. OV T7/i£V <Tf I'I7Y/1£I/O/ [* ^ Pr°

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%ojji£vri [* —

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£<feyU£fOS T0> TTVSVfJUXTt.

avrrj <rviJ.l3nffo/jL£vot fMi [* ^ pro ort/vai/T»j<roi/T«.

n

24. £/i«l/TO> ft>0-T£ T£A£/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 0£ot/.

TOt/ «//A«T0$ TO!/ /5/01/ fin. [*

fin.
29. o/3a *, ort [* — TOI/TO.

32. <Wo/CA£l/G> V/i«S C7TOlKodo/U.TJffOU [*

34. ai/7-0/ * -y/l/<yO-X£T£ [* - <$£.

35. re TOV hoyov rov ~K.vpiov [* £ loco TO>I/

37. tie xA«i/0/AO£ eyei/ero Travrtui'* x«/ [* $ pro re

xA«i/#uo$ 7rai/TO)i/* xa/.
XXI. 4. avevpovres $s TOI/S [* + ^e.

flk

e/? rlepo(ro\v/ji<x fin. [* £ pro 'lepovaafaj/j. fin.

5. auytaAdy, Trpoffev^ajmevoi fin. [*

6. init. ijorTraffafAstia aAAi^Aoi/?, ou*E/3ri/jLevy xa/ 4/5 [* £ pro

xa/ a<77ra0"ayu.ei/o/ aAAjyAoi/s, £7rf/S»7/i£f e/s.

84 £^eA00»/T£S V7r£(0/ TOV [* ^ 1OCO O/ TTEjO/.

Ilat/Aoi/ qKOofiev £/? [* ^ ^A^ov.

9. 5c/y«T£jO£5 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/ [* — x«c/ «/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/T£s 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 x£«A«$' x«/ 7J/&jffor/T«/ Travre? [*_ £ pro

njf K£<j>ahtiv. [** <£ pro

* r*

OTI 7T£jOi &>V L T WfijOI.

<f>v\a(rffc0v rov vop-ov fin. [* $ pro

vXaffffc»v fin.
25. ai/roi/s, «AA« (f>v\acror£cr6ai ** TO [* £ pro

;* — avTov$.
xai * alfjLfx. [* — TO.

26. TOT«, ev T«<$ i?/x£o. £x£/r. o [* Lect.

27. eTrefiahov STT' O.VTOV T«? %£'pa? fin. [* ? pro

fin.

28. 7r«i>T«s Trai/ra^i; ^^ao-xcwv, [* ^ loco

30. init. emvnOei re [* £ pro

31. T»J5 (TTTe/jOaS, OT/ [* # <T7I£lptl<;.

A
34. TI e7Te<j>a)vovv ev [* ^ loco efiouv.

36. Aaoi/, x(o«^ovT£5* A/pe [ <£ pro Kpatyv.

37. T£ £/? T»7»/ 7rap£ju./3ohtji/ Eiffayscrtiai 6 II«i/Aos, [ $ pro

re euraysffdai eiq TJJV Trapsjm/SoXijv 6 II«i/Ao?.
40. TToAAij; 5e y£vojui£vr)<; 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«* 7TpOff£VXO/Ji£l><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/.
y«jO 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(0£T£tVOiV aVTOV [* ^ prO 7TpOET£lV£V.

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/&), £ITT£V.

, snr£v. [* ? pro

fin. [* $ loco f?/
2. Avav/a? exeA«/<re TO/? [* ^ pro enera^e.

4. Geot/ Ao/|0e/g ; [ <£ pro Ao/5ojoe/? ;

5. OT/ Ap%l£p£VS fffTIV' y£ypOC7TTOil. [* ? pr

6. «<TT/ 3>api<r£vuv, 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 £yxA»7/za fin. [* $ pro

e%pvTa fin.
30. av^pa * tvevOai ** e£«r/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(rajui£v xptvou fin. [* <£ loco xpiveiv.

8. xfAet/ora? x«/ TOI/S [* -f xa/.
xoiTTjyopovs * epxecrBou. [* —

xfc,

9. init. ffvv£7T£0evTO 5e [*

10. ctTTCxptdij re o [* £ loco de.

11. fjfj.tpa.1 * <J«x«5i/o [* — ij.

13. -napouTTJicrai * ^vvaviai [* — /ue.

14. alpeffiv, OVT&S A«TjO£i>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 £X£K|0«£« £<TTa)5 [

e-y<w ertj/uLspov KpivofMtxi vfi V/ULUV. [* ? pro

22. o $/Ai7^ ai/£y8«A£TO (*) [* £ pro

24. o $iA»j^ <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%l£p£V$ [* + T£.

# ** r*

5. TOl/Tft) ttTOTTOl/ KOiT£yOp£lTO)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 rijuL£pai$ €K£ivai$, 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«<r«Aet/? Trpos [* + o

$
2. fjifAKfxpiov, £7Tt aov /zeAAtuv aTCO\oy£icrOai triyuujpov' fin.

[* $ pro yuaxocjO/ov, /ueAAtui' fX7ToAoy£i(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'yot'<r«»/'
16. init. «AA' avatrrtjOi [* <£ pro aAAot.

17. oi/5 * eya> o-e aTrocrreAft) fin. [* — vvv. ** -f- ^V0'-

*** $ 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 7r«f 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^ x«i Ttjv vricrrziav TTapeXrj^vdevai. [* $ pro

ota TO KOII Ttjv vrjffTSiav 17^17 7T(x,pe\ij\v0£vai.

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(T«5 S/a^i/yij fin. [* <J pro
XXVIII. 1. K«/ o'ia<ra>0£VT£, TOTS [* ^ pro

3. £efl/u»7s 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 * x«T«x«<r0a< [*

APPENDIX (B.) 157

ACT. APOST. Cap. XXVIII.
XXVIII. 8. xat £7r£i/£«/zei/o$, x«* err^e/s [* <£ pro

** — xa/.

* r*

11. /urji'«5 tij^dtiftev ev $ pro

[

14. £/$ * 'PiUUTJV [* Tt]V.

