Skip to main content

Full text of "An inquiry into the integrity of the Greek Vulgate : or, Received text of the New Testament ; in which the Greek manuscripts are newly classed, the integrity of the authorised text vindicated, and the various readings traced to their origin"

See other formats 


AN 

INQUIRY 

INTO  THE 

INTEGRITY 

OF   THE 

GREEK    VULGATE, 

OR 

RECEIVED  TEXT 

OF    THE 

NEW  TESTAMENT: 

IN    WHICH 

THE  GREEK  MANUSCRIPTS  ARE   NEWLY   CLASSED*    THE   INTEGRITY   OP 

THE   AUTHORISED   TEXT   VINDICATED,  AND   THE    VARIOUS 

HEADINGS   TRACED    TO   THEIR   ORIGIN. 

By   THE   REV. 

FREDERICK  NOLAN, 

A    PRESBYTER    OF    THE    UNITED    CHURCH. 


x    juijv   UVTUV 
pv&v  ruv 

Uffy  T«>   ax  sjJora?  cvvitvai  ru»  fayoptt/uv,  TOL^OC 

ORIGEK" 


LONDON  t 

PRINTED   FOR   P.    C.    AND   J.   RIVINGTON, 

NO.  62,  ST.  PAUL'S  CHURCH-YARD; 
%  E.  $  JR.  GiJfcrt,  Sf.  Joftn's  S^Mret  Clerkenwdl. 

1815. 


.\\ 


TO   TH£ 


REV.  H.  H.  MORRIS. 


MY  DEAfc  SIR, 

IN  inscribing  the  Inquiry  into 
the  state  of  the  Hebrew  Text,  the  learned 
authour  offered  a  tribute  to  friendship,  while 
he  repaid  a  literary  obligation.  As  I  have 
some  ambition,  that  the  following  Inquiry 
into  the  integrity  of  the  Greek  Text,  should 
be  considered  supplementary  to  that  work ;  I 
would  emulate  the  authour,  in  dedicating  the 
following  pages  to  you. 

From  the  possession  of  that  valuable  library, 
for  which  I  am  indebted  to  your  friendship, 

A2 


iv  DEDICATION. 

and  which  is  referred  to  in  every  page  of  the 
following  work,  the  undertaking  in  which  I 
engaged  has  been  brought  to  a  close :  in  that 
literary  retirement,  from  the  more  laborious 
duties  of  my  profession,  has  it  been  prose- 
cuted, which  you  have  enabled  me  to  enjoy. 
You,  who  have  so  largely  contributed  to  the 
success  of  my  labours,  have  some  right  to 
partake  of  the  fruits  which  they  produce. 
Let  me,  however,  present  them ;  not  as  a 
return  for  kindnesses  which  no  acknowledg- 
ment can  repay,  but  as  an  account  rendered 
of  the  means  entrusted  to  me;  and  which 
Would  then  indeed  become  oppressive,  should 
you  have  reason  to  believe  them  misap- 
plied. 

I  can  have  no  need  to  bespeak  your  favour 
for  a  work,  which  has  been  undertaken  at 
your  suggestion,  and  completed  by  the  faci- 
lities which  you  have  placed  in  my  power. 
And  with  whatever  success  it  may  be  ulti- 
mately attended,  it  cannot  fail  in  attaining 
one  important  object,  with  which  it  was 
undertaken,  while  it  affords  me  the  oppor- 


DEDICATION.  V 

tunity  of  thus  publickly  avowing,  with  what 
gratitude  and  sincerity  I  profess  myself, 

My  dear  Sir, 
Your  truly  obliged  friend, 

And  devoted  servant, 

FRED,  NOLAN. 


Cambridge  Street , 
July  10,  1815. 


PREFACE. 


THE  notion  of  a  literal  identity  between  the 
present  copies  of  the  inspired  text,  and  the  ori- 
ginal edition,,  which  was  published  by  the  sacred 
writers,  is  a  vulgar  errour,  which  finds  as  little 
foundation  in  reason,  as  justification  in  fact.  It 
would  require  no  labour  of  deduction  to  prove  that 
notion  unreasonable,  which  pre-supposes,  that  every 
person  who  undertakes  to  copy  the  Sacred  Writ* 
ings,  should  be  withheld  from  wilful  or  inadvertent 
errour,  by  preternatural  power;  were  it  not  de- 
monstrably  refuted  by  the  publication  of  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  thousand  various  readings,  which 
have  been  collected  against  the  authorised  text. 
But  setting  aside  the  idea  of  its  literal  purity,  as 
repugnant  to  reason,  the  belief  of  its  doctrinal  in- 
tegrity is  necessary  to  the  conviction  of  our  faith. 
For  a  proof  of  its  general  corruption  in  important 
points  being  once  admitted,  that  character  for  fide* 
Hty  is  necessarily  involved,  which  is  inseparable  from 
the  notion  of  a  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  manners. 


Vlil  PREFACE, 

With  a  view  to  the  distinction  which  thus  arises 
between  verbal  and  doctrinal  errours,  it  has  been 
usual  to  reply  to  the  objections  raised  to  the  inte- 
grity of  the  sacred  canon.,  from  the  multiplicity  of 
various  readings,  by  insisting  not  only  on  the  im- 
mense number  of  the  authorities  consulted,  and  the 
scrupulous  accuracy  with  which  they  have  been 
examined,  but  on  the  small  importance  of  the  read- 
ings noted,  as  rarely  affecting  the  sense  of  the  vary- 
ing passages. 

From  the  principles  thus  laid  down,  the  conclu- 
sion would  legitimately  follow  in  favour  of  the  doc- 
trinal integrity  of  the  sacred  text ;  if  it  might  be 
assumed  that  the  immense  number  of  various  read- 
ings forms  a  floating  medium,  in  which  the  genuine 
text  might  be  in  all  instances  discovered.  But  this 
is  a  concession  which,  though  founded  in  reason, 
and  deducible  from  experiment,  the  objectour  can- 
not feel  inclined  to  make,  who  proscribes  passages, 
and  objects  to  chapters,  as  interpolated  in  the 
Scripture  canon.  It  is  indeed  a  position  so  far 
from  established  by  the  theories  of  those  criticks, 
who  have  undertaken  to  recover  the  genuine  text, 
that  it  may  be  fundamentally  subverted  from  the 
principles  on  which  they  proceed.  Those  systems, 
consequently,  are  so  far  from  having  established  the 
integrity  of  any  particular  text,  that  they  have  un- 
settled the  foundation  on  which  the  entire  canon  is 
rested. 


PREFACE.  ix 

Such  are  objections  to  which  the  most  elaborate 
of  those  theories  seems  to  be  inevitably  exposed.  If 
we  must  receive  the  Corrected  Text  of  M.  Gries- 
bach,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  Greek  Vulgate,  we 
must  accept  it  as  a  demonstrative  proof  of  the  gene- 
ral corruption  of  the  sacred  text,  and  of  the  faith- 
lessness of  the  traditionary  testimony  on  which  it  is 
supported,  for  a  period  extending  from  the  apostolical 
to  the  present  age.  One  of  the  first  positionslaid  down 
in  his  critical  theory,  and  implied  in  the  conclusions 
which  it  involves,  is,  that  the  two  principal  Classes  of 
Text  out  of  which  his  edition  is  formed,  have  been 
interpolated  in  every  part  of  them  for  that  period*. 
One  of  the  last  consequences  which  that  theory 
tends  to  establish,  is,  that  the  only  remaining  Class 
of  Text  existing  in  the  Greek  Vulgate,  and  against 
which  the  immense  number  of  150,000  various 
readings  has  been  collected,  has  existed  in  its  pre- 
sent state  of  corruption  nearly  1400  years b.  If  these 
conclusions  are  unavoidable,  there  seems  to  be  no 
reservation  by  which  the  doctrinal  integrity  of  the 
sacred  Scriptures  can  be  saved.  If  the  apostolical 
age  has  thus  erred  in  its  testimony,  and  its  evidence 
has  been  further  corrupted  in  the  primitive  age  ; 
whatever  be  the  text,  which  is  gathered  out  of  the 

a  Vid.  infr.  pp.  334,  335.  nn.  **  et". 
*  Vid  infr.  p.  348,  n.  81. 


PREFACE, 


On  these  grounds  the  first  notion  was  formed  by 
the  anthour  of  the  following  pages,  that  an  Inquiry 
into  the  history  of  the  sacred  text  would  most  pro- 
bably lead  to  the  perfect  vindication  of  the  vulgar 
edition.  He  was  encouraged  in  this  expectation, 
by  the  effect  which  he  perceived  a  few  facts  had 
in  solving  some  of  the  greatest  difficulties  which 
embarrassed  its  history.  At  two  periods  only  could 
he  perceive  the  possibility  of  the  ecclesiastical  tra- 
dition having  been  interrupted;  during  the  ascen- 
dancy of  the  Arian  party  under  Constantine,  and 
on  its  suppression  under  the  elder  Theodosius. 
The  destruction  of  the  sacred  books  in  the  Dio- 
elesian  persecution,  and  the  revisal  of  the  sacred 
text  by  JSusebius,  furnished  an  adequate  solution  of 
the  greatest  difficulty  which  arose,  from  the  vari- 
eties in  the  copies  of  the  original  text,,  and  of  the 
translations  which  differ  from  the  Greek  Vulgate. 

Tp  this  point,  of  consequence,  his  first  attention  is 
turned  ;  and  it  forms  the  subject  of  the  first  section 
of  tlie  following  Inquiry.  He  has  thence  endea- 
voured to  show,  that  the  coincidence  between  the 
Eastern  and  Western  texts,  on  which  the  credit  of 
the  Corrected  Edition  is  rested,  must  be  attributed 
to  the  influence  of  Eusebius's  revisal,  which  was 
published  under  the  auspices  of  the  Emperour  Con- 
stantiue. 


PREFACE. 

Thus -far,  however,  a  negative  argument  is  de- 
duced in  favour  of  the  Received  Text  The  cha- 
racter of  this  text  still  remains  to  be  investigated : 
to  this  point  the  authour  next  directs  his  attention, 
and  he  prosecutes  it  through  the  two  following  sec- 
tions. As  the  integrity  and  purity  of  the  Greek 
and  Latin  Churches  render  their  testimony  of  the 
highest  authority  in  ascertaining  the  genuine  text; 
on  their  joint  authority  he  has  consequently  veiv* 
tured  to  distribute  the  Greek  Manuscripts  into 
Classes;  and  to  vindicate  that  particular  class  of 
text  which  exists  in  the  vulgar  edition. 

From  the  ground  thus  taken  up,  the  whole  sub- 
ject may  be  commanded  almost  at  a  glance.  In 
the  following  sections,  the  tradition  of  the  Greek 
and  Latin  Churches  is  carefully  traced,  from  the 
apostolical  age ;  and  on  the  concurring  or  relative 
testimony  of  those  witnesses,  the  general  and  doc- 
trinal integrity  of  the  Received  Text  is  established, 
In  vindication  of  the  verbal  integrity  of  this  text, 
the  evidence  of  the  Syriack  Church  is  called  in ; 
and  on  the  joint  testimony  of  the  primitive  Version 
of  this  Church,  and  the  primitive  Italick,  a  decisive 
argument  is  finally  deduced  in  favour  of  the  anti- 
quity of  the  Greek  Vulgate. 

In  the  last  section,  the  authour  has  endeavoured 
to  point  out  the  particular  manner  in  which  the 
remaining  Classes  of  Text,  into  which  the  Greek 


Manuscripts  are  distributed,  have  originated,  from 
a  corruption  of  the  vulgar  edition.  The  whole  of 
the  diversities  in  those  manuscripts  are  traced  to 
three  revisals  of  the  sacred  text,  which  were  pub* 
lished  in  Egypt,  Palestine,  and  Constantinople, 
The  number  of  various  readings  is  thence  easily 
accounted  for ;  and  a  solution  offered  of  some  ob- 
jections which  are  raised  to  the  doctrinal  and  verbal 
integrity  of  the  Received  Text  or  Vulgar  edition. 

From  this  brief  sketch  of  the  plan  of  the  follow- 
ing work,  the  reader  will  easily  comprehend  in  what 
manner  the  authour  has  avoided  those  consequences 
which  he  charges  on  the  systems'  of  his  opponents : 
and  how  the  integrity  of  the  Received  Text  may 
be  established  independent  of  the  objections  which 
lie  against  the  Corrected  Edition,  An  interruption 
in  the  tradition,  by  which  the  former  text  is  sup- 
ported, is  admitted  to  have  taken  place ;  when  the 
scripture  canon  was  revised  by  Eusebius,  and  the 
Church  became  subject  to  the  dominion  of  the  Ari- 
ans.  But  the  tradition  is  carried  above  this  period^ 
which  did  not  exceed  forty  years,  and  the  Received 
Text  proved  to  have  existed  previously,  by  its  co- 
incidence with  those  Versions  of  the  Oriental  and 
Western  Churches,  which  were  made  before  the 
text  was  revised  by  Eusebius.  So  that,  although, 
the  tradition  has  been  interrupted  for  this  inconsi- 
derable period,  it  has  remained  as  unsophisticated 


PREFACE.  3tv 

in  the  two  centuries,  which  preceded  Constantine's 
age,,  as  in  the  last  fourteen,  during  which  it  has  con- 
fessedly remained  uncorrupted. 

In  the  course  of  this  Inquiry,  it  has  been  a  prin* 
cipal  object  with  the  authour  to  rescue  the  history 
of  the  text  from  that  obscurity  in  which  it  is  in- 
volved ;  and  to  attain  some  determinate  notion  of 
the  state  of  critical  and  religious  opinion  in  the  pri- 
mitive ages ;  with  a  view  to  ascertain  the  causes 
which  led  to  the  corruption  of  the  text,  and  pro- 
duced the  different  classes  into  which  it  is  distri- 
buted. 

An  attention  to  these  points  has  consequently  ena- 
bled him  to  give  a  different  direction  to  the  ques- 
tion respecting  the  authenticity  of  those  passages  in 
which  the  Received  and  Corrected  Texts  differ; 
and  has  thrown  the  preponderance  of  the  internal 
evidence  on  the  side  of  the  former.  In  determining 
between  spurious  and  genuine  readings,  respect 
must  be  paid  to  the  peculiar  opinions  of  the  persons 
by  whom  the  original  text  is  revised  or  translated : 
but  it  is  a  curious  fact,  that  since  the  time  when 
the  different  editions,  which  comprize  the  varieties 
discoverable  in  the  sacred  text,  were  published,  the 
state  of  religious  opinion  has  undergone  a  total 
revolution.  The  scepticks  of  the  present  age,  how- 
ever they  reject  Christ's  divinity,  are  fully  disposed 
to  admit  his  humanity.  But  in  the  earlier  ages  the 


PREFACE, 

was  precisely  reversed ;  the  generality  of  Here- 
ticks  having'  easily  admitted  the  divinity  of  our  Lord^ 
while  they  denied  his  humanity.  Those  sects,  from 
whose  opinions  the  notion  of  heresy  was  defined', 
conceived,  that  Christ  descended  from  heaven  in  the 
reign  of  Tiberius  Caesar,  and  having-  merely  as- 
sumed the  appearance  of  a  man,  entered  on  his 
ministry  in  Judaea g,  A  religious  system  was  de- 
vised in  coincidence  with  this  fundamental  tenet; 
and  the  Scriptures  were  soon  accommodated  to  the 
.opinions  of  its  founders.  To  the  first  disturbance 
which  was  thus  given  to  the  sacred  text,  we  easily 
trace  the  principal  varieties  which  are  discoverable 
in  the  different  editions  into  which  the  Greek  text 
may  be  divided  V  Instances  consequently  occur, 
in  which  passages,  that  are  challenged  by  the  here- 
ticks  in  the  primitive  ages,  disappear  in  the  Eastern 
and  Western  texts,  which  form  the  basis  of  M. 
Griesba ch's  system,  and  are  now  found  in  the  vul- 
gar edition1.  One  or  two  instances  of  this  kind  are 
sufficient  to  enable  us  to  decide  upon  similar  pas- 
sages ;  and  afford  an  adequate  criterion,  by  which 
\ve  may  determine  the  relative  merit  of  those  differ- 
ent texts  which  have  produced  the  Received  and  Cor* 

. 

f  Vid.  infr.  p.  466.  n.  7°. 
2  Vid.  infr.  p.  463.  n.  *°. 

*  Vid.  infr.  p.  468.  sqq.  conf.'p,  475.  n. 8S.  p.  495.  n.  9*» 

*  Vid.  infr.  p,  498.  n.  9°, 


PREFACE.  XVlt 

rected  Editions,  and  discover  the  total  insufficiency 
of  the  critical  systems  which  have  been  devised  for 
the  correction  of  the  Greek  Vulgate. 

Another  point  to  which  the  authour  has  directed 
his  attention,  has  been  the  consideration  of  the  old 
Italick  translation.  Notwithstanding  the  labours  of 
M.  M.  Blanchini  and  Sabatier,  much  remains  to  be 
done  with  this  version,  the  history  of  which  is  so 
little  known,  that  the  very  propriety  of  its  name 
has  been  questioned.  In  considering-  the  strange 
errour  into  which  Dr.  Bentley  has  led  Abp.  Potter, 
Dr.  Mosheim,  and  Prof.  Michaelis,  on  this  subject, 
the  authour  perceived,  without  any  labour  of  in- 
quiry, that  it  derived  its  name  from  that  diocese, 
which  has  been  termed  the  Italick,  as  contradistin- 
guished from  the  Roman  k.  This  is  a  supposition, 
which  receives  a  sufficient  confirmation  from  the 
fact, — that  the  principal  copies  of  that  version  have 
been  preserved  in  that  diocese,  the  metropolitan 
church  of  which  was  situated  in  Milan.  The  cir- 
cumstance is  at  present  mentioned,  as  the  authour 
thence  formed  a  hope,  that  some  remains  of  the 
primitive  Italick  version  might  be  found  in  the 
early  translations  made  by  the 'Waldenses,  who  were 
the  lineal  descendants  of  the  Italick  Church ;  and 

k  Vicl.  Cave,  Governm.  of  Ant.  Church,  ch.  iii.  p.  127, 
Comp.  Alh'x,  Rem,  on  Ant  Ch.  of  Piedmont,  ch.  i.  p.  1. 

b 


PREFACE. 

who  have  asserted  their  independence  against  the 
usurpations  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  have  ever 
enjoyed  the  free  use  of  the  Scriptures.  In  the  search 
to  which  these  considerations  have  led  the  authour, 
his  fondest  expectations  have  been  fully  realized. 
It  has  furnished  him  with  abundant  proof  on  that 
point  to  which  his  Inquiry  was  chiefly  directed; 
as  it  has  supplied  him  with  the  unequivocal  testi- 
mony of  a  truly  apostolical  branch  of  the  primitive 
Church,  that  the  celebrated  text  of  the  heavenly  wit- 
nesses was  adopted  in  the  version  which  prevailed 
in  the  Latin  Church,  previously  to  the  introduction 
of  the  modern  Vulgate1, 

1  Of  the  old  versions  which  have  been  published  in  French, 
two  were  made  by  the  Waldenses ;  vid.  Le  Long.  Bibl.  Sacr. 
Tom.  I.  p.  313.  col.  2.  e.  Morland  on  the  Church  of  the  Valleys. 
p.  14-.  But  one  copy  of  this  version  hag  fallen  into  my  hands, 
which  was  printed  at  the  native  place  of  Peter  Waldo;  "  Ail 
Lyon,  Pan  de  grace  1521."  The  following  is  the  reading  of 
1  Joh.  v,  7,  8.  fol.  clxiv.  b,  "  Trois  choses  sont  qui  donnent 
tesmoing  au  ciel,  le  pere  le  filz  et  le  sainct  esperit,  et  ces  trois 
sont  une  chose.  Et  trois  choses  qui  donnent  tesmoing  en  terre, 
esperit  eaue  et  sang."  This  testimony  would  be  of  little  im- 
portance until  the  character  of  the  translation  was  investigated, 
by  a  comparison  with  other  French  Versions  and  the  old  Italick 
and  modern  Latin  Vulgate ;  were  it  not  for  the  following  con- 
siderations: (1.)  It  differs  from  the  Latin  Vulgate;  as  it  reads 
*«  le  filz"  for  "  Verbum."  (2.)  It  agrees  in  this  reading  with 
an  antient  Confession  of  Faith,  used  by  the  Waldenses,  Leger. 
Hist.  Gen,  des  Eglis.  Vaudois.  P.  I.  ch.  viii.  p.  50.  ed.  Leyd. 
1669.  <c  Eschant,  v.  de  la  Doctrine  des  Vaudois,  contenant 
la  fidele  traduction  de  ^Exposition  qu'ils  ont  donne  au  Sym- 
bole  des  Apotres — ou  ils  en  prouvent  tous  les  Articles  par 
passages  exprcs  de  la  S.  Ecriture, — *  Lequel  Dieu  est  un  Tri- 
puxv  comme  il  est  ecrit  .en  la  Loy,  «  O, Israel  ecoute,'  &C.-T- 
Et  S.  Jean,  *  //  y  en  a  trois  qui  rendent  tcmoignage  an  .  cial^ 


PREFACE. 

The  result  of  the  Inquiry,  which  lias  been  prose* 
cuted  through  these  subjects,  the  authour  hoped  to 
have  taken  an  earlier  opportunity  of  laying  before 

le  Pere,  le  Fils,  et  le  S.  Esprit,  et  ces  trois  sont  nn>"  The 
original  of  this  passage,  as  far  a^  I  can  gather  from  M.  Leger, 
may  be  found  in  le  Sieur  du  Perrin,  Hist,  ties  Vaudois  ej 
Albigeois,  chap.  v.  p.  201.  sqq.  The  proof  appears  to  me 
to  be  so  far  complete,  that  this  passage  was  adopted  iqi 
the  authorised  text  used  by  the  Waldenses.  The  following 
considerations  seem  adequate  to  evince;  that  it  existed  in 
the  Latin  Version  revised  by  St.  Eusebius  of  Verceli,  whp 
published  the  old  translation  which  prevailed  in  the  Italick 
Diocese.  (1.)  In  reading  "  Filius,"  it  agree$  with  Tertuk 
lian  and  Cyprian,  against  the  common  testimony  of  the  Mo- 
dern Vulgate,  and  the  Latin  Fathers;  vid.  infr.  p.  291.  n.  2  3. 
$qq.  (2.)  St.  Eusebius  might  have  hence  adopted -this  read? 
ing,  as  he  has  adopted  other  readings  from  those  fathers,  in 
his  revisal;  vi<J.  infr.  p.  H6.  n.  s7.  (3.)  The  French  Version 
agrees  with  the  old  Itajick  in  possessing  other  readings  derived 
from  the  same  source:  in  the  Lord's  Prayer,  we  find,  instead 
of  "  ne  inducas  nos  in  temptationem."  Lat.  Vulg.  •"  ne  nous 
mene  mye  en  temptacion,  cest  a  dire  ne  soitffre  mye  que  nous 
soyonz  temptez:"  conformably  to  Tertullian  and  Cyprian:  vid. 
infr.  p.  330.  n.  **.  (4-.)  The  disputed  passage,  as  read  in  the 
Waldensian  Confession,  and  French  Version,  is  accommodated 
to  the  state  of  religious  opinion  which  prevailed  in  the  age  of 
St.  Eusebius.  By  changing  Verbum  to  Filius,  in  vers.  7.  the 
Sabellian  evasion  of  the  passage  was  obviated :  vid.  infr.  p.  539. 
n.  l89.  By  cutting  off  "  ethi  tres  (in)  unum  sunt,"  in  vers.  8. 
the  Arian  evasion  of  the  passage  was  equally  obviated.  For 
this  phrase  furnished  some  countenance  to  the  notion  of  those 
hereticks  who  asserted,  that  "  unum  sunt*'  signified  an  unity, 
not  of  substance,  but  of  will  and  testimony.  As  these  are 
coincidences  which  the  Waldenses  cannot  be  supposed  to  have 
created,  I  thence  conclude,  that  1  Job  v.  7.  not  only  existed 
in  the  revisal  of  the  old  Italick  Version  made  by  Eusebius 
Vercellensis ;  but  that  the  peculiar  reading  of  this  text,  which 
is  found  in  the  French  Version,  and  which  has  excited  M.  Per- 
son's notice,  has  been  thus  remotely  adopted  from  St.  Cy- 
prian :  vid.  Person.  Lett,  to  Trav.  p.  377.  It  thus  easily  made 
its  way  into  Wicklef's  translation,  through  the  Lollards,  who 
were  disciples  of  the  Waldenses;  vid,  Pors,  ibid.  Mori  ub, 
supr.p.  18*.. 


XX  PREFACE. 

the  Publick.  But  his  unexpected  exclusion  from 
the  library  of  Sion  College,  during  the  time  it  has 
been  under  repair ;  and  the  attention  which  he  has 
been  obliged  to  devote  to  the  Boyle's  Lecture, 
which  he  has  been  appointed  to  preach,  since  he 
first  announced  his  intention  of  delivering  himself 
at  large  on  the  present  subject,  have  created  obsta- 
cles to  the  accomplishment  of  his  design,  which  he 
could  not  anticipate.  The  delay  which  he  has  thus 
experienced  in  bringing  his  inquiries  to  a  close,  he 
has  endeavoured  to  turn  to  the  best  account;  by 
enlarging  and  filling  up  the  outline  within  which 
his  subject  was  circumscribed,  in  the  three  papers 
in  which  it  originally  appeared.,  in  the  [(  British 
Critick." 


CONTENTS. 


SECT.  L 

ON  THE  ALEXANDRINE  TEXT,  AND  AUTHORITIES  BY  WHICH 
IT   IS   SUPPORTED,    p.  1. 

Number  of  various  readings,  p.  2.  Methods  proposed  for  de- 
ciding the  genuine  and  spurious,  p.  2.  Dr.  Bentley's  scheme, 
for  determining  the  true  text  by  the  Latin  Vulgate,  p.  3. 
M.  Griesbach's,  by  the  Alexandrine  text,  p.  4.  Liable  to 
objections,  p.  6. — not  tenable  on  Origen's  authority,  p.  7.— 
nor  on  the  conformity  of  Versions  agreeing  with  the  Alex- 
andrine text,  p.  14. — not  on  the  Italick,  as  created  by  Jerome, 
p.  14. — and  by  Cassiodorus,  p.  16.  Origin  of  Graeco-Latin 
MSS.  p.  17. — not  tenable  on  the  conformity  of  the  Syriack, 
p.  20. — as  partly  created  by  Charlemagne,  p.  21.  This  con- 
formity chiefly  proceeds  from  the  influence  of  Eusebius's 
edition,  p.  25.  Its  effect  on  the  Eastern  text,  p.  29. — en  the 
Coptick,  Syriack,  Ethiopick,  &c.  p.  30. — on  the  Western 
text,  p.  31. —on  the  great  body  of  Greek  MSS.  p.  33.  In- 
stanced in  the  omission  of  Mar.  xvi.  9—20.  p.  35,— of  Joh. 
viii.  1—11.  p.  37.— of  1  Joh.  v.  7.  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  Act.  xx. 
28.  p.  38.  Instability  of  the  ground  on  which  the  foregoing 
system  is  founded,  p.  41, 


CONTENTS. 

SECT.  II. 

NEW  CLASSIFICATION  OF   THE   GREEK   MSS.  p.  44 


Difficulties  of  classing  MSS.  p.  44.  Origen  affords  no  crite* 
rion,  p.  44-.  —  nor  antient  Fathers,  p.  44-.  —  nor  the  generality 
of  Versions,  p.  47.  —  not  the  Coptick  nor  Syriack,  p.  48.  — 
nor  the  Sahidick,  p.  49.  This  Version  of  no  great  antiquity, 
ibid.  The  Italick  affords  the  only  criterion,  p.  56.—  consists 
of  three  Classes,  p.  58.  These  Classes  applied  to  determine 
the  diversities  of  the  Greek,  p.  61.  Specimen  of  coincidences 
of  the  different  Classes  .of  the  Italick  and  Greek,  p.  62.  — 
exemplified  by  connected  portions  of  text,  p.  67.  Inference 
from  those  coincidences,  p.  70.  Those  Classes  of  text  as  old 
as  the  fourth  century,  p.  70.  —  and  known  to  St.  Jerome,  p. 
72.  Investigation  of  the  first  Class,  or  Egyptian  text,  p.  73. 
••—of  the  second  Class,  or  Palestine  text,  p.  79.  —  of  the  third 
Class,  or  Byzantine  text,  p.  88.  Certainty  of  this  system  of 
classification,  p.  35.  Objections  considered,  p.  99.  This 
distribution  of  >the  Greek  MSS.  plenary,  p.  103.  —  and  ade- 
quate, p.  105.  -Comparative  view  of  this  system  of  Classifi- 
cation with  Dr.  Bentley's,  p.  1O6.—  with  M.  M.  Matthaei  and 
Griesbach's,  p.  107.  Conclusion,  p.  109. 


SECT.  III. 

ON  THE  CHOICE   OF   A  PARTICULAR  CLASS   OF  TEXT,   p.  110- 

Ecclesiastical  tradition  the  proper  test  of  the  integrity  of  the 
text,  p.  110.  Byzantine  text  entitled  to  some  preference 
from  the  place  in  which  it  is  found,  p.  111.  —  as  the  region 
in  which  the  inspired  writings  were  deposited,  p.  112.  —  as 
the  text  which  is  retained  by  the  Greek  Church,  p.  11  3.  -as 
it  has  existed  fourteen  hundred  years,  p.  114.  Testimony-of 


CONTENTS. 

the  Eastern  Church  in  favour  of  this  text,  p.  118. — supported 
by  the  number  and  prevalence  of  copies,  p.  119.— from  the 
antiquity  of  manuscripts,  p.  121.  Want  of  this  testimony  in 
favour  of  Egyptian  and  Palestine  texts,  p.  127.  Copies  of 
these  texts  not  numerous,  p.  127. — nor  supported  by  the 
consideration  of  the -place  in  which  they  are  found,  p.  128. 
The  tradition  broken  in  two  places,  p.  1 30. — by  a  text  re- 
vised by  St,  Athanasius,  p.  134. — and  by  Hesychius  and  Eu- 
sebius, p.  1 36.  Testimony  of  the  Western  Church  in  favour 
of  the  Byzantine  text,  p.  138.  Antiquity  of  the  primitive 
Jtalick  Version,  p.  139.  Its  testimony  not  in  favour  of  the 
Palestine  nor  Egyptian  texts,  p.  141.— but  of  the  Byzantine, 
p.  142.  Historical  sketch  of  the  variations  of  the  Italick 
Version,  p.  146.  Revisal  of  St.  Eusebius,  p.  148.  Varieties 
to  which  it  gave  rise,  p.  150.  Revisal  of  St.  Jerome,  p.  151. 
Analysis  of  the  Italick  Version,  p.  154.  State  of  Latin  text 
as  described  by  St.  Jerome,  p.  155. — verified  in  the  Latin 
MSS.  of  the  present  day,  p.  159.  Method  adopted  by  St. 
Jerome  in  forming  his  translation,  p.  159.  Objections  to  his 
mode  of  correcting,  p.  166.  The  Vulgate  not  adequately 
supported  by  his  authority,  p.  1 70.  Method  adopted  by  Su 
Eusebius  in  forming  his  text,  p.  173.  Its  testimony  supports 
the  Byzantine  text,  p.  176. — destroys  the  authority  of  the 
Egyptian,  p.  178.  Investigation  of  the  primitive  version  of 
the  Italick,  p.  181,  Internal  evidence  in  its  favour,  p.  182. 
Application  of  its  testimony  in  favour  of  the  Byzantine  text, 
p.  186.  Comparative  view  of  the  foregoing  plan  for  inves- 
tigating the  genuine  text  with  Dr.  Bentley's,  p.  187. — with 
M.  Matthaei's  and  M.  Griesbach's,  p.  188.  Conclusion, 
p.  189, 

SECT.   IV. 


ON    THE   GENERAL    AND   DOCTRINAL    INTEGRITY   OF   THE 
RECEIVED    TEXT,    p.    191. 

. 

Intercourse  subsisting  between  the  different  branches  of  the 
.  primitive  church,  p,  192. — in  the  apostolical  age,  p.  193,-— 


XXIV  CONTENTS. 

in  the  next  succession  after  the  Apostles,  p.  196. — led  to  the 
universal  dispersion  of  the  Scriptures,  p.  198      Intercourse 
between  the  Greek,  Syriack,  and  Latin  Churches,  p.  200. 
Impossibility  of  the  copies  of  Scripture,  thus  widely  dispersed, 
being  generally  corrupted,  p.  201.     Attention  bestowed  en 
the  state  of  the  text,  p.  205. — at  the  time  of  the  Paschal  con- 
troversy, p.  207.     Principal  writers  of  this -period,  p.  208. 
Scrutiny  into  the  integrity  of  the  text,  p.  209.     Testimony 
of  those  writers  in  its  favour,  p.  214?.     Tradition  connected 
.  between  the  times  of  the  Apostles  and  Origen,  p.  216.     In- 
vestigation of  the  ecclesiastical  tradition,  p.  217.     Tradition 
connected  between  the  times  of  Origen,  and  St.  Athanasius 
and  St.  Jerome,  p.  220.     Their  testimony  to  the  state  of  the 
text,  p.  223. —in  the  Alexandrine  MS.  p.  224.— and  the  La- 
tin Vulgate,  p.  225.     Recapitulation  of  the  foregoing  evi- 
dence, p.  227.     Integrity  -of  the   text  defended,  p.  229. 
What  books  questioned,  p.  230.     Objections  to  the  Apoca- 
lypse and  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  p.  231.     Defence  of  those 
books,  p.  233. — from  external  evidence,  p.  234.    General 
Integrity  of  the  text  considered,  p.  238.     Objections  to  Mar. 
xvi.  9 — 20.  Joh.  viii.  1 — 11.  p.  239.    Defence  of  those  pas- 
sages, p.  240. — from  the  internal  evidence,  p.  243.     Tradi- 
tionary testimony  in  their  favour,  traced  in  the  Greek,  p.  247. 
— and  in  the  Latin,  p.  248. — in  the  external  evidence  of  the 
Fathers,  p.  250.    Doctrinal  Integrity  of  the  text  considered, 
p.  251.     Texts  objected  to,  p.  253.     Objections  to  the  read- 
ing of  those  texts  in  the  Palestine  edition,  p.  255.     Internal 
evidence  in  favour  of  the  vulgar  reading,  p.  258.     Proofs 
arising  from  the  state  of  the  controversy  in  which  the  Apos- 
tles were  engaged,  p.  261 .     Peculiar  tenets  of  the  heresies 
which  they  opposed ;  of  the  Nicolaitans,  p.  264.— of  the  Ce- 
rinthians,  p.  266.     Application  of  these  remarks  to  the  disco- 
very of  the  genuine  reading,  p.  273.— in  the  case  of  Act.  xx. 
23.  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  p.  274.— of  1  Joh.  v.  7.  p.  276.     Further 
considerations  strengthening  the  same  conclusion,  p.  278. 
Some  account  of  the  various  readings  of  the  foregoing  texts, 
p.  280.     Testimony  of  MSS.  in  favour  of  the  vulgar  reading^ 
p.  283. — of  Fathers,  p.  286.     Summary  of  the  evidence  ad- 


CONTENTS*  XXV 

duced,  p.  293.  Circumstances  strengthening  the  testimony 
of  the  Latin  Church  in  favour  of  1  Joh.  v.  7.  p  294.  General 
conclusion  on  the  integrity  of  the  Greek  Vulgate*  p.  305. 


SECT.  V. 

ON  THE  VERBAL  INTEGRITY  OF  THE  RECEIVED  TE>CT7  p.  309. 

.« 

Integrity  of  the  Sacred  Text  not  affected  by  literal  errours,  p. 
309*  Instanced  in  the  Septuagint,  p.  310.  Verbal  integrity 
of  the  Received  Text  defensible,  p.  313. — exposed  to  objec- 
tions arising  fromM.  Griesbach's  system,  p.  314.  Principles 
of  his  scheme,  p.  315.  His  rules  for  correcting  the  text,  p. 
316.  General  objections  to  this  system,  p.  318.  Particular 
objections — to  the  testimony  of  Origen,  p.  320. — to  the  MSS. 
cited,  p.  321.— to  the  Versions  quoted,  p.  322.— to  the  Fa- 
thers adduced,  p.  325.  Pernicious  consequences  to  which 
this  system  leads,  p.  333.  New  system  proposed^  p.  337- 
Oldest  witnesses  of  the  Verbal  Integrity,  the  primitive  Italick 
and  Syriack  versions,  p»  338.— not  corrupted  by  each  other, 
p.  340..  The  Italick  not  influenced  by  the  Greek  Vulgate, 
p.  342.— nor  the  Syriack^  p,  343.  Their  t.pstimrin}'  separate, 
p.  347- — supported  by  tradition,  p»  348. — by  Manuscripts, 
p.  350.— by  Versions,  p.  352.— by  Fathers,  p.  354*  Rules 
for  ascertaining  the  genuine  text  on  the  testimony'  of  those 
witnesses,  p.  356.— illustrated  and  applied,  p*  357.  Antient 
Fathers  afford  no  higher  criterion,  p.  362.  Origen's  testi- 
mony examined  and  set  aside,  p.  363.  Application  of  the 
above  principles  to  the  defence  of  doctrinal  texts,  p.  371.—* 
exemplified,  p.  372*  Summary  conclusion,  p,  377.  Appli- 
cation of  the  same  principles  to  the  defence  of  remarkable 
passages  in  the  Gospels,  p.  380.  Summary  conclusion,  p. 
385.  Extension  of  the  same  principles  to  the  defence  of 
remarkable  passages  in  the  Acts  and  Epistles,  p.  387.— 
exemplified,  p.  390.  Vindication  of  the  primitive  Italick 
from  the  charge  of  corruption,  p,  391,— of  the  primitive  Sy- 


CONTENTS, 

riack  from  the  same  charge,  p.  401.  General  deductions 
from  the  testimony  of  those  witnesses  in  favour  of  the  Greek 
Vulgate,  p.  409.  Objections  urged  against  the  revisers  of 
the  Received  Text,  p.  410, —answered,  p,  412.  Manuscripts 
used  in  forming  that  text,  p.  413.  Versions  used  for  the 
same  purpose,  p.  41 6,  This  text  not  immaculate,  p.  419. 
Yet  not  to  be  hastily  altered,  p.  420.— as  its  errours  are  of 
little  importance,  p.  425.  Conclusion,  p.  426* 


SECT.  VI. 

ON   THE  CORRUPTION  OF   THE   EGYPTIAN  AND  PALESTINE 
TEXTS,    p.  427. 

Charge  of  corruption  not  established  against  the  Byzantine  Text, 
p,  427. — but  easily  substantiated  against  the  Egyptian  and 
Palestine,  p.  429.  The  Sacred  Text  not  generally  corrupted 
before  Origen's  times,  p.  430. — subsequently  corrupted,  p. 
431.  Object  of  Hesychius  and  Lucianus  in  forming  their 
revisals,  p.  432.  Lucianus's  mode  of  revising,  p.  434.  Ac- 
count of  Hesychius,  p.  439.  His  plan  and  object  in  revising, 
p.  441.  Works  nspd  by  him  in  that  undertaking,  p.  442, 
Some  passages  altered  by  him,  p.  446.  Eusebius's  plan  and 
object  in  revising,  p.  459.  Works  used  by  him  in  that  under- 
taking, ibid.  Remarkable  passages  altered  by  him,  p.  461* 
Account  of  the  Marcionites,  p.  463. — of  the  Valentinians,  p. 
465.  Influence  of  their  tenets  on  Origen's  works,  p.  466. — 
and  thence  on  the  texts  prevalent  in  the  Egyptian,  Palestine, 
and  Italick  dioceses,  p.  468.  Particular  texts  thus  corrupted, 
p.  470.  Palestine  text  influenced  by  the  Marcionite  contror 
versy,  p.  500. — in  what  manner  thence  corrupted,  p.  506. — 
positively  corrected,  from  Origen's  works,  by  Eusebius  and 
others,  p.  508.  Multitude  of  various  readings  accounted  for, 
p.  510.  Objections  to  the  vulgar  reading  of  Act.  xx.  28. 
1  Tim.  iii.  16.  1  Joh.  v.  7.  stated,  p.  511.— from  the  testi- 
mony of  Manuscripts,  p.  512, — of  Versions  and  Fathers,  jr. 


CONTENTS.  XXVil 

514-.— answered  in  the  case  of  MSS.  and  Versions,  p.  515. — 
of  Fathers,  p.  516,  Negative  argument  against  1  Joh.  v.  7. 
considered,  p.  525.  No  Trinitarian  Controversy,  ibid. — in 
the  contests  with  Gnosticks  and  Ebionites,  p.  526. — with  Sa- 
bellians,  p.  527. — with  Theodotists,  Encratites,  and  Monta- 
nists,  p.  531,— 'with  Arians,  p.  532.^-with  Macedonians, 
Nestorians,  and  Eutychians,  p.  533.  Negative  testimony 
against  Act.  xx.  28.  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  answered,  p.  535.  Dis- 
tinctions introduced  in  Sabellian  and  other  heresies,  threw 
those  texts  on  the  side  of  the  heterodox,  p.  536. — who  ap- 
parently claimed  1  Joh.  v.  7.  £.541.  This  verse  became, 
of  course,  neglected,  p,  544.  Particular  objections  to  this 
verse,  from  the  omissions  and  allegorical  interpretations  of 
the  fathers  considered,  p.  547.  The  following  verse  stronger 
in  favour  of  the  orthodox,  p.  549.  Reply  to  objections  raised 
from  St.  Augustine's  testimony,  p.  551. — from  P.  Leo  and 
Facundus's,  p.  552. — from  Pseudo-Cyprian's,  p.  556. — from 
Eucherius's,  p.  558. — Reply  to  the  objection  raised  from  the 
variation  of  the  Latin  Vulgate,  p.  560-  Two  editions  of  the 
Vulgate  published  by  St.  Jerome,  p.  562.  Summary  conclusion 
on  the  negative  argument,  p.  564.  Further  objections  con- 
sidered,—Vindication  of  I  Joh.  v.  8.  p.  564, — of  the  Palestine 
reading  of  Act.  xx.  28.  p.  565.  Objections  to  1  Tim.  iii.  16. 
from  Liberatus's  testimony,  p.  567. — to  1  Joh.  v.  7.  from  the 
Alogi,  ibid. — to  the  style  of  the  Apocalypse  and  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  p.  569.— answered,  p.  570.  General  conclusion  on 
the  integrity  of  the  Greek  Vulgate,  p.  572. 


- 
. 

• 

CORRIGENDA, 

f.  55.  1.  1.  for  and,  r.  or.     P.  106.  1.  29.  for  Fourth,  y.  Third.     Pi  161 
1.  24.  after  p.  r.  156.     P.  163.  1.  45.  /or  iv.  r.  ii.     P.  170.  1.  24.  after  p.  r 
**,'     P   J?4'  K  V*  ^"'  manuscriPts»  r.  manuscript.     P.  212.  1/31    for  for! 
r.  from.     P.  214.  1.  22,  for  tbla,  r.-v&ti*.     P.  239.  1.  31.  and  P.  241, 1  3o! 
/or  9-11.  r.  9-20.     P.  313.  1.  S.  for  dispute,  r.  assert.     P.  316.   1  7'  for 
version,  r.  versions.     P.  319.  I.  13.  for  renders,*  render.     P.  326*  1  28 
mfter  diabolo,  r.  T^rt.     P.  348.  1.  26.  /or  H  I,  r.  H.  S.     P.  369.  X -7*  for 
Tl  in°tbr)Und>r'  m'ght  n0t  haV6  exibted-     P'  f375'  L  ult-/w  -i5. «-.  <£v.     P.  467. 
vid.     f.  521.  L  9-.  for  n,k.  r.  u.  1. 


[ 

. 
' 


SECTION 


ALTHOUGH  the  art  of  printing  was  applied,  at  an 
early  period,,  to  the  purposes  of  sacred  learning ;  the 
slow  progress  which  Greek  literature  made  in  Eu- 
rope^  from  the  difficulties  of  acquiring  the  Greek  lan- 
guage, prevented  an  edition  of  the  New  Testament 
from  being  attempted,,  until  a  comparatively  late 
period.  At  nearly  a  century  subsequent  to  the  in- 
vention of  printing,  the  Complutensian  Polyglot  was 
undertaken,  under  the  patronage  of  Cardinal  Xi- 
menes,  which  contained  the  first  printed  copy  of 
the  Greek  Testament.  From  the  edition  which  was 
then  prepared  for  publication,  the  subsequent  edi- 
tours  varied  little.  Erasmus,  who  anticipated  the 
publication  of  this  work  by  his  third  edition,  formed 
his  fourth  on  similar  principles  ;  Stephens  and  Beza 
adopted  his  text  with  scarcely  any  variation  ;  and 
Elzevir,  in  whose  edition  the  Received  Text  is 
properly  contained,  very  closely  followed  the  steps 
of  his  learned  predecessours f. 