23. 0/5 e£e0«To 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* X«p/? [* -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 awox«Ai/7TTeT«/ [* -f- Lect.
28. init. atietyot ** xa&u? ot/x [* -j- Lect. ** — xa/.
edoKijjuxcrav ol ourefieis rov Qeov [* + Lect.

II. 5. «7rox«Ai/>/'e£ws 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/z£0« ]* -f 0 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.

X«T« * 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 7T«T 0 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; «x«0«0<r*« [* — dxnrep
yap TrfxpsffTriffare ra yueAi; I>/A<UV. Alius hsec
omissa in marg1. adjecit.

APPENDIX (B.) 159

AD ROMANOS, Cap. VII. VIII. IX.
VII. 1. ao^A^o/, * yivot)ffKovfftt [* -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//U«TOS «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 7Tpoff£v^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. «-ya7rj7? 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<r0«i;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. E££xA«0-0i7<r«K * xAa^o/ [* — o/.

ey<u ei/KevTpiffOeo fin. [* ^ pro eyx. &c.
21. X«T« ^)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/ 7r«jO«x«A&) [* + Lect.
4. init. oiSeAtpol xaOa-nsp [* -f Lect.
6. init. ottie\(j}oi £%OVT€S [* -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/, £/3oT£5 [* -f- I/.

a^£^<poi vvv [* + Lect.

* OT£ [* - }?.

XIV. 6. oi/ (ppovef xai 6 £<r0icov [* + *«/.
9. init. «5«A^)o/ e/s [* -f- Lect.
* onT£0av£ [* — xa/.
«V« [* — «»/.

14. <$/' *OtVTOV £1 [* - £.

15. £K£tvov «7roA*iy£, t>7T£p [* — A alterum.

^

19. ot/v «5fA(/>o/ T« [* 4- Lect.

22. X«T« 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 <$vvfx/n£Vfa usque «*<Uf«$* afj.r\v.

XV. 7. init. adsAfat, 810 [* + Lect.

13. xaPa$ Kfxt *P$powv*$ £v [* $ pro eiptjvrjs.

14. dwocftetoi xfM aAAou? VOV&ETEIV [* $ loco
17. init. «deA<£o/ e^'o> [* -J- Lect. ,

7T|OOS TO!' 0£OI/ [* •}- TOV.

it

20. /u»7 £7r< aXXorptov * + '•

24. TI;*' 'JaTrat'/wv, €\evaofj.fx.i [* -f- '•

* <£ pr

28. T*7i> 'lo-Trav/ai/ fin. [* •+ /.

HI
30. init. a^eA^o/, 7r«jO«x«A(u ** J/ia? o/« [* -j- Lect.

&« TOf O^O/X«TOS 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> $e ^i/i/a/zei/aj usque ««y»/as «/x»jt/ desunt. Vid.
cap. XIV. finem, cui adliaerent.
Subscript. SUXKOIOV * fin. [* — TIJ$

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/, CA [* -f Lect.

^

10. 5« «7r£x«At/\/'e o 0eo$ 5/« [* $ pro o 0eo? «7rex«A. &C.
1 1 . ot/§£/$ eyvcoxev, ei [* ^ pro

III. 1. init. x«y<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/, «5«A^)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. «5eAC0o/, 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/Tpo7r»ji/ 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. 7rAeov«xT«/, 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?' a§eA>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) 7TV£VJU.aTl [* + T£>«

35. ($£, a$eA^>o/, -rrpos [* -f- Lect.

xou EVTiape^pov T&> [* £ loco evTTpocredpov .
37. aapbifx. eSpouog /U.TJ [* -{- edpaws.

rtj i5/« x«jo5/«, 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 * e«v [* — 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. a5£A(^o/, ehevQzpos [* -j- Lect.

* 6>I/ [* - 7«jO.

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>oif OVK [* + Lect.
7. axTTTfijO yeypa-nrai' [* -f- 7T£p.
9. x«0<u$ * T/»/e? [* — xa<.

OLVTQ)V £%£7T£tpOl<rOtV [ -|- £^.

10. XOC^tt)? * T/f£$ [* --- X«i.

^

11. TfiAi; rot/ «/cyi/o^ x«xT>)^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.T£i\ri<pEv et [* $ ov pro OVK. * + X«T.

14. TTK «&uA0A«i7>«z$ [* £ pro

21. ^aufwvtw* MI ov [* -f x«/.

23. init. «oe*^0f, ira*™ [* -f Lect.

26. rot/ Kt/p/oi/ -y«jO r; [* ? pro TOI/ y«o Ki/o<oi/ 17.

28. init. adeA^oi, e«v [* -f Lect.
30. «'* eyro [* — 7«jO-

XL 2. l//A«S *, Or/ [* - fJi^£\(j>Ol.

5. K£<f>fxhr)v *«i/ri79 * — e.

Y«jO TO fxvro effrt ** r/7 [* $ pro

«l/TO TfJ. ** - X«/.

6. X«/ Ketpcfrtlcu' £1 [* ^ 1OCO KSlpfXffOct).

^

TO xetpsoQat rj [* ^ pro K£ipa<rdou.
8.' init. ««^eA^)o/, ot/ [* + Lect.
14. ^>i/<r*$ «I/T»J 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 e«i/ effditjre [* ^ pro av.
xaToc-yyeA^re, [* — A.

27. x«« * «//U«TO? [* — 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/n£t/ [* ^ 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 TT£piff<roT£pav €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£<$, £7T£IT(A ^«jO/0/t«T« [* <£ 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.
x«i [* $ pro
ovy * ; 7Tpoff£v!-ojjLai [* —
xcu oi/^e OI^TWS [* <£pro oi/
y\a)ffffais A«A<w<r<, £/o-£A^a>o-/ [* ^ loco

[* — V/ULCDV.
fin. [*
[* + 17.

[* $ pro £<TT<.
[* — TOV.

[* -f ^e.

w §£ y/iu>', TO [* $
, TO.

[* + A10^-
TOI? [* ^ pro e/T«.

Ilai/ra

vju.iv,

I«xft)/3<u'

7TSptffffOT£pOV TCavTCOV OiVTCOV tKOTTKXffa' [* ? prO TTBptff-

<roT£poi/ 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 %p»7<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\0vwvt 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/, e«y [* + Lect.

^

5g ot£tov 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/A«5.
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« [* $ pr°

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 «5yU«s 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/, X«7T^A£fOVT£? [ ^ 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 5fi§o£«<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(Tx€T«/ M<yoV^?, x«Afyu./ta [* + i/
18. «TTO 5o^<5 e/? [* ^ pro <Wf»j?.

IV. 4. avyacrou avrovs rov [* <^ loco O.VTOK;.

Oeov rov aoparov fin. [* + Tol/ <*-oparov.
6. or/, oibehfyoi, o [* -}- Lect.

TOI/ [* — T;;? oo£t)$.
7rpo<r<i>7r<p Xp/oroi/ ITJO-OI/ fin. [* $ pro Trpofftoirtp Irjtrov

XplffTOV.

13. init. aos\<f>oi, e^ot/T£s [* + 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. y«p aosA<j>ot Travras [* -f- Lect.

7^

12. v/x/i', «AA' a<f>op/uuiv [* — a.

15. X«/ XOKTTOJ VTrfjO [* -}- XjO/<TTO$.

V7T£jO TTOffTfyi/ O.7TO()avOVTt [* (^ lOCO «t/T&<!/.

16. eyv&Kotjuisv * OXTTS [* — X«T« <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- «v«xa/v^eor^e.
19. Kofffiov x«r«AA«*(ra>j/ eai/Teu [* — <r.

VI. 4, ev avayxats, tv ^/ewy/uoi?, ev (Trevo^. &C. [* 4* '^

11. init. «5fA^o/, TO [* -{- Lect.
16. 0«oi> /XCT« «/^<yAft>^ [* ^ pro /U

170 APPENDIX (B.)

AD II. CORINTH. Cap. VII. VIII. IX.
VII. 1. otyoarriToi, «5eA0o/, xadapiffcopev [* + Lect.
6. i7/t«s * ev [* — o Qeoq.

10. init. a$£*4>o/, rj [* -f- Lect.

11. naTeipyaffa.ro * J-TTOI/^I/ ; [* — t/*«/. Alius hoc

omissum superscrips.

12. ov-% lv£K£v rov [* <£ dv£K£v.
ov<$£ lv£x£v 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. * &<r7T£p [* — «AA\

e^ jj/ifov ev U/LWI/ ay«7r;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. 7T£piffff£Vfj.a * e/5 [* — y£vijrat.
16. init. «5eA^o/, ^«pis [* 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. £vo£i£a<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<rK£vovs, 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»//<rT«voi/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 x«i 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»/ T«7rf/vfyv [* ^ pro I

10. oty (frpaytjerereu e<s [* ^ pro or (f) pay t<r er at.
14. oi/ 5«t//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/, A«Aa> «AA' [* $ pro oy A«A&> xara

21. riff0£vtjcrafj,€v' «5«A^>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 0£0? [* -f Lect.

32. Ttjv TroAii/ A«/U«<TX»JI/(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« v7r«jO^£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. x«i

Subscript.

[* -f Lect.
[* ^ pro

ro x«Aoi/ [* — /

[* ? pro
T»J?.
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 7T£pi rcav [* $ pro wrep. Quod autem ra-
dendo sic mutatum videtur.
* r* i_

W/cyi/OS TOl/ TTOVlJpOV _ + TOl/.

7. o/ Tapaff*ovT£s v/u«s [* — <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/« «7rox«Ai/^£<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. /x£T« rerpaKoa-ta xai rpiaxovra CT>; [* $ pro

erij rerpa. &c.

18. eTrayyfiAfa? e^apiararo 6 [* $ pro

19. a> £7ri7yye/A«TO, J/araye/s [* <£ pro

21. o»>T<ys ex vopov otv ** 17 SmoiKHrvvtj [* $ pro

23. TOV * ehOetv [* — de.

* T * * r*

2o. 7r/0T£G>s iriffov JLpiffrov \_ — e»>. ^

IlJ(TOl/.

28. fi/?*^ [*— £<TT£.

IV. 2. init. «AA* into [* — « ultimum.

8. init. «3eA0(M, ** OT£ ya£v [* -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/i£i/a [* — v,

yap etffi * Jt/o [* — v, a/.

^T/S sari * Ayap [* — i/, s<f>e\KV(r. &c.
28. init. adetyoi, tjiyue/? ** X«T« [* ? pro

V. 3. 5e * w«v« [*

g|

4. ^«jO/TO? £^£7re<r£T£ fin. [* <£ pro

7. i5/x«§ £V£KO\j/£ rrj [*•. (£ pro etveno^E.

10. «AAo <f>povti<r£Tai' 6 [* ^ pro <f>povjio"£Te,

11. £ya> * «5£A^>o/ [* — <$£.

« 7TSplTOJU.lv STl [* ^ prO 7T£plTO/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|0«OT»j?, cyxpana' Kara [* <£ pro
26. /x»7 y£vcafj.eda xefoJo^o/, [* <£ pro

VI. 2. init. a$£A<£o/, aAA^Aoi/ [* + Lect.

*
/3«jOij /SaffTa^ertxt, KOU [* ^ y3«<TT«^ET

11. init. «<feA^>o/, /j£Te [* + 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^Lt«Tos avTOi/, * iv y [* — E/s ETTOUVOV Sofas

rrjg %aptTOS avrov.