1  Griesb.  Proleg.  in  Nov.  Test.  sect.  iv.  p.  xxxiii.  "  Edi- 
tiones  recentiores  sequuntur  Elzevirianam,  hsec  compilata  est  ex 
editionibus  Bezae  et  Stephani  tertia.  Beza  itidem  expressit  Ste- 
phanicam  tertiain,  nonnullis  tamen  pro  lubitu  fere  ac  absque 

B 


(    2    ) 

From  the  text,  which  has  thus  grown  into  ge* 
neral  use,  all  those  deviations  are  calculated,,  which 
constitute  the  various  readings  of  the  Greek  ma- 
nuscripts. Stephens,  in  his  splendid  edition,  which 
forms  the  basis  of  the  Received  Text,  had  noted  a 
variety  of  those  in  his  margin  ;  having  collated  fif- 
teen manuscripts,  besides  the  Complutensian  edi- 
tion, for  the  purpose  of  rendering  his  text  more 
pure  and  perfect  In  the  editions  of  Curcellseus- 
and  Bishop  Fell,  the  number  was  considerably 
augmented,  from  a  collation  of  additional  manu- 
scripts. But  in  the  elaborate  edition  of  Dr.  Mills 
they  received  an  infinitely  greater  accession ;  being 
computed  to  amount  to  thirty  thousand.  The  la- 
bours  of  subsequent  collators  are  asserted  to  have 
augmented  the  number  with  more  than  an  hundred 
thousand ;  though  on  what  grounds  I  am  not  at  pre- 
sent acquainted. 

So  great  a  nwmfoer  of  various  readings  as  has* 
been  collected  by  the  labours  of  these  editours,  ha? 
necessarily  tended  to  weaken  the  authority  of  the 
Received  Text ;  as  it  is  at  least  possible  that  a  great 
proportion  of  them  may  constitute  a  part  of  the  ori- 
ginal text  of  Scripture.  And  various  expedients 
have  been,  in  consequence,  devised,  in  order  to  de- 
termine the  authenticR  readings  from  the  spurious, 
and  to  fix  the  character  of  those  manuscripts  which 
are  chiefly  deserving  of  credit.,  in  ascertaining  the 

idonea  autoritate  mitf  atis  ;  Stephani  tcrtia  presse  sequitur  Eras- 
micam  quintam,  paucissimis  tamen  Jocis  et  Apocaiypsi  excep- 
tis,  ubi  Complutensen*  Erasmicse  praetulit," 


(  *  1 

genuine  text  of  the  sacred  canon.  The  most 
ingenious  and  important  of  these  expedients  is  de- 
cidedly that  suggested  in  the  classification  of  manu- 
scripts which  originated  with  the  German  eriticks ; 
Which  had  been  suggested  by  MM.  Bengel  and 
Semler,  but  reduced  to  practice  by  the  learned  and 
accurate  M.  Griesbach  z. 

It  is  not  to  be  conceived  that  the  original  editours 
of  the  New  Testament  were  wholly  destitute  of 
plan  in  selecting  those  manuscripts,  out  of  which 
they  were  to  form  the  text  of  their  printed  editions. 
In  the  sequel  it  will  appear,  that  they  were  not  al- 
together ignorant  of  two  classes  of  manuscripts • 
one  of  which  contains  the  text  which  we  have  adopt-» 
ed  from  them,  and  the  other  that  text  which  has 
been  adopted  by  M.  Griesbach.  A  project  had  been 
also  conceived  by  Dr.  Bentley  \  to  dispose  of  the  im- 
mense number  of  various  readings  which  had  been 
collected  by  Dr.  Mills  ;  to  class  his  manuscripts  by 

a  Griesb-  Praef.  Nov.  Test  p.  5<  "  Ego  vero  doctis  nonnul- 
lis  Bengelii  observationibus  admonitus  earn  viam  quam  Sem- 
lerus  ingredi  cceperat,  quamque  diuturno  studio  edoctus  unice 
veram  esse  perspexeram,  longius  et  ad  metam  usque  persequi 
toe  debere  autumabam/' 

3  Dr«  Bentley's  plan  is  thus  briefly  stated  in  one  of  his  let- 
ters ;  p,  237.  ed.  Lond.  1807.  "  About  a  year  ago  reflecting 
upon  some  passages  of  St.  Hierom,  that  he  had  adjusted  and 
castigated  the  then  Latin  Vulgate  to  the  best  Greek  exem- 
plars, and  had  kept  the  Very  order  of  the  words  of  the  origi- 
nal i  I  formed  a  thought  a  priori,  that  if  St.  Jerome's  true 
Latin  exemplar  could  now  be  come  at,  it  would  be  found  to 
agree  exactly  with  the  Greek  text  of  the  same  age ;  and  so  the 
old  copies  of  each  language,  (if  so  agreeing)  would  give  mu- 
tual proof  and  even  demonstration  of  each  other." 

B2 


(he  Vulgate,  and  to  form  a  Corrected  Text,  which 
should  literally  accord  with  that  translation  as  cor- 
rected by  the  hand  of  St.  Jeronre. 

But  these  schemes  have  been  surpassed  and  super- 
seded by  the  more  highly  laboured  system  of  M. 
Griesbach.  His  project  for  classing-  the  Greek 
manuscripts,  in  order  to  form  a  more  correct  text, 
is  not  only  formed  on  more  comprehensive  views, 
but  rested  on  a  higher  basis.  Instead  of  the  au- 
thority of  St.  Jerome,  who  flourished  in  the  fifth 
century,  he  builds  upon  that  of  Origen  who  flou- 
rished in  the  third4.  Instead  of  the  existence  of 
two  species  of  text,  one  of  which  corresponds  with 
the  Vulgate,  and  the  other  with  the  generality  of 
Greek  manuscripts,  he/contemplates  the  existence 
of  three,  which  he  terms  the  Alexandrine,  the 
Westerly  and  the  Byzantine,  from  the  different  re- 
gions in  which  he  supposes  them  to  have  prevailed  5, 
According  to  this  division,  he  has  formed  his  classi- 
fication of  manuscripts,  which  he  consequently  dis- 
tributes into  three  kinds.  A  choice  among  their 
respective  texts  he  determines  by  the  authority  of 
Origen  6 ;  whose  testimony  seems  entitled  to  this 
respeet,  from  the  attention,  which  he,  above  all  the 

4  For  this  purpose  he  applied  himself  to  a  more  exact  scru- 
tiny of  Origen's  peculiar  readings,  and,  with  this  view,  under- 
scored the  scripture  quotations  in  his  copy  of  that  antient  fa- 
ther, in-  order  to  discover  the  text  which  was  used  by  hinu 
After  describing  this  process  he  adds,  Symboll.  Critt.  Tom.  L 
p.  Ixxvii^  "  Hoc  igitur  exemplar  nobis  instar  est  fragmeiuo- 
rum  illius  ipsius  codicis  quern  Origenes  usurpavit*' 

$  Griesb.  Proleg.  in  Nov.  Test.  p.  Ixxiii. 

6  Id.  Symbb.  Critt.  passim. 


(     5     ) 

antients,  bestowed  upon  biblical  criticism.  Find- 
ing-a  striking- coincidence  to  exist  between  bis  scrip- 
ture quotations  and  the  celebrated  manuscript 
brought  from  Alexandria,,  which  was  the  scene  of 
Origen's  literary  labours,  he  thence  determines  the 
manuscripts,  which  belong  to  that  class  which  he 
distinguishes  as  the  Alexandrine 7.  The  manu- 

O 

scripts,  which  differ  from  this  class,  and  coincide, 
in  their  characteristick  peculiarities,  with  those 
which  have  been  directly  imported  to  us  from  Con- 
stantinople, he  distinguishes  as  the  Byzantine.  His 
third  class,  which  contains  the  Western  text,  con- 
sists of  a  set  of  manuscripts,  which  have  been  prin- 
cipally found  in  Europe,  and  which  possess  many 
coincidences  with  the  Latin  translation,  where  they 
differ  from  the  peculiar  readings  of  both  the  pre- 
ceding classes. 

To  the  manuscripts  of  the  Alexandrine  class,  it 
may  be  easily  conceived,  the  highest  rank  is  ascribed 
by  M .  Griesbach :  the  authority  of  a  few  of  these 
outweighing  in  his  estimation  that  of  a  multitude  of 
the  Byzantine  8.  The  peculiar  readings  which  he 
selects  from  the  manuscripts  of  this  class,  he  con- 
firms by  a  variety  of  collateral  testimony,  principally 
drawn  from  the  quotations  of  the  antient  fathers, 
and  the  versions  made  in  the  primitive  ages  9.  To 

7  Id.  ibid.  p.  clxiv.  seq. 

8  Id,  Proleg.  in  Nov.  Test,  ixxii. 

9  Id.  ib.  p.  Ixix.  Itaque  textus   ipsius   potius   quam   librarii 
setas  indaganda  est.     Hsec  vero  judicatur  e   crebro   consensu 
cum  aliis  testibus,  (in  prims  cum   versionibus  et  Patribus]  de 
quorum  aetate  nobis  constat,  ct  e  copia  talium  Jectionum,"  &C*  • 


(    6    ) 

the  authority  of  Origen  he  however  ascribes  a  para- 
mount weight,  taking  it  as  the  standard  by  which 
his  collateral  testimony  is  to  be  estimated ;  and  using 
their  evidence  merely  to  support  his  testimony,  or 
to  supply  it  when  it  is  deficient.  The  readings 
which  he  supports  by  this  weight  of  testimony,  he 
considers  genuine ;  and  introducing  a  number  of 
them  into  the  sacred  page,  he  has  thus  formed  his 
Corrected  Text  of  the  New  Testament. 

The  necessary  result  of  this  process,  as  obviously 
proving  the  existence  of  a  number  of  spurious  read* 
ings  in  the  Received  Text,  has  been  that  of  shak- 
ing the  authority  of  our  Authorized  Version,  with 
the  foundation  on  which  it  is  rested.  Nor  have  the 
innovations  of  M.  Griesbach  become  formidable, 
merely  on  account  of  their  number,  but  their  na^ 
ture ;  as  his  corrections  have  extended  to  proscribing 
three  important  texts,  in  the  fate  of  which  the  doc- 
trinal integrity  of  the  inspired  text  becomes  neces- 
sarily implicated :  for,  a  proof  of  the  partial  cor- 
ruption of  the  sacred  canon  being  once  established 
in  important  matters,  its  character  for  general  fide- 
lity is  necessarily  involved.  And  what  heightens 
the  alarm  which  may  be  naturally  felt  at  the  at- 
tempts thus  made  to  undermine  the  authority  of  the 
Received  Text,  is  the  singular  ability  with  which 
they  have  been  carried  into  execution.  The  de- 
servedly high  character  which  M.  Griesbach's  ela-? 
borate  work  has  attained,  affords  the  justest  cause 
of  apprehension  from  its  singular  merit.  The  com- 
prehensive brevity  of  his  plan,  and  the  scrupulous 
Accuracy  of  his  execution,  have  long  and  must  ever 


command  our  respect.  Such  are  concessions  which 
I  frankly  make  to  M.  Griesbach,  while  I  withhold 
my  applause  from  his  critical  emendations.  How- 
ever divided  the  opinions  may  be  which  are  held  on 
the  purity  of  his  text,  the  merit  of  his  notes  is  not 
to  be  denied.  As  a  general  and  correct  index  to 
the  great  body  of  Greek  manuscripts,,  they  are  an 
invaluable  treasure  to  the  scholar,,  and  necessary 
acquisition  to  the  divine.  Indeed.,  admitting-  his 
classification  of  manuscripts  to  be  erroneous.,  as  I 
am  inclined  to  believe  his  text  is  corrupt,  yet  frorji 
the  clear  and  comprehensive  manner  in  which  the 
various  readings  are  disposed,  by  merely  varying 
the  principle  of  arrangement,  they  may  be  applied 
to  any  system  of  classification,  whenever  a  better 
is  devised. 

But  these  observations  are  strictly  limited  to  the 
accuracy  of  his  execution  ;  to  the  merit  of  his  plan 
I  have  many  objections  to  make.  In  his  predilec- 
tion for  the  Alexandrine  text,  which  he  conceives 
he  has  discovered  in  the  works  of  Origen,  I  am  far 
from  acquiescing.  For  I  cannot  see  that  M.  Gries- 
bach  has  evinced,  by  the  production  of  character- 
istick  affinities,  that  the  text  used  by  Origen  was  ra- 
ther the  Alexandrine  than  the  Byzantine.  There  is 
in  fact  an  indecision  in  Origen's  testimony,  arising 
from  those  readings,  termed  inconstant,  in  which 
he  quotes  as  well  against,  as  with  the  Alexandrine 
text,  that  destroys  the  force  of  his  partial  testimony 
in  its  favour.  Did  they  merely  consist  in  occasional 
deviations  from  this  text,  they  would  be  of  little 
moment :  for  Origen,  like  every  divine,  in  quoting 


(    8    ) 

from  memory,  and  by  accommodation,  must  have 
constantly  deserted  the  letter  of  the  text.  But  when 
his  deviations  from  one  text  prove  to  be  coinci- 
dences with  another,  there  is  something  more  than 
accident  in  the  variation.  There  seem,  indeed,  to 
be  three  modes  of  accounting  for  this  circumstance  ; 
any  one  of  which  being  admitted,  destroys  the 
•weight  of  his  testimony,  wherever  it  is  placed.  He 
either  quoted  from  both  texts,  or  one  of  them  has 
been  interpolated  from  his  writings,  or  his  writings 
interpolated  from  it.  Until  the  possibility  of  these 
cases  is  disproved,  it  seems  vain  to  appeal  to  his 
testimony  in  favour  of  any  one  to  which  he  but  ge» 
perally  and  occasionally  conforms. 

But  on  whatever  side  his  testimony  is  placed, 
there  seems  at  first  sight  to  be  little  reason  to 
doubt,  that  it  cannot  be  the  Alexandrine^  It  is,  in- 
deed, true,  that  he  was  a  catechist  of  Alexan- 
dria I0,  but  this  circumstance  goes  but  a  short  way 
to  prove  that  the  text  which  he  used  was  that  which, 
in  the  German  mode  of  classification,  is  termed  the 
Alexandrine.  The  fact  is,  that  he  lived  and  died 
in  a  state  of  excommunication  n  frpm  that  church, 

10  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccjes.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  iii.  p.  260. 1. 15.  p.  261. 
1.  15. 

11  As  Origen  was  excommunicated  by  Demetrius,  Bishop  of 
Alexandria,  Pamphil.  ap.  Phot.  Biblioth.  n.  cxvin.   and  was 
never  formally  restored,  it  must  be  concluded,    that  he  never 
returned  to  that  city.     The  causes  of  his  flight  from    Alexan- 
dria were  such  as  to  preclude  the  possibility  of  his  return,  un~ 
der  circumstances  which  could  be  grateful  to  his  feelings.  Much 
of  this  sad  and  disgraceful  part  of  his  history  will  not  bear  the 
recital ;  the  following  facts  may  be  stated  on  the  authority  of 


(     9    ) 
in  which  his  principles  were   execrated,    and  his 

Cedrenus  and  Suidas;  Cedren.  Hist.  Compend.  P.  I.  p.  254. 
d.  ap.  Scripp.  Byzantt.   Par 


eiai/  $1  Kiiruv  £»«  TO  ovsictor  Ttfv 
y.  Conf.  Suid.  v.  Origen.  Tom.  II.  p.  766.  1.  44?. 
ed.  Cant.  1705.  MM.  Huet  and  Du  Pin  are  consequently 
right  in  asserting  that  he  never  returned  to  Alexandria  ;  Vid. 
Origenian.  Lib.  I.  cap.  ii.  §  xiii.  p.  14.  b.  ed.  Rothom.  1668. 
Nouv.  Biblioth.  des  Aut.  Eccles.  Tom.  II.  p.  879.  ed.  Par. 
1688.  The  opinion  delivered  by  the  learned  M.  de  Valois,  in 
his  notes  to  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  xxxiii.  n.  4.  p. 
287.  ed.  Cant,  is  perfectly  reconcilable  with  this  representation. 
He  mentions  two  sentences  as  having  been  pronounced  against 
Origen;  one  of  excommunication,  and  another  of  deprivation: 
the  latter  only  he  considered  void,  which  does  not  affect  the 
point  in  question. 

The  Alexandrine  church  during  the  time  that  Origen  flou- 
rished, was  governed  by  Demetrius,  Heraclas,  and  Dionysius; 
as  may  be  collected  from  Euseb.  ibid.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  xxxix.  p; 
294. 1. 18.  Lib.  VII.  eap.  i.  p.  321. 1.  1 6.— compared  with  Lib.  V. 
cap.  xxii.p.241.1.7.  Lib.  VI.  cap.xxvi.  p.  292.1. 12.  cap.xxxv.p. 
298. 1.  23.  The  first  of  those  bishops  denounced  him  excommuni- 
cate ;  and  the  second  was  avowedly  his  enemy:  Vid.  infr.  n. Ix. 
conf.  Huet.  Origenian.  ibid.  p.  14.  e.  M.  Huet  indeed  conceives 
that  Dionysius  indulged  a  more  favourable  disposition  towards 
him;  but  on  grounds  from  whence  I  believe  we  must  deduce  the 
directly  opposite  conclusion.  This  friendly  disposition  is  in- 
ferred by  M.  Huet,  from  the  circumstance  of  Dionysius  having 
addressed  a  letter  to  him  on  the  subject  of  martyrdom.  Euseb. 
ibid.  cap.  xlvi.  p.  319. 1.  16. :  but  those  who  remember  that  the 
cause  of  Origen's  flight  from  Alexandria  was  apostacy,  must  per- 
ceive, that  advice  on  this  subject  must  have  been  the  most  cruel 
insult  that  could  be  offered  to  Origen.  And  the  known  severity  of 
Dionysius  on  the  subject  of  apostacy,  seems  to  place  the  matter  out 
of  dispute ;  he  obstinately  refused  to  receive  persons  who  had  been 


writings  condemned1*  :  and  the  principal  part  of 
his  commentaries  were  published  in  Palestine13, 
instead  of  Alexandria,  From  the  former  circum- 
stance we  may  infer,  that  in  adopting-  a  text,  the 
Alexandrine  church  was  not  influenced  by  him; 
from  the  latter,  that,  on  the  same  subject,  he  was 

guilty  of  this  sin,  until  they  were  reduced  to  the  last  agonies 
of  death;  Euseb.  ibid.  cap.  xliv.  p.  317.  1.  9.  We  must  there- 
fore conclude  with  MM.  Huet  and  Du  Pin,  that  Origen  ne- 
ver returned  to  Alexandria,  during  the  administration  of  those 
Bishops  :  and  consequently  never  during  his  life-time. 

The  penitential  letter  which  he  addressed  to  Fabianus,  (not 
long  previously  to  the  time  of  his  death,  as  I  collect  from  Eu- 
sebius,  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  xxxvi.  p.  299.  1.  5,  23.  Lib. 
VII.  cap.  i.  p.  322.  1.  1.  )  seems  to  evince  that  he  was  in  no  higher 
repute  at  Rome  than  Alexandria.  S.  Hieron.  ad  Pammac.  et 
Ocean.  Ep.  Ixv.  cap.  iv.  Tom.  ii.  p.  231  .  ed.  Viet.  "  Ipse  Origenes 
in  Epistola  quam  scribit  ad  Fabianum,RomanaeurbisEpiscopum, 
pcenitentiam  agit,  cur  talia  scripserit  ;  et  causae  temeritatis  in  Am- 
brosium  refert,  quod  secreta  edita  in  publicum  protulerit." 

11  Epist.  Synod.  Alexandrin.  ap.  Baluz.  Nov.  Collect.  Concill. 
Tom.  I  Col.  100.  Ot/lo?  roivvv  o  woxsJxevo?  Slytvycj  xaSccne  ro 
fehvypot,  iv  piea  rr) 


vlov  @hctff(pY)iAti<;  owtXia?  o^^sTv^  o    xa]     ixt7i/o   ^axapirrj?   HpaxXij    o 
poTvp   xctl     u^TTB^Hfyoq    ^tAaX^tj?   rot?    r5j 
Ix  /Ataa  rov  xaXoy  ffira  TOVTOV  i%sr&£v,  u$  rov 
»iy  ovlae.  «A*j$aij  xa/  psr'  o\iyot  \Kififfav  ay  »lo?  ETT)  ryv  y 

viyXa.Qu.Trsp  o  rsrtf  -nral^po  ^la^oAo?,  Svpov  <Gr»iu»  woXXS  xat  5l«vow 

*   *a* 


13  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  VI,  cap.  xxi,  p.  287,  1,  17.   cap, 
xxiv.  p.  288,  1.  10,  &c, 


(  11  ) 

not  influenced  by  it ;  but  followed  the  copies  of  the 
country  in  which  his  writings  were  published  and 
dispersed.  And  this  deduction  is  confirmed  in  au 
extraordinary  manner  by  internal  and  collateral  evi- 
dence. We  are  assured,  on  the  highest  authority, 
that  while  Palestine  adopted  the  text  of  Orige«, 
Alexandria  adopted  that  of  Hesychius  I4.  And  an 
extraordinary  proof  of  this  assertion  exists  in  the 
manuscript  termed  the  Alexandrine,  as  brought 
from  that  city.  It  contains  a  complete  copy  of  the 
version  of  the  Septuagint,  which,  it  is  well  known, 
Origen  corrected,  and  inserted  in  his  Hexapla  ; 
yet  while  a  nearly  perfect  copy  of  his  revisal  is  pre- 
served in  the  Vatican  manuscript,  it  is  found  to  be 
different  from  that  which  is  contained  in  the  Alex- 
andrine ls. 

It  is  indeed  with  little  appearance  of  justice  that 
Origen's  authority  can  be  claimed  in  favour  of  the 
Alexandrian  text.  At  an  early  period  he  settled  at 
Cesarea  in  Palestine  l6 :  here  he  was  ordained  pres- 

* 

'4  S.HierGn.adv.RufEn.Lib.II.cap.viii.Tom.II.p^^Q.  "Al- 
exandria et  JEgyptus  in  Septuaginta  suis  Hesychium  laudat  auc- 
torem.  Constantinopolis  usque  ad  Antiochiam  Luciani  martyris 
exemplaria  probat.  mediae  inter  has  Provinciae,  Palccstinos  co- 
dices  legunty  quos  ab  Origine  elaborates,  Eusebius  et  Pamphilus 
vulgaverunt,  totusque  orbis  inter  se  trifaria  varietate  compug- 
nat.  Et  certe  Origenes  non  solum  exempla  composuit  quatuor 
editionum,  e  regione  singula  verba  describens,  &c. 

5  Birch.  Pro! eg.  in  Nov.  Test.  p.  xix.    Blanchin.  Evangel. 
Quadr.  P.  I.  f.  cdxcvii. 

'6  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  xxvi.  p.  292.  "tfoc 
y  v>v  Toy?o  frfxeAov  T??  hteijuws  yytpo vices  [roit  ' 


(     12    ) 

I 

byter,  and  had  a  special  license  to  expound  the 
scriptures  T7  :  and  here  the  principal  part  of  his 
commentaries  were  composed  and  published18; 
which  were  subsequently  collected  by  Pamphilus 
and  Eusebius  his  professed  apologists  and  imitators, 
and  deposited  in  the  library  of  Cesarea  '9.  By  those 
works  the  latter  extraordinary  person,  when  bishop 
of  that  city,  was  assisted  10  in  revising*  that  edition 
of  the  scripture  at  the  command  of  Constantine; 
which,  it  is  a  curious  fact,  became  the  basis  of  the 
Byzantine  text,  instead  of  the  Alexandrine11.  As 
to  the  churches  of  Rome  and  Alexandria,  they  re- 
spectively convened  councils,  in  which  he  was  con- 
demned ;  and  in  the  sentence  which  was  pronounced 
against  him,  all  the  churches  acquiesced,  except 
those  of  Palestine,  Phoenicia,  Achaia,  and  Arabia  ", 


r.  I.     This  event  is  fixed  by  M.  Huet  to  A.  D.  231, 
Origenian.  Lib.  I.  cap.  ii.  §  xiii.  p.  14.  b. 
17  Euseb.  ibid.  cap.  xxiii.  p.  287.  1.  23. 


rr 


Id.  ibid.  cap.  xxvii.  p.  292.  1.  25.      'O 
w<r  AXt£ai4goC)   Ososmros  n  o  xara  Kona-a^siav,    rov  Travla 
u<;    tiros   slvrtfv   <Z(7po£ra>£p^ovT£?   avrcj  oia,   otoaaxaXw,     f/.dvu   Tot,   r 
Qeiuv   ygotQuv    t^y/yeta;    xa*   TO,  honra.  T£   exxX*j<rtartx3  Aoys  i 


lh  Id.  ib.  cap.  xxxii.  p.  296.  1.  4-. 

19  Id.  ibid.  p.  296.  1.  15.  seq. 

10  Id.  ibid.  conf.  nn.  I4and  lp  ut  supr. 

ai  Id.  Vit.  Constantin.  Lib.  III.  cap.  xxxvi.  p.  646.  1,  13—  37, 
conf.  n.  *°  ut  supr. 

*l  Hieron.  ap.  Ruffin.  in  Apol.  "  Damnatur  a  Demetrio 
Epiftcopo.  Exceptis  Palaestinae,  et  Arabiae,  et  Phcenices,  atque 
Achaiae  sacerdotibus,  in  damnationem  ejus  consentit  orbis. 
Roma  ipsa  contra  hunc  cogit  senatum  -  Conf.  Baluzf 
Col.  Concill.  ut.  supr.  col  99—102. 


Prom  the  authority  of  Origen,  little  support  can 
be  consequently  claimed  to  the  Alexandrine  text, 
or  to  the  German  method  of  classification.  And 
deserted  by  it,  that  text  must  be  sustained  by  the 
character  and  coincidence  of  the  manuscripts,  in 
which  it  is  preserved.  This,,  it  cannot  be  dissem- 
bled, is  the  natural  and  proper  basis.,  on  which  this 
system  of  classification  rests.  The  extraordinary 
agreement  of  those  manuscripts,  not  only  with  each 
other,  but  with  the  western  and  oriental  versions  of 
the  scriptures,  is  so  striking'  and  uniform  as  to  in- 
duce a  conviction  with  many,  that  they  contain  the 
genuine  text  of  scripture. 

Nor  can  this  conformity,  which  appears  at  first 
sight  extraordinary,  be  in  reason  denied.  It  is  as- 
serted with  one  consent,  by  all  who  have  inspected 
the  principal  of  those  manuscripts  that  contain  the 
Alexandrine  text,  and  who  have  compared  their 
peculiar  readings  with  the  Old  Italick  and  Syriack 
versions.  It  had  been  observed  by  M.  Simon 2J 
before  the  German  classification  had  existed  even 
in  conception  ;  and  it  has  been  confirmed  by  Prof. 
Michaelis  24,  since  it  has  been  formed.  The  latter 

*J  Simon  Hist.  Crit.  des  Vers.  chap.  xv.  p.  187.  Comma 
cette  traduction  [la  Version  Syriaque]  est  tres-ancienne,  il 
n'est  pas  suprenant,  qu'elle  s'accord  aiissi  quelquefois  avec  le 
manuscrit  de  Cambridge,  et  par  consequent  avec  I'ltalique. 
Mais  on  peut  dire  en  general,  qu'elle  s'accord  plus  souvent 
avec  les  exemplaires  Grecs  sur  lesquels  St.  Jerome  retoucha 
tancienne  Vulgate,  qu'  avec  cen.x  aux  quels  elle  etoit  conforme. 
4  Introd.  to  New  Test,  by  Dr.  Marsh.  Vol.  II.  p.  i.  ch.  viiV 
sect.  v.  p.  27. 


C     14    ) 

profound  orientalist  has  formed  those  deductions, 
wfiich  have  been  already  made,  from  the  confor- 
mity of  the  witnesses,  who  are  thus  coincident^ 
though  remotely  situated ;  that,  as  currents  preserve, 
by  their  uniform  tenour,  the  purity  with  which  they 
have  descended  from  their  common  source,  we  may 
learn  from  the  united  testimony  of  those  witnesses, 
what  is  to  be  considered  the  genuine  text  of  Scrip- 
ture ls. 

Such  is  the  ground-work  of  M.  Griesbach's  sys- 
tem, which  is  so  broad  and  deep,  as  not  to  be  shaken 
by  the  destruction  of  its  outworks.  If  it  is  suscep- 
tible of  any  impression,  its  very  foundation  must  be 
sapped :  and  we  must  commence  by  accounting  for 
the  extraordinary  affinities  by  which  it  is  held  to- 
gether. A  simpler  principle  must  be  in  fact  sug- 
gested to  account  for  those  affinities,  than  that  which 
traces  them  to  the  original  publication  of  the  sacred 
text,  by  the  inspired  writers. 

And  on  descending  to  a  closer  view  of  the  sub- 
ject, and  considering  the  affinity  observed  to  exist 
between  the  Old  Italick  version  and  the  original 
Greek,  there  is  at  the  first  glance  something  sus- 
picious in  the  conformity,  which  betrays  an  alliance 
of  a  recent  date.  For  this  affinity  was  not  dis- 
coverable in  the  Italick  version  of  St  Jerome's  days. 
At  the  command  of  Pope  Damasus,  he  undertook 
the  revisal  of  the  Latin  translation,  on  account  of 

45  Id.  ibid.  p.  28«  "  A  reading  therefore  supported  by  the 
connected  authority  of  the  Syriac,  the  Coptic,  and  the  Latin 
versions,  by  a  quotation  qfOrigen,  and  the  antient  Greek  manu- 
scripts of  the  Alexandrine  and  Western  editions,  is  not  only  of 
great  importance,  but  may  in  general  be  regarded  as  genuine." 


(    15    ) 

its  deviation  from  the  original  *5.  This  undertaking 
alone  would  sufficiently  declare  St.  Jerome's  opinion 
of  this  dissimilarity,  which  he  undertook  to  remedy  ; 
if  he  had  not  in  numerous  places  pointed  it  out  *7. 
And  his  declarations  are  fully  supported  by  the  tes- 
timony of  St.  Augustine  a8>  who  was  no  friend  to 
innovation,  and  who  to  the  last  declined  using  the 
version  retouched  by  St.  Jerome. 

46  S.  Hier.  Marcel.  Ep.  en.  Tom.  II.  p.  336.  "  Ne  nos 
superbise  ut  facere  solent,  arguant,  ita  responsum  habeant  j 
non  adeo  me  hebetis  fuisse  cordis,  et  tarn  crassae  rusticita- 
l[S) — ut  aliquid  de  Dominicis  verbia  aut  corrigendum  putave- 
rimus,  aut  non  divinitus  inspiratum,  sed  Latinorum  codicum 
•vitiositatem  quae  ex  diversitate  librorum  omnium  comprobatur* 
ad  Graecam  originem  unde  et  ipsi  Iranslata  non  denegant, 
voluisse  revocare."  Conf.  Damas.  Epist.  cxxiii.  Tom.  III.  p. 
349.  "  Adversus  quam  invidiam  duplex  causa  me  consola- 
tur :  quod  et  tu  qui  summus  sacerdos  es,  Jieri  jubes :  et  verum 
non  esse  quod  variat  etiam  maledicorum  testimoniis  com- 
probatur.  Si  enim  Latinis  exemplaribus  fides  est  adhi- 
benda,  respondeant  quibus  :  tot  enim  sunt  exemplaria  pener 
quot  codices.  Sin  autem  veritas  est  quaerenda  de  pluribus :  cur 
cur  non  ad  Graecam  originem  revertentes,  ea  quae  vel  d  vitiosis 
interpretibus  male  reddita,  vel  a  presumptoribus  imperitis  emen- 
data  perversius,  vel  a  librariis  dormitantibus  aut  addita  sunt  aut, 
mutata,  corrigimus. — De  Novo  nunc  loquor  Testamento,  quod 
Graecum  esse  non  dubium  est. — Hoc  certe  cum  in  nostro  sermone 
discordat,  et  in  diversos  rivulorum  tramites  ducit,  uno  de  fonte 
quaerendum  est." 

7  Vid.  Sim.  Hist,  des  Vers.  chap.  v.  p.  40.  seq. 
18  S.  August.  S.  Hieron.  Epist.  txxr.  Tom.  II.  c.  161.  c.  ed. 
Bened.  "  Proinde  non  parvas  Deo  gr alias  agimus  de  opere  tuo, 
quod  Evangelism  ex  Grceco  interpretatus  es :  quia  pene  in  omnibus 
nulla  offensio  est,  cum  scripturam  Graecam  contulerimus.  Unde, 
si  quisquam  veterifalsitati  contensiosus  faverit ;  prolatis  coJlatis- 
que  codicibus  vel  docetur  facilliroe,  vel  refellitur. 


To  approach,  somewhat  nearer,  to  the  source  of 
the  difficulty,  we  must  look  from  the  period  which 
produced  the  Vulgate  of  St.  Jerome,  to  that  which 
brought  it  into  general  use.     About  the  middle  of 
the  sixth  century,,  this  mystery  begins  to  clear  up. 
At  that  period,  Cassiodorus,  who  observed  the  dis- 
similarity still  existing  between  the  original  Greek 
and  Latin  translation,   which  Pope  Damasus  had 
in  vain  undertaken  to  remedy  by  publishing  a  more 
correct  version,  took  a  more  effectual  mode  of  curing 
the  evil.    Calling  in  the  aid  of  the  Greek  original,  and 
taking  St.  Jerome's  version  as  its  best  interpreter,  he 
undertook  the  correction  of  the  Old  Italick  by  the  Vul- 
gate and  Greek *9.     And  the  method  in  which  he 
performed  this  task  effectually  removed  the  dissimi- 
larity between  them,  which  had  so  obstinately  con- 
tinued to  his  times.     The  monks  who  were  employed 
in  this  work,  were  commanded  to  erase  the  words 
of  the  former  translation,  and  to  substitute  those. of 

19  Simon,  ib.  p.  93.  Cassiodore,  dont  le  principal  desseiri 
( toit  de  dormer  une  Bibliotheque  des  Auteurs  Latins  ou  traduits' 
en  Latin,  y  pla^-a  pour  cette  raison  quelques  ouvrages  Grecs, 
et  entre  autres  la  Bible  Grecque  des  septante  divisee  en  LXXV 
livres.  Ce  qu'il  fit  corame  il  le  temoigne  lui  meme,  pour  suivre 
/«  maxime  de  81.  Augustine,  qui  croyoit  qu'on  deceit  corriger 
/tt»  exemplaires  Latins  tant  du  Vieux  que  dn  Nouveau  Testament^ 
snr  les  e.xemplaires  Grecs.  '  Sed  quoniam,'  dit  Cassiodore, 
'  Pater  Augustinus  in  Lib.  II.  de  Dcrctrina  Christiana  com- 
moiiet  ita  dicens  :  "  Latin!  codices  Veteris  Novique  Testament!, 
si  necesse  fuerit,  Grcecorum  auctoritate  corrigendi  sunt,  unde  et 
nobis  post  Hebraeum  fontem  translatio  cuncta  pervenit,"  ideoque 
vobis  et  Graecum  Pandecten  reliqui  comprehensum  in  librir 
75." 


(     17    ) 

the  latter ;  taking  due  pains  to  make  the  new  writing 
resemble  the  old 33.  The  manuscripts  thus  cor- 
rected, in  which,  on  the  basis  of  the  old  translation, 
the  corrections  of  the  new  were  ing-rafted,  he  had 
incorporated  with  the  Greek  original  in  the  same 
volume.  To  the  bibles  which  contained  this  text 
he  gave  the  name  of  Pandects,  causing  some  of 
them  to  be  copied  in  the  large,  or  uncial  character; 
and  some  of  them,  for  the  convenience  of  general 
readers,  to  be  copied  in  a  smaller  ?I. 

Here  therefore  I  conceive,  the  main  difficulty 
before  us  finds  an  easy  solution.  To  this  cause  is 
to  be  attributed  the  affinity  discoverable  between 
the  Greek  and  Latin  text,  in  which  the  patrons  of, 
the  German  method  of  classification  seem  to  have 
discovered  the  marks  of  a  high  original,  ascending 
to  the  apostolical  days  ;  but  which  really  claim  no 
higher  authours  than  the  illiterate  monks  of  a  bar- 
barous age.  And  here  it  is  likewise  conceived  no 
improbable  origin  is  traced  for  that  peculiar  class  of 
manuscripts  termed  Codices  Grseco-Latini 3Z,  which 

!0  Cassiod.  de  Div.  Lect.  cap.  xiv.  xv.  Precor  enim  vos  qui 
emendare  presumitis,  ut  superadjcctas  literas  ita  pulcherrimas 
facere  studeatis,  ut  potius  ab  antiquariis  scripts  fuissejudicentur* 
Ce  qu'il  etoit  difficile  de  pratiquer,  lors  qu'on  changeoit  plu- 
sieurs  mots  a  la  fois  pour  les  rendre  conformes  aux  exemplaires 
Ue  St.  Jerome,  comme  il  est  arrive  souvent  dans  les  manuscrits 
dc  Clermont  et  de  St.  Germain  des  Prez,  et  meme  dans  plusieurs 
autres  qui  ne  sont  pas  si  anciens.  Simon,  ib.  chap.  viii.  p.  97. 

11  Simon,  ibid.  p.  94,  95. 

Id.  ib*  p.  92.  II  y  avoit  par  example,  en  ce  terns-la  de$ 
txemplaires  Latins  du  Nouveau  Testament  de  la  maniere  qu'ils 
avoient  ete  retouches  par  Si.  Jerome.  Les  reviseurs  qui  ctoient 


(  IS  ) 

are  nflw  found  of  sueh  utility  in  correcting'  or  in 
corrupting*  the  sacred  text.  Every  circumstance  n 

persuades  qu'ils  etoient  plus  exacts  que  les  anciens,  les  refor- 
moient  sur  cette  edition  :  ce  qu'ils  faisoient  egaiement  dans  le 
Grec  et  dans  le  Latin.  Car  c'etoit  alors  la  coutume  de  recourir 
a  ^Original,  sur  lequel  on  prenoit  roerne  la  liberte  de  corriger 
le  Lathi.  Ccla  a  donne  apparemment  occasion  a  ces  vieiix  Exem- 
plaires  dn  Nouveau  Testament,  ou  Von  vtit  le  Grec  d'un  cote,  et 
k  Latin  de  I'autre." 

3j  Simon.  Hist,  des  Vers.  ib.  p.  96.  Mais  cette  regie 
qui  etoit  bonne  d'elle  meme  apporta  dans  la  suite  une  grande 
confusion  dans  les  exemplaires  de  la  Bible  qui  ont  etc  copies 
par  les  Latins.  Ceux  qui  firent  le  metier  de  critiques  dans 
les  Monasteres,  d'ou  I9 on  a  tire  presque  tout  ce  qui  nous  reste  des 
widens  manuscrits,  n'ayant  pas  la  capacite  que  cet  emploi 
demandoit,  les  ont  plutot  corrompus  que  corriges  en  plusieurs 
endroits.  CJest  a  quoi  il  faut  bien  prendre  garde  dans  les  di- 
verses  Jepons  qu'on  rapporte  de  ces  aneiens  manuscrits.  Je  ne 
dirai  ici  du  Vieux  Testament :  mais  ceux  qui  voudront  examiner 
les  deux  anciens  exemplaires  de  S.  Paul,  do-nt  1'un  est  dans  In 
Bibllotheque  da  Roir  et  1'autre  dans  celle  de  St.  Germalne  des 
Prez,  les  trouwent  tout  dejigures  par  les  differentes  corrections, 
qu*on  a  Jetties,  tant  dans  le  Grec  que  dans  le  Latin.  On  y  a 
suivi  la  regie  que  Cassiodore  prescrit  a  ses  moines,  scavoir  qu'il 
faut  reformer  hctrdimcnt  la  vietlle  edition  sur  les  exemplaires  de 
Saint  Jerome*  Ce  scavant  homme  ne  pretendoit  pas  qu'on  les 
dut  refondre,  comme  To«  a  fait.  II  vouloit  seulement  qu'on 
corrigeat  les  fautes  manifestes  qui  etoient  dans  Porthographie, 
ou  dans  les  noms  propres :  ce  qu'il  appelle  verba  absurde  posita. 
The  latter  part  of  this  observation  does  not  accord  with  that 
immediately  preceding  or  with  the  state  of  the  manuscripts  as 
they  now  appear  on  inspection.  Though  orthographical  errours 
were  those  against  which  Cassiodorus  found  it  principally  ne- 
cessary to  guard  ;  his  express  reference  to  the  Greek  and  to  St. 
Jerome,  which  were  supposed  to  coincide,  and  his  main  object, 
which  was  to  procure  perfect  copies,  sufficiently  evince  that  his 
corrections  extended  to  words  as  well  as  letters  :  vid.  supr.  n.  **. 
The  above  remark  may  be  extended,  from  the  Clermonty  and  St* 


(     19    ) 

connected  with  their  history  seems  to  identify  them 
with  that  part  of  the  Pandects  of  Cassiodorus,  which 
contained  the  New  Testament.  Their  age  is  nearly 
that  of  the  sixth  century,  the  places  from  whence 
they  have  been  taken,,  the  French  monasteries.  And 
with  these  circumstances  their  general  appearance 
comports.  The  text  is  nearly  obliterated  with  cor- 
rections ;  the  margin  defaced  by  notes ;  the  ortho- 
graphy abounding  with  barbarisms ;  and  the  Greek 
original  and  Latin  translation  aiming  at  a  literal 
affinity,  yet  frequently  at  variance,  not  only  with 
each  other,  but  with  themselves u.  Such,  or  I 
am  grossly  deceived,  is  the  true  pedigree  of  the 
Cambridge,  the  Laudian,  the  Clermont,  and  St. 
Germain  manuscripts,  &c.  which  occupy  a  principal 
rank  in  the  new  classification.  The  first  of  these 
manuscripts  appears  to  have  been  brought  out  of 
Egypt,  where  it  was  seemingly  composed  for  the 
use  of  some  convent  of  Latin  asceticks  :  this  appears 
probable  not  only  from  some  internal  evidence  in 
its  margin,  but  from  its  ancient  and  barbarous  or- 
thography ;  the  former  of  which  seems  to  indicate, 
that  it  was  not  composed  for  domestick  purposes ; 
the  latter,  that  it  was  not  written  in  a  country  where 

Germaine,  to  the  Cambridge  MS.  Id.  Nouv.  Observ.  sur  le 
Texte  et  les  Vers.  chap.  ii.  p.  18.  Je  lui  [M.  Arnaud]  ai  dej& 
indique  en  general  que  les  Retractations  de  Bede  sur  les  ActeS 
des  Apotres,  un  des  manuscrits  de  Robert  Etienne,  et  quelques 
autres,  d'ou  il  peut  connoitre  que  le  manuscrit  de  Beze  n'est  pas 
le  seul  exemplaire  du  Nouveau  Testament,  qui  ait  ete  retoucM 
txpres,  et  d'un  si  etrange  maniere. 
3+  Vid.  Mill.  Prolegora.  in  Nov.  Test.  n.  1272.  seq.  ed,  Kust 

eg 


(    20    > 

Greek  or  Latin  was  the  vernacular,  at  least  the  pri- 
mitive, tongue. 

Submitting*  these  observations  to  the  consideration 
of  my  readers,  I  now  leave  them  to  estimate  what 
authority  they  leave  to  the  testi'mony  of  the  old 
Italick  version,  quoted  in  favour  of  the  German 
method  of  classification.  To  me  it  appears  a  mat- 
ter capable  of  demonstration,  that  it  can  be  entitled 
to. none.  The  undertaking  of  Jerome  and  Cassio- 
dorus,  had  they  been  silent  upon  this  subject,  would 
prove  a  dissimilarity  onee  existing  between  the  old 
Italick  and  the  Vulgate  and  Greek  of  the  Alexan- 
drine recension,  That  dissimilarity  has  now  dis- 
appeared, and  they  are  found  to  coincide  3S.  To 
what  therefore,  but  the  correction  of  those  pious 
fathers,  is  the  affinity  now  to  be  attributed  ? 

But  it  will  be  objected,  the  affinity  of  the  Old 
llalick  with  the  Syriack,  which  cannot  be  traced 
through  the  Greek,  as  not  discoverable  in  it,  &tillr 

3s  This  is  a  point  which  received  a  demonstrative  proof  from 
the  celebrated  Dr.  Bentley.  On  collating  the  Alexandrine  and 
Other  MSS.  of  the  same  recension  with  the  oldest  copies  of  the 
Vulgate,  he  was  surprised  at  their  extraordinary  coincidence, 
not  only  in  the  peculiar  readings,  but  the  order  of  the  words  i 
see  his  Letters  p.  229.  seq.  Comp.  not. 3Z.  supr.  p.  17.  and  Garbel. 
np.  Blarrchrn.  Evang.  Quadrupl.  Proleg.  pp.  9,  10.  Of  some  of 
the  principal  MSS.  of  the  old  Italick  Verskm-,  Sabatier  declares  ; 
Bibl.  Sacr.  Tom.  III.  p,xxxiv.  "  utefque  [Cod.  Corbeiens.  et 
Sangerm.]  antiquam  sapit  versionem,  non  secus  ac  Colbertinus; 
— aliqyando  etiam  ita  NOIHZ  Vulgata  similis  est,  ut  ovum  ab  ova 
citius  discernas.  Exempla  esse  possunt  prioraMS1'.  Corbeiensis 
capita  qua  sic  cum  Vulgata  convenient  ut  vix  ullam  animadvertaa 
iliscrepantiam,"  fire. 


t  .(    21     ) 

stands  in  support  of  the  original  position ;  and 
while  it  remains  otherwise  unaccounted  for,  the 
evidence  of  an  affinity  derived  from  the  apostolical 
age  is  sufficiently  apparent  to  support  the  German 
classification.  Yet  even  this  difficulty  is  not  too 
stubborn  to  be  conquered.  And,  turning  to  the 
consideration  of  the  next  revision,  which  the  sacred 
text  underwent,  it  seems  to  supply  us  with  an  easy 
solution. 