7. €v $t ao£A<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 *, x«i TTWI/TOS [* — • x«<

22. xai, aSeA^o/, TT«VT« [* -|- Lect.

23. rot/ T« 7r«i/ra [* + T«.

176 APPENDIX (B.)

AD EPHES. Cap. II. III. IV.
II. 3. qu£f$ * ai'sffrpa^tifjisv [* — 7r«ire$.
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. v«jt), adeA^oi, XJO«TTOS 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'/x«T< dytco. fin. [* + «y«w.
8. init. adeA<£oi, e/uo/ [* -f Lect.
•navrw * «y«u»' [* — 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 TeA«oi'.

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<T£v, «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/ <T7rA«yx»'« [* ^ 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/A«S /^c/i/, xat [* -f- /5e«/.

27. aAAa x« yue, /va [* $ pro xar ffyue.

III. 3. TTvev/MiTi Qeov A«T|oei/oi/T«s, [* $ loco Gecu.
4. TreTToiOtifftv * ev [* — xcu.

r/5 aAAos doxei TTSTroidevat [* ? pro T*S 5oxe/ «AAos

5. 0i/Aij$ "Bsviotfujv, cEySjO«/os [* <£ pro

•
8. aAAa /iev o«/v xa< [* $ pro /j.svovi/ye.

ovt 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. fiovf OVTCOS ffTtjKSTe [* $ pro ovra>.

2. init. evodiav TrapaxaAta, [*<£pro
n

4. init. «5eA^>o/j %oup£re [* -}- 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 7r«vr«5 [* $ tjv loco
** + e^grat.

5. a-noKEifjiwriv vpsiv ev [* ^ pro

APPENDIX (B.) 179

AD COLOSS. Cap. I. II. III.

I. 6. K'Xp7TO(f>OpOVfJi£VOV, KW.I OtV%aVOfJi£VOV X«0ft>S [* -f- X«/

12. init. a<$£\<poi, £v%apiffTovvT£<; [* + Lect.

TO) 9ffG> KOtl TTOlTpl [* + 0£a> X«l.

18. init. * GCI/TOS XjOICTTOS £<TT/I/ [* -— X«/. ** -f- XjO/<TTO§.

22. 5«i/«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/x«s, «5eA^)o/, »/expoi/? [* + Lect.
<ri/i/e^y07ro^o-£ »j/u«s ow [* -f- i^tas-

14. at/To ^oei' ex [* ^ pro tjpxev.
10. »; * 7ro<r£i [* — 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

/u»j5e.

23, Aoyov /u^ E%OVTOI [* ^ pro /ue»/.
III. 2. STT/ *7i7S [* — Tijs.

4. init. a5eA^)o/, OT«I/ [* + Lect.

gH

5. effriv e/5<yAoA«T|0/a fin. [* ^ pro e/d^uAoAaTpewt fin.

12. init. afatyoi, £v$v<raff0£ [* + Lect.

^c

13. ea/<r«TO )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 KoA«o-<re/? eypoufrn [* 4 >i
** ^ pro KoA«<r<r«e/s.

AD I. THESS. Cap. I. & II.
Cap. I. 1. Il«i/Ao? KUI TifAo0eo$ *o" 2/Aoi/avos [* ? pro xac

2. 0fO) 7T*jO/ TTOIVTCOV VfjLMV TTOtVTOTS j[
TOT£ 7T£O/ &C.

6. &\l\}s£l TTOAAO/, /X£T« [* $ pro 7TOAA»7.

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|

0£ft) -narpi tj/j.ct>v [* + 7T«TjO/.

^ ^

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)Tc0iL£v.

*

2. ItJffOV XjO/0"TOl/ fill. + XjO/ffTOI/.

5. 7r«0£/ «T//X/«S, xatiarrep ** T« [* <J pro

6. x«/ Trpoenroftev i/fjuv [* ^ pro

8. e/s v/u«s fin. [* £ pro i7yu«g.

13. init. a5eA0o/,ou 5eAto/x£i/^£ [* -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/ e«i/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/ 0£0f [*

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/u«g, ** u7T£jO rift [*

5. or* * <ov [* — en.
13. init. «

[* 4-

[* —

III. 5. £f£ T^V VTTOJUiOVtJV * -j- T»JV.

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. fi£J3tj\ois, 7r«TjO«Ao/«/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^££, T«I/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^<£, 7r«jO«x«A<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/ x«f.

<^ ^ VI,

11. init. rexi/of T//xo0ee, veoTfjOǤ 5e [* -f Lect.

** ^ o pro cy.
14. veoDrepas xnp(*S yotpetv, [

18. Bot/i/ «Aooi/i/T« ot> [* £ pro «Aoa>»/Ta.

21. X«T« 7TpOffK\TJfflV fin. [* <£ pr

tt

22. init. rex^ov T//uo^ee, %£//o«? [* -f- Lect.

VI. 5. init. 5/«7r«jO«TjO^«/ ^te^Oapf^evcov [* ^ pro TT«JO«-

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&x««s [* -f- Hiec
verba addita sunt.

184> APPENDIX (fi.)

AD II. TIMOTH. Cap. I. II. III. IV.

Cap. I. 5. ffov TLuvtxri' 7T£7ret(r/j,ai [* $ pro
7. Trvevpa <taA<«s, «AA« [* <£ pro
15. £<rn ^(Oi/yeAo? x«/ [* £ pro

II. 1. /UOf TSKVOV Tf/U00«e, 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. ?r«s * oj/o/ia^iyi/ [* — - o.

20. init. rexvov T//zo0£e, ei/ [* 4- Lect.
III. 6. x«/ a/^/u«AG)T/^oi/T£§ ** yvvaixapia [* <J pro

**

T«.

*
8. aireoTfjdrai/ Mcoi/V^, oCTws [* $ pro Mwi/o-e/.