It  has  been  asserted,  and  we  shall  see  upon  good 
authority,  that  Charlemagne  directed  his  attention 
not  only  to  the  revision  of  the  text  of  the  Vulgate, 
but  to  the  correction  of  the  Gospels  after  the  Syriack 
and  Greek  j6.  This,  it  will  appear  in  the  sequel, 
was  in  his  days  no  impossible  task,  from  the  venera- 
tion in  which  Jerusalem  was  held,  and  the  pilgri* 
.mages  undertaken  to  the  Holy  Land,  We  have, 
however,  internal  evidence  of  the  matter  in  dispute  37, 
For  the  Latin  and  Syriaek  translations  are  observed 
to  have  some  literal  coincidences,  particularly  in  the 

36  Thegan  de  Gest.  Lud.  Pii  ap.  Duch.  p  277.     Quatuor 
Evangelia  quae  intitulantur  nomine  Matthaei,   Marci,  Lucse  et 
Joannis  in  ultimo,  ante  obitus  sui  dienj,  curn  Grsecis  et  Syris 
optime  correxerat.    Vid.  Sim.  Hist,  des  Vers.  chap.  i$,  p   10U> 
See  Michael,  utsupr.  ch.  vii.  £  5.  p.  27.  ami  Dr.  Marsh's  notes, 
p.  550. 

37  Dr.  Marsh's  Michael,  ch.  VII.  §  v.  p.  2k    "  The  readings 
of  the  tyriack  version  coincide  very  frequently  with  the  Latin, 
in  cases  where  our  printed  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament,  or 

the  MSS.  of  particular  countries  deviate  from  both By  the 

J^atin  I  understand  at  present — the  common  version  as  corrected 
by  Jeiv,me,  ratified  by  papal  authority,  and  known  under  the 

Vulgate." 


Gospels,  which  are  alone  said  to  have  been  retouched, 
while  the  Greek  original  is  not  found  to  partake  of 
the  affinity.  Professour  Alter,  in  a  letter  to  Profes- 
sour  Birch,  describing  the  version  of  the  Jerusalem 
Syriack,  specifies  five  places  in  St.  Matthew,  in 
which  it  agrees  literally  with  the  old  Italick,  while 
it  dissents  from  the  Greek 38.  And  Professour  Mi- 
chaelis  has  observed  of  the  Montfort  manuscript, 
which  has  been  confessedly  corrected  by  the  Latin, 
that  in  the  short  space  of  four  chapters  of  St.  Mark, 
it  possesses  three  literal  coincidences  with  the  old 
Syriack,  two  of  which  agree  with  the  old  Italick, 
while  they  differ  from  every  known  manuscript  ex- 
tant in  Greek  39. 

The  inferences  which  follow  from  these  circum- 
stances, are  sufficiently  obvious.  And  the  affinities 
thus  traced  between  the  Oriental  and  Western  text 
contained  in  the  old  Italick  and  Syriack  versions 
are  seemingly  to  be  attributed,  not  to  the  original 
autographs  of  the  apostles  and  evangelists,  but  to 
the  corrected  translations  of  Jerome,  Cassiodorus, 
and  Charlemagne  4°.  Indeed  the  existence  of  affi- 

33  In  Matt.  vii.  25.  viii.  9.  ix.  17,  28.  xxvii.  40.  Vid.  Epist. 
Alter,  ap.  Birch.  Prolegom.  in  Nov.  Test.  p.  Ixxxv. 

*)  Mar.  iii.  20,  34.  vi.  4-8.  Vid.  Michael.  Intr.  to  N.  Test, 
by  Dr.  Marsh.  Vol.  II.  p.  I.  ch.  viii.  §.  6.  p.  286. 

40  The  conclusiveness  of  these  deductions  will  directly  appear, 
on  considering  the  age  of  the  most  antient  MSS.  now  extant, 
which  contain  the  Western  text.  With  the  exception  of  the 
Cambridge  and  Verceli  MSS.  none  of  them  can  claim  an  an- 
tiquity prior  to  the  age  of  Charlemagne.  It  is  therefore  at  least 
possible,  that  any  coincidence  discoverable  between  the  text  of 


(    23    ) 

nities  between  those  versions,,  which  the  originals 
do  not  acknowledge,  ought  to  be  taken  as  definitive 
in  establishing'  the  fact.  For  surely  it  is  of  all  sup- 
positions the  most  improbable,  that  the  latter,  which 
descended  immediately  from  the  common  source  of 
the  whole,  should  want  that  conformity  to  the 
original,  which  was  discoverable  in  two  branches, 
which  flowed  from  it,  in  collateral  channels,  and  by 
a  devious  course. 

And  probably  these  considerations  which  seem  to 
reduce  the  distance  placed  between  the  Montfort 
manuscript  and  those  manuscripts  which  occupy 
the  first  rank  Sn  the  new  classification,  will  entitle 
the  former  to  somewhat  more  serious  attention  than 
it  has  latterly  received.  The  general  opinion  en- 
tertained of  that  manuscript,  is,  that  it  was  written 
in  the  interval  between  the  years  1519  and  1522, 
for  the  purpose  of  furnishing  Erasmus  with  an  au- 
thority for  inserting  the  text  of  the  three  heavenly 
witnesses  in  his  third  edition  of  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment. But  this  notion,  which  is  rendered  highly 
improbable  by  the  appearance  of  the  manuscript, 
is  completely  refuted  by  the  literal  affinities  which 
have  been  already  observed  to  exist  between  it  and 
the  Syriack.  The  knowledge  of  that  oriental  version 
in  Europe  was  not  earlier  than  1552,  when  it  was 
brought  by  Moses  Mardin  to  Julius  III,  and  even 
then  there  was  but  one  person  who  could  pretend 
to  any  knowledge  of  the  language,  and  who  was 

those  MSS.  and  the  Syriack  version  and  original  Greek,  may 
not  be  more  antient  than  the  era  of  that  prince ;  of  course, 
assigned  on  moist  inconclusive  grounds  to  the  age  of  the  apostles. 


obliged  to  receive  instruction  in  it  from  the  foreigner 
who  imported  it  from  the  East,  before  he  could  assist 
him  in  committing  it  to  print  *'.   Yet  admitting,  that 
the  knowledge  of  this  version  and  language  existed 
thirty  years  previously,  which  is  contrary  to  fact,  still, 
an  attempt  to  give  an  appearance  of  antiquity  to  this 
manuscript,  by  interpolating  it  from  the  Syriack  is 
a  supposition  rendered  grossly  improbable  by  the 
state  of  literature  at  the  time.     For  no  fabricator 
could  have  ever  calculated  upon  these  evidences  of 
its  antiquity  being  called  into  view.     Notwithstand- 
ing the  curiosity  and  attention  which  have  been  lat- 
terly bestowed  on  these  subjects,   and  which  no 
person,  in  the  days  of  Erasmus,  could  have  foreseen ; 
they  have  been  but  recently  observed.     These  affi- 
nities, which  cannot  be  ascribed  to  accident,  conse- 
quently claim  for  this  manuscript,  or  the  original 
from  which  it  was  taken,  an  antiquity  which  is  very 
remote.     But  its  affinities  with  the  Syriack  are  not 
the  only  peculiarities,  by  which  it  is   distinguished. 
It  possesses  various  readings  in  which  it  differs  from 
every  known  Greek  manuscript,   amounting  to   a 
number,  which  excited  th.e  astonishment  of  Prof. 
Michaelis  and  Dr.  Mills  4*.     Some  of  them,  we  have 
already  seen,  are  coincident  with  the  Syriack  and  old 
Italian  version  ;  but  as  it  has  other  readings  which 
they  do  not  acknowledge,  we  cannot  so  easily  account 
for  these  peculiarities,  as  by  admitting  its  relation 
to  some  other  source,  which,  as  not  immediately 

*  Simon  Hist,  des  Vers.  ch.  xv.  Michael.  Introd.  ibidt  ch, 
yii.  §.  2  p.  8. 
41  Michael,  ibid.  ch.  viii.  J.  6.  p.  286. 


connected  with  them,  is  probably  very  remote.  And 
if  this  source  be  traced  by  the  analogy  which  it  pre- 
serves to  the  old  Italick,  it  must  be  clearly  of  the 
very  highest  kind. 

Though  the  testimony  of  the  old  Italick  version 
cited  in  favour  of  the  German  classification  must  be 
given  up,  still  it  may  be  contended,  that  the  con- 
currence of  the  Syriack  and  the  Vulgate  with  the 
-Greek  of  the  Alexandrine  recension,  is  adequate 
4o  support  the  entire  weight  of  this  system.  To  this 
I  reply  ;  that  with  respect  to  both  translations,  they 
must  stand  and  fall  with  the  original  text,  and  that 
of  a  very  late  edition.  The  origin  of  the  Vulgate  is 
well  known;  and  not  long  previous  to  the  com- 
mencement of  the  fifth  century.  Nor  can  the  Syriack 
claim  a  much  higher  original ;  the  oldest  proofs  of 
its  antiquity  are  found  in  the  quotations  of  St. 
Ephrem  4?,  who  flourished  near  the  close  of  the 
fourth.  Near  the  beginning  of  this  century,  an 
edition  of  the  original  Greek  was  published  by 
Eusebius,  of  Cesarea,  under  the  sanction  of  Constan- 
tine  the  Great.  A  brief  examination  of  this  point 
will  probably  enable  us  to  account  for  the  coinci- 
dence, between  the  original  Greek  and  those  trans- 
lations, on  which  the  German  mode  of  classification 
now  rests  its  entire  support. 

4*  Vid.  Michael,  ibid.  ch.  vii.  f .  6.  p.  32.  I  add  Dr.  Marsh's 
pote  3. 2.  p.  ,i>54<.  "  That  the  old  Syriac  Version  is  quoted  by 
Ephrem,  no  one  will  deny.  It  is  certain  therefore  that  it 
existed  in  the  fourth  century,  but  as  Ephrem  is  the  oldest 
/evidence,  that  can  be  produced  of  its  antiquity,  it  must  remain 
a  matter  of  uncertainty,  whether  it  was  made  one,  two  or  three 
^centuries  previous  to  that  period/' 


The  authority  with  which  Eusebius  was  vested, 
to  prepare  this  edition,  was  conveyed  in  the  follow- 
ing- terms,  as  nearly  as  the  original  can  be  literally 
expressed  44.  ff  It  seemeth  good  unto  us  to  submit 
to  your  consideration,  that  you  would  order  to  be 
written,  on  parchment  prepared  for  the  purpose, 
by  able  scribes,  and  accurately  skilled  in  their  art, 
fifty  codices,  both  legible  and  portable,  so  as  to  be 
useful  ;  namely,  of  the  sacred  scriptures,  whereof 
chiefly,  you  know,  the  preparation,  and  use  to  be 
necessary  to  the  doctrine  of  the  church/' 

If  we  now  campare  the  authority  thus  committed 
to  Eusebius,  which  seems  to  have  vested  him  at 
least  with  a  discretionary  power,  of  selecting*  chiefly 
those  sacred  scriptures  which  he  knew  to  be  useful 
and  necessary  to  the  doctrine  of  the  church,  with 
the  state  of  the  sacred  text  as  it  is  now  marked  in 
the  corrected  edition  lately  put  forth  by  3VI.  Gries- 
bach  ;  we  shall  perhaps  discover  how  far  it  is  pro- 
bable he  acted  to  the  full  extent  of  his  powers,  and 
removed  those  parts  of  scripture  from  the  circulated 
edition,  which  he  judged  to  be  neither  conducive  to 
use  nor  doctrine,  and  which  are  now  marked  a* 
probable  interpolations  in  the  Received  Text.  They 
amount  principally  to  the  following  ;  the  account  of 

44  Constant.  Epist.  ap.  Euseb.  Vit.  Const.  Lib.  IV.  Cap. 

XXXvi.    p.    646.    L    1  3.-=  —  vr^vov  yo.(>   xare^av*),    TO    ^Xv<rat    Ty  <ry 


^v  )'y  «x£i«j  tyv 

Ul    St'lM    CJ*J?>ac75    yxl^wv,     tlv    jM.*XlY*flt  T'/JV  T    89Tt7XSV)5V  x    TW 


(    27    ) 

the  woman  taken  in  adultery,  John  vii.  53.  —  viii.  1  1. 
and  three  texts  which  assert  in  the  strongest  manner 
the  mystery  of  the  Trinity,  of  the  Incarnation,  and 
Redemption,  1  John  v.  7.  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  Acts  xx. 

28. 

If  two  points  can  be  established  against  Eusebius, 
that  he  wanted  neither  the  power,  nor  the  icill,  to 
suppress  these  passages,  particularly  the  latter, 
there  will  be  fewer  objections  lying  against  the 
charge,  with  which  I  am  adventurous  enough  to 
accuse  him  ;  in  asserting  that  the  probabilities  are 
decidedly  in  favour  of  his  having  expunged,  rather 
than  the  catholicks  having  inserted,  those  passages 
in  the  sacred  text. 

There  will  be  less  reason  to  dispute  his  power 
over  the  copies  of  the  original  Greek,  when  we  know 
that  his  high  reputation  for  learning,  aided  by  the 
powerful  authority  of  the  emperour45,  tended  to 
recommend  his  edition  to  the  exclusion  of  every 
other  ;  and  when  it  is  remembered,  that  the 
number  of  the  copies  of  scripture  was  in  this  reign 
above  all  others  considerably  reduced  on  account 
of  the  destruction  made  of  them  in  the  preceding  46. 

45  Antipat.  Bostrens.  Serm.  I.  adv.  Euseb.  Apol.  pro.  Orig. 
in  Concil.  Nic.  II.  Act.  v.  'Eyu  o&  on  p\v  >&oKv\'ru%  o  avr,?,  xj  «&? 
Ti  TUV  tzothawi^uv  ffvygdtp^MbTW  T^c  EXsips  £i;&a0E  yv&icru/, 

TO. 


46  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  VIII.  cap.  ii.  p.  377.  1.  35. 


Koc.ro,    fj.axs      yogtzs    izv%     tvoeiofjvoi. 

The  effects  of  this  destruction  of  the 
sacred  books,  under  Dioclesian  and  Maximian  extended  even 


Let  us  add  to  these  considerations,  these  further 
circumstances  ;  that  the  pious  empcrour  who  had 
employed  him  to  revise  the  text,  had  been  at  con- 
siderable pains  and  expence  to  multiply  copies  of 
the  scripture  47  ;  and  that  the  edition  thus  dispersed, 
as  altered  by  Eusebius,  was  peculiarly  accommo- 
dated to  the  opinions  of  the  Arians  ^3  who  from  the 

to  Britain.  Vid.  Usser,  Britt.  Eccless.  Antiquitt.  cap.  vii.  p.  90, 
"  Atque  heec  dira  ilia  fuit  a  Diocletiano  et  Maximiano  adversus 
Christiani  norninis  professores  mota  persecutio  :  de  qua,  recen- 
tior  Scotorum  historians  Hector  Boethus,  [Scot.  Hist.  Lib.  VI.] 
'  Evagata  est  rabies  ilia,  non  modo  ab  Oriente  in  Occidentem, 
sed  etiam  per  alterum  orbem  Britanniam  „•'  &c.  —  euque  'fere 
deletam  Juisse  Christianitatem  in  iota  insulaj  Galfridus  Mone- 
muthcnsis  asserit  ;  non  alia  et  ipse  authoritate  quam  Gilda? 
pixus,  ex  quo  hujus  persecutionis  historia  ad  verbum,  pene  ab 
illo  est  transcripta.  In  ea  enim,  ut  apud  Gildam  habetur, 
'  subversae  per  totum  mundum  Ecclesiae,  et  cunctce  Sacrte  Scrip- 
turcc  qucB  inveniri  potuerunt  in  plateis  exustcc^  &c. 

47  Id.  Vit.  Constant.  Lib.  III.  cap.  i.  p.  566.  1.  15.     Of  fj.lv  rd 

hoyuz    a^avrj    izon'i'c-$ou    ^v^ 


**  This  is  a  point  which  may  be  established  from  the  declara- 
tion of  the  council  of  Philippopolis,  after  the  schism  which  took 
place,  in  the  council  of  Sardica,  between  the  Eastern  and 
Western  churches;  when  the  orientalists  declared  for  the 
opinions  of  Arius.  The  strongest  protest  of  that  council  was 
directed  against  the  doctrine  of  one  substance  which  is  asserted 
in  the  forementioned  verses,  1  John  v.  7.  1  Tim.  iii.  16.,  &c. 
which  I  conceive  were  suppressed  in  Eusebiits's  edition. 
Socrat.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  II.  cap.  xx.  p.  104<.  1.  23.  —  xa* 


arota»T£;  aruv»fyov*  xai  (pavipw?  Aoiwov  TO  /XEV  o/xo«atov 
rjp  ol  T« 


reign  of  Constantine  to  that  of  Theodosius  49,  held 
an  unlimited  sway  over  the  church  ;  and  there  will 
arise  something  more  than  presumptive  proof  in 
favour  of  the  opinion  which  I  have  advanced  ;  that 
at  this  period  an  alteration  was  made  in  the  sacred 
text,  of  which  it  still  retains  a  melancholy  evidence, 
particularly  in  the  translations  made  from  the  edi- 
tion of  Eusebius. 

With  respect  to  the  influence  which  his  edition 
had  upon  the  sacred  text  at  large,,  it  is  most  strong- 
ly evinced  in  the  early  translations.  If  it  can  be 
shewn  that  it  affected  these,  its  more  powerful  ope- 
ration upon  the  original  cannot  be  reasonably  dis- 
puted. 

On  reviewing  the  translations  of  the  eastern  text, 
and  considering  the  Coptick,  in  the  first  place, 
which  reads,  in  the  disputed  passages,  against  the 
Received  Text,  and  with  the  Corrected,  the  fact  is 
not  to  be  denied.  For  it  possesses  the  divisions  5°, 

49  For  at  least  forty  years,  from  the  translation  of  Eusebius 
from  the  see  of  Nicomedia  to  Constantinople,  A.  D.  340,  to  the 
convening  of  the  fourth  Council  of  Byzantium,  under  Theodo- 
sius, A.  D.  381.  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  V.  cap.  vii.  p.  268. 

1.    27«       "Ovlu  fAtV  XV  ol   '.   gCHZVol  tTrl    TEff<70C.pOS,KGtla.     £TV)     fUV   EVxlypiUV    TO- 

•nuv  Kf6tl-/ia  civlii;  rr,f  ra  @a.?ihf 
T»K  9Tj?vEtt;  tv  vtntltiot  ToAwvx  TO 


Conf.  Theodorit,  Lib.  V.  capp. 
ri.  vii.  p.  200.  1.  lO.seq. 

50  Wetsten.  Prolegom.  in  Nov.  Test.  Sect.  i.  §  11.  Tom.  I.  p. 
6.  "  Eosdem  [TJ^H^  et  y.:$a,\xKx.  Eusebianos"]  habet  et  Versio 
Coptica,  uti  in  MSS.  vidi,  quod  editor  de  industria  suppres- 
sisse  videtur,  ne  scih'cet  paulum  *  dubitaremus,  versionem  N.  T. 


(  so  > 

which  Eusebius  applied  to  the  scripture,  in  invent- 
ing- his  celebrated  canons,,  with  the  aid  of  Ammo- 
nius's  harmony,  and  accommodating  them  to  the 
Gospels.  And  this  remark  may  be  in  some  measure 
extended  to  the  Syriack51,  which,  in  possessing- an 
affinity  to  the  Vulgate,  on  which  incontestably  Eu- 
sebius's  edition  had  some  influence,  betrays  very 
'lecisive  evidence  of  having  directly  proceeded  from 
the  same  original.  But  as  -more  immediately  to  our 
purpose,  it  may  be  stated,  that  a  copy  of  this  ver- 
sion preserved  in  the  Laurentian  library,  bearing 
date  as  far  back  as  the  year  five  hundred  and  eighty- 
six,  has  subjoined  to  it  the  canons  of  Eusebius,  and 
the  epistle  to  Carpianus  5*,  describing  their  use  in 
finding  the  correspondent  passages  of  scripture. 

With  these  versions,  those  of  the  Ethiopick,  the 
Armenian,  the  Arabick,  and   Persian,    must  stand 


*  in  linguam  JEgypti  prirnis  a  Christo  seculis,  soil,  vel  secundo, 
'  vel  tertii  initio  factam  esse,'  ut  ipse  in  Prsefatione  pag.  v.  as- 
seruit ;  Eusebii  enim  tempora  nos  ad  quartum  seculum  dedu- 
cerent."  Conf.  Simon  Hist,  des  Vers.  ch.  xvi.  p.  191.  Les 
Manuscrits  Coptes  ont  conserve,  comme  il  a  etc  deja,  remarque 
les  distinctions  des  Exemplaires  Grecs,  sur  lequels  la  Version 
Copte  du  N.  T.  a  etc  fait. — Us  marquent  deux  sortes  de  Sec- 
tions, comme  dans  les  MSS.  Grecs,  scavoir  les  grandes  qu'ils 
nomment  xepa*a»a,  et  les  petites,  qui  sont  indiquees  aux 
marges." 

51  The  Syriack  version  possesses  divisions  in  the  text  at  least 
similar  to  those  of  Eusebius.  In  some  of  the  copies  of  the  old 
version  the  Eusebian  sections  and  epistle  to  Carpianus  are 
found  if  we  may  believe  Mr.  Travis  Let.  to  Gib.  p.  190. 

51  Vid.  Gor.  ap.  Blanchin.  Evangel.  Quadrupl.  Tom.  II.  P.  II. 
,  ulxxxiiit 


(    31     ) 

or  fall;  in  admitting  its  influence  upon  the  former, 
we  must  admit  it  upon  the  latter,  as  made  after 
them,  instead  of  the  original53.  Indeed  the  Cop- 
tick  and  Syriackhave  long-  become  dead  languages, 
being  superseded  by  the  Arabick,  which  is  the 
learned  language  of  the  East,  as  being  that  of  the 
Mohammedan  scriptures.  The  Coptick  and  Syri- 
ack  versions  are  consequently  attended,  in  general, 
with  an  Arabick  translation,  added  in  a  separate  co- 
lumn ;  out  of  which  the  priests,  having  first  read 
the  original  which  they  rarely  understand,  then 
repeat  the  translation  to  the  people  S4. 

Great  as  the  influence  which  it  thus  appears,  the 
edition  of  Eusebius  possessed  over  the  Eastern  text, 
it  was  not  greater  than  it  possessed  over  the  West- 
ern. If  a  doubt  could  be  entertained  that  St.  Je- 
rome, revising  that  text  at  Bethlehem,  (in  the  heart 
of  Palestine,  -where  Eusebius  revised  the  original), 
would  not  have  neglected  his  improvements ;  the 
matter  would  be  placed  beyond  controversion  by  the 
epistle  which  he  has  prefixed  to  the  work,  and  ad- 
dressed to  Pope  Damasus 55.  It  places  beyond  all 
doubt,  that,  in  correcting  the  text,  the  edition  of 
Eusebius  was  before  him  ;  as  it  describes  his  canOns 
which  are  consequently  represented,  as  applied  to 
the  text  by  St.  Jerome.  We  consequently  find, 
that  the  manuscripts  of  the  Vulgate,  of  which  seve- 

53  M.  Du  Pin  deduces  the  Ethiopick  from  the  Syriack,  vicU 
Dissert.  Prelim,  p.  82:  Renaudot  deduces  it  from  the  Coptick, 
vid.  Wetsten.  Proleg.  p.  110. 

54  Sim.  ut  supr. 

55  Vid.  S.  Hieron.  Epist.  Damas,  Tom,  IV.  in  init. 


(    32    ) 

ral  of  the  highest  antiquity  are  still  preserved  in 
England  and  France,  have  the  text  accurately  di- 
vided by  the  Eusebian  sections s6. 

The  influence  of  the  Vulgate  upon  the  Old  Ita- 
lick,  which  formed  another  branch  of  the  Western 
text,  has  been  already  noticed.  lu  the  age  of  St. 
Augustine,  it  was  making  a  sensible  encroachment 
upon  the  antecedent  translation.  Ruffinus  first  fol- 
lowed it,  and  Cassiodorus  brought  it  into  general 
usage.  In  some  of  the  oldest  copies  of  the  Italick, 
notices  appear,  declaring  that  they  had  been  col- 
lated and  corrected  by  the  Vulgate  *'' '.  Bibles  of 

s6  Cassiod.  de  Div.  Lect.  cap.  xii.  Meminisse  autem  debe- 
mus,N  Hieronymum  omnein  suam  translationem  in  auctoritate  di- 
vina,  sicut  ipse  testatur,  propter  simplicitatem  fratrum  colis  et 
coinmatibus  drdindsse,  ut  qui  distinctiones  secularium  literarum 
comprehendere  minime  potuerunt,  hoc  remedio  sufFulti  incul- 
pabiliter  pronunciarent  sacras  literas.  En  effet  on  voit  toutes 
ces  distinctions,  dans  les  plus  anciens  manuscrhs  Latins  qui  nous 
ayons  dela  Bible  de  St.  Jerome.  Simon  ib.  chap.  x.  p.  122.— 
Id.  ib.  p.  126.  St.  Jerome  avoit  mis  dans  son  Edition  Latine 
urie  autre  sorte  de  division  qurilavoH  prise  des  exemplaires  Grecs* 
Cette  celle  qiri  regarde  les  dix  Canons  d'Eusebe,  et  qui  a  etc 
iVune  grand  utilite^>o«r  oter  la  confusion  qui  ctoit  avant  St, 
Jerome  dans  les  exemplaires  Latins. 

57  Simon  ibid.  p.  106.  "  On  lit  de  plus  dans  ce  meme  ma- 
nuscrit  [de  Saint  Germain-  des  Prez]  ces  autres  paroles  a  la 
fin  de  1'Epitre  aux  Ebreux,  ou  iinit  le  Nouveau  Testament  se- 
lon  Kancienne  disposition  des  Bibles  Latines ;  *  Bibliotheca  Hi- 
eronymi  Presbyter!  secundum  Graccum  ex  emendatissimis  li- 
bris  conlatus/  Ce  qui  montre  non  seulement  Pexactitude  du 
Copiste,  mais  Popinion  commune  de  ces  terns  la,  qui  etoit  que 
St.  Jerome  avoit  retouche  tout  le  Nouveau  Testament  sur  les  ex* 
cmplaires  Grecs.  On  ne  parloit  plus  alors  de  Vancienne  Version 
appellee  Italigue,  '  Les  copistes  ne  decrivoient  plus  dy autre  Bible 


(    33    ) 

this  description,  written  in  the  age  of  Hugiie  de  S. 
Chair,  are  still  preserved,  with  marginal  references 
to  St.  Jerome  and  to  the  Greek s8 ;  the  readings  of 
the  latter  were  probably  taken  on  the  authority  of 
the  Vulgate,  which  possessed  the  reputation  of 
maintaining  a  scrupulous  adherence  to  the  original. 
After  this  period  the  new  translation  gradually  su- 
perseded the  old ;  and  the  former  is  now  adopted 
by  the  Romish  Church,  as  of  paramount  authority 
to  the  original  59. 

If  the  influence  of  the  edition  of  Eusebius  ex- 
tended thus  wide,,  embracing  both  extremes  of  the 
Roman  Empire,  as  affecting  the  eastern  and  wes- 
tern translations  ;  it  is  not  to  be  disputed  that  its 
operation  on  the  original  Greek  must  have  been 
more  powerful,  where  it  was  aided  by  his  imme- 
diate reputation,  supported  by  the  authority  of  Con - 
stantine.  I  have  already  stated  the  reasons  which 
have  induced  me  to  ascribe  such  influence  to  the 
first  edition  of  the  Scriptures  published  with  the 
royal  authority.  But  a  circumstance  which  tended 
to  extend  this  influence,  besides  the  great  reputa- 
tion of  the  person  by  whom  it  was  revised,  was  the 

Latine  que  V Edition  de  St.  JerSme.     C'est  pourquoi  ils  les  mar- 
quoient  ordinairement  a  la  fin  de  leurs  livres." 

53  Simon,  Nouv.  Observ.  sur  le  Text  et  les  Vers.  ch.  i.  p. 
130. 

59  Simon  Hist,  des  Vers.  ch.  x.  p.  124.  "Les  Latins  ont 
€ii  une  si  grandeestime  pour  ce  pere  [St.  Jerome]  que  depuis 
mille  ans  Us  ne  se  sont  servis  que  de  sa  version.  Les  copistes  les 
plus  exactes  ont  suivi  entierement  pour  la  disposition  des  li- 
vres la  methode  qu'il  present  dans  ses  Prefaces,*'  &c.  Vid. 
supr.  n.  57.  conf.  Praef.  Bibl.  Clem.  VIII, 

D 


(    34    ) 

mode  of  dividing  the  text,  which  was  introduced 
with  the  sections  that  were  adapted  to  Eusebius's 
Canons.  This  division  of  the  text,,  as  we  have  seen, 
St.  Jerome  was  aware,  in  adopting  it  in  the  Vul- 
gate., was  of  infinite  service  to  those  who  had  to 
.struggle  with  great  inconveniences  in  reading,  from 
the  want  of  a  systematic!*  mode  of  punctuation.  But 
the  advantage  of  it  was  even  more  sensibly  felt  in 
reciting ;  for  the  practice  of  chanting  the  service, 
introduced  into  the  Greek  Church  from  the  antient 
Synagogue,  was  greatly  facilitated,  from  its  por- 
tioning out  the  text  in  a  kind  of  prosaick  metre.  It 
can  be  therefore  little  matter  of  surprize  that  we 
find  those  divisions  introduced  into  the  whole  body 
of  Greek  manuscripts 6o ;  and  that  the  stated  num- 
ber off  i^oi,  or  verses,  into  which  they  are  subdi- 
vided, is  generally  subjoined  at  the  end  of  each  of 
the  books  of  Scripture61.  The  bare  existence  of 
those  divisions,  particularly  those  of  the  former 
kind,  in  the  manuscripts  of  the  original  Greek, 
which,  as  we  have  already  seen,  extended  to  the 
Eastern  and  Western  translations,  contains  a  stand* 

60  Such  is  the  declaration  of  one  whose  authority,   on   this 
subject,  ranks,  in  the  opinion  of  M.  Griesbach,  Symbb.  Critt. 
Tom.  I.  p.  xvii.  above  all  others.     Wetsten.  Prolegom.  Sect.  L 
§11.  Tom.  I.  p.  6.     "  Omnesetiam  vetustissimi  Codices  halent 
xspaXeuo.  et  Tt1x«?  Eusebianos,  a  prima  manut  excepto  Vaticano 
et  Cantabrigiensi."     These   MISS,   however   can   be   scarcely 
termed  exceptions,  as  will  appear  in  the  sequel. 

61  Rob.  Stephan.  Prsef.  in  Nov.  Test.  ed.  Lut.  1550.    "  Nee 
tamen  omisimus  Eusebii   Ca3sariensis  Canones — Sed  ne  nume- 
rmn  qnidem  r*p£«i',  quum 'is  in  nostris  prope   omnibus  codictbust 
mveniretur,  in  calce  cujusque  Evangelii  et  Epistoiae. 


(    35    ) 

ing  evidence  of  their  partial  descent  from  the 
edition  set  forth  by  Eusebius.  They  are  found  in 
the  oldest  of  those  which  have  descended  to  us; 
some  of  which  contain  declarations  that  they  were 
adopted  from  older 6z. 

As  it  is  thus  apparent  that  Eusebius  wanted  not 
the  power,  so  it  may  be  shewn  that  he  wanted  not 
the  will,  to  make  those  alterations  in  the  sacred 
text,  with  which  I  have  ventured  to  accuse  him. 

In  one  or  two  instances  I  am  greatly  deceived,  or 
the  charge  may  be  brought  absolutely  home  to  him. 
St.  Jerome  informs  us  6%  that  the  latter  part  of  St. 
Mark's  Gospel  was  wanting  in  most  copies  of  the 
Evangelist  extant  in  his  times ;  the  beginning  of 
the  fifth  century.  As  the  passage  is  absolutely  ne- 
cessary to  bring  the  Evangelist's  narrative  to  a  close, 
and  as  it  introduces  an  apparent  contradiction  be- 
tween the  accounts  which  St.  Matthew  and  St. 

6*  In  a  beautiful  illuminated  copy  of  the  Gospels,  formerly 
in  the  Vatican,  which  was  apparently  written  for  the  use  of  the 
Emperor,  John  II.,  who  succeeded  Alexius  in  the  year  1118, 
a  marginal  note  appears,  which,  while  it  declares  that  the  ma- 
nuscript was  a  transcript  from  older  copies  preserved  at  Jerusa- 
lem, adds  the  number  of  the  sections  and  subsections,  after  tho. 

usual  manner.  'EwayysTuov  xaU  MarSa/o^  lyfapij  xa*  aifo&jj&j  I* 
TWV  Iv  IjfjoaoAt^cois  vzoihcciuv  avltypaipwv,  TUV  Iv  TU  ay'ua  opet  a?rox«^- 
i vwv,  lv  r*%oi?  fiwrr^,  xspaAaioi?  TfiXKocrwiq  «ri«?4xj»»1a  evict  x.  T.  I.  iu 

Cod.  Urbino- Vatican.  2.  ap.  Birch  Proleg.  in  Nov.  Test.  p. 
xxvii. 

63  S.  Hieron.  Epist.  CL.  quaest.  iii.  Tom.  III.  p.  416.  Aut  enita 
non  recipimus  Marci  testimonium,  quod  in  rarisfertur  Evange- 
liis  omnibus  Grades  libris  pene  hoc  capitulum  injine  non  haben- 
tibus  ;  praesertim  cum  di versa  atque  contraria  evangelistis  c«- 
teris  narrare  videatur. 


(     36     ) 

Mark  give  of  nearly  the  same  incident,  it  is  a  mo* 
ral  certainty  that  it  must  have  been  expunged  from 
the  original  text,  and  not  a  modern  interpolation ; 
for  the  contradiction  affords  a  reason  as  conclusive 
for  the  former,  as  against  the  latter,  supposition. 
As  it  existed  in  some  copies  in  St  Jerome's  day,,  it 
necessarily  existed  in  more  in  the  days  of  Euse- 
bius  ;  for  we  shall  see  that  it  evidently  lost  the  au- 
thority to  be  derived  from  his  powerful  sanction. 
But  though  it  contains  many  striking  coincidences 
with  the  other  Evangelists,  Eusebius  wholly  omitted 
it  in  his  Canons 64  :  there  seems  to  be  consequently 
no  other  reasonable  inference,  but  that  his  edition 
agreed  with  them,  and  with  the  copies  extant  in  the 
times  of  St.  Jerome,  in  omitting  this  passage. 
Now  those  Canons,  compared  with  the  passage  in 
question,  convey  all  the  certainty  which  can  be  de- 
rived from  presumptive  evidence  that  he  omitted 
this  passage,  not  on  the  testimony  of  antecedent 

C4  It  is  not  found  iri  the  original  copies  of  the  Canons  pre- 
fixed to  the  manuscripts  of  the  Greek,  nor  in  the  translation  of 
them  prefixed  to  the  manuscripts  of  the  Vulgate ;  it  is  wanting 
in  the  marginal  references  of  the  Cambridge  and  Alexandrine 
MSS.,  and  is  omitted  by  R.  Stephens  in  his  Greek  Testament, 
and  by  Victorius  in  his  edition  of  St.  Jerome.  Several  scholia 
occur  in  the  MSS.  of  the  original  Greek,  some  of  which  assert 
that  Eusebius  did  not  refer  in  his  Canons  to  this  passage.  I  shall 
subjoin  one  or  two  which  are  quoted  by  P.  Simon,  and  Prof. 
Birch.  Schol.  MS.  Reg.  n.  2868.  ap.  Sim.  Hist.  Ciit.  du 
TextC.  ch.  Xi.  p.  121.  "E»  «n<n  TUV  <x,fUypcc(pu*  e'w?  uh  tzA  pslau  5 
e£«yy£?urK.  Schol.  MS.  Venet.  ap.  Birch.  Proleg.  p.  xxi.  '£9 
Tlfi  plv  ailiypapwv  EW?  uot  toXftgtftfel  o  EvxyytfarW,  'iu$  a  xj 
9  ri 


copies,  but  as  unsuitable  to  his  harmonical  tables : 
for  while  they  point  out  those  passages  in  which 
each  of  the  Evangelists  relates  something  peculiar, 
as  well  as  those  in  which  they  relate  something  in 
common  with  others,  it  contains,  at  first  sight,  an 
apparent  contradiction,  which  would  be  only  likely 
to  strike  a  person  employed  in  the  task  of  compo- 
sing such  tables  as  those  of  Eusebius.  The  infe- 
rence seems  to  be  as  strong  as  the  establishment  of 
the  point  requires,  that  he  first  omitted  this  pas* 
sage  of  St.  Mark  in  the  sacred  text,  as  he  has  omit- 
ted it  in  his  Canons. 

Nor  is  the  case  materially  different  with  respect 
to  John  viii.  1 — 11.,  which  contains  the  account  of 
the  woman  taken  in  adultery.  That  this  narrative 
constituted  a  part  of  the  original  text  of  St.  John, 
there  can  be  little  reason  to  doubt.  The  subject  of 
the  story  forms  as  convincing  a  proof,  in  support 
of  this  supposition,  as  it  does  in  subversion  of  the 
contrary  notion,  that  it  is  an  interpolation.  There 
could  be  no  possible  inducement  for  fabricating  such 
a  passage ;  but  one  obvious  reason  for  removing  it 
from  the  canon.  It  has  besides  internal  evidence 
of  authenticity  in  the  testimony  of  the  Vulgate, 
in  which  it  is  uniformly  found ;  and  external,  in 
the  express  acknowledgement  of  St.  Chrysostome, 
St.  Jerome,  St.  Augustine,  and  St.  Ambrose,  that 
it  is  genuine65;  gt.  Augustine  having  specified  the 

*  Vid.  Croii  Observv.  in  Nov.  Test.  cap.  xvii.pp.  130,  1  SI. 
I  shall  subjoin  the  testimony  of  St.  Jerome,  as  in  point;  S+ 
Hieron.  adv,  Pelag.  Lib.  II.  cap.  vi.  Tom.  II.  p.  28G.  « la 


(    38    ) 

reasons  of  its  having  been  withdrawn  from  the  text 
of  the  Evangelist 66.  Eusebius  has  however  omit- 
ted all  reference  to  it  in  his  canons  ;  for  it  is  nei- 
ther discoverable  in  the  copies  of  the  Greek,  nor  in 
those  of  the  Vulgate.  And  in  his  cc  Ecclesiastical 
History67",,  he  has  obliquely  branded  it  with  some 
other  marks  of  disapprobation ;  apparently  con- 
founding it  with  a  different  story.  From  these  cir- 
cumstances,, I  conceive,  we  may  safely  infer,  that 
Eusebius's  copies  agreed  with  his  canons  in  omit- 
ting this  passage  :  from  which  it  was  withdrawn  by 
him,  in  strict  conformity  to  the  powers  with  which 
he  was  vested  by  Constantine. 

As  it  is  probable  that  he  omitted  those  pas- 
sages, it  is  not  less  probable  that  he  omitted  at  least 
one  of  those  verses,  1  John  v.  7,  the  authenticity 
of  which  has  been  so  long  a  subject  of  controversy. 
Indeed,  the  whole  three  inculcate  a  doctrine,  which 
is  somewhat  at  variance  with  what  we  know,  on  the 
most  indisputable  testimony,  to  have  been  his  pe- 
culiar opinions.  The  doctrine  of  Christ  being  of 
one  substance  with  the  Father  is  asserted  in  all  of 

Evanglio  secundum  Joannem,  in  multls  et  Gr&cis  et  Latinis 
codicibus  invenitur  de  adultera  muliere,  quae  accusata  est  apud 
Dominum." 

66  S.  August,  de  Adultt.  Conjugg.  Lib.  II.  cap.  vii.  Tom.  VI. 
c.  299.   "  nonnulli  modicae  fidei,  vel  potius  inimici  verae  fidei, 
credo,  metuentes,  peccati  impunitatem  dari  mulieribus  suis,  illud 
quod  de  adulterce  indulgentia  Dominus  fecit,  auferrent  de  codi- 
cibus suis." 

67  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.   III.  cap.  xxxix.  p.  138.  I.  5. 

t£  «AA»j»    »j-opia»   -crg^    yvvcuKos   ITT* 
*  T»  Kvith    w  vo   xa$*  "£$ai» 


(    39    ) 

them;  though  most  particularly  in  St.  John's  Epis- 
tle. But  on  the  subject  of  this  doctrine,  it  is  no- 
torious that  Eusebins  shamefully  prevaricated  in 
the  celebrated  Council  of  Nice.  He  first  positively 
excepted  against  it?  and  then  subscribed  to  it  6S  ; 
and  at  length  addressed  a  letter  to  his  Church  at 
•Csesarea,  in  which  he  explained  away  his  former 
compliance,  and  retracted  what  lie  had  asserted  69. 
On  a  person  of  such  versatility  of  principle  no  de- 
pendence ought  to  be  placed  ;  not  that  I  am  in- 
clined to  believe  what  has  been  often  laid  to  his 
charge70/  that  he  was  at  heart  an  Arian.  The 

63  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  I.  cap.  viii.  p.  22.  1.  34%     Tele  £ 
iv   TJJ   a-wo^a,     'Eftfc'/Sios1    6    rrtv    n«/>(,(p/X8     ^offwvfpu'av 
x^  ?%<;    \t  riaXafru'p    KaicrafE;«£   TVJV  ima-KQirriv    xtxh-ncupsvos, 
ITH  5-75  crar,   xj  Jj«crx:H\f/a/x£j'o?   EJ  csi"  OTgouSE^aff^ai  TOV  ope*  T»J? 


odorit.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  I.  cap.  vii.  p.  30.  1.  22.      Kat   T«TO   ty\*- 

ETTicrxoflro?    TJJ? 


rri   ev 

oty.  Conf.  Theodorit,  ib.  p.  28.  1.  2—7.      Socrat.  ib,  p.  23, 
1.3.  ' 

69Euseb.  Epist.  ap.  Socrat.  ib.  p.  24.  1.  29,     K«»  ^  T«tfa«  TW 

y^ai^^j  uTrayofEySEicrrj?,   O'TW?  eipyHai  a^or?  TO  Ix  T??  «<7ta$    Ttl 

x)  TO  Tai  WaVpt  Qpoo8(jjov,   ax    «>g|gTaf  o* 

«xj  >ti  TO  EX  T??  «c7iac  w/xoAoyyJlo  'zzrpoj  oivfuv^ 

<ara]^o?  £iva»     »  M,r»  ^    w,/o     vTfSiiv  T?  cralof*   Ta^'Ta   oe       ^(x,ry 

*x« 


Mveiv.   ^oVe£  TJJ  ^javoia  ^    avlol    o'yvViS'EpisS'a  ao^e  Trie 
/«  ^:a§a;7wpisvo(  x.  T.  I.     Conf.  Sozom.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  II. 
cap.  xviii.  p.  68.  1.  20—30. 

7°  This  accusation  which  Dr.  Cave,  Hist.  Litter.  Tom.  I.  p. 
177,  "has  endeavoured  to  set  aside,  is  founded  on  the  above 


C    40    ) 

truth  is,  as  indeed  he  has  himself  placed  be}'0nd  a 
doubt,  —  he  erred  from  a  hatred  to  the  peculiar  no- 
tions of  Sabellius  7V,  who,  in  maintaining  that  Christ 
was  the  First  Person  incarnate,  had  confounded 
the  Persons  ?2,  as  it  was  conceived  he  divided  the 
substance.  Into  this  extreme  he  must  have  clearly 
seen  that  the  Catholicks  were  inclined  to  fall  75,  in 

cited  exposition  given  by  Eusebius,  of  the  doctrine  of  one  sub- 
stance ;  which  is  precisely  such  an  explanation  as  an  Arian 
would  propose  and  subscribe  to  without  hesitation  :  vid.  Epi- 
phan.  Hser.  Ixix.  p.  732.  d.  In  this  light  the  epistle  of  Euse- 
bius was  regarded  by  the  best  judges  of  antiquity.  Phot,  ad 
Constant.  Patr.  Epist.  CXLIV.  p.  201.  ed.  Lond.  1651. 


ETS   ooAo?  ,   grg    ffwrrfw     OT»    fjt,tv 


T>JV  voaov  uvofAohoysi'   x.av  T>»  ^ea/xsa       /Aa^Xov  sat/lov  ^si 
sAijIov.      'Ou  yct    eavlov  iy.<rw&i  T^i?  «7foT6pa?,     $i    uv    t$o%t 
»a  x-j  oixtf^gcix*)  crv^^o^yui  crvvo 

aj  rov  o^oscria  tnf&cr@iv\a.<;  avrov  (rvvihStTv  ry  ^go>^jtx,a1>,  KJ  (rv 
a»  T>5  yvvu.-/!)   TEpaleuEJai*    xj   ThTO    O'afpft/S'    aAAa 

ToTr  KaiffagEVfffv  O.VTU 
71  Sozom.  Hist,  Eccles.  Lib.  II.  cap.  xviii.  p.  68.  1.  31. 

o  TOV  'EycTc'^'toy,    EK  Ta  e» 
la*   o  OE,   Tat/To.  /U.EV    t' 

>  ^o'|av.     Conf.  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  I.  cap, 
xxiii.  p.58.1.  2—7. 

7*  Damas.  Epist.  ap.  Theodorit.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  V.  cap.  xi. 

p.    209.    1.    17-  —  Ti?$   TM    Xa^EAXitf    «xoX«9oyx1ac    TErXa;>j,    Toy    atJloy 

^EVovIa?  xa<  naT£>  sT^at  «ai  'Yw'y.      Conf.  Epiphan,  Hacr.  LXII. 
Tom.  I.  p.  513.  Haer.lxxii.p.  834-.  b. 