10. <fe, T«XI/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 T£K»/OV 'fipotee, vn<f>e [* + Lect.

13. TOV <pe\ovtjvt 6v [* ^ pro

[* —
19. affiracrat TlpivKihav xai [* ^ pro

20. Tpo<f>ifjLOv * onrehtTtov [* — 5e.
Subscript, init. 17 TT^OJ [* + 17.

C* L*

exxA»7<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-«$ X«T« [* .4. Lect.
$ Pro x«T«0Tf7<n7s.

9. X«T« * 5f5«^»7f [* T»JV.

* ** r*

10. TroAAoi * «vi/7roT«xTO/, x«/ iJ.fjt.raioKoyoi [/* — x«*.

** + x«/.
15. init. TSKVOV T^Te, TT«VT« [* + Lect.

* r*

II. 2. 7rjOe(r/8i/T«5 vi7^>«Aeoi/5 sivai \ $ pro
7. TI/TTOV xoAoi/ epyov, ev [* ^ pro xaAtyv

, fin. [* <£ loco a<f>6apaiav, fin.

8. 7T£jO< i7yucy*' Aeye^i/ [* <£ loco VJJLWV.

11. init. Tfxvoi/ T/Tff, swpavn [* + Lect.

III. 5. xow avaxaivtaeax; TIvevjuiaTOs [* ^ pro
7. xAfljOoyo/xo* yevo/meOa X«T' [* <£ pro
S. init. rffxi/oi/ T<re, TT/O-TO^ [* + Lect.

12. init. *3a<rov [* — OT«I/ 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/, x«i [* $ pro Seo/x/o?

xat.

6. ev J7yu.iv e/s [* <^ pro vfj.iv.

7. init. %«p«v y«|0 7roAAi;i/ e%oi/ x«/ [* ^ pro xotptv yap

10. 7r«jO«x«A<» 5e TrejO* [* <^ loco <re.
20. ev Xjofarw fin. [* ^ loco
Subscript, init. ^ ?rpo^ [* +

186 APPENDIX (B.)

AD HEB. Cap. I. II. III. IV. V.

r1 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 K£Kht1pOVO/UUJK£V

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. £7nA«yU/3«l/£T«f, * 0^£»/ [* - «AA«

Afipaafji £7ri\(xp/3av£Tai. 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\tJpVV£T£ 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/? «TT«TIJ [* ? pro

15. VJUUDV, * £!/ [* - <y$.

*

16. o/« M&>i/V£<y$ fin. [* ^ loco

17. xcyA« eTTfO-Of £»/ [* $ pro £7t£cr£v.

41

IV. 2. /LW; <Tfyx£XjO«yu£voi/5 TIJ [* <J pro <rvyK£xpafj.£vos.
6. £iff£\0ov bia a.Tt£i$£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*, 7r£7r£*o/u,£0« [* + Lect.
x«< OVTG>S AaAot/yLifi*' [* <£ pro OI/T<W.

13. init. aSfiA^o/, TG> [* + Leet.

15. x«i OI/TOJS /A«xj000i/yui;<r«s [* <£ pro OUT&

VII. 1. init. afefyoi, oi5TO§ [* + Lect.

3. Oeoi/, /jL£.va>v tcpevg [* £ 1°CO jj.evei.

4. Kfipaafj. 3e^&)K£v ex [* ^ pro

7. init. a^eA^o/, %6>jO<s [* + Lect.

14. lepacrvviis Mo)i/o-»7? eA«A^<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^)OjOfUT£jO«S T£TV%tJK£ \£lTOVpyia$ [* ^ p

7. init. «5eA^)o/, £/ [* 4- Lect.

8. o<xof * lot/Ja [* — Io-|0«ijA xa/ err/ TOJ/ OIKOV.
IX. 1. init. «3eA0o*, «/%e [* + Lect.

^

5. a»v 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 x«Te<TX£i/«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.
T«I$ * 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. 7«p €%£T«/ xpetav [* <^ pro

vLj,

XI. 1. <$£ 7r<ffTi;?, £A7r/^o/i£j/f»)i/ [* ^ loco

^

4. £T/ AaAe/re fin. [* ^ pro A«A£/T«<.

IjL

6. ^£< TtptOTOV TOV [* + TTpaTOV.

8. init. a^fA^o/, TT/<TT£/ [* + Lect.

9. 7T«p6)x^o-£t/ Afipaap ei$ ** -yiji/ [* -f Lect. ** — T»;I/.

12. x«< wffi; a/u/uos [* ^ pro a«r£/.

13. *§OI/T£S, * X«< [* - XOU 7T£lff0£VT€S.

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>oit dyiot TTavres &« [* -f «5e

7r«i/T£$. .Lect.

34. 7r«jO£/t/3oA«s £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 * £fXpfJL£V [* - 7r«T£jO«?.

20. A^o^oA^fl-fira/ * fin. [* —

ffSTOU.

21. x«/, oi/T<y? (ftofifpov [* + ?•

eiirev [*

24. pOtVTl<r/J.OV Kp£lTTOV foxhoVVTl [* £ pI'O Kp$lTTOVfX.

25. init. «5eA^o/, /SAeTrers [* + Lect.

£7N * 7^? [* - T*7S.

25. 7rapaiTtj(ra/uL£voi %prijjia*%ovTa, TroAAw [* — syllaba

T/. Sed superscript.

«7r' ovpftvov a7roarTp£<po/j.£vot [* <£ pro ovpavcov.
28. ^o, «3eA^o/, flatffiteuKv [* + Lect.

175 A«T|0£i/OyU£f £vap£ffTO)<; [* ^ o pro ey.
XIII. 5. eipn*w * M^ [* — Ot/ yu»; <r« «»/&), o«/5' oi/, sed in

marg. eadem manus adscript.
7. init. «d£A<f!>0/, /jLvryj-ov. &c. [* + Lect.