73  Sozom.  ibid.  p.  68.  1.  20.      'E»  ^e  T?  TOTE,    <nr«Au/    -cr^o?    £«UTy; 
ol  sTr/ffxoTroi     oc^o^oyti^o^  ^rsgl  TO  O/XOH<T{QV  ovo/xa.   o* 


^>c«v  yap,   T 


rov  v'.ot  ^o 
p»'/3ov'7o 
t  'Et-ra^o?  o  'Aiu»op^Et'?.  Vid.  supr.  nn.  71  et 


(     41     ) 

combating  the  opposite  errour  in  Arius  ;  and  on  this 
very  point  he  consequently  maintained  a  contro- 
versy with  Marcellus  of  Ancyra 74,  who  was  how- 
ever acquitted  of  intentional  errour,  by  St.  Athan- 
asius75and  the  Council  of  Sardica76.  Whoever 
will  now  cast  but  a  glance  over  the  disputed  texts, 
as  they  stand  in  our  authorised  version,  will  di- 
rectly perceive  that  they  afford  a  handle  by  which 
any  person  might  lay  hold  who  was  inclined  to  lapse 
into  the  errours  of  Sabellius.  Will  it  be  therefore 
thought  too  much  to  lay  to  the  charge  of  Eusebius 
to  assert;  That  in  preparing  an  edition  of  the 
Scriptures  for  general  circulation,  he  provided 
against  the  chance  of  that  danger  which  he  feared, 
by  cancelling  one  of  those  passages,  1  Job.  v.-  7 ; 
and  altering  the  remainder,  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  Acts 
xx.  28? 

Let  the  most  prejudiced  of  the  advocates  of  the 
German  method  of  classing  the  Greek  manuscripts, 
according  to  the  coincidences  of  their  respective 
texts,  now  take  a  retrospective  view  of  their  de- 
scent, as  it  has  been  traced  from  the  edition  of  Eu- 
sebius. Let  him  compare  the  alterations  which 
have  been  recently  made  on  their  authority  in  the 

74  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  II.  cap.  xx.  p.  105.  1.  16.    W. 


Jiautoc  o 

75  S.  Epiphan.  Haer.  LXXII.  p.  837.  b. 

76  Socrat,  Lib.  II.  cap.  xx.  p.  105. 1.  9. 


(    42    ) 

text  of  Scripture,  with  his  peculiar  opinions.  Let 
him  then  answer  how  far  their  collective  authority 
ought  to  decide  against  the  truth  of  any  doctrine,, 
or  the  authenticity  of  any  verse  which  is  at  variance 
with  the  peculiar  opinions  of  him  by  whom  it  was 
revised  and  published. 

In  this  impeachment  of  the  original  reviser  of 
that  edition  of  the  Scriptures,  from  which  there  is 
more  than  a  presumption,,  that  all  manuscripts  of 
character  have,  in  some  measure,,  descended,,  its  last 
feeble  support  seems  to  be  withdrawn  from  the 
German  system  of  classification.  If  any  force  be 
allowed  to  what  has  been  hitherto  advanced,  the 
affinities  on  which  it  is  founded  are  to  be  traced  to  a 
very  different  cause  than  a  coincidence  with  the 
original  text  of  Scripture,  as  published  by  the  in- 
spired writers.  Nor  will  it  be  thought  that  I  pre- 
sume too  far  in  explicitly  denying, — That  it  ac- 
quires any  support  from  the  authority  of  Origen : 
That  it  receives  any  from  the  original  testimony  of 
the  eastern  and  western  versions  :  That  it  derives 
any  from  the  best  and  most  ancient  manuscripts., 
or  is  countenanced  in  its  important  deviations  from 
the  Received  Text,  by  any  which  have  not  been 
altered  from  the  times  of  Eusebius. 

Having  thus  removed  the  buttresses,  and  drawn 
out  the  braces  which  uphold  this  vast  and  un cement- 
ed pile,  we  need  no  further  earnest  of  its  falling  to 
the  ground,  than  the  hollowness  of  its  foundation. 
The  same  materials,  when  reduced  to  a  heap,  may 
be  employed  in  raising  a  hew  structure.  Hitherto 
we  have  brought  the  integrity  of  the  Received  Text 


(    43    ) 

barely  within  the  verge  of  probability.  The  only 
positive  argument  on  which  it  is  impeached  has  been 
indeed  disposed  of;  and  a  negative  consequently 
established,  by  which  it  is  covered.  To  entitle  it 
to  stand  as  authority,  positive  evidence,  however, 
must  be  cited  in  its  favour.  With  this  object  it  shall 
be  my  endeavour  to  suggest  a  new  principle  of  clas- 
sification,, and  to  determine  what  rank  the  Received 
Text  may  be  assigned,  according  to  the  proposed 
system.  But  more  particularly  it  shall  be  my  object 
to  vindicate  those  important  passages  of  the  Received 
Text  which  have  been  rejected  from  the  Scripture 
Canon,  on  the  principles  of  the  German  method  of 
classification. 


SECTION  II, 


JjY  an  analysis  of  the  texts  of  different  manu- 
scripts,, we  may  be  enabled  to  distribute  them  into 
different  classes  according  to  the  coincidences  of 
their  peculiar  readings.  But  we  are  thus  afforded 
no  means  of  determining  which  of  those  various 
readings  existed  in  the  sacred  text,  as  dictated  by 
the  inspired  writers.  The  difficulty  which  origi- 
nates from  hence  naturally  suggested  the  expediency 
of  an  appeal  to  the  writings  of  the  early  divines,, 
and  to  the  versions  of  the  primitive  ages,,  in  order 
to  ascertain  upon  their  authority,  the  probable  state 
of  the  text  at  an  early  period.  For  this  purpose  a 
choice  has  been  made  of  Origen,  and  an  affinity 
traced  between  his  quotations  and  the  readings  of  a 
peculiar  class  of  manuscripts ;  which  readings  as 
con  firmed  by  the  concurrence  of  the  eastern  and 
western  versions,  were  supposed  to  possess  suffi- 
cient evidence,,  in  this  united  testimony,  of  their 
having  formed  a  part  of  the  original  text  of  Scrip- 
ture. 

The  objections  to  this  method  of  investigating  the 
genuine  text  of  Scripture,  have  been  stated  at  large 
in  the  last  section.  It  was  then  my  object  to  trace 


(    45    ) 

the  coincidences  on  which  this  mode  of  classifica- 
tion is  founded  to  a  comparatively  recent  source  ; 
and  to  refer  them  to  the  first  edition  of  the  sacred 
text  revised  by  Eusebius,  and  published  under  the 
auspices  of  the  Emperour  Constantine. 

The  peculiar  objections  lying*  against  an  appeal 
to  the  testimony  of  Origen  were  then  generally  spe- 
cified. Nor  can  an  appeal  be  admitted  to  that  of 
any  of  the  Christian  fathers,  unless  on  particular 
occasions,  where  they  deliver  an  explicit  testimony, 
and  expressly  refer  to  the  text  of  Scripture.  Their 
collective  testimony,  though  highly  calculated  to 
establish  the  doctrinal  integrity  of  the  sacred  text, 
is  wholly  inadequate  to  determine  its  literal  purity. 
This  is  an  assumption,  from  which  no  one  will  find 
it  secure  to  dissent,  who  is  acquainted  with  their 
general  mode  of  quotation  '.  But  if  any  person  is 
still  sceptical  on  this  point,  let  him  review  the  state 
of  the  text  as  preserved  in  their  quotations.,  as  it 
has  been  extracted  from  their  works  by  Dr.  Mills, 
and  is  inserted  in  his  elaborate  Prolegomena  z.  And 
if  he  yet  fails  of  conviction,  let  him  examine  the 
peculiar  readings  of  Origen  and  Chrysostome,  who 
of  all  the  ancients  are  most  entitled  to  attention,  as 
their  testimony  has  been  collected  by  M.  Matthaei, 
in  the  notes  of  his  Greek  Testament 3.  The  fact 

1  Vid.Croii  Observ.  in  Nov.  Test.  cap.  xviii. — xxviii.  p.  134-, 
seq,  Blanchin.  Vind.  Can.  Script.  Tom.  I.  p.  xxvii.  Sabat.  Praef* 
BibL  Ital.  Tom.  I.  p.  xxviii.  §  64,  &c. 

2  Vid.  Mill.  Proleg.  Nov.  Test.  n.  368.  seq.  ed.  Kust. 
3JVIatth£eiNov.  Test.  Tom.I.  p.  4-3,  ed.  Rig.     In   his  locis 

ergo  prceferatur  auctortias  Codicum  Grcecorum  Novi  Testamenti 


Is,  they  were  so  constantly  exercised  in  the  Scrip- 
tures,, which  they  had  nearly  committed  to  memory, 
that  they  quote,  not  by  reference,  but  from  recollec- 
tion. However  scrupulously,  of  course,  they  adhere 
to  the  sense  of  the  text,  they  frequently  desert  its 
letter.  As  they  constantly  quote  by  accommoda- 
tion, and  in  explanation ;  as  they  frequently  com* 
plete  their  expositions,  by  connecting  different  parts 

lectionibus  Sanctorum  Patrum.     Eadem  est  ratio  variantium  lec- 

tionum,  qua?  in  Origine,  Chrysostomo,  et  aliis  reperiuntur.  Nee 

enim  isti  Patres  ita  diligentes  erant  in  laudandis  et   explicandis 

litteris  sacrisy  ut  nunc  sunt  critici,  ac  facilius  etiam  quam  nos, 

cum  Grseci  essent,  vocabula  similia  inter  se  permutabant.    Haud 

raro  etiam  Greecitatem  secuti,  neglexerunt  verba  contextus  sacri. 

Conf.  not.  in  Matt.  xvi.  13.  p.  328,    &c.      Garbellius  delivers 

himself  in  similar  terms  respecting  the  Latin  Fathers  and  the 

eld  Italick  version,  speaking  of  the  Codex  Brixianus ;  Garb. 

ap.  Blanchin.  Proleg.  in  Evang.  Quadrupl.  P.  I.  p.  37.     "  Ego 

sane  cum  Argentei  Codicis  nostri  collationem  cum  Tertulliano, 

ac  Cypriano  instituissem  ;  quod  inter  Latinos  scriptores  ad  ea 

Ecclesiae  tempora  proprius  accederent,  quibus  puriora  veterum 

interpretum  exemplaria  esse  debuerant,  locis  omnibus,  quos  illi 

ex  Evangeliis  eduxerant,  mature  perpensis,  fundum  mihi   ali- 

quem  parasse  putabam,    unde   lectiones   dicti   Codicis  illorum 

authoritate  firmare  possem.     Ast  ubi  aliquando  dies  diei  illuxit, 

falsum  me,  et  fundum  nullum  certum  labore  illo  mihimet  com- 

parasse  tandem  cognovi.     Ita  easdem  pericopas  (uti  observatum 

est)  hand  iisdem  verbis,  et  nunc  pluribus,  modo  paucioribus  ejfe- 

runt. — Sed  nihil  certius,  quam  sacrorum  librorum  Novi  prceser* 

tim  Fcederis  locos  plerumque  e  memoriae  penu,   aliquando  etiam 

tumultuario,  ut  res  ipsa,  aut  tempus  Jerrent  Ecclesicz  Patres  ad- 

tulisse.     Nisi  si  forte  ad  assertum   aliquod  probandum   praecisa 

sacri  textus  authoritate  opus  foret.     Tune  enim  exacte,  ac  per 

partes  efferebant;  quod  in  laudatis  aliquibus  Tertulliani 

observabamus." 


of  Scripture,  which  do  not  succeed  in  the  order  of 
the  context ;  they  necessarily  deviate  from  its  exact 
phraseology  4  These  and  other  justifiable  liberties 
which  they  have  taken  with  the  sacred  text,  as  hav- 
ing- been  occupied  in  explaining  its  sense,  not  hi 
preserving  its  readings,  consequently  render  their 
testimony,  unless  in  very  peculiar  passages,  of  lit- 
tle further  use,  than,  as  I  have  already  stated,  to 
establish  its  doctrinal  integrity. 

Deprived  of  the  testimony  of  the  primitive  di- 
vines, our  last  appeal  lies  to  the  early  Translations. 
But  few  of  these  are  of  sufficient  authority  to  en- 
title them  to  any  attention  in  deciding  the  matter  at 
issue.  With  the  exception  of  the  old  Italick  ver- 
sion, they  are  destitute  of  the  external  evidence, 
which  arises  from  the  testimony  of  those  early  di- 
vines, who  might  have  appealed  to  them  in  their 
theological  writings.  Nor  are  the  probabilities  of 
the  case  much  in  favour  of  their  antiquity.  The 
Macedonian  conquests  had  rendered  the  original 
language  of  the  New  Testament  so  general  through- 
out the  east J,  that  the  absolute  necessity  of  a  Sy- 

4  See  Croius  and  Mattheei,  ut  supr. 

5  It  is  not  my  intention  here   to   espouse  the  opinion  of  Is. 
Vo&sius  that  Greek  and  Latin  were  the  only  languages  spoken  ia 
Palestine  in  the  Apostolical  age.     The  Jews,   at   that   period, 
as  it  is  observable  at  present,    adopted  the   language   of  their 
conquerors,    but  taught  their  children  their  vernacular  tongue. 
This  is  evident  from  the  following  authorities :    2  Maccab.  vii. 
21,  24,  25,  27.     S.  Hieron.  Pratf.  in  Com.  ad  Gal.  Tom.  VI.  p. 

.34.  c.  Unum  est  quod  inferimus — Galatas,  excepto  Sermone 
Graco,  quo  omnis  Oriens  loquitur •,  propriam  linguarn  eandera 
pene  habere,  quam  Treviros,  &c.  Hence,  P.  Simon,  reason- 

t 


(    48    ) 

riack  and  Coptick  version  was  not  immediately  ex-* 
perienced  in  the  countries  where  those  languages 
were  spoken.  And  if  we  except  those  versions, 
there  are  none  which  can  support  any  pretensions 
to  a  remote  antiquity.  The  Ethiopick  possesses  the 
fairest  claims ;  but  if  we  must  admit  it  to  have  been 
more  than  corrected  from  the  Greek 6,  it  must  have 
been  made  at  a  comparatively  recent  period,,  as  ap- 
pears from  the  time  at  which  Christianity  was  esta- 
blished in  Ethiopia 7.  With  respect  to  the  Syriack 


Ing  on  the  foregoing  passage  from  the  Maccabees,  in  answer  to 
Vossius,  declares;  Hist.  Crit.  du  Nouv.  Test.  chap.  vi.  p.  60. — 
"  Ce  qui  prouve  manifestement  que  le  Grec  ctoit  la  langue  vul- 
gaire  du  pays,  et  que  les  Juifs  outre  le  Grec  avoient  conserve 
la  langue  Calda'ique  qu'ils  avoient  rapportee  de  Babylone,  et 
cm'ils  appelloient  la  langue  de  la  nation." 

By  parity  of  reasoning  we  might  conclude  the  same  to  have 
been  the  case  in  Egypt,  which,  not  less  than  Syria,  was  under 
the  dominion  of  the  Greeks.  We  consequently  find,  that  the 
principal  authours  of  this  country  wrote  in  Greek  as  the  learned 
language ;  and  that  inscriptions  and  coins  of  this  country  are 
written  in  the  same  language.  The  Coptick  abounds  in  Greek 
terms,  as  I  have  particularly  occasion  to  remark  of  the  Sahl- 
click,  one  of  its  oldest  and  least  corrupted  dialects;  which  is  a 
sufficient  proof  of  the  prevalence  of  Greek  in  the  Thebais  where 
that  dialect  was  spoken. 

6  Vid.  Mill.  Proleg.  in  Nov.  Test.  n.  1191.  Conf.  n.  ".  supr. 
p.  31  . 

7  This  event  cannot  be  antedated  to  the  reign  of  Constantine, 
&s  appears  from  the  impression  which  was  made  by  the  preach- 
ing of  the  Gospel    upon   the  neighbouring  countries,  which, 
though  visited  by  the  apostles,  did  not  fully  embrace  the  faith 
Until  the  times  of  the  first  Christian  Emperour,  when  they  were 
visited  by  ./Edesius  and  Frumentius,     Socrat.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib. 


(    49    ) 

and  Coptick,  which  have  those  strong  presump^ 
tions  against  their  antiquity,  that  have  been  already 
suggested  ;  the  antiquity  of  the  latter  is  confessedly 
worse  than  suspicious,  as  it  is  accommodated  with 
the  sections  and  canons  of  Eusebius8.  The  pre- 
tensions of  the  Syriack  are  scarcely  less  equivocal. 
As  it  is  composed  in  different  styles  9,  and  was  thus 
possibly  made  at  different  periods,  the  probabilities 
are,  that  the  more  antient  part  of  the  version  was 
retouched,  when  the  translation  was  completed. 
The  bare  probability  of  this  circumstance,  corrobo- 
rated by  the  want  of  positive  evidence  in  favour  of 
the  antiquity  of  this  version,  destroys  its  authority 
as  a  testimony  to  which  we  may  appeal  in-  determi- 
ning the  genuine  text  of  Scripture. 

The  little  satisfaction  which  is  to  be  derived  on 
this  subject  from  the  Syriack  and  Coptick  versions, 
has  entitled  the  Sahidick  to  a  proportionable  degree 
of  respect.  In  support  of  the  remote  antiquity  of 

I.  Cap.  sdx.  p.  4-9.  1.  31.  *Av$i<;  «v  fj.^[ji,o»£vrtov  y.atl  onus  ITT*  rut 
xcuguv  ra  @a,&&tuq  o  X^irt^ncr^oj  iir\a.TvviTQ*  TJjvixatJT*  y&P  'iv^uv  T£ 
tun  tv^orlgv  xat  'l@v)^uv  Ta-e'Svi?,  CD^of  TO  ^T^KV'^HV  &Aa/x.|3ai<E  TW  af- 


TUV 


|wv.     Conft  p. 
1.  ll.seq. 

8  Vid.  supr.  p.  29,  n.  s°. 

9  Simon,  Hist  des  Vers.  chap.xv.  p.  187, 

E 


(    50    ) 

this  version,  v  Inch  is  written  in  that  peculiar  dialect 
of  the  Coptick  which  is  spoken  in  Upper  Egypt,,  a 
work  has  been  cited,,  in  which  it  is  principally  pre- 
served, and  which,,  as  supposed  to  be  written  by 
the  heretick  Valentinus,  who  flourished  in  the  se- 
cond century,  necessarily  supports  its  pretensions 
to  at  least  an  equal  antiquity  I0. 

To  the  species  of  evidence  on  which  this  work  is 
thus  recommended  to  us  as  antient,  I  have  much  to 
object ".  The  foundation  on  which  the  conclusion 

10  Version.  Sahid.  Fragmentt.  a  Woid.  et  Ford.  Oxon.  1799. 
Prolegg.  pp.  136,  139.  "  Sed  ulterius  progredior,  et  vetustatem 
Version  is  Sahidicas  factis  probabo.  Valentinum  ^gyptium 
anno  circiter  vegesimo  secundo  vel  vigesimo  tertio  seculi  se- 
cundi  floruisse,  et  librum  "  Sophiae"  scripsisse  novimus. — Ex 
his  colligo  "  Sophiam"  esse  librum  Gnosticorum  antiquissimum 
qui  seculo  secundo  jam  extiterit.  Et  cum  Tertullianus  "  So* 
phiam*'  Valentino  adscribat,  nullam  video  rationem  cur  non 
potius  Valentino,  quam  alii  Gnosticorum  attribuam  quorum 

Voces  familiarissimas    7r^95£W/xa,     a»w»,     pwrr^w,     yvuc-u;,  /3apl3»jXa>, 

i*A£a£aw$,  &c.  ssepissime  cxhibet.  Cum  vero  plures  Psalmi 
Davidici,  et  quaedam  Veteris  Testament!  ac  plura  Aovz  Testa- 
menti  loca  in  hoc  MSto.  Codice  recitentnry  quae  cum  reliquiis 
Versionis  Bibliorum  ^Egyptiacae,  exceptis  quibasdam  varieta- 
tibus  conveniunt;  recte  inde  mihi  videor  conjicere  :  Interpret^* 
tionem  Bibliontm  Sahidicam  seculo  secundo  jam  extitisse. 

11 1  take  no  account  of  the  argument  of  M.  la  Croze  and  Dr. 
Wilkins,  Prolegom.  in  Vers.  Copt.  p.  v.  drawn  from  the  case  of 
the  ascetick  Antonius,  who,  though  said  to  have  been  not  versed 
in  Greek  literature,  is  yet  admitted  to-  have  read  the  scriptures, 
and  to  have  heard  them  read  in  the  church;  from  whence  it  is 
concluded,  he  must  have  heard  and  read  them  in  a  Coptick 
translation.  Let  us  however  suppose  him  able  to  understand 
and  to  read  Greek,  though  not  able  to  speak  or  write  it,  and  we 
shall  see  that  the  authority  which  supports  this  argument  coa- 
eludes  nothing. 


(    51    ) 

in  favour  of  Its  antiquity,  is  built,  is  in  the  first 
place,  weakened  if  not  destroyed,  by  the  doubt- 
fulness of  the  fact,  that  any  work  of  the  kind  has 
been  really  ascribed  by  Tertullian  to  Valentinus  IZ. 
And  this  objection  is  considerably  strengthened  by 
the  further  consideration,  that  many  works,  under 
similar  titles  have  been  ascribed  to  his  disciples 1J. 
The  circumstance  of  this  work  being  written  in 
Sahidick,  which  was  the  vulgar  language  of  the 
Thebais,  seems  to  conclude  not  a  little  against  the 
origin  which  it  is  ascribed,  in  being  referred  to 
Valentinus,  This  heretick,  who  was  a  person  of 
no  ordinary  qualifications  u,  could  not  be  ignorant 


IZ  Massuet.  Dissert.  Praev.  in  S.  Iren.  Aft.  I.  Sect.  iv.  §  9.  p. 
xvi.  ed  Bened.  "  Sunt  qui  putant  scriptum  ab  eo  [Valentino] 
librum  sub  titulo  "  Sophia,"  nixi  his  Tertulliani  verbis  adv* 
Valent.  cap.  11.  'Docet  ipsa  Sophia  non  quidem  Valentini  sed 
Salomonis.'  Sed  hsec  perperam  explicant.  Alludit  enim  Ter- 
tullianus,  non  ad  aliquem  Valentini  librum,  sed  ad  Sophiam  no* 
vissinmm  eorum  quos  excogitavit  ^onum ;  ut  legenti  patebit." 
Conf.  §  12. 15.  48* 

13  Id.  ibid.  §  9*  "  Discipulos  quidem    Valentini  c  exsistentes 
extra  omnem  timorem,    suas  conscriptiones  proferentes,  plura 
habere  gloriari^  quam  sint  ipsa  Evangelia*  narrat  Irenaeus  Lib« 
III.  cap.  xi.  n.  8.     *  In  tantum  siquidem  processerant  audaci*, 
ut  Novum  *Evangelium,  quod  "Veritatis"  nuncupabant, 
finxissent*'     At  ipsi   Valentino  nihil  simile  usquam 

&c. 

14  Id.  ibid.  p.  xiii.    "  Alexanddam   profectus  Valentinus,  ibi 
Gr&corum  artibus  non   mediocriter  institutus   est    doctissimurrt 
enimfiiisse  scribit  Hieronymus  in  Ose.  cap.  x.  et  Dialog,  contr. 
Marcionitas,    qui   Origeni  vulgo   adscribitur,    otx   ivrt?w  u^t 
vir  miniine  vulgaris  dicitur.      Quin  saltern  ingenio  peracri,  et 
in  ^ectionc  vctcrwn  Philosophorum  non  parum  versatus  esset  non 

E'2 


of  Greek,,  which  was  in  his  age  the  learned  language 
of  Egypt,  as  he  adopted  most  of  his  peculiar  tenets 
from  the  mythology  of  Hesiod  and  the  philosophy 
of  Plato  I5.  It  is  in  the  last  degree  improbable, 
that  Tertullian  could  have  understood  him,  had  he 
written  in  any  other  language;  and  wholly  incon- 
ceivable, that  he  should  omit  all  mention  of  so  ex- 
traordinary a  circumstance  as  his  having  read  Valen- 
tinus  in  his  vernacular  tongue.  Admitting  all  that 
can  be  claimed  for  this  work,  that  it  was  really  com- 
posed by  the  early  heretiek  to  whom  it  is  ascribed, 
it  is  thus  only  probable  that  it  is  but  a  translation 
from  the  Greek,  and  of  course,  for  any  thing  we  can 
decide,  one  of  a  very  recent  period.  Ill  this  form  it 
is  as  probable,  as  the  contrary,  that  it  incorporates 
in  its  text  a  version  of  the  New  Testament  which 
has  been  made  in  the  fourth  century  instead  of  the 
second.  The  fact,  however,  is,  that  the  internal 
evidence  of  the  work  before  us,  seems  very  sufficient 
to  refute  the  notion  of  its  having  been  written  by 
the  heretiek  Valentimis ;  if  we  are  to  believe  the 

negablt  quisquis  ad  ejas  systems — attenderit.  In  primis  Plii- 
IbsbphicE  Platonica,  ad  quam  potissimum  raentem  appellabant 
Gnostic!  oranes,  operam  dedisse,  testis  est  Tertullianus  [De 
Rraescr.  cap.  7.  30.]  pluraque  ab  ea  accepta  dogmata  demon- 
stnmt.  Cum  -in  ^gypto-,  et  prassertim  Alexandria?,  plurimi 
Judaeorum  eo  tempore  vixerint,  hinc  verosomile  putat  Joan,, 
Francisc.  Buddaeus,  in  Dissertat.  de  Hseresi  Valeatin. — Valen- 
fimun  eorum  Philosophic?,  qualis  eo  tempore  erat,  fuitse  imbutum^ 
15  Id.  ibid.  §.  25.  "  Id  ipsum  ante  Tertullianum  [De 
Pracscr.  eap.  vii.  De  An.  cap.  xvii.'J  monuerat  Irenaeus  [Adv- 
.  lib.  ii.  cap.  14.]  Valentinianos  ex  Elhnicis  Poet  is  systemalis- 
i,  e  Philosophis  materiani  eruisse.  vid.  supr.  n^  n. 


.    (    53    )      . 

testimony  of  Tertullian,  on  whose  authority  it  is 
assigned  to  him.  The  passages  of  scripture.,  intro- 
duced into  this  work  are  often  misquoted  in  order 
to  favour  the  Gnostick  tenets  ;  but  we  are  assured 
that  those  contained  in  the  works  of  Valentinus, 
were  faithfully  cited,  though  perversely  interpreted 
to  support  his  heretical  doctrines l6.  We  must 
therefore  conclude.,  not  merely  from  the  external 
evidence.,  which  is  at  best  equivocal,  but  from  the 
internal,  which  seems  to  establish  all  that  I  labour 
to  prove,  that  the  work  imputed  to  Valentinus,  has 
been  ascribed  to  him  on  inconclusive  grounds. 

The  Sahidick  version  quoted  in  the  book  of 
£C  Wisdom/'  may,  consequently,  for  any  thing 
which  this  argument  concludes,  be  as  well  ascribed 
to  the  fourth  century  as  to  the  second.  And  many 
weighty  reasons  may  be,  I  conceive,  urged  to 
prove,  that  the  former  wras  the  period  which  pro- 
duced this  translation  ;  several  learned  and  pious 
persons  having  been  at  that  time  exiled  in  the 

6  Fragment*.  Vers.  Sahid.  ub.  supr.  p.  135.  "  Versionem 
autem  Sahidicam,  seu  Superioris  /Egypti,  jam  primis  post 
Christum  natum  seculis  incuria  Scribarum  et  levitate  ac  liccntiq 
Gnosticorum  Jidsse  depravatam,  e  pluribus  locis  Codicis  Askeivani 
manifestissime  adparet,  praecipue  Matt.  vi.  21.  xviii.  21.  xx.  16. 
Luc.  xiii.  25—28.  xxii.  30.  Rom.  xiii.  7."  Massuet.  Dissert, 
ubi  supr.  sect  iv.  §.  9.  p.  xvi.  "  Certe  ne  longius  a  proposito 
deflectam,  genuinus  Tertullianus  hujus  libri  [De  Pnescrip.] 
cap.  xxxviii.  Valtntinum  a  crimine  suppositionis  novi  Evangelii 
palam  absolvit.— <  Valentinus  integro  instrument*)  uti  videtur.—r 
Marcion  enim  exerte  et  palam  machaera,  non  stylo  usus  est  : 
quoniam  ad  materiam  suam  caedem  Scripturarum  cgnfecit:  T«- 
lentinus  autem  pepercitj  &c. 


(    54    ) 

Thebais  ^}  who  could  have  found  no  better  mode  of 
employing  their  leisure,  than  in  procuring  the  Scrip- 
tures to  be  translated  for  the  purpose  of  enabling 
them  to  diffuse  Christianity  more  generally  among 
the  natives,  with  whose  vulgar  tongue  they  were  un- 
acquainted. And  this  supposition  is  not  a  little 
strengthened  by  the  consideration,  that  they  were  ap- 
parently the  persons  I8,who  brought  into  Europe  the 

1T  S.  Hilary,  Eusebjus  Vercellensis,  and  Lucifer  Calaritanus  ; 
Theodorit.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  III.  cap.  iv.  p.  125.  1.  23.—  *ai  TS; 

**  ra 


rara    rj    »  ra 
i7ra»»jA0£v  o  ^£To?  MfXf'rto?,    tlq  oe 

?»  7JEy<T£^toy  JE  xat  'IXagjQf,  o  SK  T^J  'IraX/*f,  xaj 
o  2a§Sa»  T^V  i/Tjarov  woipta/vstv  Xa^v,  sv  r-rii  ©*j£ai'a;v  TT) 
ov.  IxeT  yag  a^ThU"  6  K.a;Vi'avTios  l^a/f^axKrev, 
Conf.  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  II  J.  cap.  v.  p.  177.  1.  2.  Sozom. 
Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  V.  cap.  xii.  p.  197.  1.  39.  seq. 

18  The  rarity  of  these  manuscripts  in  Europe,  and  the  care 
with  which  they  have  been  preserved,  enable  us  to  refer  them  to 
their  respective  owners  with  little  comparative  difficulty. 
Eusebius's  manuscript  is  supposed  to  be  sjtill  preserved  at  his 
church  in  Verceli,  vid.  infr.  n.  18  :  and  the  coincidence  between 
it  and  the  Cambridge  manuscript  enables  us  to  assign  the  latter 
to  a  similar  source  with  it.  Hilary's  text  may  be  ascertained 
from  the  Colbert  manuscript  ;  vid.  Sabatier.  Vers.  Jtal.  SS. 
Bibll.  Tom.  III.  p.  xxxv.  and  the  Laudian  manuscript,  which, 
it  is  next  to  certain  belonged  to  the  venerable  Bede,  vid.  Woid, 
Praef.  Cod.  Alexandr.  §.  78.  as  brought  out  of  Sardinia,  may 
be  thence  traced  to  Lucifer  ;  vid.  Wetsten,  Proleg.  in  Nov. 
Test,  Tom.  II.  p.  449,  These  deductions  are  not  only  con- 
firmed by  the  history  of  those  Christian  Fathers,  who  were  versed 
in  Greek,  and  had  been  exiled  in  the  Thebais,  from  whence 
these  MSS,  were  brought  ;  but  by  this  known  circumstance 


(    55    ) 

Cambridge,  and  other  manuscripts  of  the  same  de- 
scription, which  resemble  the  oldest  manuscripts 19  of 
the  Sahidick  version,  not  merely  in  their  form,  as 
attended  with  a  translation ;  but  in  their  peculiar 
readings10,  and  the  character  in  which  they  arc 
written  *'.  The  general  prevalence  of  the  Greek 

— that  a  knowledge  of  that  language,  if  not  confined  to  them, 
was  a  rarity  in  Europe  :  vid.  infr.  n.  2S. 

19  Such  is  the  fragment  of  St.  John's  Gospel  which  contains 
the  Greek  text  opposed  to  a  Sahidick  translation,  in  the  same 
manner  as  the  Cambridge  and  Clermont  MSS.  contain  the 
Greek  opposed  to  a  Latin  translation.     It  has  been  published 
under  the  following  title  :    Fragmentum  Evangelii  S.  Johannis 
Graeco-Copto-thebaicum  saeculi  iv.  Opera  et  studio  F.  Augustini 
Antonii  Georgii  Eremitae  Augustiniani  Horn.  1789. 

20  Kipling.  Praef.  Cod.  Cantab,  p.  vi.     Cognitum  nunc  ha- 
bemus   Codicis  Bezce  Grceca  non  tantum  cum  vers-ionibus  turn 
Syriacis  turn  Latina,  verum  etiam  cum  versionibus  Hierosoly- 
mitana,  Sakidica,  Coptica,  &c.  mirum  in  modum  convenire.  Conf. 
Fragmentt  Vers.  Sahid.  a  Woid.  ut  supr.  p.  131 — 135.  where  a 
variety  of  examples  are  collected,  in  which  the  Sahidick  Version 
is  proved  to  coincide  with  the  Vulgate  and  the  Cambridge  and 
Clermont  manuscripts. 

**  Kipling.  Praef.  Cod.  Cantab,  p.  xv.  Observarunt  eru- 
diti  quidam  aberrationes  [Cod.  Bezae]  a  sueta  Graecorum 
orthographia  pronuntiationi  JEgyptiacce  admodum  congruere, 
et  in  omnibus  fere  occurrere  ex  ^Egypto  allatis  codicibus.  Quas 
ob  causas  consuerunt  Wetstenius,  Woidius,  et  Spohn,  Codicem 
Alexandrinum,  cui  nimirum  aberrationes  istae  cum  Bezae  ex- 
emplari  communes  sunt  in  JEgyptofuisse  scriptum — Quid  igitur 
obstat,  cur  non  credamus  eum  qui  Bezse  exscripsit  exemplar 
JEgyptiumfuisse?  Talem  esse  video  quidem  Antonii  Georgii 
sententiam,  quo  uberius  nemo,  quod  sciam,  doctiusve  hanc  rem 
tractavit.  Cujus  argumentis  meum  hoc  qualecunque  subjungere 
liceat,  Quod  Graeca  nostri  codicis  non  tantum  JEgyptiaco  scripta 
sunt  more,  sed  lectionibus  prseterea  scatent,  quas  in 


(    5.6    ) 

language,  I  again  repeat,  renders  it  highly  impro- 
bable, that  this  version  should  be  ascribed  to  a  much 
higher  period.  And  the  version  itself,  as  abound- 
ing with  Greek  terms,  contains  a  demonstrative 
proof  of  the  fact,,  by  proving  the  general  prevalence 
of  that  language  in  the  Thebais.  It  was  the  former 
circumstance  which  seemingly  determined  the  in- 
spired writers  in  the  choice  which  they  made  of 
that  language,  as  the  medium  through  which  the 
sacred  canon  was  to  be  published.  To  this  circum- 
stance we  are  to  attribute  the  republication  of  the 
Jewish  Scriptures  in  Greek,  under  the  Ptolemies ; 
and  we  consequently  find,  in  the  apostolical  age, 
that  the  Greek  translation  had  nearly  superseded 
the  oriental  original. 

The  matter  under  discussion  is  thus  reduced 
within  a  narrow  compass.  Deprived  of  the  assist- 
ance of  the  primitive  divines,  and  of  the  oriental 
versions,  in  ascertaining  the  original  text  of  Scrip- 
ture, our  last  dependence  is  rested  on  the  old  Italick 
translation.  Here,  however,  it  may  be  as  securely 
as  naturally  placed.  The  Scripture  was  not  less 

quibusdam,  nee  in  ullis  aliis  libris  compertas  habemus.  Quibus 
arguments,  quibusque  gravissimis  auctoribus,  ad  credendum 
tandem  adducor,  Mgyptwn  esse  Bezcc  exemplaris  patriam." 
"Woide,  .Praef.  Cod.  Alexandr.  Sect.  vi.  §.  76,  "  Rationes 
autem,  cur  in  Oriente  potius  scriptus  esse  videatur  Codex  Lau- 
dianus  hae  sunt.  Eadem  est  orthographia  in  eo  ac  in  Alexandri- 
no,  ii  pro  V,  et  B  pro  oti  ponit,  &c.  easdem  habet  breviationes : 
frequentissime  ny  tyeXavrixov  •  eandem  interpunctionem  :  voces 
antique  scriptas,  Iwrw  pro  iwotrw,  ^/.-uJ/E*  pro  Ikw^w :  et  quod 
pngcipuum,  eosdem  ductusliterarumt sed pirjguiores, et  festinanter, 
nee  intra  liaeas  scriptos," 


(     57    ) 

committed  to  the  keeping-  of  the  Latin  than  of  the 
Greek  church,  as  the  witnesses  of  its  autlienticity, 
and  the  guardians  of  its  purity  ;  and  the  knowledge 
of  the  languages  spoken  by  those  churches,  was 
nearly  commensurate  with  the  Roman  and  Macedo- 
nian conquests.     The  former   church  possessed  a 
translation,  which,  as  generally  quoted  by  the  Latin 
fathers  previously  to  the  council  of  Nice,  was  con- 
sequently made  previously  to  any  alterations  wliicli 
the  original  might  have  undergone  under  Constan- 
tine.     This  translation  has  been  celebrated  for  its 
literal  fidelity  ",    and  we  have  this  security  of  its 
having  long  continued  unaltered  z?,  that  the  Latins 
were  not  sufficiently  instructed  in  the  language  of 
the  original,  to  undertake  the  correction  of  the  tran- 
slation.    So  very  rare  was  the  humble  qualification 
of  reading  Greek,   that  we  have  every  reason  to 
believe,  it  was  possessed  by  few  of  the  Latins,  Ter- 
tullian  excepted 24,   until  the  age  of  Constantine ; 
when  the  councils  convened  against  the   Arians, 
opened  that  intercourse  between  the  eastern  and 
western  churches,  which  familiarized  the  latter  with 
the  original  language  of  the  sacred  canon  ~5.^  After 

li  Vid.  S.  August.  De  Doctrin.  Christ.  Lib.  II.  cap.  xv.  Tom. 
III.  p.  27.  g-  ed.  Bened.  "  In  ipsis  autem  interpretationibus 
Itala  caeteris  prrcferatur ;  nam  est  verborum  tenador  cum  pers- 
picuitate  sentevtia." 

3  Hilar.  Diac.  Com.  in  Rom.  v.  "  Constat  autem  quosdam 
Latinos  porro  olim  de  veteribus  Greeds  translates  codicibus  quos 
incorruptos  simplidtas  temporum  servavit,  et  probat,''  &c. 

^  Vid.  Pamel.  Vit.  Tertul.  ad  An.  Chr.  197.  ed.  Franc. 
1597. 

5  Twenty  years  after  this  intercourse  had  commenced,  the 
in  fathers  made  this  avowal  of  their  ignorance  of  the  Greek, 


(    58    ) 

that  period,  Hilary,  Lucifer,  and  Eusebius  of  Verceli 
arose,  who  are  represented  as  possessed  of  learning 
sufficient  to  revise  the  old  Italick  translation*6. 
St.  Jerome  was  of  a  later  period,  who  undertook 
that  thorough  revision  of  the  text  which  has  produced 
the  present  Vulgate  :  yet  even  in  the  same  age,  St. 
Augustine  appears  to  have  been  but  moderately 
versed  in  the  Greek  language. 

In  proceeding  to  estimate  the  testimony  which  the 
Latin  translation  bears  to  the  state  of  the  Greek 

in  declining  to  subscribe  to  the  confession  proposed  to  them  by 
the  Orientalists  ;  Socr.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  II.  cap.  xx.  p.  103.  1.  2. 
Tatrra  ol  Ko.ro.  TO,  \vjrtpa,  pepy  ITTICTXOWOJ,  &<*  TO  aAXoyAwo-tf-ov;  tlj<a», 
xat  Six  TO  /&03  avvtlvai,  a  vrgo&^xpvTo,  cc.fH.iTv  ryu  In  Ntxaia 


**  This  must  be  inferred  from  the  part  which  Eusebius  Ver- 
cellensis,  Hilary,  and  Lucifer  took  in  the  affairs  of  the  Greek 
church  ;  the  return  of  those  bishops  to  their  dioceses,  after  the 
council  held  at  Alexandria,  under  St.  Athanasius,  is  recorded 
by  the  ecclesiastick  historians  ;  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  III. 
cap.  ix.  p.  184.  1.  33.  cap.  x.  p.  185.  1.  8  —  i 

T«»   o^yjjf  awn-hygvpai    vx.   '[(r^vo-tv  i&hro  ya£  Ta<?  eaura 
&'   uv   «7ror*»Xa$    rov  ^axovov,    rig%uv    foi    viro   T«?    ffvvott 

.  hoKf{  auros  (j^ev  tvis  SKxXwioiS  (p^ovo/v,  us  rrjv 
eiit   TOV  oixsTov  ^ovov  a.7fsy^u^i.     ol  &  •B 
tLvru,   iti  ttal  vvy  T^J  exxXvjaia?  ^u^ovran.      'E,Uff£@M 


xal    'IraX/ar    iwt/Say,     ra    azJra 

o  IlyxTa^idJv    sTria-xowo;,    -070X1?  £i  ai/rr    $tvrt£a.<; 

ra  Tij?  o/xo^o|«  «rir««ff   ^oy/xara,  TOK  Ti   in  Iret^iex, 


T»J   rowa?.      aptpct}  ptv  zv  ytvvaus  T*J 

Conf.  Sozora.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  V.  cap.  xiii.  p.  119.  1.  II. 


(    59    ) 

text,  it  is  necessary  to  premise,  that  this  translation 
exhibits  three  varieties  : — As  corrected  by  St.  Jerome 
at  the  desire  of  Pope  Damasus  2?,  and  preserved  in 
the  Vulgate ;  as  corrected  by  Eusebius  of  Verceli, 
at  the  desire  of  Pope  Julius.,  and  preserved  in  the 
Codex  Vercellensis  i8 ;  and  as  existing-  previously 
to  the  corrections  of  both,  and  preserved  as  I  con- 
ceive, in  the  Codex  Brixianus  i9.  The  first  of  these 
three  editions  of  the  Italick  translation  is  too  well 
known  to  need  any  description  ;  both  the  last  are  con- 
tained in  beautiful  manuscripts,  preserved  at  Ver- 
celi, and  at  Brescia,  in  Italy.  The  curious  and  ex- 
pensive manner  in  which  at  least  the  latter  of  these 
manuscripts  is  executed,  as  written  on  purple  vellum 

*7  Vid.supr.p.  15.n.16. 

*8  F.  H.  Rugger.  Cod.  Vercel.  Descrip.  ap.  Blanchin.  Evang, 
Quadr.  Proleg.  p.  57. — "  exstant  et  documenta  plurirna  certas 
fidei,  monumentisque  publicis  consignata,  ex  quibus  ediscimus, 
librum  quatuor  Evangeliorum  a  magno  sancto  Patre  nostro 
Episcopo  et  Martyre  Eusebio  ex  Gr&canicis  litteris  ante  Divum 
Hieronymum  esse  redditum.  Hac  ipsa  igitur  facultate  Graecaruna 
litterarum  lectionis  ea  perfectione  Roma?  potiebatur,  tit  Julius 
Pontifex  Maximus  Marci  successor,  qui  Eusebium  sacro  prea* 
byterali  charactere  insignivit,  existimavit  ilium  non  sibi  soli 
vacare,  sed  etiam  Christianae  Reipublicse  prodesse  debere ;  ut 
habetur  ex  antiquissimis  tabulis,  in  quibus  eundem  Eusebium 
interpreters  sacrorum  voluminum  designatum  a  Summo  Pontifce 
jidsse  traditur.  Graecas  enim  literas  non  alio  proposito  sibi  fine 
didicerat,  quam  ut  perfectius  Sacrarum  Literarum  arcana  di^» 
nosceret." 

29  The  description  of  this  MS.  which  may,  as  I  conceive,  be 
referred  to  Philastrius  Brixiensis,  as  I  shall  endeavour  to  shew- 
hereafter,  is  given  in  Blanchin.  Evang.  Quadrupl.  Proleg.  Toi»» 
1.  .  5, 


f    60    ) 

in  silver  characters'30,  would  of  itself  contain  no 
inconclusive  proof  of  its  great  antiquity ;  such  having 
been  the  form  in  which  the  most  esteemed  works 
were  executed  in  the  -times  of  Eusebius,  Chrysostome, 
and  Jerome u.  The  former  is  ascribed,,  by  im- 
memorial tradition,  to  Eusebius  Vercellensis,  the 
friend  of  Pope  Julius  and  St.  Athanasius,  and,  as 
supposed  to  have  been  written  with  his  own  hand, 
is  deposited  among1  the  relicks,  which  are  preserved 
with  a  degree  of  superstitious  reverence,  in  the 
authour's  church  at  Verceli  in  Piedmont JZ.  By  these 

5°  P.  Garbel.  Descr.  Cod.  Brix.  ap.  Blanchin.  ibid.  p.  10. 
"  Forma  Codicis  [Brixiani]  oblonga  est  ita,  ut  latitudinem 
ferme  quadrante  superet.  Ejus  membranae,  licet  purpura  tinctce 
fuerinty  plurimse  tamen,  vetustate  temporis,  caerulei  speciem 

praese-ferunt.  Caracteres, argenteo  quodam  pigmento  sunt 

liti :  cujus  tamen  color,  multis  in  locis  evanidus,  aureum  si- 
mutat,  fallitque,  nisi  intente  inspiciatur.  Unde  et  nos  olini  Co- 
dice.m  Aureum  vocabamus," 

31  Barret.  Cod.  Rescript.  Dublinens.  Proleg.  p.  9.  "  Mem- 
branae,  super  quas  describitur  [Cod.  Dublinens.]  videntur  pri- 
niitus  purpurei  fwisse  coloris  :  quod  indicium  est  magncc  vetus- 
tatis*  Sic  Chrysost.  in  Job.  Horn,  xxxii.  xat  «  -cracra  uvroT<; 

&7r&ov)  'ZtTtp*  T*JV  fuv  vpivuv  AsWToTtjTa,    y.xt  TO  TUIV  r/^at[/.i^airci}v  xaX^o?— - 

or*  x&vffo~q  i-/i\  yga^ao-iv.  Tom.  II.  ed.  Savil.  p.  6S6.  Testatur 
vere  Capitolinus  in  Vit.  Maximini ;  ominis  imperil  in  loco  illi 
fuisse,  quod  omnes  libri  Homerici,  qui  illi  puero  porrigerentur, 
fuerunt  purpurei,  lite/is  aureis  inscripti." 

31  Rugger.  Cod.  Vercel.  Descrip.  ubi  supr.  "  De  vero  pos- 
sessore  hujus  sacri  voluminis  practer  antiquam  constantissimam 
venerationem,  quam  semper  erga  illud,  Capitulum  et  Ecclesia 
professa  est,  illud  asservahdo  in  ipsomet  sacro  Reliquiarum  deposito^ 
ubi  sanctorum,  prophctarum,  apostolorum,  plurimorumque 
martyrum  ossa  'custodiuntur,  exstant  et  documenta 
certae  fidei,  &c.  vid.  supr.  n.  28. 


(    61     ) 

three  editions  of  the  translation,  we  might  naturally 
expect  to  acquire  some  insight  into  the  varieties  of 
the  original.  And  this  expectation  is  fully  justified 
on  experiment.  The  latter,,  not  less  -than  the 
former,,  is  capable  of  being  distributed  into  thr.ee 
kinds ;  each  of  which  possesses  an  extraordinary 
coincidence  with  one  of  a  correspondent  kind,  in 
the  translation.  In  a  word,,  the  Greek  manuscripts 
are  capable  of  being  divided  into  three  principal 
classes,  one  of  which  agrees  with  the  Italick  transla- 
tion contained  in  the  Brescia  manuscript ;  another 
with  that  contained  in  the  Verceli  manuscript ;  and 
a  third  with  that  contained  in  the  Vulgate.. 

o 

In  ascertaining  the  particular  Greek  manuscripts 
which,  as  possessing  this  coincidence  with  the  Latin, 
may  be  taken  as  the  exemplars  of  each  class,,,  we 
have  few  difficulties  to  encounter.  The  affinity 
existing  between  the  Vatican  manuscript  and  the 
Vulgate  is  so  striking,  as  to  have  induced  Dr.  Bent- 
ley,  and  M.  Wetstein  to  class  them  together JJ.  And 

33  Wetsten.  Proleg.  in  Nov.  Test.  Tom.  I.  p.  26.  Neque 
vero  cur  eorum  testirnomum  in  dubium  vocari  debet;  cum  con- 
Jirmetur  et  per  R.  Bentleium,  qui  saepe  inter  amicos  narrare 
solebat,  Vaticanum  Codicem  in  omnibus  fere  cum  Alcxandrino, 
adeoque  etiam,  ut  supra  demonstravimus,  cum  versions  Ilala, 
convenire :  et  re  ipsa,  nam  Mat.  v.  22.  non  habet  elw,  1  John 
iv.  3.  non  habet  p^ro*  lv  o-otgxi  IXrthvSoTa. ;  ut  alia  passim  in  var» 
lect.  nostris  annotata  taceam."  The  collation  of  the  Vatican 
MS.  made  for  Dr.  Bentley  is  published  by  Dr.  Ford  at  the  end 
of  his  Fragment!.  Vers.  Sahidic.  Oxon.  1799.  by  its  assistance, 
the  affinity  between  the  Vulgate  and  Vatican  manuscript  may 
be  directly  discovered  on  comparison. 


(    62    ) 

I  proceed  to  offer  some  proof,  that  the  affinity  of 
the  Harleian  and  Moscow  manuscript u,  with  the 
Brescia  manuscript ;  and  that  of  the  Codex  Can- 
tabrigiensis  with  the  Verceli  manuscript,  is  not 
less  striking  and  extraordinary.  So  that  the  Har- 
leian and  Moscow  manuscript,  the  Cambridge  ma- 
nuscript, and  the  Vatican  manuscript,  (as  re- 
spectively coinciding  with  the  Brescia  manuscript, 
the  Verceli  manuscript,  and  the  Vulgate)  may  be 
taken  as  exemplars  of  the  three  principal  classes 
into  which  the  Greek  manuscripts  may  be  distri- 
buted. 

The  subjoined  specimen,  taken  from  the  first 
chapter  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  will  furnish  a 
tolerably  just  idea  of  the  nature  and  closeness  of  this 
coincidence.  I  shall  prefix  the  readings  of  the 
Received  Text,  and  authorized  English  version,  in 
order  to  evince  their  coincidence  with  that  text,  to 
which  the  preference  appears  to  be  due,  on  account 
of  its  conformity  to  the  Italick  translation  contained 
in  the  Brescia  manuscript. 

34  These  MSS.  are  designated  by  M.  Griesbach,  "  G,  and 
Mt.  V."  The  former  is  preserved  in  the  British  Museum,  where 
it  is  marked  Harl.  5684:  it  is  assigned  to  the  tenth  century,  and 
is  described  by  M.  Griesbach  Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  I.  p.  Ixiv. — 
The  latter  is  a  manuscript  of  the  S.  Synod  at  Moscow,  which 
has  been  described  by  M.  Matthsei  Nov.  Test.  Tom.  IX.  p.  2C5. 
and  is  conceived  by  him  to  be  of  the  eighth  century.  It 
remains  to  be  observed,  that  the  various  readings  ef  this  MS. 
in  the  annexed  collation  are  taken  from  M.  Matthaei's  text  and 
notes.  The  Harleian  MS.  wants  the  five  first  chapters  of  St« 
Matthew ;  its  various  readings  have  been  consequently  omitted 
in  the  annexed  collation  of  texts. 


(    63    ) 

4.  paxagiot  o?  -erivSSm?.  x.  T.  s.      Rec. 

—  blessed  are  they  that  mourn,  &c.     Aulh. 

01  tr^airc  x.  r.  I.    Cant,     beati  mites,  &c.     Verc. 
o?  on  y$5mc.  x.  T.  I.  Vat.     beat!  mites,  &c.     Vulg. 
x.   T.   *.     beati  yw£  lugent,  &c« 


5. 

—  blessed  are  the  meek,  &c.     Auik. 

o»  'criy.SSmf.    x.  T.   I.  beati  qui  lugent,  &c.     Verc, 
Cant. 

?j  x.  T.  I.    Vat.  beati  qui  lugent,  &c.     Vulg. 

.  x.  T.  I.  Mo.sc.  beati  mansueti.     Brix. 


—  against  you  falsely  for  wy  sake. 


adversum  vos  ipropterjustitiam. 
Cant.  Verc. 

§'  vpw  ^vQo^Evoi  MM  E//.5.     adversum  vos  menlientes  prop- 
Vat.  ter  me.     Vulg. 

adversum  vos  mentientes  prop- 
ter  w(?. 


12.  I*  TO 

—  in  heaven.     Auth. 

•t  TW  x%»va.     Cant.  in  ccelo.     Verc. 

i»  TO^  «?a»0r?.     Fa^.  in  coelis.      Vulg. 

in  ccelis. 


13.  «??  »^».  tV^vet  en.     Rec. 
—  it  is  thenceforth  good  for  nothing. 
^£».     Canf.  ad  nihilum  valet.     Verc. 

en.      Fa^.  ad  nihilum  valet  ultra. 

«»s  ilw  »V^w»  en.     Mosc.  ad  nilulura  valebit  ultra.  Br'tx* 


(    64    ) 


.  o^yipsvos  TU 
—  angry  with  his  brother  without  a  cause.     Auth. 

ra  a.$t>>(pu  CC.VTU  glx^        qui  irascitur  fratri  suosinecau- 
Cant.  sa.      Fere. 

qui  irascitur  fratri  suo.     Vulg. 
qui  irascitur  fratri  suo  sine  can* 
Mosc.  sa.     Brix. 


27.    sppsSr,  TOK  a 

—  it  has  been  said  by  them  of  old  time.    Auth. 

dictum  est.     Fere. 

.    Vat.     Mosc.  dictum  est.     Erlx. 

TO?$  ccfxcLMq.  dictum  est  antiquis.      Corl. 

Vulg. 


30.   £Xflaj  si? 

—  ^<?  c«6^  into  hell. 

yettmr.    Cant.  eat  in  gehennam. 

7tiy»ay  aweX^Ti.      Fflf.  ea^  in  gehennam.      Fw 

mittatur  in  gehennam. 


32.  Xtya  vpTv  on.      Rec. 

—  I  say  unto  you  that.     Auth. 

vptv.     Cant.  dico  vobis.      Verc. 

vpTr  on.      Vat.  dico  vobis  quia.      Vulg 

VIM  »  on.     Mosc.  dico  vobis  quia.     Brix. 


32.   o?  lav  *vv\t).vpit*it  yai^o-rt  ^oi^uroti.      Rec. 
—  whosoever  shall  marry  her  that  is  divorced,  com- 
mitteth  adultery.     Auth. 

desunt.     Cant  ......  ....  desunt.     Vercel. 

xpr,cr»s  jtAo»^aT0n      qui  dimissam  duxerit  adulterate 
Vat.  Vulg. 

e?  tut  anfr.frviji.ivw  ya.^^  /*«»•     qui  dimissam  duxerit  mcecha* 
Mosc.  tur.    Brix. 


(    65    ) 

38.  xa*  octovrct,  uvll  9<KtTQf*    Rec. 
—  and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth.     AutJi. 


l^ovra.  «m  oSovroq.     Cant.  dentem  pro  dentem,      Verc*. 

xal  oSovTcc,  otrci  O&VTO$.      Vat*          et  dentem  pro  dente.     Vulg* 
x«l  o<5oKT«  otvrl  e&rrof.     Mosc.       et  dentem  pro  dente.     Brix* 


41.  vvetye  /XET'  ayra  0vo.      ReC. 
—  go  with  him  twain.     Auth. 

(AST   ctvTx  ET*   aMa  ^'o.     vade  cum  illo  adhuc  alia  duo, 
Cant.  Verc. 

»9T«ye  f*er'  a^ra  ^o.     Vat.  vade    cum    illo  c^  alia  duo. 

ftfe: 

T'  ayr«  ^o.     Mosc.  vade  cum  illo  duo.     JBr/x, 


44.  EyXoystTE  ra;  xuraguptviK;  vpa,$.     Rec. 
—  bless  them  that  curse  you.     Auth. 


Cizitf. 

.....  desunt.     Faf.  ......  desunt.     Vula-. 

& 

^yinri  res  xa1apw/x£»«s  y/^ca?,         benedicite  maledicentibus  vos» 
Mb.sc.  Erix. 


44. 

v/x«?.      Rec. 


xa*    •WXOVTO'V  v/x«?.  . 

•  —  pray  for  them  who  despitefully  use  you 
and  persecute  you.     Auth. 

orate   pro   calumniantibus   et 
persequentibus  vos.     Verc.    • 


t>fji.a.<;.     Cant. 


orate   pro    persequentibus   et 
calumniantibus   vos.     Vulv. 

twig  ruv  iTer^zoc^ov      orate  pro  calumniantibus  vobis 
rav  vpais,  x«»  huwrut  vpSif.         et  persequentibus  vos.  Brix* 

Mosc. 


(    66    ) 

This  short  specimen  3S  will  sufficiently  evince  the 
affinity  which  the  Greek  and  Latin  manuscripts 
bear  to  each  other,,  throughout  the  different  classes, 
into  which  they  may  be  divided.  It  will  also 
illustrate  the  dissimilarity  which  those  classes  ex- 
hibit among  themselves,  in  either  language,  re- 
garded separately.  In  order  to  evince  the  affinity 
which  in  other  respects  they  possess  among  them- 
selves,, it  will  be  necessary  to  view  a  connected  por- 
tion of  the  sacred  text,  in  the  original  and  the 
translation.  For  this  purpose  I  shall  subjoin  the 
opening  of  the  same  chapter  from  whence  the  fore- 
cited  various  readings  have  been  extracted ;  inclu- 
ding that  part  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  which 
contains  the  beatitudes. 


3s  These  examples  may  be  augmented  to  any  required  extent, 
with  very  little  trouble  to  the  undertaker.  The  principal 
coincidences  of  the  Received  Text  and  Brescia  MS.  in  readings 
which  differ  from  the  Vulgate,  have  been  collected  by  M. 
Blanchini,  and  may  be  seen  in  his  Evangel.  Quadr.  P.  I.  fol. 
edlxxxv.  seq.  P.  II.  cdlxix.  seq.  On  comparing  the  list  of 
texts  there  collected  from  the  Vulgate,  with  the  collation  of 
the  Vatican  MS.  made  for  Dr.  Bentley,  see  n.  33 ;  the  striking 
coincidence  of  their  respective  texts  will  be  directly  apparent. 
For  a  proof  of  the  coincidence  of  the  Cambridge  and  Verceli 
MSS.  the  reader  may  be  referred  to  the  lower  margin  of  M. 
Blanchini's  Evangeliarium  Quadruplex  who  has  noted  the  co- 
incident readings  with  much  pains. 

It  may  be  necessary  to  observe,  that  in  the  above  list  of  texts, 
those  selected  from  the  Vatican  MS.  are  taken  from  the  various 
readings  published  by  Dr.  Ford,  as  already  referred  to  n. 33, 
The  Moscow  MS.  is  defective  in  Mat.  v.  44.  but  the  reading 
of  this  text  may  be  taken  from  the  other  MSS.  of  M.  Matthaei; 
as  they  harmonize  with  this  MS.  in  an  extraordinary  manner. 


Cod.  Cant. 


O  ogo?'  xa* 

X$ov     at/Tw 
wvrS" 

2»  Kat  «v 


(>civ 


5. 


T>?V 


•  Tt  at'TO*   &Ct(: 

6.   Maxaptot  ot  iretvuvlss  xsti 


7» 


8.   Maxaptot   oj 


9. 


10.  Maxapo*  oJ 
snxet  c<Kaioopfv»)f  •    OT* 
Ifiv  ^  Qotcriheiai  Ttan  xpatvut. 

11*   Maxapioi  Iff,   oray 


12. 


'  KTW?  -yap 
f  ,  T«; 


Class  I. 

Cod.   fare. 

n  1.  Videns  autem  Jesus  turbam, 
,  ascendit  in  montem,  et  cum  se- 
*  disset,  accesserunt  ad  eum  disci- 

puli  ejus ; 
,         2.  Et  aperuit  os  suum,  et  doce- 

bat  eos  dicens : 

j  3.  Beati  pauperesspiritu:  quo- 
9  niam  ipsorum  est  regnum  cce* 

lorum. 
»         5.  Beati  mites :    quoniam  ipsi 

hereditate  possidebunt  ten-am. 
4.  Beati  qui  lugent :    quoniam 

ipsi  consolabuntur. 

6.  Beati  qui  esuriunt  et  sitiunt 
justitiam:    quoniam   ipsi  satura- 
buntur. 

7.  Beati    misericordes :     quia 
ipsis  miserebitur  Deus. 

8.  Beati  mundo  corde:  quoniam 
ipsi  Deum  videbunt. 

9.  Beati  pacifici :  quoniam  filii 
Dei  vocabuntur. 

10.  Beati   qui    persecutiohem 
jpatiuntur  propter  justitiam :   quo- 
niam ipsorum  est  regnum  crelorum. 

11.  Beati  estis,   cum  vos   ma- 
ledicent,  et  persequentur,  etdicent 
omhe  malum  adversum  vos  propter 
justitiam. 

12.  Gaudete  et  exuhate :   quo- 
niam merces  vestra  copiosa  est  in 
ccelo.      Sic  enim  persecuti  sunt 
prophetas  qui  erant  ante  vos. 


Cod.  Vat. 


Class  II. 

Vers.   Vulg. 

1.  i&y>  £E  T«?  o^xa?,  «VE£>J         1.  Videns  autem  turbas  ascendit 
O  oo*  xa*  x.a.bl?uvl<&  OC.VTOV,     in  montem,  et  cum  sedisset  acces- 
i     serunt  ad  eum  discipuli  ejus  : 


opos 


ot 


oe.v\uv 


Maxapto*   o? 


olt 


5* 


Maxaptot  ot  I&eivuv\i<; 


7.    Maxaptot 


8. 


atpoi 


10.    Maxaptof  01 


11.      Maxa^oi 


If'El'OOjXEyot  EVEXEV 

12..    Xaipfils 
•Tt    •    ^tcrfio 


itroAy? 


o  y*W 


2.  Et  aperiens  os  suum,  docebat 
eos  dicens : 

3.  Beati  pauperes  spiritu :  quo- 
niam  ipsorum   est  regnum  coelo- 
rum. 

5.  Beati  mites :   quoniam   ipsi 
possidebunt  terram. 

4.  Beati  qui  lugent :    quonianv 
ipsi  consolabuntur. 

6.  Beat!  qui  esuriunt  et  sitiunt 
justitiam:     quoniam  ipsi  satura- 
buntur. 

7.  Beati  misericordes :  quiaipsi 
misericordiam  consequcntur. 

8.  Beati  mundo   corde:    quo- 
niam ipsi  Deum  videbunt. 

9.  Beati  pacifici :  quoniam  ipsi 
filii  Dei  vocabuntur. 

10.  Beati  qui  persecutionem  pa- 
tiuntur  propter  justitiam :  quoniam 
ipsorum  est  regnum  ccelorum. 

11.  Beati  estis,  cum  maledix- 
erint  vobis  et  persecuti  vos  fuerint, 
et  dixerint  omne  malum  adversura 
vos,  mentientes  propter  me. 

12.  Gaudete  et  exultate:  quo- 
niam merces  vestra  copiosa  est  in 
ccelis.     Sic   enim  persecuti  sunt 
prophetas,  qui  fuerunt  ante  vos. 


Class  III. 


Cod.  Mosc. 

1.  IS™  £e  ra«  o%to?,  aw^sj 
ds  TO  «gos'  xai  xaMo-atloq  a^rS, 
«7pocrrMov  aylw  of  |tAa0i)]«*  aulS. 

2.  K*t    aw|«?  TO  ro/*« 
KVTX,  $®euncn  avra?  A/ywv 

3.  Maxaptot  o*  d1#%oi  TW 

f  OT»  ayrwr  lr*v  ^  /S«. 


4.  Maxapiot  o*  wtvQavlts*  oTt 
5«   Maxapiot   ot  <nrgaE;V*    oVt 

•    on, 


(.  Maxa^toi  ot  eAg>5 

TOi    E^EJjOjJO-OvJat. 

8.   M«x«iot    of 


10.   Maxaptot  o» 


T&JV  tipavuv. 
11.  Maxaptot  Ift 


12. 


l$iu%ot.v  T»5 


Corf.  £mr. 

1.  Videns  autem  turbas  ascen- 
dit  in  montem,  et  cum  sedisset 
accessertmt  ad  eum  discipuli  ejus ; 

2.  Et  aperiens  os  suum,  docebat 
eos  dicens : 

3.  Beati  pauperes  spiritu :  quo- 
niam ipsorum  est  regnum  ccelo- 
rum. 

4.  Beati  qui  lugent :    quoniam 
ipsi  consolabuntur. 

5.  Beati  mansueti:     quoniam 
ipsi  hereditabunt  terram. 

6.  Beati  qui  esuriunt  et  sitiunt 
justitiam:    quoniam  ipsi  satura- 
buntur. 

7.  Beati  misericordes :  quoniam 
ipsi  misericordiam  consequentur. 

8.  Beati  mundi  corde :  quoniam 
ipsi  Deum  videbunt. 

9.  Beati  pacifici :  quoniam  ipsi 
filii  Dei  vocabuntur. 

10.  Beati   qui    persecutionem 
patiuntur  propter  justitiam :   quo- 
niam ipsorum  est  regnum  ccelorum. 

11.  Beati  eritis  cum  exprobra- 
verint  vos,  et  persequentur,  et  dix- 
erint  omne  malum  adversum  vos 
mentientes  propter  me. 

12.  Gaudete  et  exultate :  quo- 
niam merces  vestra  copiosa  est  in 
crelis.      Sic  enim  persecuti  stint 
prophetas  qui  fuerunt  ante  VQS. 


(    70    ) 

A  few  general  observations  will  suffice  on  the 
subject  of  those  different  classes  of  manuscripts  in 
the  Greek  and  Latin,,  as  preliminary  to  further  de- 
ductions. 

That  the  manuscripts  in  both  languages  possess  the 
same  text,  though  evidently  of  different  classes,  must 
be  evident  on  the  most  casual  inspection ;  they  respec- 
tively possess  that  identity  in  the  choice  of  terms  and 
arrangement  of  the  language,  which  is  irreconcila- 
ble with  the  notion  of  their  having  descended  from 
different  archetypes.  And  though  these  classes,  in 
either  language,  vary  among  themselves,  yet,  as  the 
translation  follows  the  varieties  of  the  original,  the 
Greek  and  Latin  consequently  afford  each  other  mu- 
tual confirmation.  The  different  classes  of  text  in 
the  Greek  and  Latin  translation,  as  thus  coinciding, 
may  be  regarded  as  the  conspiring  testimony,  of 
those  Churches  which  were  appointed  the  wit- 
nesses and  keepers  of  Holy  Writ,  to  the  existence  of 
three  species  of  text  in  the  original  and  the  transla- 
tion. 

On  this  conclusion  we  may  however  found  ano- 
ther deduction  relative  to  the  antiquity  of  this  testi- 
mony. As  the  existence  of  a  translation  necessa- 
rily implies  the  priority  of  the  original  from  which 
it  was  formed ;  this  testimony  may  be  directly  re- 
ferred to  the  close  of  the  fourth  century.  The  Vul- 
gate must  be  clearly  referred  to  that  period,  as  it 
•was  then  formed  by  St.  Jerome  *6;  in  its  bare  exist- 

16  This  period  is  antedated  by  St.  Jerome,  to  the  fourteenth 
year  of  the  emperor  Theodosius  ;  A.  D.  393.  S.  Hieron.  Ca- 


(    71     ) 

ence  of  course  the  correspondent  antiquity  of  the 
Greek  text  with  which  it  agrees,  is  directly  esta- 
blished. This  version  is,  however,  obviously  less 
antient  than  that  of  the  Verceli  or  Brescia  manu- 
script ;  as  they  are  of  the  old  Italick  translation,, 
while  it  properly  constitutes  the  new.  In  the  ex- 
istence of  the  antient  version,  the  antiquity  of  the 
original  texts  with  which  it  corresponds  is  conse- 
quently established.  The  three  classes  of  text 
which  correspond  with  the  Vulgate  and  Old  Italick 
Version,  must  be  consequently  referred  to  a  period 
not  less  remote  than  the  close  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury. 

In  attaining  the  testimony  of  the  Greek  and  La- 
tin Churches,  at  a  period  thus  antient,  we  have  ac- 
quired some  solid  ground  to  proceed  upon.  But 
this  testimony  is  of  still  greater  importance,  as  it 
affords  a  foundation  on  which  we  may  rest  the  tes- 
timony of  St.  Jerome,  who  flourished  at  that  period. 
To  his  authority  the  highest  respect  is  due,  not 
merely  on  account  of  his  having  then  lived,  and 
formed  one  of  the  versions  of  the  Latin  church,  but 
his  great  reputation  in  biblical  criticism.  His  testi- 
mony, while  it  confirms  the  foregoing  deductions, 
made  from  the  internal  evidence  of  the  Greek  and 
Latin  manuscripts,  affords  a  clue  which  will  guide  us 
through  this  obscure  and  intricate  subject.  He  bears 
witness  to  the  existence  of  three  editions  of  the  sa- 

talog.  Scriptt.  Ecclesiass.  sub.  fin.  Tom.  I.  p.  132.  "Usque 
in  praesentem  annum,  id  est,  Theodosii  decimum  quartum  heec 

scrips! Novum  Testamentum  Greece? jidei  reddidi,  Vetus  jux- 

ta  Hebraicam  transtuli. " 


(    72    ) 

cred  text,  in  his  own  age,  which  he  refers  to 
Egypt,  Palestine,  and  Constantinople  37.  This  tes- 
timony is  the  rather  deserving  of  attention,  as  it 
confirms,  in  an  extraordinary  manner,  the  previous 
assumption  relative  to  the  existence  of  three  classes 
of  text :  and,  as  on  the  same  broad  distinction  of  the 
country  where  they  are  found 58,  the  Greek  manu- 
scripts have  been  distinguished,  by  modern  criticks 
into  three  different  classes,  two  of  which  are  re- 
ferred to  Egypt  and  Constantinople. 

The  result  of  the  investigation  to  which  this  view 
of  the  subject  leads,  will,  I  trust,  end  in  deduc- 
tions not  less  important  than  certain.  It  will,  I  am 
fond  enough  to  hope,  prove  beyond  all  reasonable 
ground  of  objection,  that  the  three  classes  of  text, 
which  are  discoverable  in  the  Greek  manuscripts, 
are  nearly  identical  with  the  three  editions,  which 

37  S.  Hier.  Prsef.  in  Paralipomm.  Tom.  III.  p.  343.  «  SI 
Septuaginta  interpretum  pura,  et  ut  ab  eis  in  Graecum  versa 
est,  permaneret;  superfine  me,  Chromati,  Episcoporum  sanc- 
tissime,  atque  doctissime,  impelleres,  ut  Hebraaa  volumina 
Latino  sermone  transferrem. — Nunc  vero,  cum  pro  varietate  re- 
gionum,  diversa  Jerantur  exemplaria ;  et  germana  ilia  anti- 
quaque  translatio  corrupta  sit  atque  violata :  nostri  arbitrii  pu- 
tas,  aut  e  pluribus  judicare  quid  verum  sit ;  aut  novum  opus 
in  veteri  opere  cuderc,  illudentibusque  Judasis,  cornicum,  ut  di- 
citur,  oculos  confingere.  Alexandria  et  JEgyptus  in  septuaginta 
guis  Hesyckium  laudat  auctorem.  Constant inopotis  usque  ad  Anti- 
ochiam  Luciani  martyris  exemplaria  probat.  Mediae  inter  has 
provincial  Palcestinos  codices  legunt,  quos  ab  Origin*  elaboratos 
.Eusebius  et  Pamphilus  vulgaverunt.  Totusque  orbis  hac  inter 
jse  trifaria  varietate  compugnat."  Conf.  p.  11.  n. I4 

2*  Vid.  supr.  pp,  I-,  5. 


(    73    ) 

existed  in  the  age  of  St.  Jerome :  with  which 
they  are  identified  by  their  coincidence  with  the 
Latin  translation,  which  existed  in  the  age  of  that 
Christian  father. 


Of  Class  L 

That  the  Cambridge  manuscript,  which  is  the 
exemplar  of  the  First  Class,  contains  the  text  which 
St.  Jerome  refers  to  Egypt,  and  ascribes  to  Hesy- 
chius,  seems  to  be  sufficiently  established  by  the 
following  considerations  : 

1.  It  is  next  to  certain,  that  this  manuscript  was 
originally  imported  from  Egypt  into  the  west  of 
Europe.  It  not  only  conforms  in  the  style  of  its 
characters  to  the  form  of  the  Egyptian  letters,  but 
in  its  orthography  to  the  Egyptian  mode  of  pronun- 
ciation 39.  It  also  possesses  the  lessons  of  the  Egyp- 
tian church  noted  in  its  margin.  In  proof  of  which 
those  passages  may  be  specified,  which  occur  in  St. 
John,  relative  to  our  Lord's  interview  with  the  Sa- 
maritan woman,  and  his  walking  on  the  sea ;  which 
were  appointed  to  be  read  in  the  Egyptian  church 
at  the  period  when  the  Nile  was  retiring  from  its 
channel.  We  consequently  find  both  places  distin- 
guished by  that  mark,  which  declares  them  to  have 
been  lessons  read  at  that  period  4Q.  And  agreeably 

39  Vid.  supr.  p.  55.  n.  4I. 

40  Kipling.  Praef.  in  Cod.  Cantab,  p.  xvi.      "  Denique  anag- 

soiebant  YEgyptiaci,  instante  annua  Nili  exundatione, 


(    74    ) 

to  this  representation,  we  find  this  manuscript  fe~ 
ferred  to  Egypt^  by  the  generality  of  criticks  who 
have  undertaken  its  description41.  As  it  was  thus 
authoritatively  read  in  the  church.,  it  evidently  fui> 
nishes  a  specimen  of  the  text  which  from  a  remote 
period  prevailed  in  Egypt. 

2.  The  same  conclusion  is  confirmed,  in  an  ex- 
traordinary degree  by  the  coincidence  of  this  manu- 
script with  the  vulgar  translation  of  the  Egyptians. 
Of  the  different  species  of  text  which  modern  cri- 
ticks discover  in-  the  Greek  manuscripts.,  that  of 
the  Cambridge  manuscript  is  observed  to  coincide, 
to  a  degree  surpassing  all  expectation,  not  only 
with  the  common  Coptick  translation  ^3  but  particu- 
larly the  Sahidiek  version  4?.  As  Greek  was  ma- 

Sabbatis  apud  pcpulum  legere,  quae  Joannes  tradidit  Evange- 
lista  de  muliere  Samaritana,  diebusque  simul  Doininicis,  quae 
scriptis  idem  mandavit  de  Jesu  Christo  supra  mare  amlulante* 
Reperies  autem,  in  nostro  codice,  cum  hanc  turn  illam  sec* 
tionem,  verbo  ANAFNOEMA  insignitam." 

*'  Vid.  supr.  p.  55.  n.  ai. 

*  Vid.  supr.  p.  55.  n. 20. 

4?  The  affinity  between  the  Cambridge  manuscript  and  thft 
Sahidick  version  is  pointed  out  by  Munter,  Dissert,  de  Indol. 
Vers.  Sahidic.  pp.  10 — 46.  A  table  of  their  coincident  readings 
is  given  by  Dr.  Woide,  Fragmcntt.  Vers.  Sahid.  pp.  132,  133  : 
and  every  page  in  the  antecedent  collation  of  texts  contained  in 
the  same  work,  abounds  in  examples.  I  shall  present  the 
reader  with  a  specimen,  taken  from  a  single  chapter  of  St.  Mat- 
thew, of  the  coincidence  of  this  MS.  and  version,  in  additions, 
contractions,  alterations,  &c.  of  the  sacred  text.  Matt,  xviii. 
10.  i»o?  T«»  pxgw  T«10y  Eec.  Mosc.  unmn  ex  his  pusillis.  Brix: 
but  this  clause  is  thus  enlarged,  evos  tuv  V.I-/.MV  raluv  ttistvariwii 
tls  £*c€.  Cant.  Sahid.  unum  ex  his  pusillis  yui  credunt  in  me. 


(    75    ) 

nifestly  the  current  language  of  Egypt  4*  and  ma- 
nuscripts in  that  language  were  as  obviously  preva- 
lent in  Egypt45  ;  we  must  conceive  that  the  vulgar 
translations  of  this  country  were  accommodated  to 
the  generality  of  those  manuscripts  with  which  the 
natives  were  acquainted.  The  conformity  of  the 
Codex  Cantabrigiensis  to  those  versions  conse- 
quently proves,  that  this  manuscript  contains  the 
text,  which  in  St.  Jerome's  age,  when  the  Sahidick 
version  was  apparently  formed46,  was  generally 
prevalent  in  Egypt. 

3.  In  the  extraordinary  coincidence  of  the  Cam- 
bridge manuscript  with  the  old  Italick  version  pre- 
served in  the  manuscript  of  Verceli,  we  have  a  fur- 
ther proof,  which  establishes  the  same  conclusion. 
This  version  was  corrected  by  St.  Eusebius  of  Ver- 
celi47, who  was  exiled  in  the  Thebais,  where  the 
Sahidick  dialect  is  spoken,  during  the  period  that 
the  Christian  church  was  under  the  dominion  of  the 


Veron.  Ibid.  29.  msa-ut  lv  sis  r*s  wo&ai-  ccvlS,  Rec.  Mosc.  Pro- 
cidens  ad  pedes  ejus,  Erix  :  but  this  clause  is  thus  contracted, 
tswuv  ac  Cant.  Sahid.  Procidens.  Verc.  Ib.  35.  r*  4H*f*vlv}uA* 
ainZv  is  omitted  in  Cant.  Sahid.  Verc.  though  retained  in  Rec. 
Mosc.  Erix.  Ibid  17.  ucrv^  o  ednxo^xou  o  TsXvnKj  Rec.  Mosc.  si- 
cut  ethnicus  et  publicanus,  Brix  :  but  this  clause  is  thus  altered, 
u$  o  l^yiy.oq  x/x.1  ui  6  rs^uvr^.  Cant.  Sahid. 

44  Vid.  supr.  p.  48.  n.  5. 

45  Woid.  Praef.  in  Cod.  Alexandrin.  sect.  II.  §   33.  p.  vi  __ 
"  In  JEgypto  circa  Alexandriam  plurimi  ernnt  librarii  et  calligra- 
phi,  et  Eusebius  quinquaginta  codices  Constantino  magno,  et 
Athanasius  totidem  Constantino  curaverat  adferri." 

46  Vid.  supr,  p.  53.  seq. 

47  Vid.  supr.  p.  09.  n.*3. 


(    76    ) 

Arians  4*.  The  active  life  of  St.  Eusebius  will  scarce- 
ly admit  of  our  conceiving,  that  he  performed  this 
task,  at  any  other  period,  than  during  the  time  of 
his  exile.  And  the  attachment  of  those  hereticks 
whom  he  unremittingly  opposed,  to  the  edition  of 
Eusebius  49,  most  probably  induced  him  to  yield  to 
a  natural  bias  in  favour  of  the  church  which 
admitted  him  into  its  communion,  and  thus  led 
him  to  follow  the  Received  Text  of  Egypt,  as  revised 
by  Hesychius.  The  affinity  between  the  Verceli  and 
Cambridge  manuscripts,  thus  furnishes  an  addi- 
tional proof,  that  the  latter  is  of  Hesychius's  edi- 
tion, which,  from  St.  Jerome's  account,  must  in  St. 
Eusebius's  age  have  continued  in  Egypt ;  as  it  re- 
mained to  the  age  of  St.  Jerome.  It  is  indeed  in- 
conceivable, that  St.  Eusebius,  in  forming  his  transla- 
tion, would  have  followed  any  text,  which  was  of 
an  equivocal  character,  or  in  less  repute  than  that 
of  Hesychius  :  his  version  consequently  adds  ano- 
ther and  convincing  testimony,  to  prove,  that  the 
Cambridge  manuscript  contains  the  text  which  in 
his  age  was  current  in  Egypt. 

4.  We  possess  a  collation  of  the  manuscripts  of 
Egypt,  made  in  the  year  616,  which  establishes 
the  same  conclusion,  almost  beyond  controversion. 
At  that  period  Thomas  of  Heraclea,  who  revised  the 
Syriack  version,  published  under  the  auspices  of 
Philoxenus,  Bishop  of  Mabug,  collated  that  trans- 
lation with  some  Greek  manuscripts,  which  he 


48  Via.  supr.  p.  54-.  n. 
45  Vid.  supr.  p.  28.  n. 


found  in  a  monastery  in  Egypt,  and  has  noted  their 
various  readings  in  the  margin  of  his  edition  5°.  So 
extraordinary  is  the  coincidence  of  these  readings, 
ivith  the  peculiar  readings  of  the  Cambridge  manu- 
script sl,  that  some  criticks  have  been  induced  to 
believe  it  was  the  identical  copy  used  in  the  colla- 
tion sz.  This  notion  is  however  refuted,,  by  the  in- 


50  Adler.  de  Versionn.  Syriacc.  Nov.  Test.  Lib.  II.  p.  49.  ed. 
Hafn.  178£.  "  Postseculum  elapsum  Thomas  Heraclensis  no- 
vam  hujus  versionis  [Syr.  Philoxen.]  editionem  curavit  Alex- 
andria, ad  duo  vel  tria  exenrpla  Grccca  castigatam,  nimirum  an- 
no Grsecorum  DCCCCXXVII,  h.  e.  Christi  DCXVI. — Cum  nonnul- 
lis  Codicibus  Greeds  earn  contulit ;  quorum  prcecipuas  varietates, 
et  passim  etiam  versionis  simplicis  consensum  vel  dissensum,  in 
margins  editionis  suce  adnotavit,  simulque  ubi  versio  ambigua  vel 
intellects  difficilior  videbatur,  verba  Grccca  appossuit."  This 
information  is  derived  from  a  notice,  annexed  to  the  Philox- 
enian  version,  by  Thomas  Heraclensis  himself;  Adler.  ibid.  p. 
46.  "  Collatus  est  liber  iste  cum  duobus  exemplis  probatis, 
Translatus  autem  fuit  hie  liber  quatuor  Evangelistarum  Sancto- 
rum e  lingua  Gra^ca  in  Syriacam  cum  accuratione  multa  et  la- 
bore  magno,  primo  quidem  in  urbe  Mabug,  in  diebus  Sancti 
Domini  Philoxeni  confessoris  [et  J  episcopi  ejus  urbis.  Collatus 
autem  postea,  multa  cum  diligentia,  a  me  Thoma  paupere,  cum 
tribus  exemplis  Greeds,  valde  probatis  et  correctis  in  Antonia 
Alexandria,  nrbis  magnce,  in  monasterio  sancto  Antoniano.?' 
— e  Cod.  Biblioth.  Angelic.  S.  August,  de  Urb.  f.  139. 

51  Adler.  ibid.  p.  133.     "  Quicquidsit,  illud  tamen  extra  om- 
nem  dubitationem   ponitur,    Codices  Thames   simillimos  fume. 
Cantabrigiensi.' ' 

52  This  notion  is  espoused  by  M.  Wetsten.  Prolegg.  in  Nov. 
Test.  Tom.  I.  p.  28.  but  opposed  by  Dr.  Gl.  Ridley  Dissert,  in 
Syriac.  Vers.  sect.  vi.  p.  61.     The  question  is  debated  by  Dr, 
Kipling.  Praef.  in  Cod.  Cant.  pp.  xvi,  xvii.    Adler.  Verss.  Svri- 
ace,  Nov.  Test.  Lib.  II.  p.  132.  and  other  criticks. 


ternal  evidence  of  the  manuscript  compared  with 
the  readings  in  question  5?.  Prom  the  conformity 
of  those  readings  to  the  Cambridge  manuscript, 
not  merely  in  texts  which  are  common  to  it  with 
other  manuscripts,,  but  in  texts  peculiar  to  itself  s\ 
we  must  infer  its  conformity  to  the  text,,  which  even 
to  a  late  period  was  current  in  Egypt. 

Now  as  it  is  absurd  to  conceive  that  the  peculiar 
readings  alluded  to  in  the  last  three  instances  can 
have  proceeded  from  the  one  manuscript  named  in 
the  first ;  or  that  they  have  been  corrupted  from 
each  other 55 :  as  St.  Jerome  has  ascribed  a  peculiar 

$3  Via.  infr.  n. ss. 

54  Adler.  ibid.  p.  132.  "  Itaque,  inter  180  circiter  varietates, 
130iesfereconsentiunt  Codices,  B.  C.  D.  L.  1.  33.  69.  Urb.  2. 
Vind.  31.  al.  et  195es  solus  D."  Id.  ibid.  p.  130.  "  In  reliquis  igi* 
tur  consentit  criticus  noster  cum  solo  Cantabrigiensi  (Wetst.  cod. 
D.)  undemgesies  ;  nimirum,  Matt.  i.  7.  viii.  28.  ix.  15.  xv.  6. 
xx.  28*  Marc.  i.  3.  iv.  9.  vii.  13.  Luc.  vii.  1,  41.  xii.  1,  2. 
xviii.  30,  34.  xx.  36.  xxii.  34*  Job.  vi.  1.  vii.  40.  ix.  37-  et 
accedente  codice  Vaticano  sexies.  Mat.  i.  22.  xvi.  8.  xxiv.  37. 
Luc.  viii.  26.  x.  17.  Job.  xii.  34."  One  or  two  examples  taken 
from  St.  Luke,  chap.  xx.  will  evince,  that  these  coincidences 
cannot  be  accidental.  We  read  in  Luke  xx.  13.  T«?OV  i&ov7gj 
vflg»irvffo*lett  Mosc.  HarL  ( cum  hunc  mderint  verebuntur,'  &c. 
Brix:  but  I&rle?  is  omitted  in  Cant*  Verc.  and  the  margin  of  Char- 
kel.  On  the  other  hand,  we  read  in  Luke  ib.  34.  yup£<n  x}  snya^- 
iffnovlm  Mosc.  HarL  '  nubunt  et  traduntur  ad  nuptias.'  Brix. 
Vulg:  but  this  phrase  is  interpolated  with  yevvuvlai  ^  ysvvwtf* 
ya^Scri  net]  ya^oyj/law,  Cant.  f  generant  et  generantur,  nubunt 
et  nubuntur.'  Verc.  on  which  Charkel  observes,  "  in  priori  ex» 
emplo  [Vers.  Syr.  Vet.]  ' gignunt  et  gignuntur'  sed  in  Grseco 
non  est"  Marg.  Philox. 

ss  The  latter  of  the  two  examples  quoted  from  Luke  xx.  34* 
supr.  n. 5*.  is  supposed  to  contain  a  proof  that  the  Cambridge 


(    79    ) 

text  to  Hesychius,  which  is  nowhere  to  be  found,  un- 
less it  can  be  identified  in  some  one  of  the  foremen- 
tioned  sources:  and  as  in  speaking  of  this  text,  lie 
delivers  himself  in  terms,  which  accurately  agree 
with  the  text  of  the  Cambridge  manuscript 56 :  we 
must  from  these  premises  infer,  that  the  text  of 
this  manuscript  is  virtually  the  same  with  that  which 
St.  Jerome  refers  to  Eg-ypt  and  ascribes  to  Hesy- 
chius. 

Of  Class  IL 

That  the  Vatican  manuscript  which  forms  the 
exemplar  of  the  Second  Class,  contains  the  text 
which  St.  Jerome  refers  to  Palestine,  and  ascribes 

MS*  was  not  used  by  Thomas  Heraclensis  in  forming  his  collation* 
It  contains  a  reading,  which  though  found  in  the  Cambridge 
MS.  that  critick  declares  was  not  in  the  copies  of  the  Greek 
which  he  collated.  Vid.  Ridl.  ut  supr.  pp.  62,  63.  Adler.  ut 
supr.  p.  132.  On  the  other  hand  tbe  collation  contains  read-* 
ings  which  are  not  found  in  the  manuscript,  though  said  by  the 
collatour  to  exist  in  the  Greek  ;  these  would  be  indeed  of  little 
consequence,  if  they  were  not  confirmed  by  the  coincidence  of 
the  old  Italick  version.  I  add  an  example,  from  the  next  chap- 
ter of  St.  Luke,  to  that  which  has  been  last  cited.  We  read 
Luc.  xxi.  11.  cr-npe'ta,  ptyx.h.0,  £f«f,  Cant.  Mosc.  Vat.:  signa 
'  magna  erunt,'  Cant.  &rix.  Vulg  :  but  we  read  "  et  hiemes" 
Mary.  Philox :  and  "  signa  magna  Grunt  et  hiemes"  Fere. 
These  instances  will  sufficiently  exemplify  the  assertion  made 
above,  that  the  texts  before  us  cannot  be  corrupted  from  the 
Cambridge  MS. 
M  S,  Hier.  Praf,  in  iv  Evang.  Tom.  VI.  p,  u 


(    80    ) 

to  Eusebius,  seems  to  be  clearly  established  by  the 
following1  circumstances  : 

1.  This  manuscript  possesses  a  striking  coinci- 
dence in  its  peculiar  reading's  with  another  manu- 
script,, which  is  preserved  in  the  Vatican  library, 
wiiere  it  is  marked  Urbin.  257,  and  which,  we  are 
enabled,,  by  the  internal  evidence  of  its  margin,  to 
refer  directly  to  Palestine,  and  to  identify  with  the 
edition  of  Eusebius.  At  the  end  of  the  Gospels  it 
contains  a  notice,  specifying  that  it  had  been 
transcribed,  and  collated  with  antient  copies,  in  Je- 
rusalem, which  were  deposited  in  the  holy  moun- 
tain s8.  As  the  text  is  thus  directly  allied  to  the  text 
of  Palestine,  it  is  identified  with  the  edition  of  Eu- 
sebius, in  having  his  Canons  prefixed  to  it,  and  his 
sections  and  references  accurately  noted  in  its  mar- 
gin 59.  The  affinity  of  the  celebrated  Vatican  ma- 

57  Birch.  Prolegomm.  in  Nov.  Test.  p.  xxix.  "  Insignem  hunc 
codicem,   [Urbino-Vatic.  2.]  quod  singularem  ipsius  cum  op- 
timis  et  probatissimis  exemplaribus  convenientiam  observaremr 
bis  omni  diligentia  et  intentions  contuli.     Ubi   enim  a   Recepto 
Evangeliorum    textu    recedit,    plerumque  codicibus    Vaticano 
1209,  £c.  se  actjungit. 