Ml

9. /x»7 -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 ** 6«0l/ [* ^ 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 3o£l7S TOI/ &C. [* ? prO TTlffTIV TOV

24. xarei/oijo-e * **«I/TOJ/ [* — yap. ** — e.

J5 3o£l7S TOI/ &C

lijffov X/)/<TTOI/
tfih£\},r]T£ 8e e

<LJ.

TTJV \afj.7Tpav, effOijTOi [* $ pro

3. init. * e7Ttfih£\},r]T£ 8e em [* — xai **

*. 2V p _

** r* <• *

em TO |_* — o)0£. ^ pro I/TTO.

4. init. * ov [* — x«/.

ft

5. «xoi/<r«T£ /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)(T£l, TTTOKTei _ $ prO Ttjptjff£l.

* *

11. fi/TT&H'* MIJ (pqvevfftiSj enre xai' Ov /xo/^£i/<r«§ [* 9 Pro

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* [* ? Pro 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£ * o£ro$ £^ £joya)f [* — TO/VI/I'. ** ^ pro OT/.

26. effTiv, OVTCO xai fi TTKTTU; [ + 17.

^«|0/5 * £|Oyft)V [* - T<UI>.

III. 2. divtjp, <W«/z£i/os ^a\iva.yct)yri(rai [* <^ pro
*

3. init. /^£, T«yv [* ^ 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/ [* — X«T«.

*

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/ 7ro0£i/ yu«^a/ [* -f- TtoQsv.

2. 7ToA£yU£/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 x«T«A«Aet)j/ [* + y«jO.
«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 T»K.
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, X«T' «AA»;Acyv [* ? pro

fJiTJ * Kpl0t}T£' [* - X«T«.

*

l5oi/, O KpfTIJS [* + O.

10. A«/3eT£, «5eA^)o/, ** r»7S x«xo7r«0e/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/yu«s fin. [* $ pro j7/i«g.

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^ep£i/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 7mp£ffx£v<x(roiv IOLVTOVS TOI^IV, KM
[* + fjv 7T(XQ£<rx£va<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 x«Ai;t/ [*
Jc KO.I TOVTO. ** $ et # pro T^»

VJJUUV £V TO/?

epyce>v [* -f- V/JLCOV.

18. VTTOTOtffffOfJL£VOl tjT£ £V [* + JJT

19.

Ai/tr«s T/S 7ra<r%(wr [* ? et <£ pro
ffvveibriffiv Q£OV v7ro<j>£p£i TV; AI/TT«$,
20. xa< xoAa^aeFO/ vTro/xevere ; «AA* [* ^ pro x

^l^OfJLtVOl V7TO/J.£V£tT£ J

24. yu<oAft)7r/ * totOrjTe [* — avrov.

25. e7r£ffTp£\^aT£ [* ^ loco £7recrTpa<j>t]Te.
III. 1. /V« * « [* — x«/.

5. €A7ri^oi/<ra< £<$ TOI/ [* ^ loco e?:/.

6. (u? S«jO« vTrexovffe [* <£ pro 2«jt)pa vTrrjxovare.

7. ffVyx\1JpOVOfJLOl 7TO/X<AlJS ^«jO/TO§ [* -f- TTO/X/Ai;?.

8. £t/(T7rAay^»'o/, T(*7T£tvo<f>pov£<; fin. [* <^ loco

9. hoioopiav Tiva avTi [* -f-

10. x«< rjpepas tdetv ayatfas, [* ? pro

[* — avTOv.

11. exxA/v«T<y 5e «?ro [*

12. or/ * o<f)0a\poi [* — o/.

xaxa. TOV I^o\o0p£vaai <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« /x£T« 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< «7rJ e^ed£^£TO 17 [* ^ pro ore. ** ^ pro

IV. 1. init. ayaTWTot XJO«TTOI/ [* -f- Lect.

2. £eA»j/uaT/ TOC/ Geoi/, [* + TOV.

3. -ya/j iJ/j«i/ 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/T«S [* ^ 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 0£0$ <Wf«£r;T«/ 5<« [* $ pro ev

* ' fjt/j.rjv [* —

14. init. «AA' ei nai ovetbtfyvOe [* -f- «AA\ * + x

X«* <W«yU£<US ** TOU [* + Sl/l/tt/xeft)?. ** - TO.

^

Qeov ovofj.a xai Hvevpot [* + ovo/uux xat.
e^>' uyu«5 £7raya7r«i;eTe ** fin. [* ^ pro
— XOCTOC yuei

fin.

1 5. init. yui7 Tf? 7«jO uytt&>i/. [* $ pro

tj x«xoi/|0jyo§, »7 [* $ loco X«XOTKMOS.

*

18. o «/x«|t>Ta>Aos xa* affefitis TTOV. [* $ pro o

TTOl/.

v [* ^ pro e«i/T6)v.
V. 1. init. irpefffivrspovs ovv 7r«p«xaAto ey v/t/v a>5

fivrepos [* $ et ^ pro Trpefffivrepovs TOI/? ev

TTWpaKOihCD 6 ffVjU.7rp£CF/3vT£pOS.'

g|

2. 0£0l/, fiTr/O'XOTrfil/OVTfi? /XIJ [* ^ 1OCO £7Tl<rXOTTOVVT€<;.

&.

Kara Qeov /mtjSe [* -f- xara 0«ov.

5. 0/XO/ft)§ #£ X<XI O/ V£COT£pOl [* -f- 5fi X«/ O/.

o KJ/JO/OS v7T£pn<j>avoi<; [* ^ loco 0eo$.

6. iVae v\Jsco<rr) v/u«s «/ [* ? pro iV« v/i«5 inl/caffy ev.

7. wippi^avTES £t$ avTov, [* <£ loco £TT<.

8. £k)j»i/o/uevo?, 7r£jW£|0%ST«/, ^rjTtyv [* ^ loco Tr

g|

9. </SoT€? OT/ T« [* + OT/.