58  Id.  ibid.  Ad  antiquissima  exemplaria  exaratum  esse  [Cod. 
Urb.  2.]  testantur  subscriptions  ad  calcem  Evangeliorum. 
yshiov  xofioc,  MctrSaTov  tygatpv)  >£  uvnQhviQv)  \K  ruv  tv 

uv\iyfa,(puvy   TWV  Iv  ry  ccy'w  op«    aTroxet/Asvwv,     Iv    r»% 
atoig  TNZ.      Evufyefaov  xara  Mccgxov  ly^utyn  vx.   tuv 

xcu 


fuv 
TMB»      Eyayyg^iov  xar«  ICJOLVVVIV   lypottyy)    x£   octevfavi    o^cowy    ex 


59ld.  ibid,  p,  xxvii,    "  Codex  [Urb,  2.]   est  octavae  format, 


(    81    ) 

Utiscript,  thus  traced  through  this  manuscript  to  the 
oldest  copies  of  Jerusalem,,  furnishes  of  course  a 
sufficient  warrant  for  our  referring  its  text  to  the 
edition  of  Eusebius,  which  was  published  in  Pales- 
tine. 

2.  This  deduction  receives  a  direct  confirmation 
from  the  vulgar  translations  which  were  current  in 
the  same  country  from  an  early  period.  The  striking 
affinity  of  the  Urbino- Vatican  manuscript  to  the 
three  translations  extant  in  the  Syriack,  is  express- 
ly asserted  by  Prof.  Birch ;  by  whom  that  manu- 
script was  twice  carefully  collated 6o.  That  existing 
between  the  celebrated  Vatican  manuscript  and  the 
Jerusalern-Syriack  is  even  more  striking61 ;  and  it  is 
observed  to  extend  to  the  Philoxenian  version  like- 
wise6*, and,  by  the  intervention  of  the  Vulgate, 

membranaceus,  foliorum  325j  et  Qiiatuor  complectitur  Evan* 
gelia,  quibus  prcefiguntur  Canones  Eusebii.  Nitide  et  eleganter 
exaratus  est.  Prima  cujusque  Evangelii  pagina,  litterce  majores 
in  sectionum  initiis,  interpungendi  signa,  ut  et  T»T*OI  Eusebiani 
in  margine  Evangeliorum  obvii. 

50  Id.  ibid.  p.  xxix.  "  His  adde  consonaiitiam  iiostri  [Cod. 
ttrb.  2.]  cum  Versione  Syra  Philoxenis,  Syra  Veteri,  Hieroso* 
lymitana"  &c» 

61  Adler.  ut  supr.  p.  201.  "  Geiieratim  igitur  ad  eandem  Co* 
dicum  Graecorum  familiam  referenda  est  [  Vers.  Syra  Hiero- 
solym.'}  cui  libros  Graecos,  quibus  in  castiganda  Versione  Phi- 
loxeniana  usus  est  Thomas,  supra  vindicavimus.  Sed  tamen 
ut  exempla  Thomae  affinitate  proxime  accedent  ad  Cod.  Can- 
tab, et  ut  nostra  Versio  cum  Vaticano,  omnium  Jorte  quos  (etas 
tulit  pr&stantissimo,  propinqua  sit  cognatione  conjunct  a." 

>*  Birch,  ut  supr.  p.  xix.  'ansignem  Codicil  nostri  [Vat. 
1209.]  praestantiam,  ipsa  varietatum  collectio  huic  operi  in- 
serta  satis  superque  demonstrabit — Mira  in  kctionibus  quoque 


(    83    ) 

be  ultimately  traced  to  the  old  Syiiack  or  Pe* 
shito63.  On  its  affinity  to  the  Philoxenian  and  Je- 
rusalem version*,  I  rather  insist,  as  the  former  ia 
divided  into  sections  64,  and  has  the  Eusebian  ca- 
nons and  sections  carefully  inserted  in  some  of  the 
oldest  copies 6* ;  and  as  the  latter  Was  apparently 
tnade  in  the  fourth  century,  .when  the  edition  of 
Eusebius  was  published  in  Palestine 66.  As  it  is 
more  than  merely  probable,  that  the  vulgar  trans- 
lation was  formed  from  the  current  edition  of  the 
. 

singularibus  convementia  cum — -ilia  antiqua  Versione  Syra,  quasi 
aeculo  post  C.  N.  sexto,  sub  auspiciis  Philoxenis  jacta,  inse- 
quenti  seculo,  cura  et  studio  Thomae  Heraclensis  ad  Graecoa 
codices  correcta  et  perfecta  fuit." 

63  Comp.p.  61.  n.  3S.  p.  13.  n.  *3.  p.  21.  n.  '7. 

9+  Adler.  ut  supr.  p.  50.  "  Idem  Thomas  Evangelia  in  capi- 
tula  vel  sectiones  destribuit,  et  pericopas  diebus  festis  recitan- 
das  constituit/' 

*5  Adler.  ut  supr.  p.  52.  "  Praemittuntur  Codici  f  Mediceo 
Florent.  Vers.  Philoxen.]  index  pericoparum  diebus  dominicis 
et  festis  in  cretu  sacro  recitandarum,  Epistola  Euselii  ad  Car* 
pianum,  el  ialmlce  decem  Canonum  harmonicorum  Eusebii  et  Am* 
tnonii. — Margini  Evangeliorum  prater  titulos pericoparum  domi* 
nicalium,  minio  scriptos9  et  argumenta  capitum  vel  xspaXai*;* 
fttrafnerito  exarata,  adscript!  quoque  sunt  minio  numeri  Ammo- 
Ttiani  pericopprum,  et  sub  tlngulis  indicatur  tabula  ad  quam  illud 
capitulum  referendum  sit." 

*6  Id,  ibid,  p,  201.  "  Bed  tamen,  cum  eandem  dialectum  re- 
periemus  in  Hierosolymifcrno,  qui  ex  plurimorum,  ni  fallimur, 
^ruditorum  consensu,  Ct'"cn  speculum  quartum  absolutus  fuit, 
(libris  enim  Cabbalisticis  13aher  et  Zohar  immerito  tarn  remota 
ar>tiquitas  a  Judseis  tribuity.r  ;)  non  impedit,  quo  minus  inter" 
yrctationem  nostrum  eodcm  circiter  lempore,  vel  saltern  infra 
et  sexhim  s&cnium  LLerosolymis  editam  fuisse  statuerc 


(    83    ) 

country ;  the  affinity  which  the  Vatican  manuscript 
possesses  to  that  translation  contains  a  very  con- 
vincing proof,  that  it  possesses  the  text  of  Eusebius 
and  of  Palestine67. 

3.  The  striking  coincidence  of  the  Greek  of  the 
Vatican  manuscript  with  the  Latin  of  the  Vulgate68 
leads  to  the  establishment  of  the  same  conclusion. 
This  version  received  the  corrections  of  St.  Jerome 
during  his  abode  in  Palestine 69 ;  it  is  thus  only  pro- 
bable that  the  Greek  copies,  after  which  he  mo- 
delled it,  were  those,  which  from  being  current 
in  Palestine,  were  used  in  the  monastery, 
into  which  he  had  retired :  but  these  he  as* 
sures  us  were  of  the  edition  of  Eusebius70.  For 
this  edition  he  had  imbibed  an  early  partiality, 
through  Gregory  of  Nazianzum,  who  first  put  the 
Scriptures  into  his  hands 7I,  who  had  been  educated 

6?  It  is  thus  probable  that  this  MS.  preserves  this  text  even 
in  a  purer  state  than  the  Urbino- Vatican  MS.  The  latter  hav- 
ing been  collated  with  more  copies  than  one,  thus  adopted  their 
respective  peculiarities :  and  as  the  transcriber  was  evidently 
not  a  native  of  Jerusalem,  but  an  inhabitant  of  some  region 
situated  more  westerly,  he  adhered  to  the  text  which  prevailed 
in  his  native  country.  We  may  thus  naturally  account  for  the 
approximation  of  this  MS.  to  the  Byzantine  text,  where  it  de- 
viates from  the  Palestine. 

68  Vid.  supr.  p.  61.  n.  33. 

69  Vid.  S.  Hier.  ad  Lucin.  Ep.  xxviii.  Tom.  I.  pp.  82,  83.  Id, 
adv.  Ruffin.  Lib.  III.  cap.  vii.  Tom.  II.  p.  257. 

7°  Vid.  supr.  p.  72.  n. 37. 

7IS.Hieron.  Scriptt.  Eccless.  Catal.  Tom.  I.  p.  131.  "  Gre- 
gorius,  prim  urn  Sasimorum  deinde  Nazianzenus  Episcopus,  vir 
eloquentissimiis  praceptor  meus,  quo  Scripturas  explanante  di» 
did" 


(    84    ) 

in  Palestine7*,  with  Euzoius,  who  had 
been  at  considerable  pains  with  Acacius,,  to  restore 
the  decayed  library  of  Pamphilus  and  Eusebius  in 
that  city  73.  With  this  library  St.  Jerome  was  cer- 
tainly acquainted,  having  found  the  Gospel  of  the 
Hebrews  in  it,  which  he  afterwards  turned  into  La- 
tin 74.  He  has  besides  avowed  his  predilection  for 
Eusebius's  edition,  in  revising  that  part  of  the 
Scripture  Canon  which  contains  the  Old  Testament ; 
having  expressly  followed  Origen's  revisal  of  the 
Septuagint 7S,  which,  as  he  informs  us,  was  incor- 

7*  Id.  ibid.  p.  131.  "  Euzoius  apud  Thespesium  rhetorem,  cum 
Gregorio  Nazianzeno  episcopo,  adolescens  C&sarece  eruditus 
est :  et  ejusdem  postea  urbis  episcopus,  plurimo  labore  corrup- 
tarn  bibliothecam  Origenis  et  Pamphili  in  membranis  instaurare 
conatus  est,"  &c» 

73  Id.  ad.  Marcel.  Ep.   CXLI.  Tom.  III.  p.  398.     "  Beatufi 
Pahiphilus — cum  Demetrium  Phalareum  et  Pisistratum  in  sa- 
cras  bibliothecae  studio  vellet  aequare — Origenis  libros  impensius 
persecutus,  Caesariensi  Ecclesise  dedicavit :  quam  ex  parte  cor- 
fuptam,  Acacius  dehinc  et  Euzoius,  ejusdem  Ecclesiae  sacer- 
dotes,  in  membranis  instaurare  conati  sunt." 

74  Zaccagn.  Col.  Monunim.  Vet.  Eccl.  Prsef.  p.  Ixv.  §  54* 
ed.  Rom.  1698.     "  Ecenim  magno  in  pretio  semper  fuere  Ca»- 
sariensis  Bibliothecse  codices,  utpote  ab  Origine  primum,  deinde 
a  Pamphilo  Mai'tyre,  ac  demum  ab  Eusebio  Caesariensi,    viris 
doctissimis  congesti  fuerant.     Sanctum  enim  Hieronymum  iis~ 
dem  codicibus  usum  fuisse  argumento  est,    quod  Nazarefiorum 
Evangelium  in  Bibliotlieca  Csesariensi  se  reperisse  testatur.'* 
Conf.  S.  Hier.  Scriptt.  Eccl.  in  Matt.  Tom.  I.  p.  120.  Comment, 
in  Matt.  Tom.  VI.  p.  21.  b. 

75  S.  Hier.  Sun.  et  Fretel.  Ep.  cxxxv.  Tom.  III.  p.  377.— 
**  Septuaginta  interpretum  [editio]  qua  in  I^atfXoTr  codicibus 
reperitur, — a  nobis  in  Latinum  sermonem  fdeliter  versa  est,  et 
Hiefosolymie  atque  in  Orientis  ccclesiis  decantatur,"  &c. 


(    85    ) 

porated  in  the  edition  published  by  Eusebius76. 
And  he  has  clearly  evinced  his  acquaintance  with 
the  same  edition,,  in  revising  that  part  of  the  Canon 
which  contains  the  New  Testament,  by  adopting 
Eusebius's  sections  in  dividing  the  text  of  the  Vul- 
gate, and  prefixing  his  canons  to  that  version,  to- 
gether with  the  epistle  addressed  to  Carpianus 77. 
These  considerations,  added  to  the  known  respect 
which  St.  Jerome  possessed  for  Eusebius's  critical 
talents ?8,  fully  warrant  our  adding  the  testimony  of 
the  Vulgate  to  that  of  the  Syriack  version ;  as  prov- 
ing, that  the  Vatican  manuscript,  which  harmonizes 
with  those  translations,  contains  the  text,  which  in> 
St.  Jerome's  age  was  current  in  Palestine. 

4.  We  possess  in  the  present  instance,  not  less 
than  the  preceding,  a  collation  of  texts,  expressly 
made  with  the  edition  of  Eusebius,  about  the  year 
458 79,  which  decisively  establishes  the  same  con- 
clusion. Euthalius,  who  at  that  period  divided  the 
Acts  and  Catholick  Epistles  into  sections,  as  Euse- 

76  Id.  ibid.  conf.  ut  supr.  p.  72.  n. 37. 

77  Id.  Praef.  in  iv.  Evangell.  Tom.  VI.  p.  i.  "  Canones  quoque, 
quos  Eusebius  Ccesariensis  Episcopus,    Alexandrinum  secutus 
Ammonium,  in  decem  numeros  ordinavit,  sicut  in  Grceco  haben- 
turt  expressimus"     Vid.  supr.  p.  32.  n.  56. 

78  Id.  Apol.  adv.  Ruffin.  Lib.  I.  cap.  ii.  Tom.  II.  p.  234-.  Pnef. 
in  Jos.  Tom.  III.  p.  341.  Epist.  ad  Sun.  et  Fretel.  Tom.  III.  p. 
377. 

>9  Zaccagn.  ubi  supr.  p.  4-02.  Floruit  enim  Euthalius — An- 
no CCCCLVIII  quo  Pauli  Epistolas  versibus  distinxit,  vixitque 
ultra  annum  ccccxc,  cum  lucubrationes  suas  Athanasio  juniori, 
Alexandrine  Episcopo  dicaverit?  qui  eo  anno  sacris  infulis  ds- 
coratus  fuit.*' 


(    86    ) 

bius  tad  divided  the  Gospels  8o,  expressly  collated 
his  edition  with  correct  copies  of  Eusebius's  edition, 
preserved  in  the  library  of  Caesarea  in  Palestine81. 
Of  the  peculiar  readings  of  this  edition  an  accurate 
list  has  been  published,  from  a  collation  of  manu- 
scripts preserved  in  Italy84.  But  so  extraordinary 
is  the  affinity  which  they  possess  to  the  readings  of 
the  Vatican  manuscript83,  that  some  criticks  have  not 

80  Euthal.  Ed.  Actt.  Apostt.  in  Prooem.  p.  409.  ed.  Zaccagn. 

ipoi  yi  ryt  vs  ruv  Upci^uv  £l£xov  apa,  xj 

TE  xola  -srpocrw^ar  xj  <&£<;  ccv»x.t 
TO*  vtiv  fa-Trio  ps  pus,    «D-po<7eTa|a?, 


81  Id.  Ed.  Catholl.  Epistt.  p.  513.  ed,  Zaccagn.   'A»1i&»0u  ft 

ra  «xptC>5  avTiypa^^ 
iXtf.      Id.    Subscr. 

Epistt.  Paul,  e  Cod.  Coisl.  202.  afaG^fa  £  '*  &'£tos  ^o;  TO  s» 

«* 


84  Zaccagn.  ubi  supr.  pp.  402,  403.  n. 

*3  This  affinity  is  pointed  out  by  Zaccagni,  ubi  supr.  p.  443. 
Seq.  who  specifies  the  concurrence  also  of  the  Alexandrine 
MS.  which  harmonizes  in  the  Acts  and  Catholick  Epistles  with 
the  Vatican  MS.  Vid.  supr.  p.  61.  n.  33.  Zaccagn.  Adm.  ad 
Varr.  Lectt.  Euthal.  p.  441.  "  Deinde  varias  Regio-Alexandrini 
Codicis  lectiones  contulimus  cum  aliis  modo  memorati  Alexan* 
drini  Codicis  variis  lectionibus,  quae  in  Anglicanis  Bibliis  Poly- 
glottis  sacro  textui  subjiciuntur,  et  ubi  cum  Regio-Alexandrino 
in  omnibus  conveniunt  indicavimus,"  &c.  I  shall  subjoin  a  spe- 
.  ciraen  of  the  coincidence  of  the  text  of  Euthalius  and  the  Vati- 
can MS.  in  readings  which  differ  from  the  Received  Text  :  taken 
from  the  two  first  chapters  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  Acts  i. 
14.  xj  Mapta.  Rec.  xat  Mapa/x,,  Eutk.  Fat.  ib.  19.  AxsX&x^a  Rec. 
AxtX^a/xa^.  Euth.  Vat.  Alex.  ib.  24.  ava£«|o»  T&U9  ruv  Svo  ivet 
9t  iZ&ei-u  hu€t7v.  Rec.  ava^«|ov  ov  l^i^u  EX  'r&luv  run  &/'e  tret  ^«- 

dry.  Euth.  Vat.  Alex.  ii.  6.  »T»  «x««r  Rec.  on  ^xacrsv  Eutk.  Vat. 


(    87    ) 

scrupled  to  assert,  that  this  manuscript  has  been  in- 
terpolated with  the  peculiar  readings  of  Euthalius's 
copies  84>.  The  coincidences  existing-  between  them 
admit  of  a  more  simple  and  certain  solution,  by 
considering  Eusebius's  text,  to  which  they  are  re- 
spectively allied,  as  the  common  source  of  the  re- 
semblance. The  affinity  between  Euthalius's  read- 
ings and  the  Vatican  manuscript  consequently  forms 
an  additional  proof,  that  the  latter  contains  the  text 
of  Eusebius,  as  it  was  preserved  in  Euthalius's  age, 
in  the  library  of  Caesarea  in  Palestine. 

Now  as  it  is  wholly  inconceivable,  that  the  coin- 
cidences observable  between  those  different  texts, 
translations  and  copies  can  be  the  effect  of  accident, 
or  of  intentional  alteration  :  as  St.  Jerome  has 
ascribed  a  peculiar  text  to  Palestine,  which  can  be 
found  no  where,  if  it  is  not  identified  in  the  manu- 
scripts and  translations  of  that  country  :  and  as  the 
text  of  the  Vatican  manuscript,  in  the  opinion  of  no 
ordinary  judge,  is  of  that  kind  which  renders  it  par- 

ib.  13.  ^XEvafoj/ls?.  Rec.  $ictx\£va.£ov1t<  Euth.  Trat.  Alex.  ib.  14. 
risTpo?.  Rec.  o  iirrpo;  Euth.  Alex.  ib.  17-  tut/wot,  Rec,  twjrvioif 
Euth.  Vat.  Alex.  ib.  22.  xaSw?  **}  at™.  Rec.  x*$w;  at™  Euth 
Vat.  Alex.  ib.  27.  <*&»  Rec.  «.$w  Euth.  Vat^  ib.  38.  <*/*ap-n*»  Rec* 

ii^uv  Euth.   Vat.  Alex.  ib.  40.    c^CExaXei   hiyuv 
avTt??  X/yw»  Euth.   Vat.  Alex.  ib.  43.  lysvtlo  at 


$.  Rec.  ltttlf)  It  Isuorahy.*     4^0    T£        xsa    ITT*  «rtfc»ut$ 


Euth.  Alex. 

84  Wetsten.  Prolegg.  in  Nov.  Test.  p.  11.  §  3.  "  Illud  etiam 
observe,  verosimile  videri  Codicis  nostri  [Alexandr.]  scripto* 
rem  opera  Euthalii  us  am  fuisse  —  quin  et  lectiones  Euthalii  (qua. 
les  L.  A.  Zaccagnius  edidit)  sccpissi  me  secutumfume"  Conf.  p» 
26.  utsupr.  p.  61.n.  33. 


(    88    ) 

ticularly  worthy  of  Eusebius *5 :  we  may  hence 
certainly  conclude  that  the  manuscript,  in  which 
all  these  characteristick  marks  are  combined,  con- 
tains the  text  which  St.  Jerome  traces  to  Palestine, 
and  ascribes  to  Eusebius, 


Of  Class  III. 

That  the  Moscow  and  Harleian  manuscripts, 
which  form  the  exemplars  of  the  Third  Class,  con- 
tain the  text  which  St.  Jerome  attributes  to  Luci- 
anus,  and  refers  to  Constantinople,  is  sufficiently 
established  by  the  following  considerations. 

1.  It  is  no  where  disputed  that  those  manuscripts 
contain  the  text,  which  uniformly  exists  in  the  ma- 
nuscripts brought  from  Constantinople.  These 
manuscripts,  which  far  exceed  in  number  those 
containing  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine  text,  con- 
tain the  Vulgar  Greek,  which  constitutes  the  Re- 
ceived Text,  and  exists  in  our  printed  editions. 
Such  however  were  the  characteristick  marks  of  the 
Byzantine  edition  in  the  age  of  St.  Jerome :  in 
that  age,  a  Lucianm,  (as  the  copies  of  the  edition 
revised  by  that  learned  person  were  termed)  con- 
tained the  Greek  Vulgate 86  and  possessed  the  text 

85  Vid.  Dr.  Bentl.  Lett.  p.  233. 

86  S.  Hier.  Sun.  ct  Fretel.  Ep.  cxxxv.  Tom.  III.  p.  377.— 
"  breviter  illud  admoneo,  ut  sciatis,  aliam  esse  editionem  quam 
Origines  et  Caesariensis  Eusebius  omnesque  Graeciae  tractatores 

id  est  communem  appellant  atque  Vulgatam,  et  a 


(    89    ) 

which  was  current  at  Constantinople  *7.  As  the  pri- 
ority of  the  text  of  our  printed  editions  to  that 
age  is  evinced  by  the  coincidence  which  it  pos- 
sesses with  the  old  Ilalick  version  88  ;  the  circum- 
stance of  this  text  being*  still  the  Greek  Vulgate, 
and  still  found  at  Constantinople,  very  decidedly 
proves,  that  it  is  identical  with  that  which  St.  Je- 
rome ascribes  to  the  same  region,  and  assigns  to  Lu- 
cianus. 

2.  The  text  of  the  manuscripts  which  contain  the 
Byzantine  edition,  is  observed  to  differ  materially 
from  the  oriental  versions  89;  which  involves  an  ar- 
gument, though  one  it  must  be  confessed,  that 
is  merely  negative,  wrhich  corroborates  the  same 
conclusion.  The  whole  of  the  texts  in  St.  Jerome's 
age  were  reducible  to  three  9°.  Two  of  them  are  re- 
ferred to  Egypt  and  Palestine,  and  are  easily  iden- 
tified, by  their  coincidence  with  the  vulgar  transla- 
tions, which  still  exist  in  these  regions.  The  third 


nunc  Aumuvos  dicitur  ;  aliam  Septuaginta  interpretum,  quse  et 
in  £|«7rXoK  codicibus  reperitur,  et  a  nobis  in  Latinum  sermonem 
fideliter  versa  est,  et  Hierosolyinse  atque  in  Orientis  ecclesiw 
decantatur." 

87  Vid.  supr.  p.  72.  n.  37. 

88  Vid.  supr.  p.  70. 

89  Adler.  de  Verss.  Syrr.  p.  132.    "Itaque  inter  180  circiter 
varietates,  1  30  ies  fere  consent!  unt  codices  B.  C.  D.   L.    1.  33. 
69.  Urb.  2.  Vind.  31.  al.  et  undevigesies  so1  us  D.  E  quo  mani- 
festepatet  Codices  Thomse  [Haraclensis]  arecensione  Constan- 
iinopolitana^  quam  exldbent  plurimi  Codices  Mosyuenses,  lono-is- 
sime  abesse,"  &c,  Conf.  ut  supr,  p.  55.  n.  *°.  p.  74?.  n,43.  p.  81, 
n.'°. 

9°  Vid.  supr,  p.  72,  n,  37. 


(    90    } 

is  assigned  to  Constantinople,,  where  no  language 
but  Greek  was  vernacular.  Consequently,  as  this 
text  differs  from  those  versions,  and  cannot  of 
course  be  ascribed  to  Egypt  or  Palestine ;  we  are 
left  no  alternative  but  to  ascribe  it  to  Constantino- 
ple,, which  directly  identifies  it  with  the  text  revised 
by  Lucianus. 

3.  The  striking  coincidence  observed  to  exist  be- 
tween the  text  of  the  Moscow  and  Harleian  manu- 
scripts,, and  that  of  the  Brescia  manuscript,  con- 
tains a  further  proof  of  the  same  conclusion.  There 
seems  to  be  no  alternative  left  us,,  but  to  conclude, 
that  the  latter  contains  a  version,  which  had  been 
made  from  the  text  revised  by  Lucianus  ;  or  that  it 
has  been  corrected  by  the  Byzantine  text,  since  the 
time  of  St.  Jerome.  The  latter  is  a  supposition, 
however,  which  must  be  clearly  set  out  of  the  case. 
The  orthographical  peculiarities  of  the  text  of  this 
manuscript  prove  it  at  least  antecedent  to  the  age  of 
Cassiodoms.  It  possesses  the  errours 9I  which  exist- 
ed in  the  copies  that  preceded  his  times,  and  which 
he  undertook  to  remove  from  the  text  of  Scripture 9i ; 

5/1  Garbel.  Descrip.  Cod.  Brix.  ap.  Blanchin.  Prolegg.  p.  6. 
"  Nihil  autera  frequentius  in  Codice  isto  quam  litterarum  per- 
mutatio  :  O  pro  V,  T  pro  D,  sed  prae  caeteris  B  pro  V,  et  vice 
versa  usurpatis.  Aliquando  etiam  V  pro  Y,  et  e  contra  sed 
parce  usurpatum  inv  eni." 

^  Cassiod.  de  Inst.  Div.  Lit.  cap.  xv.  "  Nunc  dicimus  in 
quibus  litteris  sunt  librariorum  vitia  corrigenda. — B.  pro  V,  V 
pro  B,  O  pro  V,  N  pro  M,  contra  orthographiae  prsecepta  vi- 
tiose  positas  non  relinquas. — Sed  in  his  emendatorum  codicum 
servetur  exemplum. — Quod  pronoraen  est,  per  D  Htteram  nom 
per  T  scribendiun  est." 


(    91     ) 

and  it  differs  in  its  peculiar  readings  from  the  Vul- 
gate9J,  which,  from  the  same  age,  wholly  superseded 
the  old  Italick  translation 94.  The  strongest  negative 
argument  may  be  urged,  from  the  circumstance  of  its 
thus  differing  from  the  Latin  translation,  that  it  is  to- 
tally free  from  alteration.      But  as  strong  a  positive 
argument  may  be  urged,  from  its  coinciding  with  the 
Byzantine  text,  that  it  is  equally  free  from  antece- 
dent correction.     If  we  must  admit,  that  the  text  of 
this  manuscript  has  undergone  alterations,  it   must 
be  granted,  that  it  is  as  much  a  new  translation  as 
the  Vulgate ;  as  it  differs  as  much  from  that  transla- 
tion as  the  Byzantine  text  from  the  Palestine  95.  Nor 
is  it  to  be  disputed  that  it  possesses  that  literal  close- 
ness to  the  original  Greek96,    which,  we  are   as- 
sured, was  charactcristick  of  the  old  Italick  trans- 
lation 97.     This  character  of  literal  fidelity  seems  to 
place  out  of  dispute  the  possibility  of  its  having  been 
corrected  "since  the  age  of  the  elder  Eusebius.     In. 
the  period  intervening  between  his  times  and  those 
pf  St.  Jerome,  the  western  world  seems  not  to  have 
possessed  a  person  who  was   capable  ,of  forming 
such  a  translation 98.     It  is  unnecessary  to  except 
here  those  learned  persons  who  have  been  specified 
on  a  former  occasion  ";  as  they  were  attached  to  a 

'3  Vid.  supr.  p.  63.  seq. 

94  Vid.  supr.  p.  16.  n.  *?.  p.  33.  n.  59. 

55  Conf.  supr.  pp.  68,  69,  70. 

s>6  Vid.  supr.  pp.  63,  64,  65. 

97  Vid.  supr.  p.  57.  n.  M. 

9s  Vid.  supr.  p.  57.  n.  *5. 

99  Vid.  supr.  p.  54.  n. I7. 


different  text  from  that  contained  in  the  common 
edition  T0°.  If  the  text I01  of  the  Brescia  manuscript 
has  been  altered,  it  must  have  been  consequently 
corrected  previously  to  the  age  of  Eusebius  Ioz, 

103  Vid.  supr.  p.  54.  n. l8. 

101  This  expression  must  be  strictly  taken,  as  applied  to  the 
whole  body  of  the  text ;  for  the  Brescia  manuscript  has  suffered 
some  mutilations.  It  thus  wants  Luke  xxii.  43,  44,  Joh.  v.  4-. 
viii.  1 — 11.  vid.  Garbel.  ap.  Blanchin.  Prolegg.  pp.  19,  22,  23. 
"We  must  evidently  ascribe  these  corrections  to  the  influence  of 
*'  the  rectified  copies**  which  are  mentioned  by  St.  Epiphanius, 
vid.  infr.  p.  93.  n. I03.  and  which  prevailed  towards  the  close  of 
the  fourth  century.  But  while  these  corrections  clearly  support 
the  claims  of  the  text  to  an  antiquity  as  remote  as  this  period^ 
they  do  not  affect  the  arguments  by  which  it  may  be  proved  to 
be  more  antient ;  since  it  evidently  required  no  reference  to  the 
Greek  to  make  those  omissions,  nor  more  than  a  knowledge  of 
the  fact,  that  they  were  made  in  the  rectified  copies.  And 
this  information  might  be  attained  without  having  ever  seen  one 
of  those  copies,  by  merely  looking  into  the  fathers;  vid.  Hi- 
lar.  de  Trin.  Lib.  X.  $  41.  August,  de  Adultt.  Conjugg.  Lib.  II. 
cap.  vii.  It  is,  on  the  contrary,  evident,  that  between  the  pe- 
riod which  is  thus  ascribed  to  this  MS.,  and  the  times  of  Euse^ 
bius,  the  western  world  possessed  no  person  who  was  ade- 
quate to  make  so  faithful  a  translation.  Hence  the  conclusion 
of  Garbelius,  who  antedates  THE  TEXT  of  this  MS.  at  least  to 
tlie  age  of  St.  Jerome,  seems  to  be  undeniable ;  Discr.  Cod. 
Brix.  ubi  supr.  p.  10.  "  Exemplar  autem  hoc  nostrum  ex  an- 
tigraphis  illis  manasse,  quae  non  solum  Hieronymi  tempora,  sed 
Jlilarii  Pictaviensis  praecesserant,  cum  fades  ipsa,  turn  loci  ali- 
quot quos-postea  excutiemus,  manifestissime  evincuntt"  Vid. 
infr.  p.  93.  n.  '°3.  supr.  p.  37.  n.  ts, 

101 1  take  no  account  of  some  more  modern  corrections  which 
have  been  made  in  the  text  of  this  MS.  from  the  Vulgate  of  St. 
Jerome,  as  they  are  easily  distinguished  from  the  original  wriN 
ing,  by  means  of  the  different  liquid  in  which  they  are  ej;«-» 


And  as  it  was  manifestly  formed  by  the  Byzan- 
tine text,  it  consequently  evinces  the  priority  of 
ihat  text  to  the  Palestine,  which  was  formed  by  Eu- 
sebius.  As  it  thus  proves,  that,  at  this  early  period, 
this  text  existed,  which  prevails  at  Constantinople  ;  it 
clearly  identifies  it  with  that  which  is  referred  by  St. 
Jerome  to  the  same  place  and  period,  and  ascribed 
by  him  to  Lucianus. 

4.  This  deduction  is  further  confirmed  by  the 
positive  testimony  of  St.  Epiphanius.  In  reasoning 
on  a  particular  passage  of  Scripture,  he  distin- 
guishes two  species  of  text ;  one  of  which  wras  rec- 
tified, and  the  other  left  unrectified,  by  the  ortho- 
dox :  and  he  represents  the  copies  of  the  former, 
as  those  which  omitted  the  passage  in  question  I05. 

cuted  ;  the  former  being  Written  in  ink,  the  latter  executed  in 
a  silver  pigment.  Garbel.  ibid.p.  10.  "Quod  vero  Codicibus 
olim  accidere  solebat,  nempe  ab  impends  criticis  ut  perperam 
corrigerentur,  huic  quoque  nostro  in  pluribus  contigit.  Noa 
equidem  quod  corrector  ille,  quicumque  is  demum  fuerit,  aut 
adjecerit  aliquid,  aut  immutaverit.  Sed  abrasis,  quse  vitiosa 
censebat,  ut  recta  non  semel  pervertit,  sic  mendosa  supinus 
prseteriit.  Supersunt  enim  ubique  litterarum  vestigia,  undc  rnt- 
tivam  scripturam  deprehendamus." 

01  S.  Epiphan.  Ancor.  §  xxxi.  Tom.  II.  p.  36.  b.   "AAA«  *a« 

tv   T#    x&Tct    Aaxoit  JLYocyythlu)    i» 
£  Kiyj'jlcu    TV)    [AXfrvpia.  o  otyw^ 


f^lon,   ^ojSr/^ti^t?,    xa*  y.'i)  roifcra&f    avra  TO  TiXo?,  xai  TO 
"  xai  yHeptnt  |»  ayuvia.  *fy#crtt   xai    lyitslo  o  Ifyus   at'rS 
w?   $^8«*teo*  a»/*alo5   xat  a/^$7j"A/7s^o;  i;K?xyui    avlot.9'       These    last 

words  are  quoted  from  Luke  xxii.  43,  44-.  Conf.  S.  Hilar,  de 
Trinit.  Lib.  X.  §  41,  p.  1062.  a.  Non  sane  ignorandum  a  nobia 


Of  the  two  species  of  text  which  were  published  at 
Constantinople,  by  Lucianus  and  Eusebius  I04.,  that 
revised  by  the  latter  certainly  retained  the  passage  : 
for  it  is  expressly  referred  to  in  his  canons  ws,  and  is 
retained  in  the  Vulgate,  which  was  formed  after  the 
text  of  his  revisal Io6.  The  edition  of  Eusebius  con- 
sequently differed  from  the  corrected  copies  of 
the  orthodox,  published  in  the  days  of  St.  Je- 
rome and  St.  Epiplianius.  But  this  passage  is 
wanting  in  the  Alexandrine  manuscript,  as  well  as 
in  the  Latin  translation,  which  accords  with  it,  and 
which  is  preserved  in  the  Brescia  manuscript.  The 
.text  of  these  manuscripts  is  thus  clearly  identified 
with  that  which  had  received  the  corrections  of  the 
orthodox  revisers ;  and  as  they  possess  the  Byzan- 
tine text,  their  joint  testimony  consequently  prove* 

est,  et  in  Greeds  et  in  Latinis  codicibus  complurimis,  vel  de  acU 
veniente  angelo,  vel  de  sudore  sanguineo,  nil  scriptum  reperin. 

'•*  Vid.  supr.  p.  72.  n.  37.  p.  26.  n.  44. 

IQ5  It  is  thus  marked  in  the  margin  of  the  Harleian  MS. 
and  in  that  of  the  Cambridge  MS.  snr ;  and  in  the  margin 
of  the  Verona  MS.  ccLxxxiii  X  :  this  being  the  proper  refe- 
rence to  Eusebius's  Canon  x,  which  consequently  contain* 
No.  283,  referring  to  Luke  xxii.  43,  4-4-. 

Io5  It  is  consequently  marked  in  the  margin  of  the  manuscript 
and  printed  copies  of  the  Vulgate,  283  X:  and  set  against  the 
following  words:  "  Apparuit  autem  illi  Angelas  de  ccelo,  con* 
fortiaii.s  eum.  Et  factus  in  agonia  prolixius  orabat.  Et  factua 
est  sudor  ejus  sicut  guttae  sanguinis  decurrentis  in  terram.'' 
These  words  are  also  found  in  the  Verceli  and  Verona  MSS., 
which  contain  the  old  Italick  version :  both,  however,  read 
"  sudor  iUius  quasi  guttae  ;"  the  former  also  reads  "  decurren- 
tis super  terrain,"  while  the  latter  reads  "  decurrw^es  in, 
terra." 


(    95    ) 

the  antiquity  of  that  text  to  be  as  remote  as  the  times 
of  St.  Epiphanius  I0? ;  and  of  consequence  evinces  ita 
identity  with  that  text,  which  St.  Jerome,,  who  lived 
in  the  same  age,  assigns  to  Constantinople,,  and 
ascribes  to  Lucianus. 

Now,  as  the  text  preserved  in  the  Harleian  and 
Moscow  manuscripts  is  that  which  exists  in  the  ma* 
nuscripts,  which  are  brought  from  Constantinople ; 
as  it  differs  from  the  text  of  the  Oriental  transla- 
tions, and  therefore  cannot  be  assigned  to  Egypt  or 
Palestine ;  as  it  harmonizes  with  the  text  of  the  La- 
tin translation  preserved  in  the  Brescia  MS.,  which 
preceded  the  times  of  Cassiodorus  and  Jerome ;  and 
as  it  corresponds  with  the  state  of  the  Byzantine 
text,  as  described  in  the  writings  of  St.  Epipha- 
nius ;  we  may  from  these  premises  summarily  con- 
clude, that  it  is  identical  with  the  text  which  St. 
Jerome  attributes  to  Lucianus,  and  assigns  to  Con- 
stantinople. 

IF  the  proofs  which  have  been  thus  adduced  at 
length  are  not  deemed  adequate  to  evince  the  iden- 

37  It  is  necessary  to  explain  here,  that  St.  Epiphanius  was 
the  acquaintance  of  St.  Jerome,  and  bishop  of  a  see  under  the 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople.  As  he  lived  when  St.  Jerome's 
three  classes  of  text  existed,  and  speaks  in  general  terms  of  one, 
he  must  be  supposed  to  mean  that  which  prevailed  in  the  region 
•where  he  lived.  He  has,  however,  placed  this  matter  beyond 
mere  conjecture,  in  referring  to  Joh.  i.  28.  Haer.  LI.  p.  435.  a. 
He  quotes  i»  faSaga^a,  as  the  reading  of  his  own  copy ;  &  /&- 
$«»'*«,  as  the  reading  of  "  other  copies."  The  former  is  found 
in  the  Byzantine  text ;  the  latter  in  the  Palestine ;  the  former 
K*m«equently  contained  the  text  of  St.  Epiphanius. 


tity  of  the  different  classes  of  text  which  are  still 
preserved  in  the  Cambridge.,  Vatican,  and  Moscow 
manuscripts.,  with  those  which  formerly  existed  in 
the  editions  of  Egypt,  Palestine,  and  Constantino-* 
pie ;  it  is  difficult  even  to  conceive  what  mode  of 
proof  will  be  deemed  adequate  to  that  purpose.  In 
every  instance  where  that  coincidence,  which  is  alone 
calculated  to  prove  such  an  identity,  could  be  ex- 
pected, it  has  been  sought,  and  found  to  exist.  It 
has  been  traced  in  the  manuscripts  and  vulgar 
translations  prevalent  in  those  countries  ;  and  in  the 
collations  of  texts  and  occasional  versions  which 
were  made  from  those  manuscripts  and  translations. 
And  as  this  mode  of  proof  is  most  full ;  so  it  appears 
to  be  most  satisfactory.  That  the  different  texts  of 
St.  Jerome's  age,  and  of  the  present  times,  should 
amount  exactly  to  three,  must  surely  convey  na 
slight  presumption  in  favour  of  their  identity.  But 
when,  through  the  medium  of  the  old  Italick  version, 
(which  corresponded  with  some  of  the  copies  of  the 
former  period,  and  which  corresponds  with  those  of 
the  present,)  those  extremes,  however  remote,  are 
directly  connected ;  the  mode  of  proof  which 
evinces  the  identity  of  the  text  which  existed  at 
both  periods,  must  be  allowed  to  carry  the  force  of" 
demonstration. 

Independently  even  of  the  laboured  proof  by 
which  I  have  endeavoured  to  establish  this  conclu- 
sion, nothing  appears  to  be  more  probable,  than 
that  we  should  possess  copies  of  the  different  texts, 
which  existed  in  the  age  of  St.  Jerome.  The 
manner  in  which  all  manuscripts,  that  have  de- 


(    97    ) 

scended  to  us,  have  been  preserved,  would  of  itself 
render  this  point  more  than  probable.  It  is  how- 
ever a  matter,  not  merely  of  probability,  but  of 
fact.,  that  at  least  one  copy  and  one  version  has 
been  preserved  for  that  period ;  for,  the  Vulgate 
and  Alexandrine  manuscript  are  both  assigned  to 
the  era  of  Jerome  Io8.  Even  the  latest  of  those 
manuscripts  which  contain  the  exemplars  of  our  dif- 
ferent classes  of  text  is  not  ascribed  to  a  period  less 
remote  than  the  eighth  century  ;  for  this  is  the  date 
assigned  to  the  Moscow  manuscript,,  which  con- 
tains the  Byzantine  text I09 ;  the  Vatican  manu- 
script, which  contains  the  Palestine  text,  lays  claim 
to  much  greater  antiquity.  As  those  manuscripts 
have  thus  certainly  existed  for  ten  centuries,  it  is 
not  to  be  disputed,  that  those  from  which  they  were 
copied  might  have  existed  for  the  remaining  four, 
which  intervene  to  the  times  of  St.  Jerome.  And  if 
this  reasoning  evince  the  permanence  of  the  Byzan- 
tine text,  it  must,  by  parity  of  reasoning,  evince 
that  of  the  Palestine  and  the  Egyptian. 

When  we  weigh  this  probability  against  the  only 
possibility  which  the  question  appears  to  admit,  the 
result  must  clearly  evince  the  exclusive  stability  of 
the  grounds  on  which  we  have  proceeded,  in  arriv- 
ing at  the  present  conclusion.  If  it  is  denied  that 
those  three  texts  have  descended  to  us,  from  the 

108  Woid.  Prolegg.  in  Cod.  Alex.  p.  xvii.  §  56.  '<  Scriptus  est 
itaque  Codex  Alexandrinus  antequam  vir  doctus  teste  Euthalio, 
anno  396,  in  SQCtiones  Epistolas  diviserat."  ConfVsnpr.  p.  70, 
n.  35. 

IQ9  Vid.  supr.  p.  62.  n.  3+. 


<    9S    ) 

times  of  St.  Jerome ;  it  must  be  granted  that  one 
or  more  of  them  has  been  formed  since  the  age  of 
that  father.  But  taking  up  the  question,  as  re- 
duced to  this  alternative,  can  there  be  a  shadow  of 
doubt,  that  the  latter  is  a  supposition.,  not  merely 
less  probable  in  itself,  but  involved  in  difficulties 
which  are  wholly  inexplicable  ?  For  what  supposi- 
tion can  be  more  irreconcilable  to  probability,  than 
that  which  implies,  that  the  Latin  translation,  after 
having  undergone  such  a  change,  should  ultimately 
acquire  the  characteristick  peculiarities  of  the  dif- 
ferent versions  which  existed  in  the  age  of  St.  Je- 
rome? I  will  not  insist  at  present  on  this  circum- 
stance, that  some  of  those  characteristick  marks 
consist  in  a  resemblance  to  the  oriental  versions  "° ; 
which  implies.,  that  those  who  created  it  in  the  Greek 
possessed  an  acquaintance  with  the  eastern  lan- 
guages, which  certainly  was  not  possessed  by  the 
most  learned  of  the  Christian  fathers.  But  the  bare 
fact,  that  one  of  those  versions  which  is  contained 
in  the  Brescia  manuscript  agrees  both  with  the 
Greek  and  Latin  copies  of  St.  Jerome's  age  '",  in 
omitting  at  least  two  remarkable  passages,  which 
are  nevertheless  still  found  in  the  Greek  and  Latin 
Vulgate lia  which  have  generally,  if  not  exclusively, 
prevailed  from  that  time  to  the  present  day11*,  seems 
to  place  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  that  this  version 
claims  an  alliance  to  the  text  of  the  former  period,  in- 

110  Vid.  supr.pp.  74-,  81. 

111  Vid.  supr.  p.  37.  n. 6S.  p.  93.  n.  '°3.  donf.  p.  92.  n.  I0r. 
xli  Vid.  supr.  p.  94-.  n.  '  6. 

113  Vid.  supr.  p.  32.  n.  57.  Conf.  Simon.   NOU.Y.  Obs,  sur  le 
TexteetlesVers.p.  145. 


(    99    ) 

stead  of  the  latter.  Nor  is  it  to  be  disputed  that  we  still 
retain  two  of  the  texts  which  in  St.  Jerome's  age  ex- 
isted in  the  Greek  Septuagint ;  however  it  may  be 
denied  that  we  possess  those,,  which  at  the  same 
period  existed  in  the  Greek  Testament.  For  the 
Vatican  manuscript  possesses  the  text  which  En* 
sebius  published  from  Origen  ;  as  unquestionably 
appears  from  its  coincidence  with  the  remains  of 
the  Hexapla"4,  and  the  Vulgate  of  Jerome115. 
And  the  Alexandrine  manuscript,  as  possessing  a 
different  version,  must  preserve  the  revisal  of  He* 
sychius  or  Lucianus ;  most  probably  that  of  the  for- 
mer, as  it  was  originally  brought  from  Alexan- 
andria  ll6.  Prom  this  matter  of  fact,  we  may  surely 
conclude,  that,  as  the  copies  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment were  infinitely  more  numerous  than  those  of 
the  Old,  the  three  classes  of  text  which  are  pre- 
served in  the  former  are  not  less  antient  than  those 
which  are  preserved  in  the  latter :  and  consequently 
must  be  referred  to  the  age  of  St.  Jerome. 

In  the  course  of  the  above  reasoning  I  have  con- 
sidered St.  Jerome's  testimony,  on  the  existence  of 
three  classes  of  text II?,  as  extending  to  the  New 
Testament,  though  it  is  strictly  applicable  to  the 
Septuagint.  Whether  his  declaration  may  be  taken 
in  this  latitude,  or  not,  is  of  little  importance  to  the 
foregoing  conclusions  ;  as  all  that  I  have  endeavour- 
ed to  prove  has  been  established,  independent  of 

14  Vid.  Blanchin.  Evang.  Quadr.  P.  I.  f.  cdxciii.  cdxcvii. 

15  Id.  ibid.  f.  cdxciii. 

116  Negot.  of  Sir  T.  Roe.  f.  414-,  460. 618.  Conf.  supr.  p.  72. 
n.  37.  . 

"7  Vid.  supr.  p.  72.  n.  *7. 

H   2 


{     100    ) 

liis  testimony.  The  reader  will  easily  perceive, 
that  the  existence  of  three  classes  of  text  in  St.  Je- 
rome's age  has  been  proved  from  the  coincidence 
of  the  Greek  with  the  Latin  translations  which  ex- 
isted in  the  age  of  that  father  II8 ;  and  the  identity 
of  those  Classes  with  the  three  editions  which  I  con- 
ceive to  be  his,  has  been  proved  from  the  affinity 
which  they  possess  to  the  oriental  translations i  l9. 
But  even  independent  of  this  circumstance,  a  suffi- 
cient warrant  may  be  found,  in  his  own  authority, 
for  taking  his  testimony,  in  the  more  enlarged  sense, 
and  applying  it  to  the  Old  and  New  Testament.  It 
was  obviously  not  his  intention  to  limit  his  declara- 
tion to  the  ktter ;  that  he  speaks  only  of  it  is  mani- 
festly to  be  imputed  to  his  having  been  exclusively 
engaged  on  the  subject  of  the  Septuagint.  Of  con- 
sequence, when  he  speaks  of  the  New  Testament, 
he  explicitly  admits  that  it  was  revised  by  Hesychius 
and  Lucianus  IZ0.  That  it  had  been  revised  by  Eu- 
sebius  is  not  to  be  denied  iai  ;  and  St.  Jerome  has 
professed  himself  acquainted  with  his  edition  '". 
While  this  learned  father  has  likewise  made  a  simi- 
lar declaration,  with  respect  to  the  editions  of  Hesy- 

118  Vid.  supr.  pp.  70,71. 

"9  Vid.  supr.  pp,74.    81. 

J~°  S.  Hier.  Praef.  in  iv  Evangg.  p.  i.  "  Praetermitto  eos  co- 
dices  quos  a  Luciano  et  Hesychio  nuncupates  paucorum  homi- 
num  asserit  perversa  contentio :  quibus  utique  nee  in  toto  Ve- 
teri  Instrumento  emendare  quid  licuit,  nee  in  Novo  profuit 
emendasse,  cum  multarum  gentium  linguis  Scriptura  ante  trail- 
slata  doceat  falsa  esse  quce  addita  sunt" 

111  Vid.  supr.  p.  26.  n.  44.  p.  34.  n.  6°, 

***  Vid.  supr.  p.  85.  n.  77. 


(     101     ) 

cliius  and  Lucianus  ;  he  clearly  intimates  that  they 
were  in  use  in  his  days  ;  and  expressly  declares,,  that 
they  had  their  respective  admirers  Ii?.  Now,  it  m 
obvious,  that  the  same  causes  which  recommended 
any  part  of  these  different  editions  in  any  particular 
church,  must  have  tended  to  recommend  the  re- 
mainder. St.  Jerome  has,  however,  informed  us, 
respecting-  the  Septuagint,  that  the  different  editions 
of  it,  as  revised  by  Hesychius,  Lucianus,  and  Euse- 
bius,  prevailed  not  merely  in  particular  churches, 
but  in  different  regions  1a4;  we  must  of  course  form 
a  similar  conclusion  respecting-  the  New  Testament, 
which  had  equally  undergone  their  revisal.  As  the 
whole  bible  was  received  in  all  churches,  and  differ- 
ent countries  adopted  different  editions ;  nothing- 
can  be  more  improbable,  than  that  their  copies  of 
it  could  have  been  composed  of  a  mixed  text ;  or 
that  the  region  which  adopted  one  part  of  the  Canon 
from  Hesychius,  would  take  another  from  Lucianus. 
We  are  indeed  informed  by  St.  Jerome,  that  the 
pertinacity  with  which  the  different  churches  ad- 
hered to  the  ancient  and  received  text,  was  almost 
invincible  l25 ;  and  in  his  Preface  to  the  Latin  Vul- 

113  Vid.supr.  p.  100.  n.  iao. 

114  Vid.  supr.  p.  72.  n.  37. 

15  Such  is  the  constant  complaint  of  St.  Jerome  in  his  Pre- 
faces; vid.  Prarf.  in  Pentateuch.  Tom.  III.  p.  341.  Pra£  in 
Jos.  Ib.  p.  341.  Praef.  in  Paralipomm.  Ib.  p.  343.  Preef. 
in  Esdr.  Ib.  p.  344,  &c.  Hence  St.  Jerome  delivers  the  fol- 
lowing injunction  to  his  friends;  Ibid.  p.  344.  "  Accedunt  ad 
hoc  imidomm  studia  ;  qui  omne,  quod  scribimus,  reprehendendnm 
putant ;  et  interdum,  contra  se  conscientia  repugnante,  publics 
iaccrant,  quod  occulte  legunt, — Itaque  obsecro  vosDomnion  et 


(    103    ) 

gate,  he  has  declared,  that  the  effects  of  this  lauda- 
ble prejudice  against  innovation  were  really  experi- 
enced, with  respect  to  the  editions  of  Hesychius  and 
Lucianus  :  though  the  copies  edited  by  these  learn- 
ed persons  had  every  thing  to  contend  with,  from 
the  rivalry  of  later  editions,  which  had  been  pub- 
lished by  Eusebius,  Athanasius,  and  other  orthodox 
revisers.  This  declaration  of  St.  Jerome,  and  the 
reflexion  which  he  deemed  necessary  to  cast  on  the 
editions  of  Hesychius  and  Lucianus116,  contain  a 
sufficient  proof,  that  the  copies  of  those  editions  were 
generally  prevalent  in  his  age.  In  fact,  a  minute 
examination  of  the  text  of  the  Vulgate,  which  he 
published,  enables  us  to  determine,  that,  in  forming 
that  translation,  he  made  use  of  versions  formed  from 
the  editions  of  Lucianus  and  Hesychius.  The  proof 
of  this  last  point  I  shall  hereafter  give  in  detail,  as  it 
contains  the  strongest  confirmation  of  the  main  con- 
clusion, which  it  is  my  object  to  establish,  that  the 
three  classes  of  text,  which  exist  in  the  present  age,, 
existed  in  the  age  of  St.  Jerome.  The  bare  pre- 
valence of  those  editions  till  the  latter  period,  in- 
volves a  proof,  that  they  could  have  only  obtained 
in  Egypt,  in  Palestine,  and  Constantinople  ;  since, 
solely  and  respectively,  over  those  regions  extended 
the  influence  of  Hesychius,  Eusebius,  and  Luci- 
anus147. 

Rogatiane  carissirni,  ut  privata  lectione  content!,  libros  non 
efferatis  in  publicum ;  nee  fastidiosis  cibos  ingeratis : — Si  qui 
autem  fratrum  sunt,  quibus  nostra  non  displicert,  his  tribu* 
ktis  exemplar,"  &c.  vid.  infr.  p.  119.  n.  IS. 

116  Vid.  supr.  p.  100.  n.  12°. 

w  Vid.  supr.  p.  72.  n,  37. 


(     103     ) 

I  shall  now  beg  leave  to  assume,  as  proved,  that 
the  three  classes  of  text  which  exists  in  the  Cam- 
bridge, Vatican,  and  Moscow  manuscripts,  are  iden- 
tical with  the  three  editions  of  Hesychius,  Eusebius, 
and  Lucianus,  which  existed  in  the  age  of  St.  Je- 
rome. Other  diversities  are  indeed  apparent  in  the 
Greek  manuscripts,  but  they  do  not  seem  to  be  suffi- 
ciently important  or  marked,  to  form  the  grounds  of 
a  separate  classification.  A  peculiar  order  of  manu- 
scripts is  thus  observed  to  exist,  which  differ  very 
materially  from  the  preceding,  as  they  agree  with 
each  other  in  possessing  many  interpolations  from 
the  writings  of  later  commentatours II8.  But  as  they 
are  consequently  of  partial  authority,  and  are  evi- 
dently formed  on  the  basis  of  the  Byzantine  text, 
they  may  be  directly  referred  to  the  third  class,  and 
ranked  under  the  edition  revised  by  Lucianus. 

The  same  observation  may  be  likewise  extended 
to  several  manuscripts  of  a  different  character :  some 
of  which  are  observed  to  partake  of  the  peculiarities 
of  a  different  class  from  that  to  which  they  princi- 
pally conform.  We  thus  frequently  discover  the 
influence  of  the  Palestine  text  upon  the  Byzantine; 
which,  doubtless,  is  to  be  attributed  to  the  publica- 
tion of  Eusebius's  edition,  at  Byzantium,  under  the 
auspices  of  the  first  Christian  Emperour.  It  is  cei% 
tain,  that  the  orthodox,  little  satisfied  with  this  edi- 
tion, republished  a  revisal '*9,  on  the  death  of  Euse- 
bius  and  Constantino.  In  this  manner  St.  Athana- 

Iz8  Such  are  the  Moscow  MSS.  denoted  by  M.  Mattluei  and 
M.  Griesbach,  Mt.  a,  d,  e,  g,  10,  11,  &c, 
119  Vid.  supr.  p.  93.  c.  I03. 


(     104    ) 

sius  and  St.  Basil  retouched  some  copies,  of  which, 
by  an  extraordinary  chance,  \ve  seem  to  possess  spe- 
cimens in  the  celebrated  Alexandrine  and  Vatican 
manuscripts130.  But  these  copies  rather  contained 
revisals  of  the  edition  which  preceded  their  times, 
than  constituted  new  editions  of  the  text  of  Scrip- 
ture. If  published  by  their  respective  authours, 
they  appear  not  to  have  passed  into  general  use. 
The  text  of  St.  Basil  never  received  the  royal  autho- 
rity^ and  was  therefore  probably  dispersed  among  a 
limited  number  of  readers,  and  confined  to  a  parti- 
cular region.  The  revisal  of  St.  Athanasius  re- 
ceived that  sanction,,  having  been  expressly  pre- 
pared at  the  command  of  the  Emperour  Constans ; 
but  its  authority  expired  with  the  influence  of  its 
authour,  on  the  death  of  that  prince,  and  his  brother, 
the  younger  Constantine.  The  revisals  of  both 
these  learned  persons  may  be  therefore  directly  re- 
ferred to  the  editions  of  Palestine  and  Constantino- 
ple., out  of  which  they  arose,  and  into  which  they 
subsequently  merged  :  and  as  they  are  contained  in 
the  Vatican  and  Alexandrine  manuscripts,  which 
are  respectively  allied  to  those  texts,  we  may  con- 
sider them  as  little  more  than  a  repetition  of  the 
different  editions  which  had  been  previously  pub- 
lished by  Eusebius  and  Lucianus. 

The  whole  of  the  Greek  manuscripts  may  be  con- 
sequently reduced  to  three  classes,  which  are  iden- 

130  In  the  course  of  the  following  investigation,  these  MSS, 
will  be  particularly  described :  and  the  probabilities  of  their 
alliance  to  the  corrected  text  of  St.  Athariasius  and  St.  Basil, 
will  be  examined. 


(     105    ) 

ttcal  with  the  editions  of  Egypt,  Palestine,  and  Con- 
stantinople, as  revised  by  Hesychius,  Eusebius,  and 
Lucianus/  And  the  adequacy  of  this  distribution 
may  be  established,  with  little  comparative  difficulty. 
As  modern  criticks,  after  a  careful  analysis,  are  ena- 
bled to  reduce  all  manuscripts  to  three  classes;  and 
distribute  the  Cambridge,  Vatican,  and  Moscow  ma- 
nuscripts in  separate  classes  :  hence,  as  these  manu- 
scripts are  likewise  the  exemplars  of  the  different 
texts  in  the  present  scheme  of  classification,  this 
scheme  must  necessarily  embrace  every  variety,  and 
mark  every  characteristick  distinction  which  modern 
diligence  has  discovered  in  the  manuscripts  of  the 
Greek  Testament. 

Hence  also  it  becomes  possible  to  reduce  every 
manuscript  to  its  proper  class  in  the  new  scheme,, 
on  knowing  the  class  in  which  it  was  placed  in  the 
old  mode  of  classification.  As  the  Western,  Alex- 
andrine, and  Byzantine  texts  in  the  former  method, 
respectively  coincide  with  the  Egyptian,  Palestine, 
and  Byzantine  text  in  the  latter  ;  we  have  only  to 
substitute  the  term  Egyptian  for  Western,  and  Pa- 
lestine for  Alexandrine,  in  order  to  ascertain  the 
particular  text  of  any  manuscript  which  is  to  be 
referred  to  a  peculiar  class  or  edition.  The  artifice 
of  this  substitution  admits  of  this  simple  solution  ; 
the  Egyptian  text  was  imported  by  Eusebius,  of 
Verceli,  into  the  West1'1,  and  the  Palestine  text,  re- 
published  by  EutUalius  at  Alexandria I3*,  the  Byzan- 

131  Vid.  supr.  p.  59.  n.  •**.  conf,  p.  54-.  n. J7.  p.  58.  n.  *\ 
*3Z  Vid.  snnr.  n.  &fi   mi    &  **t  si 


Vid.  supr.  p.  86.  m.  8P  ct 


(    106    ) 

tine  text  having  retained  the  place  in  which  it  was 
originally  published  by  Lucianus.  In  a  word,  a 
manuscript  which  harmonizes  with  the  Codex  Can- 
tabrigiensis  must  be  referred  to  the  first  class,,  and 
willcontain  the  text  of  Egypt.  One  which  harmo- 
nizes with  the  Vatican  manuscript  must  be  referred 
to  the  second  class,  and  will  contain  the  text  of  Pa- 
lestine. And  one  which  harmonizes  with  the  Mos- 
cow manuscript  must  be  referred  to  the  third  class, 
and  will  contain  the  text  of  Constantinople '". 

It  must  be  now  evident  almost  at  a  glance,  that 
the  present  scheme  corresponds  with  the  different 
methods  of  those  who  have  undertaken  the  classifi- 
cation of  the  Greek  manuscripts,,  and  that  it  derives 
no  inconsiderable  support  from  their  respective  sys- 
tems. 

In  the  first  place  it  accords  with  the  plan  of  Dr. 
Bentley,  whose  object  was  to  confront  the  oldest 
copies  of  the  Latin  Vulgate,  and  of  the  original 
Greek134,  in  order  to  determine  the  state  of  the  text 
in  the  age  of  St.  Jerome.  And,  conformably  to  his 
plan,  it  ranks  the  Vulgate  and  Vatican  manuscript 

J3?  To  the  first  class  we  may  consequently  refer  the  Cam- 
bridge, Clermont,  St.  Germain,  Augean,  et  Boernerian  MSS. 
which  are  critically  denoted  by  the  letters,  D,  D,  E,  F,  G. 
To  the  Second  Class,  we  may  refer  the  Vatican,  Alexandrine, 
(in  the  Acts  and  Epistles),  Ephrem,  and  Stephens's  eighth 
MS.  which  are  denoted  by  the  letters  B,  A,  C,  L.  And  to  the 
Fourth  Class,  we  may  refer  the  Alexandrine  (in  the  Gospels), 
the  Harleian  and  Moscow  MSS.  which  are  denoted  by  the  let- 
ters A,  G;  Mt.  V,  H,  B. 

134  Vid.  supr.  p.  3.  n.  3. 


(     107    ) 

in  the  same  class ;  which  constituted  the  basis  of 
Dr.  Bentley's  projected  edition.  But  it  proceeds 
on  a  more  comprehensive  view  of  the  subject,  and 
confronts  two  other  classes  of  the  original  Greek 
with  correspondent  classes  of  the  Latin  translation. 
And  thus  it  leads  not  only  to  a  more  adequate  me- 
thod of  classification,,  but  to  the  discovery  of  a  more 
ancient  text ;  by  means  of  the  priority  of  the  old 
Italick  version  to  the  new  or  Vulgate  of  Jerome. 

It  in  the  next  place  falls  in  with  the  respective 
schemes  of  M.  Griesbach  and  M.  Matthsei,  and  de- 
rives support  from  their  different  systems.  It  adopts 
the  three  classes  of  the  former,  with  a  slight  varia- 
tion merely  in  the  name  of  the  classes;  deviating 
from  that  learned  critick's  scheme  in  this  respect, 
on  very  sufficient  authority I35.  And  in  ascertaining 
the  genuine  text,  it  attaches  the  same  authority  to 
the  old  Italick  translation,  which  the  same  learned 
person  has  ascribed  to  that  version lj6.  It  agrees  with 
the  scheme  of  the  latter  critick,  in  giving  the  pre- 
ference to  the  Greek  Vulgate  or  Byzantine  text 
over  the  Palestine  and  the  Egyptian 137 :  but  it  sup- 

133  Vid.  supr.  p.  105. 

13(3  M.  Griesbach,  speaking  of  the  aids  which  were  used  by 
the  first  editours  of  the  Greek  Testament,  in  compiling  their  edi- 
tion, thus  observes,  Prolegg.  Sect.  ii.  §  i.  p.  viii.  "  Latino,  certe 
nsi  sunt  translations  fateor ;  sed  partim  innumeris  gravissimisque 
mendis  corrupta,  partim  Recentiore  tantum  ilia  Vulgata,  non 
vero  longe  prcestantiore  Antehieronymiana^  quce  Itala  vulgo 
dicitur," 

7  M,  Matthaei,  who  frequently  asserts  the  extraordinary 
coincidence  which  existed  between  his  MSS.  gives  the  follow- 
ing comparative  estimate  of  the  merit  of  his  principal  manu- 


(    108    ) 

ports  the  authority  of  this  text  on  firmer  grounds 
than  the  concurrence  of  the  Greek  manuscripts. 
Hence,  while  it  differs  from  the  scheme  of  M.  Mat- 
thaei,  in  building  on  the  old  Italick  version ;  it  differs 
from  that  of  M.  Griesbach,  in  distinguishing  the 
copies  of  this  translation ,  which  are  free  from  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Vulgate,  from  those  which  have  been 
corrected  since  the  times  of  St.  Eusebius,  of  Verceli, 
of  St.  Jerome,  and  Cassioclorus lj8.  And  it  affords  a 
more  satisfactory  mode  of  disposing  of  the  multitude 
of  various  readings,  than  that  suggested  by  the  lat- 
ter, who  refers  them  to  the  intentional  or  accidental 
corruptions  of  transcribers ;  or  that  of  the  former, 
who  ascribes  them  to  the  correction  of  the  original- 
Greek  by  the  Latin  translation  I39:  as  it  traces  them 
to  the  influence  of  the  text  which  was  published  by 
Eusebius,  at  the  command  of  Constantine. 

As  a  system,  therefore,  that  which  I  venture  to 
propose,  may  rest  its  pretensions  to  a  preference 
over  other  methods,  on  the  concessions  of  those  who 
have  suggested  different  modes  of  classification. 

scripts,  H,  V,  and  those  denoted  by  the  letters  A,  D,  E,  G,  D» 
Nov.  Test.  Tom.  IX.  p.  254?.  "  Hie  Codex  [H,]  scriptus  est 
litteris  quadratis,  estque  eorum  omnium  qui  adhuc  in  Europa 
innotuerunt  et  vclustifsimuf  et  prccstantissimus.  Insanus  quidena 
fuerit,  qui  cum  hoc  aut  Cod.  V,  comparare,  aut  acquiparare 
'voluerit  Codd.  Alexandr.  Clar.  Germ.  Bccrn.  Cant,  qui  sine  ullo 
dubio  pessime  ex  scholiis  et  Versione  Latina  Vulgata  interpo- 
lati  sunt.  Per  totum  hunc  Codicem  vix  quinque  errores  offendi, 
quos  etiam  suis  locis  sedulo  notavi.  Hunc  et  Codicem  V  in 
primis  secutus  sum." 

138  Vid.  supr  p.  59.sqq.     Conf.p.  90.  sqq. 

"'  Vid.  supr.  n.  I37. 


(     109    ) 

Independent  of  its  internal  consistency,  and  the  his- 
torical grounds  on  which  it  is  exclusively  built,  its 
comprehensiveness  may,  1  hope,  entitle  it  to  a  pre- 
cedence :  as  it  embraces  the  different  systems  to 
which  it  is  opposed,  and  reconciles  their  respective 
inconsistencies. 


SECTION  III. 


HAVING  distributed  the  Greek  manuscripts  into 
three  Classes,  the  next  object  of  inquiry  is,  to  ascer- 
tain the  particular  class,  in  favour  of  which,  the 
clearest  and  most  conclusive  evidence  can  be  ad- 
duced, that  it  preserves  the  genuine  text  of  Scrip- 
ture. The  main  difficulty  in  such  an  undertaking-, 
is,  I  believe,  overcome,  in  referring  these  texts  to 
the  different  regions  in  which  they  were  edited. 
As  we  acknowledge  no  authority,  but  the  testimony 
and  tradition  of  the  Church,  in  determining  the  au- 
thenticity and  purity  of  the  Scripture  Canon ' ;  that 
text  must  be  entitled  to  the  preference,  which  has 
been  preserved  in  a  region,  where  the  tradition  has 
continued  unbroken,  since  the  times  of  the  evange- 
lical writers.  It  is  this  circumstance  which  adds  so 
much  weight  to  the  testimony  of  the  Latin  Church, 
as  it  preserved  its  faith  unimpaired z,  during  the  pe- 

*  XXXIX  ART.  §  vi.  "  In  the  name  of  the  Holy  Scripture 
we  do  understand  the  Canonical  Books  of  the  Old  and  New- 
Testament,  of  whose  authority  was  never  any  doubt  in  the 
Church."  Ib.  Art.  xx.  "  Wherefore,  although  the  Church  be 
a  witness  and  keeper  of  Holy  Writ"  fyc. 

4  Theod.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  V.  cap.  vi.  p.  200. 1.  15.  <Avrv 
•yxg  [tow  [_*)  «»aTo?^  TVS  A^fMWtWK  iv tit into ro  hu@y<;.  ?)  yao  IffWEga 
trs  vo<T8  raids'  £\Ii&f£a  ^e'/xs'vs.  Kuvrccffoos  pit  yag  5  rut 

ira,\ouv  Tr^scr/SvTaToc,   xa*   Kw»r<»?  o   VSUTOCTO?^  T 
axijcarov,  cu*r»/£'/;c'a»*  xai  av  Tra-htv   GYcthttTHHCiyoS)  o  T>ii$ 


(  111  ) 

riot!  of  forty  years,,  when  the  Greek  Church  resigned 
itself  to  the  errours  of  Arms  3.  In  addition  to  the 
joint  testimony  of  those  Churches,  various  direct  and 
collateral  lights  arise  on  this  subject,  to  determine 
our  choice  in  the  different  classes.,  among  which  we 
are  to  make  our  election.  From  possessing-  a  know- 
ledge of  the  different  persons  by  whom  these  texts 
were  revised,  we  derive  considerable  support  in 
chusing  a  particular  class,  or  in  selecting  a  peculiar 
reading.  A  comparative  view  of  the  classes  of  the 
Greek,  or  even  of  the  Latin  translation.,  regarded 
either  relatively  or  apart,  will  frequently  enable  us 
to  determine,  by  the  principles  of  just  criticism,'  the 
genuine  Scripture  text  from  the  corrupted. 

On  the  most  casual  application  of  these  principles 
to  the  different  classes  of  text,  they  directly  mark 
out  the  Byzantine  edition,  as  that  which  is  entitled 
to  a  preference  over  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine. 
In  the  region  occupied  by  that  text,  the  apostolical 
writing's  were  deposited ;  and  they  were  here  com- 
bined in  a  code,  by  the  immediate  successours  of  the 
apostles.  Here  St.  Paul,  and  his  companion  St. 
Luke,  published  the  principal  part  of  the  Canon. 
From  hence  the  great  apostle  addressed  his  Epistle 
to  the  Church  at  Rome* ;  and  hither  he  directed  his 
Epistles  to  the  Churches  of  Corinth,  Galtitia,  Ephe- 

3  Vid.  supr.  p.  29.  n.  49. 

4  Origen.  Praef.    in    Epist.   ad   Rom.  Tom.  IV.  p.  459.  ed. 
Bened. — "  Etiam  illud  baud  absurde  admonebimus,  quod  vide- 
tur  hanc  Epistolam  de  Corintho  scriberc,  et  aliis  quidem  pluribus 
indiciis,  evidentius  tamen  ex  eo  quod  dicit:  *  Commendo  autem 
vobis  Phreben  sororem  nostram  nrinistram  Ecclesicrt   quce  e*t 
Cenchris.9     Cenchris  enim  dicitur   locus  Corintho  vicinus  imo 

gortus  ipslus  Corinthi"  &c. 


(     H2    ) 

sus,  Philippi,  Colosse,  andThessalonica*;  which 
situated  in  the  Patriarchate  of  Constantinople.  Hi- 
ther St.  John  returned  from  banishment  :  here  he 
remained  until  the  times  of  Trajan  6,  exercising*  the 
functions  of  an  Ordinary  7  ;  and  here,  having*  com- 
pleted the  sacred  Canon,  by  composing  his  Gospel 
and  Apocalypse,  he  collected  the  writings  of  the 
other  Evangelists,,  which  he  combined  in  a  code^ 
and  sanctioned  with  the  apostolical  authority  8. 

5  This  is  evident  from  the  superscriptions  of  the  Epistles* 
Vid.infr.  p.  115.  n.  '*. 

6  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  III.   cap.   xxiii.  p.   112.  1.  10. 

ETT»   T8TOK  KO>TC£  7J)>    Africa  tn  ru>  &'\u, 
tt  r,ya,Tra.  o   'l^cri?;,  A9ro 


W.    OTt     06    £t?    TtfTOi?     £Tt    TO?     @ia 

a-^ai    TOP   Aoyo   f4M^rvfM>t  mrsi   tf   a>    Etgy 

.K/wry?  o  Ah.t%a,vfyiu<;.   uv  o  //,£»  TrpoTfpof  ay  otvrecu  TUV  WfOf  Tct?  Aieic 

fiTAi$  7^a<pei  x.ara  At'ltv,  <{  Kat  -Trdnret;  of 
ct  KCLTO,  TVJV  'Aaristv  'ludvvy  T&  TW  Kt'pS 
va.pfrot$ux.ivw  rov  'Luotww,  TTa^fjicivs  ya%  avro'if  ^%pi  r£>v  Tpxi- 
avH  ^ovwv."  Conf.  S.  Iraen.  adv.  Haer.  Lib.  II.  cap.  xxif. 
p.  148.  ed.  Bened. 

7  Clem.  Alexandr.  quisn.  div.  salv.  poss.  p.  112.     'ETmoi  y»^ 

Ttf    rvpdvvU     []Ao;x£Ttai'Sj     TifavTs/o-cinTo*;,    otvo    ir,<;    Xlcirpti    T??    vijcra 
9  \ua.nvrtf~^  el'  TV/*     E^?<rov,  aTTrjst  'Trat^a.y.oc^Hfjt.ttQq  KOI}  sir]  tu. 
tuv    iSvuv,    oVy    /«,fr    s-Trtcrx.oTrs?    Kcnter*?*")    oV«    o"s    0'Aa? 
^offaVf    oVa    do    KXijpw   etaya'   T5>a    vJhfi^ucrm    TUV    VTTQ    rS" 

ffvpcuvopetvf.      Conf.-  Euseb.   ub.   supr.    p.   112.   1. 
1—8. 

8  Euseb.   Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  III.   cap.  xxiv.   p.   116.    1.  35. 

TO»  TrcivTct,  xpvwv    a-ypatyu  ittjfff^fttfn   x^^ 


(     113    ) 

And  here  every  facility  was  afforded  Linus,  the 
first  Bishop  of  Rome,,  and  Timothy,  the  first  Bishop 
of  Ephesus9,,  from  their  connexion  with  St.  Paul  I0, 
St.  Luke,  and  St.  John10,  to  form  perfect  copies  of 
the  New  Testament  Canon,  which  had  been  partly 
collected  by  the  last  surviving  apostle. 

The  peculiar  text  which  exists  in  this  region,  is 
not  merely  supported  by  the  consideration  of  the 
place  in  which  it  is  found  :  it  is  also  supported  by 
the  concurring  testimony  of  the  Eastern  and  West- 
ern Churches.  It  is  that  text  which  we  adopted 
immediately  from  the  Greeks,  on  forming  our  print- 
ed editions  and  vernacular  versions  And  it  is  that 
which  is  exclusively  used  by  the  only  learned  branch 
of  the  Greek  Church,  which  now  exists  ;  and  which 
is  established  in  Russia.  It  is  also  the  text  which 
is  supported  by  the  concurring  testimony  of  the  old 


x.x     uvivq    ys 
Aoyor. 

9  Id.  ib.  cap.  iv.  p.  91.  1.  15*      Ti^oSeo?  ye    pn   ry<;    Iv    Epe'ffw 
wzpoiKioiS     ?ro£«*Ta«     ITQWTOS     T*JV     STTIMHIW 
A!™?    &    a    peiAwrou     [a    HayXo?]     cuvovTOS     sm 
X*T»    rJjH     hvr^av    Trpo?    T»/*o&or     iieifolw,     wpuros    pnoc.    Uirpor 


Vid.  infr,  p.  115.  n.  '4. 
'°  Comp.  2  Tim.  iii.  10,  11.  iv.  11,  12.  21.  The  facts  al- 
luded to  in  this  passage  are  illustrated  by  the  Evangelist  St. 
Luke,  in  Acts  xiii.  14,  50.  xiv,  1,  2.  xix.  22.  On  this  subject 
we  may  particularly  note  the  command  given  to  Timothy  on 
the  subject  of  the  Scriptures,  2  Tim.  iii.  14,  15,  16.  iv.  9.  13. 
It  was  given  by  the  Apostle  shortly  before  his  death,  and  with 
a  perfect  foresight  of  his  approaching  dissolution,  2  Tim.  iv. 
6;  7,  8.  Act.  xxv.  25.  38. 

I 


C 

Italick  version,  contained  in  the  Brescia  manu- 
script11; which  is  obviously  free  from  the  innova- 
tions of  St.  Eusebius  of  Verceli,  of  St.  Jerome,  and 
Cassiodorus™.  Consequently,  it  is  the  only  text  of 
the  three  editions  which  challenges  the  general  tes- 
timony of  the  Eastern  Church,  and  the  unadulter- 
ated testimony  of  the  Western,  in  favour  of  its 
integrity. 

The  particular  manner  in  which  the  Western 
Church  delivers  its  testimony,  in  confirmation  of  that 
of  the  Greek  Church,  seems  almost  decisive  in 
evincing  the  permanence  and  purity  of  the  text  of 
Byzantium.  The  Brescia  manuscript,  which  con- 
tains this  testimony,  possesses  a  text,  which,  as  com- 
posed of  the  old  Italick  version,  must  be  antedated 
to  the  year  393,  when  the  new  version  was  made 
by  St.  Jerome13.  It  thus  constitutes  a  standing 
proof,  that  the  Byzantine  text,  with  which  it  agrees, 
has  preserved  its  integrity  for  upwards  of  1400 
years ;  during  which  period  it  was  exposed  to  the 
greatest  hazard  of  being  corrupted.  This  proof,  it 
may  be  presumed,  affords  no  trifling  earnest,  that 
it  has  not  been  corrupted  during  the  comparatively 
inconsiderable  period  of  two  hundred  and  ninety 
years,  which  intervene  between  this  time  and  the 
publication  of  the  inspired  writings.  For  while 
290  years  bear  no  proportion  to  1400,  the  chances 
of  such  a  corruption  must  diminish  in  proportion  as 
\ve  ascend  to  the  time  of  the  apostles.  The  first 

"  Vid.  supr.  p.  62.  sqq. 
11  Vid.  supr.  p.  90.  sqq* 
*  VitU  supr.  pp.  70,  71. 


copyists  must  necessarily  have  observed  a  degree  of 
carefulness  in  making  their  transcripts  proportion- 
able to  their  reverence  for  the  originals,  which  they 
took  as  their  models :  from  the  autographs  of  the 
apostles,,  or  their  immediate  transcripts,  there  could 
be  no  inducement  to  depart,  even  in  a  letter.  It  is, 
however,  not  merely  probable,  that  the  originals 
were  preserved  for  this  inconsiderable  period ;  but 
that  they  were  preserved  with  a  degree  of  religious 
veneration I4.  And  if  they  were  preserved  in  any 

14  Tertul.  Praescr.  adv.  Haer.  cap.  xxxvi.  p.  211.    "  Age  jam 
qui  voles  curiositatem  melius  exercere  in  negotio  salutis  tuae, 
percurre  Eccksias  Apostolicas,  apud  quas  ipsae  adhuc  cathedrae 
Apostolorum  suis  locis  praesidentur ;  apud  quas  ipsce  authentic^ 
littertz  eorum  recitantury  sonantes  vocem,  et  repraesentantes  fa* 
ciem  unius  cujusque.     Proxime  est  tibi  Achaia,  habes  Corin* 
thum.     Si  non  longe  es  a  Macedonia,  habes  Philippos,  habes 
Thessalonicenses.     Si  potes  in  Asiam  tendere  habes  Ephesum; 
si  autem  Italiae  adjaces,  habes  Romam,  unde  nobis  quoque  auc* 
toritas  praesto  est.     Statu  fcelix  Ecclesia !  cui  totam  doctrinam 
Apostoli  cum  sanguine  suo  profuderunt;  ubi  Petrus  passion! 
Dominicae  adaequatur ;  ubi  Paulus,  Joannis  exitu,  coronatur ; 
ubi  Apostolus  Joannes,  posteaquam,  in  oleum  igneum  demersus, 
nihil  passus  est,  in  insulam  relegatur  /     Videamus  quid  dixerit, 
quid  docuerit,   quid   cum    Africanis   Ecclesiis  contesserarit.'* 
The  best  commentary  on  the  phrase,    "  authenticae  litterse," 
used  by  this  antient  father,  of  whom  St.  Jerome  speaks,  Cat. 
Scrippt.  Eccless.  v.  Luc.  as  being  "  near  the  Apostles'  times/* 
is  contained  in  the  following  declarations  of  his  disciple  St.  Cy- 
prian, who  lived  in  the  next  succession  after  the  Apostles ;  S. 
Cypr.  Presbb.  et  Diacc.  Rom.  Epist.  ix.  p.  19.  ed  Oxon. 
'  Legi  etiam  Literas  in  quibus  nee  qui  scripserint,  nee  ad  quo* 
scriptum  est  significanter  expressum  est.     Et  quoniam  me  in 
iisdem  Hteris,  et  scriptura  et  sensus  et  chartae  ipsae  quoque  mo- 
verunt,  ne  quid  ex  vero  vel  subtractum  sit  vel  immutatum ; 


'•place,  it  must  have  been  in  the  region  contiguous 
lo  Constantinople,   where  they  were  originally  de- 


ad  vos  epistolam  authenticam  remisi,  ut  recognoscatis 
•an  ipsa  sit  quam  Clementio  hypodiacono  perferendam  dedistis  : 
perquam  etenim  grave  est,  si  epistolse  clericoe  veritas  mendacio 
aliquo  et  fraude  corrtipta  est.     Hoc  igitur  ut  scire  possimus,  et 
scriptura  et  subscriptio  an  v'estra  sit  recognoscite  ;  et  nobis  quid 
sft  in  vero  rescribite."     Id.  Presbb.  et  Diacc.  Ep.  xxxii.  p.  65. 
**  Quales  literas  ad  Clerum  Romae  agentem  fecerim,  quidque 
illi  mihi  rescripserint,   quid  etiam  Moyes  et  Maximus  Presby- 
teri  —  aeque  ad  literas  meas  rescripserint,  ut  scire  possetis  exem- 
pla vobis  legenda  transrnisi.     Vos  curate  quantum  potestis  pro 
diligentia  Vestra,  ut  scripta  nostra,  et  illorum  rescripta  fratribus 
nostris  innotescant.     Sed  et  si  qui  de  peregrinis  Episcopi  Col- 
lege mei,  vel  Presbyteri,  vel  Diacones  praesentes  fuerint  vel 
supervenerint,  hsec  omnia  de  vobis  audiant  ;  et  si  exempla  epis- 
tolarum  transcriber  et  ad  suos  perferre  voluerint,  facultatem 
transcriptionis   accipiant.      Quamvis   et    Saturo   lectori,   fratri 
nostro  mandaverkn,  ut  singulis  desiderantibus  describendi  faciat 
potestatem,  ut  in  Ecclesiarum  statu  quoquo  Ynodo  interim  com- 
ponendo  servetur  ab  omnibus  una  et  fida  consensio."     With  a 
view  to  explain  the  terms  authentic^  Utterly  and  exempla  epis- 
tolarum,  as  used  in  St.  Cyprian's  tige,  I  have  transcribed  these 
long  passages  :   not  so  much  in  reply  to  the  objections  of  Mr. 
Person's  Letter  to  Adn.  Travis,  p.  276  ;  as  to  illustrate  the 
extraordinary  care  which  was  taken  by  the  primitive   Chris- 
tians to  disperse  and  authenticate  all  documents  which  related 
to  their  Ecclesiastical  Polity.     If  the  early  Church  was  thus 
careful  in  verifying  and  publishing  the  commonest  documents  ; 
with  .what  care  must  she  have  proceeded  when  employed  in 
transcribing  and  dispersing  the   sacred  Scriptures  !     Both  the 
^:above-cited  Epistles  of  St.  Cyprian  are  upon  the  same  subject  ; 
and  were  occasioned  by  a  communication  from  the  Church  of 
"Rome,  relative  to  the  martyrdom  of  Fabianus,  their  Bishop, 
who  perished  in  the   Decian  Persecution  ;  Conf.  S.  Cypr.  Ep. 
ub.  supr.  Pears.  Annali.  Cypriann.  §  viii.  p.  20.     The  informa- 
lity, of  which  St.  Cyprian  complains,  in  the  Roman  Clergy, 


(    117    ,) 

posited.  To  this  region,  of  course,  we  must  natu- 
rally look  for  the  genuine  text  of  Scripture. 

It  is  indeed  true,  that  those  Churches,  which  were 
the  witnesses  and  keepers  of  Holy  Writ,  vary  in 
their  testimony;  and  that  the  Greek  original,  as 
well  as  the  Latin  translation,  have  undergone  some 
alteration :  as  appeal's  from  the  classes  into  which 
they  are  respectively  divided.  But,  as  they  do  not 
vary  from  each  other  in  above  one  essential  point, 
but  generally  conspire  in  their  testimony,  the  tran- 
slation following  the  varieties  of  the  original;  as  we 
can  also  follow  up  these  varieties  to  their  source, 
and  can  trace  them  to  the  alterations  made  by  Hesy- 
chius  and  Eusebius  in  the  Greek,  and  to  the  corre- 
spondent corrections  made  by  St.  Eusebius  and  St. 
Jerome  in  the  Latin :  the  fidelity  of  the  witnesses 
still  remains  unimpaired,  and  the  unadulterated  tes- 
timony of  the  Eastern  and  Western  Churches  still 
lies  on  the  side  of  the  text  of  Lucianus. 

These  deductions  will  receive  additional  confir- 
mation, and  every  objection  to  which  they  are  ex- 
posed will  be  easily  solved,  by  investigating  apart 
the  respective  testimony  of  the  Eastern  and  West- 
ern Churches.  In  the  course  of  this  investiga- 
tion, it  shall  be  my  object  to  meet  those  objec- 
tions which  may  be  urged  against  the  Byzantine 
text  from  the  character  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome, 
who  have  avowed  a  predilection  for  the  Pales* 
tine. 


was  occasioned  by  the  disturbed  state  of  the  Church  at  that 
period. 


I.  The  first  argument  which  may  be  advanced  ia 
favour  of  the  uncorrupted  testimony  of  the  Eastern 
Church,  is  deducible  from  the  extraordinary  coin- 
cidence observed  to  exist  between  the  manuscripts 
of  the  Byzantine  edition.  Though  the  copies  of 
this  edition,  which  constitutes  the  Greek  Vulgate  of 
the  present  age,  and  which  seemingly  constituted 
that  of  the  age  of  St.  Jerome,  are  considerably 
more  numerous  than  those  of  the  other  editions I5, 
they  possess  the  most  extraordinary  conformity,  in 
their  peculiar  readings  l6.  Had  they  existed  in  a 
state  of  progressive  deterioration,  it  is  obvious,  that 
at  the  end  of  seventeen  centuries,  they  must  have 
presented  a  very  different  appearance.  The  extra- 
ordinary uniformity  which  pervades  the  copies  of 
this  edition,  involves  much  more  than  a  presumptive 
proof,  that  they  have  retained  their  fidelity  to  the 
common  source,  from  which  they  have  unquestion- 
ably descended. 

But  that  this  source  must  be  remote,  is  a  fact, 
which  is  equally  deducible  from  the  consideration  of 
the  number  of  the  copies  which  we  possess  of  the 
Byzantine  edition.  The  text  of  this  edition  appa* 
rently  possesses  no  intrinsick  merit,  that  could  en- 

15  Griesb.  Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  I.  p.  cxxii.     "  Prsecipnus  vero 
rccensionum  in  criseos  sacrae  exercitio  usus  hie  est,  ut  earum 
auctoritate  lectiones  bonas,  sed  in  panels  libris  superstites  defen- 
damus  adversus  juniorum  et  Vulgar'mm  Codicum  innumerabilent 
'pccne  turbam." 

16  Mattho?i  Praef.  in  Nov.  Test.  Tom.  I.  p.  xxvi.     "  Plerum- 
qne  enini  melioris  notae  Codices  omnes  inter  se  consentiunt.     Qui 
vero  notabiliter  corrupt!  sunt,  unde  corrupti  sunt,  multis  in  locfs 
facile  intelligitur,"  &c.     Vid.  supr.  p.  107.  n.  I37. 


title  it  to  supersede  the  Palestine  text,  which  wa» 
recommended  by  the  united  authority  of  Eusebius 
and  the  Emperour  Constantine.  And  yet  it  ha* 
undoubtedly  superseded  the  latter  at  Constantino- 
ple, where  the  Palestine  text  \vas  first  published 
under  every  advantage,  arising-  from  the  authority 
of  the  persons  by  whom  it  was  edited.  Nay,  it  has 
superseded  it  so  effectually,  that  scarcely  a  copy  of 
Eusebius's  text  is  to  be  found  in  this  region17; 
where  Eusebius's  edition  was  originally  published. 
Nor  is  this  all,  but  the  Byzantine  text  must  have  thus 
superseded  the  Palestine  text,  within  a  short  space 
of  the  death  of  Eusebius.  This  is  apparent  not  only 
from  the  existence  of  the  former  text  in  the  Alex- 
andrine manuscript,  which  was  written,  within  at 
least  forty  years  of  that  period  ;  but  from  the  coin- 
cidence of  this  text  with  the  Brescia  manuscript, 
which  contains  the  old  Italick  translation,  which  pre- 
vailed until  the  age  of  St.  Jerome.  Now,  when  we 
consider  the  invincible  pertinacity  with  which  the 
churches  persevered  in  adhering  to  the  common  or 
vulgar  text l8;  it  seems  impossible  to  account  for  so 

7  The  application  made  for  manuscripts  at  Jerusalem,  in 
order  to  furnish  the  Emperour,  John  II.  with  copies  of  a  parti- 
cular description,  will  sufficiently  evince  how  rare  the  Pales- 
tine text  was  at  Constantinople.  Vid.  supr.  p.  35.  n. ca.  conf. 
p.  81.  n.  *>. 

J  Notwithstanding  the  extreme  caution,  which  St.  Jerome 
evinced  in  revising  the  antient  Vulgate ;  having  left  the  old 
readings  uncorrected,  and  merely  marked  the  superfluous  words 
with  an  obelus,  and  the  inserted  terms  with  an  asterism;  his 
revisal  was  received  with  great  jealousy,  and  gave  considerable 
•ffence.  Vid,  supr.  p.  101.  n.  Ii5.  conf.  infr.  p,  137.  n.  7\  The 


(     120    ) 

great  and  so  sudden  a  revolution  as  thus  occurred  at 
Constantinople,  otherwise  than  by  supposing-,  that 
the  attachment  to  tradition  prevailed  over  the  influ- 
ence of  authority  ;  and  that  the  edition  of  Eusebius 
thus  gave  place  to  the  text  of  Lucianus,  having  su- 
perseded it,  but  for  that  limited  period  in  which  it 
was  sustained  by  the  royal  authority.  This  assump- 
tion,, which  is  confirmed  in  an  extraordinary  manner 
"by  the  demand  made  by  the  Emperour  Constans  to 
St.  Athanasius,  to  furnish  a  new  edition  on  the  death 
of  Eusebius19,  is  finally  proved  by  the  immense 
number  of  manuscripts  possessing  the  Byzantine  text, 
which  have  been  brought  from  Constantinople.  Had 
not  that  change  taken  place,  which  it  would  be  my 
object  to  evince,  and  at  a  period  thus  early,  it  is  im- 
possible to  conceive,  how  it  could  have  taken  place 
so  effectually  as  to  extinguish  the  edition  of  Euse- 
bius where  it  was  originally  published ;  or,  so  pecu- 
liarly, as  to  reinstate  the  text  of  Lucianus. 