^

xo<r/xfo adeJ\.(j)OTriTi VJJMV £7tiT£h£io6ai fin. [* $ pro
xoo/u&) u/xwt/ (x$eh<f)OTr)Tt £7riTe\£t(r0M fin.

7^

10. x«As<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 XjO«TO? €/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/, xaP'? [*

* 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 oip£T)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. [* + Tcp-
** — «/. . *** ^ 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/ x«A<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 i5i«s [* # pro
<f>rjT£ia ypoufrtjs, i5<«?.

^

21. rtv£)(6tj TTpotytiTeia -nore, *A\' [* ? pro

t .
eA«Ai7T«»> «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/u«s Aoyo/s e/mnopevaovTat' [* $ pro

7rA«OTO/S Ao^O/? V/X«? ejU.7TOp£VffOVTO,t.

4. Kptfftv Ttipovju.£vov$' fin. [* # pro TSTtipiyuevovs.

$& ^ ^

5. xarocxAt/o/xov xoa/uoo X«T« affe/Suv [* ^ pro xo<r/ia>.

** + X«T«.

6. /j.£\\ovT6)v affep£ffi reOeiKW [* ^ pro
9. init. a-yaTr^TO/ o<5e [* -J- Lect.

€x 7T£tpaarfj.ct)v pv£(rdou [* ^ pro
1 1 . X«T' 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. x«T«A/7rorr£$ * evdfiav [^ —Ttjv.

* *•

16. <^>0£ycf«yU£j>0i', eK<ah.vff£TC Ttjv $ pro sxcohvae.

18. crapKOs, aff£\y£ta<;, TOI/? oXtyov airpotyvy. &c. [* ^ pro

ao*£Ay««/c. ** ^ pro
20. Kt/jO/of fi/u.<uv tiat [* -f *?/

TOl/TOf$ * 7T«A/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' «(rx«T<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/T»j * x«r«x«i;<reTa/. [* — £joy« alius superscript.

11. Toura)!/ ovTft)? ** \vo/u,ev<ov [* ^ pro oi/i/. ** — -nav-

TO)V.

12. \v0tjorovTou ; * fin. [* — x«i o-roi^eia xavaovpsva

Ttjxerat ; fin.

13. 5/xaw<rf j/i; e»/o/x«/. fin. [* # pro X«TO/X«.

14. xa< a/xa/uo* «i/rcp [* ^ pro ayua>/x>7ro/.

15. «y«7ri;Tos «5eA^)O5 ijyawi/ Il«i/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 >) [*

II«T|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 x«i avrtj effnv 17.

x«* «7r«yy£AAOjUei> v/z/i/, [* £ pro avayy£\\o/j.£v.
7. Itjffov * TGI/ .[* — Xjworoi/, quod alius in marg.
adject.

8. init. «§eA^o/, e«i/ [* + 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^«T»7 [

*

19. -y«jO e^ jj/utu*', J/^wv /ue/xenyxf/ffav [* $ pro

Ivot. <f>a.v£pajdr) on [* ^ pro (fr
OVK etffi $$ [* — 7T«fTes.

22. T/S £<rr< * ^ei/oTi??, [*• — o quod alius superscript.
a.pvovfj.£vo$ * TOP [* — TOI> TTarepa. xat.

23. * o apvov/uLwos [* — ?r«5 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.£v£TQ), 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 y£yev*9irai fin. [* — i/, hanc. lit. alius
superscript.

* r* ^

oi/x eyj/tyi/ avrov ~ ^ pro ey^u.
5. fj/xcyr «/|0»j' 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.

T»J 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. A«yu/3«vo/x£i' «?r' ai/roi/, or/ [ ^ loco Trap' WVTOV.

23. iVa 7riffT£VQ)/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. c«r/' x«/ <W [* -|- x«<.

^

11. « o Oeo$ o^Tco? »;y«7rr;<T£i/ • [* ? pro ei OVTQJS 6 Qeo$

12. avrov ev fjp.tv rereheicoftevri effrtv fin. [* $ pro avrov

T£T£\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.K€v 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//t«To?, 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 J«3(wxei/ fan, [* ^ pro eotoKsv.

12. wW TOI/ 6£or/, e^« [* -f Toi/ 6eot/.

13. £<oqv atcaviov exer^ K0" [* ? pro

mat.

15. o eav atrofjisOa. [* # loco av.

1O. OCt)(T£l 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

X«jO«v, 17 /i/a [* + »7-
7. oj/o/x«T05 avrov e^t]\0ov [*

8. ffvvepyoi ytvo^sda rrj [* ^ loco

11. O * KaKOTTOlCOV [* 5ff.

Subscript. fnicrro\n * T/O/TT; [* — x«0<wA(x>;.

EPIST. JUD^E.

3. 7r«|0axaA<u» H€Tayo>vi£eaOai 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 B«A««/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/ 7r«j/r«s [* £ 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 Epistles110, 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.apTvpowT£s ; 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<$a<j)i(p etptjTai' dijAoc^t; 6 HaTtjp
6 Aoyo? xai TO Hvevpa' oi avTOt papTvpovvTeq stfft xat ev TIJ yyt
5<' <*)v fifj.iv <rvjj.l3o\ct>v airexa\v(j>0ii<rav' T«I/T« Js T« (rvju./3o\a effTt
TO 7rvevfJ.a, Si' ov dtjhovTat o TlaTijp' TO «//u«, oY ov 6 Y/os* TO vticop,
Ji' ov TO Hvevpa TO riytov. Kat ol Tpetf OVTOI, oiTives avooTepcp /mev
avaxfxa\vfJL/j.evct)g df avTav TCDV ^eap^txtov OVOJMXT&V, ev TCO ovpavc*
iraptarTavTai ol avTot ev TJJ ytj dia Ttj$ 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 Epistle112.

(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 quote117.

(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-
tionesy 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 T»J§ owjoxos
ff<xp$* eoTi' xoit TO y£.y£vvr}fj.tvov ex TOV JIvefyuocTOs, Tlv£Vju.oi tcrri,
I1NEYMA AE CO 0EO2. Aio eTrerat vo£iv} o>? TO yeyevvtj/mevov

SK TOV QeOV, 0£OS £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
T£fj.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 7rpoff£V£%0£v £|Oa)Ti7/xa Trapa ffov, ro/ov^e, xai

7T£pt 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
x«Ao/Tj, 7TOT£pov aTT\ij Tiq f) ffvvOeros ; £i fj,£v yap aTT\tj} Trcyg TOI/,
TPEIS, £7ri$£%£Tai TOD v 7rpo£iptiju.£vcov api0ju,ov ; To yap a-rr-
hovv, /xovoe/Ses xai avapiOpov. TO ^e apiBfj.oiq inroTmr-
Tovt avayxri T£fj.v£ffdai, xav /mtj apiOpou; inrofiahriTat, ro Se
T£fj.vo/ui£vov , £/j.7ra6£$. TLaBog yap f\ TOJULIJ. E< TOIVVV a7r\ij TO>J

Xp£lTTOVO$ f] <pvffig^ 7T£plTTtJ TCOV OVO/J.aT6)V f) -^£«$. El $S TO)V

ahijtiijs f} 9-£ffi$ xat <$£i TOiq ovopaffi 7T£i6£ff0ait TO povo-
xai a7r\ovv £v0v$ exTToowv oi%ETai. T/s ovv av £ttj TOV
<f>vcriq ; T«I/T« 7rpo$ J7/z«s 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
Triephon123, " 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 Athens126;
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. 66—70.)

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 CLEMM129
has abridged what is there stated, but without men-
tioning this Tractatum Philosophicum : and presents it as
follows; viz.

" Wre 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 rvirov131 /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 X«T« M«T0«/ov HLwx,yy€\toVf '

evj VTT' otvrov ev 'lepovffahtifjt. e^eSotfi;, sp^vevOr] 5e VTTO
Icootvvov. Efyysirai Ss rtjv X«T' avdpcoTTOv rov Xp/sroi/ yeveatv,
xai sffriv av6pco7ro/uiop<f>ov TO Evayyshsov. Tswapa 5e ear/ Evay-
xoti ov TrAefoya, ovre £\otTTOva. ETremep reffcrapcx.

Ef«yy£A/«, •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 T£TpafJ.Op(>OV TO vayy£\lOV , X«0>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,otT£tot$ rov Y/W TOV QEOV. To yap
opoiov \sovn TO e/iTTjOaxroi/ x«i fiaffihixov xai rjy£/movixov %apax-
tyi. To 5e ofj.otov yao<r^cp TIJV ispovpymnv nai Upartxtjv EJJ.-
To 5s «v00<y7ro£/dVs T»jf 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.

M«T^«/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 M«JOXOI/ Evotyyefaov tiriysypattrai, STTSI fie Mapxos o
/u.«0jjT7js Tlerpov xai owexo^/xos Hoci/Aoi/ oweyjOa^aTO TO Ei/ayye-
AIOI/ TOVTO. Attjystrat tie e£«j0%»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
e7T£ipa<r0r] ev reu opzi9 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 x«r«/3«s
/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 Supper134.

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 crvv£KOtifj.o$ Hav\ov,
xai /j.apTvpr)0£ts Trap' avTOv ffvveypa^aro TO EvayyeTuov TOVTO.
A(o^£T«/ §£ «?ro Ttj$ \coavvov y£vvrj(r£Ct>s} xat et- 179 SitjyeiToii TIJV
A«T« 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 Trapa8:5o»rj 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. 2»j/z£/« rs x«i Tsprxroc. TroAAcc yevo/uLeva^ x«i rrjv rov

/U.V(TTt)plOV TTOipa^OfftVy KfXl TCAo?, OTt TloVTlto II/AaTty TTOtpedotiri X«<

«frof. Ttui/ tie crT(zvpci)0£VT(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) tjy£p6rj Tptrjju.£pov.

TCOV

REMARKS.

1st. CO X£ipoTovti0£is <ri/j/£x<Jij/xos IT«i/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 :

IffT£ov, OTI TO X«T« looavvtjv Evex.yy£?\iov ev TO
vov v7rriyop£v0ri 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|0«TTOl/ y£V£OLV.

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 A«A>j<r«/.

3. Matt. XX. 25. wants x«* ol fM£ya\oi to avrtuv.

4. Matt. xxi. 21. wants x«/ ^ 5/«x^/?Te. The Codex

reads thus : £X^T£ 7r/<TTII/ *w? KOKKOV <r/v«7re<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|oJ«i/»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£-

K«f TTjOO-

6 \n<rov

\eyow' E&>0i7 /uo* -naff a e^oveux, ev
ovpavt? xfxi STTI y

aars
iravra
rot

TO OVOfJLa TOV IT«T|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£(0«9, ££«;? 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 <^«A«yUy8«voi/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.

°XOV

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 M«OT<OV.

S . TCOV dyiCOV /Uey«AoyU«0TV0<yy /A. rCOV 0"£/8«3Te/«. ev. M«T. 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. M«T. x. A^'. x«< Aovx. x. va '.

, ev. M«T. 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 M«T-
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?r«s e%ovffav, rtjv p.ev /t£A«i/<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 x«A«/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/«A«yu/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 it «» 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 OUT«S 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 •XjprHJia> et similia. Alibi tamen conglutinantur ab
eodem librario, ea quae nos hodie divellimus, ut ista: e-ni-
TOOIVTO, e^ajO^i;?, KaTot(jMT$ouovt xarahovKav, xsiTibiavy Karotcrapxa,

X«T«T07TOf?, 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. 222—227. (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, 243—251.

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. 222—227.

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