Whatever  force  be  allowed  to  these  conclusions, 


following  anecdote  is  vouched,  on  the  authority  of  St.  Augus- 
tine, of  an  African  Bishop,  who  had  endeavoured  to  introduce 
into  his  Church  the  New  Version  made  by  St.  Jerome  from  the 
Hebrew;  S.  Aug.  Hieron.  Epist.  LXXI.  Tom.  II.  c.  161.  c. 
Quidani  frater  noster  episcopus,  cum  lectitari  instituisset  in  eccle- 
sia  cui  prseest,  interpretationem  tuam,  movit  quiddam  longe 
aliter  a  te  positum,  apud  Jonam  prophetam,  quam  erat  omnium 
semibus  memoriccque  inveteratum  et  tot  cetaium  successionibus 
decantatum :  factusque  est  tantus  tumultus  in  plebe,  maxime 
Graecis  arguentibus,  et  inclamantibus  calumniam  falsitatis, 
lit  cogeretur  episcopus,  (ea  quippe  civitas  erat)  Judccorum  te&ti- 
wonium  Jlagitare." 

^  Vicl  infr.  p.  131.  sqq. 


(     121     ) 

it  must  be  at  least  admitted,  that,  as  the  testimony  of 
the  Brescia  manuscript  enables  us  to  trace  the  tradi- 
tion of  the  Byzantine  text  to  a  period  as  remote  as 
the  year  393 io ;  that  of  the  Alexandrine  manuscript 
enables  us  to  trace  it  to  a  period  not  less  remote  than 
the  year  367.  The  pedigree  of  this  extraordinary 
manuscript,  which  is  referred  to  the  latter  period, 
has  been  traced  with  a  degree  of  accuracy  which  is 
unparalleled  in  the  history  of  manuscripts.  An  im- 
memorial tradition  prevailed  in  the  church  from 
whence  it  was  brought,  that  it  was  written  not  long- 
subsequently  to  the  Council  of  Nice,  by  a  religious 
woman  named  Thecla*1.  A  religious  person  of  this 
name  certainly  existed  at  this  period zz,  to  whom 
some  of  the  Epistles  of  Gregory  Nazianzen23  are 
addressed ;  and  the  characters  of  the  manuscript  are 
of  that  delicate  form,  which  evinces,  that  it  was 
written  by  the  hand  of  a  female.  Nay,'  more  than 
this,  the  tradition  of  the  church  respecting  this  ma- 
nuscript, which  there  is  no  just  ground  for  impeach- 
ing, is  confirmed  in  an  extraordinary  manner  by  the 
internal  evidence  of  the  text,  as  it  possesses  every 
characteristick  mark  which  might  be  expected  to 
exist  in  a  manuscript  written  at  that  early  period. 
I  shall  merely  specify  a  few  of  the  internal  marks 
from  which  the  learned  editour  concludes,  that  it 
was  written  between  the  middle  and  close  of  the 

10  Vicl.supr.p.  70.  n.  y>. 
1  Vid.  Negot.  of  Sir  Tho.  Roe,  p.  618.  414.  460. 

Vid.  Usser.  Antiqq.  Britt.  Eccless.  p.  110. 
13  Vid.  Roe,  ub.  supr.  p.  618.     Woid.  Praef.  in  Cod.  Alex. 
p.  ix.  §  44,  45. 


(     122    ) 

fourth  century.  It  possesses  the  Gospels  divided, 
by  the  sections  of  Eusebius,  which  were  introduced 
in  the  former  period *4;  it  retains  the  Pauline  Epis- 
tles, without  those  divisions,  which  were  invented  in 
the  latter  period Z5 :  and  it  contains,  as  a  part  of  the 
authorized  text*6,  the  Epistles  of  St.  Clement,  which, 
about  the  same  period,  were  prohibited  from  being- 
read  in  the  Church,  by  the  Council  of  Laodicea*7. 
For  plenary  information  on  this  subject,  the  reader 
must  apply  to  the  admirable  Preface  of  the  learned 
Dr.  Woide,  by  whom  it  was  published.  From  such 
internal  evidence,  joined  with  the  external  testi- 
mony of  the  Church,  has  the  age  of  this  celebrated 
manuscript  been  determined18:  and  as  it  contains 

14  Woid.   ibid.  p.  vii.    §   36.     "  Indicem  Periocharum  seii 
Capltulorum  antiquorum  ante  initium  Evangeliorum  ponit,  quod 
et  alii  Codices  MSSti  et  Milii  editio  recte  imitati  sunt.     Prae- 
terea  etiam  numerum  et  titulum  Periocharum  in  surama  pagina 

adscripsit.- Etiam  ad  sinistrum  marginem  notantnr  hccc  CVz- 

pitula   quae   Millius  quoque    notare   non   neglexit. — Praeterea 
etiam    numerus    Capitulorum     lit  era    alphabeti    minio    appin- 
gitur." 

15  Id.  ibid.     '*  In  Actis  Apostolicis  et  Eplstolis  Generalibus. 
et  Paulinis  nulla  Capitida  apparent,  in  quae  Euthalius  diviserat 
hos  libros,  licet  paragrapbos  seu  periodos  a  nova  linea  et  uia- 
jori  liteca  exordiri  videas  frequentissime.    In  Actis  Apostolorum 
tantummodo  in  locis  sequentibus  notulam  crucis  observavi  (quas 
in  Evangellis  initium  sectionum  Eusebianorum  et  Capitulorum 
designate,  scilicet  cap.  iii.   1.  iv.  ad  fin.  vers.  3.  viii.  26.  x.  1.'* 
&c. 

16  Vid.  Bevereg.   Cod.   Cann.  Eccles.  Prim.  Illustr.   P.  II. 
eap.  ix.  p.  116. 

*7  Woid.  ub.  supr.  §  53. 

a8  Id.  ib.  }  80.     '*  Si  itaque  lectores  et  formas  literarum  Co- 
dicis  nostri,  ClernentiVllomam  Epistolas,  etPsalmos  Salojnonis? 


th'e  Byzantine  text,  in  the  Gospels  *9,  it  necessarily 
proves  the  antiquity  of  that  text  to  be  as  remote  as 
the  year  three  hundred  and  sixty-seven,  when  the 
Epistles  of  St.  Clement  were  formally  separated 
from  the  Canonical  Scripture30. 

The  space  of  time  which  intervenes  between  this 
ancient  period,  and  that  in  which  the  sacred  writing's 
Were  published,  is  not  so  immeasurable  as  to  pre- 
clude the  possibility  of  proving-,  that  the  traditioii, 
which  supports  the  Byzantine  text,  though  suspend- 
ed for  a  short  period,  was  preserved  uncorrupted. 
In  the  entire  course  of  this  period,  there  was  but 
one  interval  in  which  it  could  be  interrupted *  dur- 
ing the  forty  years  in  which  the  Church  was  undei* 
the  dominion  of  the  Arians31.  But  over  this  period, 
the  testimony  of  St.  Jerome,  who  lived  at  the  time, 
directly  carries  us ;  as  he  declares  that  the  text 
which  prevailed  at  Byzantium,  was  that  which  had 
been  revised  by  Lucianus31,  who  perished  in  the 
persecution  of  Dioclesian  and  Maximiann.  The 
traditionary  chain  is  thus  easily  connected.  We 

Euthalii  sectiones  et  r^yayiov,  quse  desunt,  si  caetera  argumenta 
summam  ejus  antiquitatem  donfirmantia,  cotisideratissime  pef- 
penderint,  omnia  conspirare  videbunt,  ut  Codicem  Alexandrinwn 
inira  medium  etjinem  seculi  quarti  scriptum  esse  ipsis  persuadeant. 
as>  Griesb.  Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  I.  p.  fx.  n.  *.  Hinc  accidit  ut 
Codex  Alexandrinus  non  in  omnibus  libris,  eandem  textus  recert- 
sionem  sequeretur.  In  Evangeliis  exhibet  recendonem  Constatt* 
tinopolitanam  sive  Asiaticam,''  &c. 

30  Vid.  supr.  nn.  a6  et  a?. 

31  Vid.  supr.  p.  29.  n.  49. 

31  Vid.  supr.  p.  72.  n.  13.  conf.  p.  100.  n.  |2°. 
33  Vid.  infr.  n.  ?8.  conf.  Euseb,  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  VIII.  cap, 
xiii,  p.  393. 1.  32. 


(   is*  ) 

know  that  in  Conatantine's  age,  Eusebius's  text  was 
published  at  Constantinople'4;  we  know  that  Luci- 
anus's  Septuagint  differed  from  it,  and  that  in  St 
Jerome's  age  it  prevailed  in  the  same  region". 
There  is  consequently  no  alternative,  but  to  admit, 
that  the  tradition  which  was  interrupted  in  the  former 
period,  was  renewed  in  the  latter. 

Now  as  the  Scripture  Canon  was  not  published 
until  the  beginning  of  the  second  century 36,  and  as 
Lucianus  most  probably  completed  his  revisal  be- 
fore the  year  284,  when  the  Dioclesian  aera  com- 
menced, the  Byzantine  text,  if  it  has  undergone 
any  alteration,  must  have  been  corrupted  in  the 
course  of  this  period.  It  will  be  readily  granted, 
for  reasons  already  specified,  that  this  alteration 
could  not  have  taken  place  in  the  earlier  part  of  this 
•term 37,  The  last  possibility  which  the  question  ad- 
mits, consequently  is,  t^hat  it  was  corrupted  in  the 
latter  part  of  it,  when  the  text  was  revised  by  the 
Land  of  Lucianus. 

But  against  this  possibility,  we  have  the  strongest 
security  in  the  character  of  that  learned  and  pious 
martyr.  To  his  skill  in  revising  the  sacred  text, 
the  most  honourable  testimony  is  borne,  by  the  most 
unimpeachable  witnesses ;  Eusebius  and  Jerome. 

54  Vid.  Euseb.  Vit.  Const.  Lib.  IV.  capp.  xxxvi.  xxxvii. 
p.  646.  sqq. 

35  Vid.  supr.  p.  72.  n.  '». 

3.6  S.  Iren.  adv.  Haer.  Lib.  V.  cap.  xxx.  p.  830.    Ol&  yu%  ^o 

WoX^S  %gov»   iufa&n    £^  e&Tro/faTwtJ'Kjj    oAXa  c^^ov   eirl  T>5?  ^ETe'^ag 

ytveoiq,  9T§or '  ru  ritei  TTJJ  Ae/x&avS  d^yfii.     Vid,  supr.  p.  112. 
nn.  6  et  7. 

37  Vid.  supr.  p.  115. 


(    125    ) 

These  best  judges  of  antiquity  have  expressed  them- 
selves on  this  subject  in  terms  of  the  most  unqua- 
lified approbation38.  One  slight,  yet  important  cir- 
cumstance, which  the  latter  critick  has  left  on  re- 
cord, clearly  evinces  the  scrupulous  fidelity  with 
which  Lucianus  discharged  this  sacred  trust.  The 
text  which  he  published  was  that  of  the  vulgar 
Greek,,  or  common  edition  59  ;  which  loudly  pro- 
claims, that  his  intention  was  to  preserve  the  in- 
spired text  in  the  state  in  which  he  found  it  ; 
though,  in  pursuing  this  course,  he  acted  in  direct 
opposition  to  the  authority  of  Origen,  who  set  him 
a  different  example.  Let  us  now  take  this  circum- 
stance into  account,  together  with  the  critical  repu- 
tation of  Lucianus  :  let  us  consider,  that  the  place 
and  period  in  which  he  made  his  revisal,  was  the- 
region  where  the  inspired  writings  wrere  deposited. 
and  within  a  short  distance  of  the  period  when  they 
were  published:  let  us  then  revert  to  the  possibili- 
ties which  have  been  already  calculated,  that  the 
immediate  transcripts  of  the  writings  of  the  Apostles 

38  Euseb.    Hist.  Eccles.   Lib.  IX.   cap.  vi.  p.  4-44.   1.  22. 

giro;,    @w   TE   tyxfOiT 
?%$    xccr'  Avrk6%ttu.v 


S.    Ilitr. 

Catal.  Scripp.  Eccll.  in  Lucian.  Tom.  I.  p.  123.  "  Lucianus 
vir  disertissimus,  Antiochenae  Ecclesiae  presbyter,  tantum  in 
Scripturarum  stadia  labonrcit,  ut  usque  nunc  quaedam  exemglaria 
Scripturarnm  Lucianca  nuucupentur.  —  Passus  est  Niconjudiae 
ob  confessionem  Christ!  sub  persecutione  Maxiniini."  —  - 
59  Vid.  supr.  p.  72.  n.  '\ 


(     126    ) 

and  Evangelists  could  have  been  corrupted  in  little 
more  than  cue  hundred  years,  while  the  Byzantine 
text  has  confessedly  retained  its  integrity  for  full 
eleven  hundred*".  We  may  thence  form  a  just 
estimate  of  the  conclusiveness  of  that  evidence  which 
still  exists  in  attestation  of  the  purity  of  the  text  of 
Lucianus. 

In  fine,  a  very  short  process  enables  us  to  prove, 
that  the  tradition  which  supports  the  authority  of 
this  text,  has  continued  unbroken  since  the  age  of 
the  apostles.  The  coincidence  of  the  Vulgar  Greek 
of  our  present  editions  with  the  old  Italick  transla- 
tion^ enables  us  to  carry  up  the  tradition  to  the  times 
of  St.  Jerome41.  The  testimony  of  this  learned  fa- 
ther enables  us  to  extend  the  proof  beyond  this 
period,  to  the  times  of  Lucianus,,  in  whose  age 
the  Byzantine  text  equally  constituted  the  Vul- 
gate or  common  edition4*.  And  the  character  of 
JLucianus,  and  the  course  which  he  pursued  in  re- 
vising the  sacred  text,,  connects  this  proof  with  the 

40  Thus  long  has  the  Byzantine  text  existed,  even  by  the 
confession  of  M.  Griesbach,  whose  object  required  that  it  should 
be  brought  as  low  as  possible.     Griesb.  Hist.  Text.  Epp.  Paul!* 
sect.  i.  §  11.     Mirum — neraini  videbitur  qui  secum  reputaverit 
sexto  ant  septimo  seculo  extilisse  jam  illani  recensionem  quce  in 
codicibus  pleri&que   habetur,   et  a   textu  vulgari  typis   excuso 
parum  ditfert ;  inde  vero  a  seculo  octavo  vix  novam  recensionem 
ullam  procuratam  fuisse,   nee   variantium   lectionum  numerum 
insigniier  anctum  esse,  si  sphalmata  demas  a  librariis  dormitan- 
tibus  adnussa,  et  glossas  nonnullas  e  uiargine  in  textum  temere 
translatas.5' 

41  Vid.  supr.  pp.  70,71. 
4*  Vid.  supr.  p,  72.  n.  r*v 


(     127    ) 

times  of  the  inspired  writers  *%  who  could  alone  im- 
press that  authority  upon  one  text,  which,  by  bring- 
ing it  into  general  use,  rendered  it,  from  the  primi- 
tive ages  down  to  the  present  day,  the  xou*  sxMnf, 
or  Greek  Vulgate. 

The  mode  of  proof  which  thus  establishes  the 
authority  of  the  Byzantine  text,  is  not  more  deci- 
sive, from  being  positively  than  exclusively  true. 
When  applied  to  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine  texts, 
it  is  so  far  from  establishing  an  immemorial  uninter- 
rupted tradition  in  their  favour,  that  it  completely 
limits  their  pretensions  to  a  definite  period. 

The  manuscripts  containing  both  these  texts  are 
comparatively  few,  having  been  generally  super- 
seded by  the  Byzantine  edition44.  We  scarcely 
possess  a  second  copy  of  the  Egyptian  text;  and 
should  almost  doubt  its  existence,  if  it  were  not  at- 
tested by  St.  Jerome,  and  if  his  testimony  were  not 
confirmed  by  the  coincidence  of  the  Sahidick  ver- 
sion with  the  Latin  translation  of  St.  Eusebius,  and 
by  the  agreement  of  both  with  the  Cambridge  ma- 
nuscript, and  the  manuscripts  collated  by  Thomas 
Heracletisis45.  The  manuscripts  containing  the  Pa- 

43  Vid.  supr.  p.  125.  n. 38. 

44  Vid.  supr.  p.  118.  n.  '5.  p.  126.  n.  4°. 

45  Vid.  supr.  pp.  73 — 78.     In  addition  to  what  has  been  ob- 
served on  the  MSS.  collated  by  Thomas   Heraclensis,  supr. 
p.  78.  n. 7S;  it  remains  to  be  observed,  that  the  Verceli,  Verona 
MSS.  and  the  Latin,  nay,  the  Greek  of  the  Cambridge  MS. 
which  respectively  possess  the  text  of  Hesychius,  have  been, 
copied  from  different  exemplars.     The   Verceli  MS.  possesses 
the  following  passage,  which  is  not  found  in  the  other  three ; 
Mat.  iii.  1.5.    **  Et  cum  baptizaretur  lumen  ingens  circumfulsit 


(     138    ) 

lestine  text  are  more  numerous ;  but,,  according  to 
the  confession  of  M.  Griesbach,,  they  bear  no  pro- 
portion to  those  of  the  Byzantine  edition46.  And 
they  fall  infinitely  short  of  the  number  which  might 
be  expected  to  exist^  when  we  consider  the  favour- 
able circumstances  under  which  the  Palestine  text 
was  edited  by  Eusebius/  and  republished,  with 
manifest  improvements,  by  Euthalius,,  at  Alexandria. 
There  is  thus  no  presumption  in  favour  of  their  anti- 
quity, arising  from  the  number  or  general  dispersion 
of  the  copies. 

The  place  from  whence  these  manuscripts  are 
derived.;  detracts  not  a  little  from  their  authority, 

do  aqua,  ita ,  ut  timerent  qtri  advenerunt."  This  passage  was 
however  found  in  the  exemplar  from  which  the  Cambridge 
Greek  was  copied  ;  for.  the  preceding  verse  is  drawn  out  in  such 
a  manner,  that  single  words  occupy  the  place  of  lines,  in  order 
to  fill  up  ^the  space  made  by  the  removal  of  this  passage,  and  to 
accommodate  the  Greek  to  the  Latin:  vid.  Cod.  Cant.  fol.  10. 
ed.  Kippl.  As  the  Latin.  o£  this  MS.  is  not  so  circumstanced,  it 
was,  of  course,  taken  from  a  different  copy  from  that  which 
produced  the  Greek.  The  Verona  MS.,  on-  the  other  band,' 
possesses  the  following  passage,  which  is  not  found  in  the  Ver- 
celi  MS.  Matt.  xxiv.  31.  "  Cum  cceperint  autem  hsec  fieri 
respicite  et  levate  capita  vestra,  quoniam  adpropriat  redemptlo 
vestra."  This  passage  however  occurs  in  the  Cambridge 

Greek,  ib.  ugygyktyvv  $1  TXTUV  yt»wSfl»  ava|9A£i^aTe  v.oCi  I?r*paTe 
•ra$  xsyaAas  vu,av  ciloTJ  iyyifyt  -n  asroAyTpwai;  vpuv*  and  in  the  Cam- 
bridge Latin  ib.  "  Ipcipientibus  autem  his  fieri,"  &c.  But  the 
Cambridge  MS.  differs  from  the  Verona,  and  agrees  with  the 
Vercdi  MS,  in  transposing  Mat.  v.  4,  5.  These  remarks  will,  I 
trust,  sufficiently  prove,  that  an  entire  Class  of  MSS.  possessing 
the  Egyptian  text,  once  existed. 

*5  Vid,  supr.  p.  118.  n, 1S.  p.  126.  n.  40, 


(     129    ) 

They  are  ascribed  by  M.  Griesbach  to  the  Alexan- 
drine region ;  and  there  is  little  reason  to  question 
his  authority  on  this  subject.  Here  the  Egyptian 
text  was  published  by  Hesychius,  and  hence  brought 
into  the  west  by  St.  Eusebius,  of  Verceli47 ;  and  here 
the  Palestine  text  was  republished  by  Euthalius, 
who  corrected  his  edition  by  Eusebius's  copies,  which 
were  preserved  at  Csesarea48.  Now,,  taking1  th0 
question  on  these  grounds,  there  is  little  room  for  a 
competition  between  the  Byzantine  and  Palestine 
editions.  The  country  in  which  the  one  arose  was 
that  in  which  the  apostolical  originals  were  depo- 
sited ,'  that  in  which  the  other  was  transplanted,  was 
the  soil  in  which  the  Arian  heresy  first  arose  and 
principally  flourished49.  When  we  take  this  cir- 
cumstance into  account,  together  with  the  peculiar 
opinions  of  Eusebius,  by  whom  the  Palestine  text 
was  revised  and  published,  who  lies  under  a  suspi- 
cion of  being  tainted  with  Arianism  5°,  it  seems  to 
leave  very  little  authority  to  a  text  \vhich  is  particu- 


'•  Vid.  supr.  p.  105.  n. 13i. 
48  Vid.  supr.  p.  105.  ri.  I3Z. 


9  Euseb.   Vit.   Constant.  Lib.   II.  cap.  Ixi.   p.  566.  1.  2. 

xiVftS    uq  uno  /xixpti  crsnvSrifo?  piyu.   <7rvp   t^^otsro'  axpa?  y\ 
tt-rro   xoptnp5?$  a^aptsvov   rris  'Afo^avfyjEon/  exKXTitriaf   hotfyocpur 
Trjv  (Ti//w.9raffav  ^Alyy-zrrov  re  £  Aifivviv-  rr^v  T'  E-Tre'xetva 


n  x   irohtiq'  u$    » 

TB?   ruv   ftix^-riffiuv   7rpot^p«?  ^oyptj   ^a^rATjxT^o/Asvy?,  aA^a  x^  ret 

v)  KctTarspvopivcx,.  Conf.  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  I.  cap.  vi. 
p.  10.  1.  7—11.  Lib.  II.  cap.  xxviii.  p.  120.  1.  40.  Lib.  IV. 
cap.  vii.  p.  268.  1.  27.  Theodorit.  Hist.  Eccl  Lib.  V.  cap.  vii. 
p.  200.  1.  25—40. 

50  Vid.  supr.  p.  39.  nn.  C8  et  ?°. 


(    130    ) 

larly  calculated  to  support  the  peculiar  errours  of 
Arius  JI. 

But  the  authority  of  these  texts  is  not  merely 
weakened  by  this  circumstance  ;  that  the  tradition- 
ary evidence  which  may  be  urged  in  their  favour  is 
broken  by  the  distance  of  Egypt  and  Palestine  from 
Byzantium,,  where  the  originals  of  the  inspired 
writers  were  deposited.,  and  by  the  positive  extinc- 
tion of  both  texts  in  the  region  where  they  were  pub- 
lished. When  we  carry  up  our  inquiries  higher  we 
find  unquestionable  evidence  of  two  breaches  in  the 
chain  of  tradition  ;  either  of  which  would  destroy 
the  credit  of  the  text  which  hung  on  it  for  support. 

In  the  first  place,  the  edition  of  Hesychius  was 
positively  superseded  in  Egypt  by  that  of  Eutha- 
lius  5Z.  And  of  the  extensive  influence  of  the  edition 
of  the  latter,  we  have  a  standing  evidence,  in  the 
prevalence  of  the  Euthalian  sections,  which  very 
generally  exist  in  the  Greek  manuscripts s?.  In 
i 

*'  Vid.supr.p.28.n.48. 

52  This  point  is  clearly  conceded  by  M.  Griesbach,    in  pro- 
nouncing the  Palestine  text  the  Alexandrine;  vid.  supr.  p.  86* 
nn. 8o  et 8S. 

53  Zaccagn.  Collect.  Monn.  Vet.  Eccles.  Praef.  p.  Ixviii.  §  Ir. 
**  At  rero  Euthalii  divisiones  perpetuo  in  usu  apud  Grcecos  Ju» 
isse,  ii  probe  norunt,    qui  veteres  Bibliorum  Codices  perlus- 
trarunt,  in  guibusjere  omnibus  habentur   Capitula  ab   Euthullo 
excogitata,     Vidit  enim  multos  Novi  Testamenti  scriptos  Codi- 
ces Robertas  Stephanas — viderunt  et  alios  Codices  viri  doctis- 
sirni,    qui   de  Biblicis   rebus  tractarunt ;    aed  hos  omnes  une 
eodemque  modo,  in  Evangeliorum  quidem  textu  juxta  Alexandri* 
num  CyriHi  Lucaris  Codicein,  in   reliquis  vero  ejusdem  libris, 
Apocalypsi  excepta,  juxtcr  Euthalium  nostrum  diviscv  fuisse  li- 


fact,  so  little  calculated  was  the  Egyptian  text  to 
retain  its  ground  against  the  powerful  influence  of 
the  Palestine,  under  the  double  publication  of  Eu- 
sebius  and  Euthalius,  that  the  former  was  soon  ex- 
tinguished by  the  latter,  in  the  region  which  may 
be  termed  its  native  soil.  And  so  effectual  has  been 
its  extirpation.,  that  unless  a  few  manuscripts  had 
been  imported  into  the  West,  we  should  retain  no 
memorials  of  this  text,  but  those  which  remain  in 
the  translations  made  in  the  Thebais,  previously  to 
the  publication  of  Euthalius's  edition  54.  Very  dif- 
ferent was  the  fate  of  the  Byzantine  text.  Though 
it  gave  place  to  the  Palestine  text,  in  4he  times  of 
Constantine ;  the  testimony  of  St.  Jerome  puts  it 
out  of  dispute,  that  it  must  have  been  reinstated  in 
a  short  period ss  after  the  death  of  the  elder  Euse- 
bius. 

In  the  next  place,  the  traditionary  evidence  iff 
favour  of  the  Palestine  text  is  broken  by  the  inter- 
vention of  an  edition  prepared  by  St.  Athanasius, 
under  the  auspices  of  the  Emperour  Constans  56.  It 

quet.  Vidi  et  ego  plurimos  Novi  Testament!  scriptos  Codices, 
quorum  nonnulli  eximia  sunt  vetustate  venerandi,  eisdem  Alex- 
andrini  exemplaris,  et  Euthalii  nostri  Capitulis  insignitos.  So- 
lum  in  Othobonianse  Bibliothecse  veteri  Codice,  his  literis  et  his 
numeris  signato  R.  n.  vii.  Apostolorum  Acta  in  rapitula  li. 
divisa  reperi,  ct  in  Aldi  Manutii,  Pauli  Filii,  Aldi  nepotis  Co- 
dice,  quinunc  ejusdemmunere  inter  Vaticanos  633iU9  numera- 
tur,  alius  a  vulgatis  titulorum  ordo  kabetur." 
14  Vid.  supr.  pp.  54-,  55  et  nn.  in  locc. 

55  St.  Jerome  wrote  previously  to  the  year  393.  vid.  supr.  p. 
70.  n.  36.  and  Eusebius  died  in  the  year  340.  vid.  infr.  n.  «. 

56  S.  Athan.  Apol.  ad  Constant.  §  4.  Tom.  I.  p.  297.  ed.  Be* 

fyiiaf,    £*  flj  TO 
K2 


(     132    ) 

id  a  remarkable  fact;  that  the  application  for  this 
edition  was  made  in  the  very  year  of  the  death  of 
Eusebius  57  ;  who  paid  the  debt  of  nature  about  the 
same  time  as  the  younger  Constantine  s8.  An  ap- 
plication of  this  kind,  made  at  this  remarkable  pe- 
riod, if  it  does  not  convey  some  tacit  censure  against 
the  text  of  Eusebius,  clearly  implies  that  some  dif- 
ference existed  between  his  edition  and  the  revisal  of 
-St.  Athanasius.  This  supposition  is  not  a  little 
confirmed,  by  the  known  enmity  which  subsisted 
between  Eusebius  and  St.  Athanasius  59  ;  and  by 
the  peculiar  opinions  of  the  Emperour,  which 


-arpoj 

TO,     X.&T 

~  ifft.   ta    ui*u  <r«  ax.  lCfct  ovov    OTg 

avra 


at5T«  pcot  xaTaffxgt/aerai,  ra^ra  woi^crai-  a 
57  The  Benedictine  fathers  fix  the  time  when  S.  Athanasius 
revised  the  Scriptures  to  the  year  34-0  :  Vit.  S.  Athan.  p.  xxxiii. 
§  4-.  and  the  time  when  Constantine  died  to   the  same  year, 
ibid.  §  4. 

8  Vid.  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  II.  capp.  iii.  iv.  pp.  82,  83. 
59  S.  Epiphan.  Haer.  LXvm.  p.  723.  c.  'EXACTS  $1  [o 
nonce     rr,y    ^onrixnv   s»    Tvfu   T 
v  rws  Kai<ya.psia.s, 

*£>  oT?  >?v  o  ^axap»T?3?  Ylorotpuv  o  /xiya?  - 
xai  *A$«i»ao-»o»   g 
ola   yittrstt   *BTa,f»  Tor?   aMStatv,    ocTrtlsivcAo 


xa 


ai^tlat  /xtv    g;c  ayavccxltjcrtv,  xai 
"OT»   tt  eilat/^a  iXSjri    xa* 


£V 


(    133    ) 

in  a  contrary  direction  to  those  of  the  Bishop 
of  Caesarea 6o,  whose  principles  were  unquestion- 
ably warped  towards  Arianism  6l.  But  one  consi- 
deration seems  to  put  the  matter  out  of  dispute  :  had 
not  Eusebius's  edition  laboured  under  some  impu- 
tation 6%  the  demand  of  the  Emperour  might  have 
been  supplied,  and  that  edition,  which  had  been 
published  but  a  few  years  before,,  might  have  been 
multiplied  to  any  given  extent,,  by  transcribing  one 
of  Eusebius's  copies.  Now  it  is  important  to  observe, 
that  while  the  undertaking  of  St.  Athanasius  makes 
this  breach  in  the  tradition  of  the  Palestine  edition  : 
it  serves  to  fill  up  the  only  breach  which  exists  in 
that  of  the  text  of  Byzantium  :  as  his  revisal  sue- 
ceeded  the  Palestine  text,,  and  partially  restored 
the  text  of  Byzantium  6j.  It  has  been  already  ob- 
served respecting  the  celebrated  Alexandrine  manu- 
script, that  it  was  written  in  Egypt  previously  to 


**  Vid.supr.  p.  110.  n.  *. 

61  Vicl.  Epiphan.  ibid.  p.  723.  c.  conf.  supr.  p.  39.  n.  70. 

w  It  is  particularly  deserving  of  remark,  that  a  principal 
charge  urged  against  St.  Athanasius  and  his  clergy,  in  the 
Council  of  Tyre,  summoned  under  Eusebius,  was  that  of  having 
burned  the  Bible,  in  the  church  of  Ischyras,  who  was  of  the 
Arianfaction  ;  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xxvii.  p.  64.  1. 
10.  Oi  $\  [•zzrspt  'EycT£/3»ov]  pti'ffB  ru  ttpor  'AS'avaaiov 


Koc.ru. 

oa  o    lap^t^a?  lirhcrto'    ^fxi^s  ya^    Uf    sti)   ra 

a,$  tff  TO   §vu\etc- 

T>/pov,   avtr^Et^E  f*£v  TJJV  TfKTrtavj  tcroTviov  ot  xaTea^i  UITIXC*  !    x    §Tt 
70,  \zi 


Vid.  supr.  p.  123.  n.  *9.  conf.  p.  131.  n.  56. 


(    134    ) 

the  year  367  6*.  It  remains  to  be  observed,  that  as 
St.  Athanasius  returned  to  Alexandria  from  banish- 
ment in  the  year  338 6s,  on  the  death  of  the  elder 
Constantine  ;  and  had  revised  the  text  of  Scripture, 
in  the  year  340,  under  the/  Emperour  Constans, 
and  his  brother  the  younger  Constantine  ;  he  con- 
tinned,  with  the  intermission  of  a  few  months,  to 
govern  the  Alexandrine  church,  from  the  year  367 
to  the  year  373,  under  the  Emperour  Valens 66.  It 
is  of  small  importance  to  my  present  object,  to  cal- 
culate the  chances,  whether  this  celebrated  manu- 
script contains  St.  Athanasius's  revisal  of  the  sacred 
text ;  of  which  it  must  be  however  remembered, 
that  it  was  written,  not  merely  in  the  last-mentioned 
period,  but  in  the  Patriarchate  of  Alexandria.  But 
as  it  cannot  be  reasonably  denied  that  his  revisal 
was  within  the  reach  of  the  copyist,  who  has  exe- 
cuted the  task  of  transcription  in  a  manner  which  is 
expensive  and  accurate ;  it  must  be  observed,  that 
Thecla  has  left  unquestionable  evidence  in  the 
manuscript  itself  of  having  been  biassed  by  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Patriarch ;  as  she  has  inserted,  in 
the  book  of  Psalms,  the  epistle  of  St.  Athanasius, 
addressed  to  Marcellinus 6y.  I  profess  myself  at  a 

64  Vid.  supr.  p.  nn.  *?.  et  *3. 

65  Patr.  Benedd.  Vit.  S.  Athan.  p.  xxx  §  1. 
*6  lid.  ib.  p.  Ixxxv.  §  2,  3. 

«7  Vid.  Woid.  Praef.  in  Cod.  Alex.  Sect.  IV.  §  47.  p.  x.  The 
learned  editour  adds  the  following  apology,  for  this  circum- 
stance ;  ibid.  "  Qui  itaque  his  honoribus  Athanasium  afficie- 
bant;  cur  non  etiam  P salmis  Prologum  ejus,  omnium  ccstima- 
tione  dignis&imum  addersnt  ?  Si  quis  orationem  Gregorii  Nazian- 
zeni  in  laudem  Athanasii  legent,  is  hoc  factum  fuisse  non  con- 


(    135    ) 

loss  to  divine  by  what  means  the  inference  which 
follows  from  those  facts  can  be  evaded;  or  how  the 
conclusion  is  to  be  disproved,  that  this  manuscript 
approximates  to  the  revisal  of  St.  Athanasius.  As- 
suming this  point  as  manifest,  it  directly  throws  the 
testimony  of  the  Patriarch  on  the  side  of  the  By- 
zantine text;  as  this  text  is  adopted  in  the  Gospels 
of  the  Alexandrine  manuscript,,  which  clearly  con- 
stitute the  principal  part  of  the  better  half  of  the 
Canonical  Scriptures.  Much  might  be  advanced  in 
favour  of  this  hypothesis,  from  the  history  of  St. 
Athanasius;  who,  if  he  possessed  no  suspicion  of 
foul  play,  felt  no  motives  of  personal  dislike  in  re- 
jecting the  text  of  Eusebius,  might  have  been  in- 
fluenced in  choosing  that  of  Lucianus  for  the  basis 
of  his  text,  as  his  edition  was  to  be  published  at 
Constantinople.  For  thus,  as  two  editions  had  been 
published  in  that  region,  he  furnished  the  different 
parties  which  divided  the  Byzantine  church,  with  an 
edition  suited  to  their  respective  partialities.  Much 
might  be  advanced  to  support  it,  from  the  known 
prudence  and  moderation  of  that  great  man,  who 
ever  followed  conciliatory  measures,  and  who  must 

cesserit  tantum  verum  etiam  contenderit"  In  fact  when  we 
connect  all  the  circumstances  together  relative  to  this  matter — 
that  Arianism  was  at  this  period  prevalent  at  Alexandria ;  that 
St.  Athanasius  was  accused  of  favouring  the  destruction  of  the 
Arian  Bibles ;  that  he  revised  the  sacred  text  immediately  af- 
ter the  death  of  Eusebius ;  that  his  prologue,  as  explanatory  of 
Ps.  ii.  is  directed  against  the  errours  of  Arius:  nothing  can  be 
more  probable  than  that  Thecla  inserted  it  in  her  copy,  either 
with  her  own  hand,  or  by  the  hand  of  a  transcriber ;  if  she  em- 
ployed one. 


(     136    ) 

have  seen  the  inexpediency  and  danger  of  ventur- 
ing, in  the  infected  state  of  the  Eastern  Church/  to 
undertake  at  once  the  total  suppression  of  Euse- 
bius's  edition.  While  this  account  affords  a  con- 
sistent and  probable  solution  of  the  only  difficulty 
which  embarrasses  the  history  of  a  manuscript, 
which  varies  from  all  that  are  known,  in  having  a 
different  text  in  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts  and  Epis- 
tles.: the  manuscript  itself  contains  an  irrefragable 
proof,  that  within  that  short  period  of  the  death  of 
Eusebius  in  which  it  was  written,,  the  Palestine 
text  had  begun  to  be  again  replaced  by  the  Byzan- 
tine. 

When  we  advance  a  step  higher  in  scrutinizing 
the  traditionary  evidence  which  supports  the  au- 
thority of  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine  texts,  the 
apparent  force  which  it  appears  to  possess  directly 
yields  when  it  is  submitted  to  the  touch.  In  esta- 
blishing the  claims  of  these  texts  to  an  immemorial 
tradition,,  it  is  rather  fatal  to  their  pretensions  that 
we  should  happen  to  know  the  time  of  their  origin. 
The  period  in  which  the  Egyptian  text  was  pub- 
lished ;. cannot  he  antedated  to  the  age  of  Hesy- 
chius  ;  as  that  in  which  the  Palestine  was  published 
cannot  be  antedated  to  the  age  of  Eusebius 6S. 
That  both  these  editours  made  some  innovations,, 
in  their  respective  texts,  can  scarcely  admit  of  a 
doubt.  This  is  an  inference  which  necessarily  fol- 
lows from  the  consideration  of  their  having  pub- 
lished a  text,  which  differed  from  the  vulgar  Greek, 

«*Vid. 

-etf  :  •   . . . 


(     137    ) 

or  common  edition69.  It  is  in  fact  expressly  re- 
corded,, that  Eusebius  published  that  text  of  the 
Old  Testament,  which  had  been  corrected  by  Ori- 
gen  7° ;  and  that  Hesychius  admitted  into  his  text  of 
the  New  Testament  numerous  interpolations79. 
Prom  such  an  imputation  the  text  of  Lucianus  is  ob- 
viously free,  as  he  merely  republishecl  the  vulgar 
edition  7*.  The  antiquity  of  his  text  consequently 
loses  itself  in  immemorial  tradition;  .while  that  of 
his  rivals  is  bounded  by  the  age  of  their  respective 
revisals.  And  this  assertion,  as  I  shall  soon  take 
occasion  to  prove,  is  equally  applicable  to  the  Ita- 
lick  version,  which  corresponds  with  the  Byzantine 
Greek  :  and  is  contained  in  the  Brescia  manuscript. 
It  must  be  obvious,  of  course,  that  the  former  cir- 
cumstance as  fully  confirms  the  claims  of  Lucia- 
nus's  text  to  an  origin  ascending  to  the  apostolical 
age ;  as  it  detracts  from  the  pretensions  of  Hesy- 
.  chius  and  Eusebius's  texts  to  an  immemorial  tradi- 
tion. True  it  is  that  St.  Jerome  seems  to  pass  an 
indiscriminate  censure  on  the  editions  of  Hesychius 
and  Lucianus73.  But,  granting  him  to  have  pos- 
sessed that  impartial  judgment  on  this  subject74, 

C9  Ibidem. 

70  Ibidem. 

71  Vid.  supr.  p.  100.  n.  lto. 
i*  Vid.  supr.  p.  88.  n.  86. 
73  Vid.  supr.  p.  100.  n.  Iz°. 

7*  St.  Jerome  not  only  innovated  in  revising  the  Septuagint, 
but  expressly  followed  the  steps  of  Origen  and  Eusebius,  who 
were  the  rivals  of  Lucianus  ;  Vid.  supr.  p.  84-.  n. 7S.  S.  Hier. 
Procem.  Dan.  Tom.  IV,  p.  4-95.  "  Sed  et  Origenes  de  Thepdo- 
tionis  opere  in  Editione  Vulgata.  asteriscos  posuit;  docens  de- 


(     138    ) 

which  is  necessary  to  give  weight  to  his  sentence's 
yet  when  we  come  to  compare  St.  Jerome  with  him- 
self; when  we  come  to  estimate,  how  much  of  his 
censure  is  directed  against  the  vulgar  edition  of  the 
Old  Testament,,  which  Lucianus  republished  ;  and 
when  we  ascertain  the  standard  by  which  he  judged 
of  the  imaginary  corruptions  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, which  the  same  learned  person  revised ;  we 
shall  directly  discern,  that  his  opinion  does  not  in 
the  least  affect  the  question  under  discussion  75. 

From  a  view  of  this  subject,  as  well  from  the 
positive  testimony  which  supports  the  Greek  Vul- 
gate, as  that  which  invalidates  the  pretensions  of 
the  Egyptian  and  Palestine  editions,  we  may  sum- 
marily conclude,  that,  the  genuine  text  of  the  New 
Testament,  if  it  is  at  all  preserved  in  the  three  edi- 
tions which  have  descended  to  our  times,  can  be 
only  conceived  to  exist  in  that  of  Byzantium. 

II.  On  reviewing  the  testimony  which  the  Wes+ 
tern  Church,,  when  examined  apart,  bears  to  the 
integrity  of  the  text  of  Scripture,  it  affords  the 
fullest  confirmation  to  that  borne  by  the  separate 
testimony  of  the  Eastern.  On  the  weight  and  im- 
portance of  the  latter  of  these  witnesses,  I  have  al- 

fuisse  qua  addita  sunt,  et  rursus  quosdam  versus  obelis  praeno- 
tavit,  superflua  quccque  designans.  Cumque  omnes  Christ!  ec- 
clesiae,  tam  Graecorum  quam  Latinorum,  Syrorumque  et 
^gyptiorum,  hanc  sub  asteriscis  et  obelis  Editionem  legant ; 
ignoscant  invidi  labori  meo  qui  volui  habere  nostros  quod  Graeci 
in  Aquilae  et  Theodotionis  ao  Symmachi  editione  lectitant." 
Conf.  Tom.  III.  Ep.  civ.  p.  340. 

75  On  this  subject  I  shall  have  an  opportunity  of  speaking  at 
large  hereafter. 


(     139    ) 

ready  offered  a  remark,  deduced  from  the  circum- 
stance of  the  Western  Church  having  retained  the 
faith  uncorrupted,  while  the  Oriental  Church  was 
infected  with  the  Arian  opinions  7'6.  A  minute  ex- 
amination of  this  evidence,  will  very  clearly  evince 
that  it  rests  on  the  side  of  the  Byzantine  text,  in- 
stead of  the  Egyptian  or  Palestine. 

The  first  argument,  which  may  be  urged  from 
hence,  in  support  of  the  integrity  of  the  Greek  Vul- 
gate, is  deducible  from  the  text  of  the  Brescia  ma- 
nuscript. Of  the  author  of  this  version  we  know 
nothing ;  though  it  is  remarkable  for  its  extraordi- 
nary fidelity  to  the  original  Greek.  We  are,  on 
the  other  hand,  perfectly  acquainted  with  the 
-framers  of  the  text  of  the  Vulgate  and  Verceli  ma- 
nuscript77, which  correspond  with  the  Palestine 
and  Egyptian  editions.  Now,  such  is  the  result, 
which  would  precisely  take  place,  had  the  fore-cited 
text  derived  its  authority  from  the  silent  admission 
of  the  church,  deduced  from  the  primitive  ages  ; 
while  the  latter  wrere  expressly  acknowledged  as 
recent  translations,  from  the  time  of  their  first  pub- 
lication. It  is  obvious,  of  course,  that  if  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Latin  church,  derived  from  immemo- 
rial tradition,  be  preserved  in  any  of  those  versions, 
it  must  exclusively  exist  in  the  Brescia  manuscript. 
And  as  this  manuscript  accords  with  the  Vulgar  Greek, 
it  clearly  proves,  that  the  immemorial  testimony 
of  the  Western  Church  is  on  the  side  of  this  text, 


P6  Via.  supr.  p.  110.  n.  a. 

77  Vid.  supr.  p.  15.  n.  2fS.  p.  59.  n.  **. 


(     140    ) 

which  we  have  already  seen  is  similarly  supported 
by  the  testimony  of  the  Eastern. 

Nay,  more  than  this,  it  may  be  shewn,  that  the 
bare  undertaking-  of  St  Eusebius  Vercellensis  to 
revise  the  Old  Italick  version  not  only  subverts  the 
authority  of  his  own  text,  but  that  of  Hesychius 
and  Eusebius's  edition  :  and,  of  consequence,  ne- 
gatively supports  the  authority  of  the  text  of  Lu- 
cianus. 

That  the  original  version  of  the  Latin  Church 
had  retained  its  integrity  uncorrupted,  until  the 
times  of  Pope  Julius  and  St.  Eusebius  of  Ver* 
ccli,  is  evident :  from  the  external  testimony  of  Hi- 
lary ;  from  the  circumstances  in  which  the  Wes- 
tern Church  was  placed ;  and  from  the  inter- 
nal evidence  of  the  version  in  question.  It  is  Hi- 
lary's express  declaration  that  many  of  the  copies 
of  this  version  retained  their  purity  untainted,  even 
to  his  own  times  ;  having  been  preserved  not  merely 
by  the  integrity  of  the  earliest  ages,  but  by  their 
very  inability  to  pervert  or  correct  the  primitive 
translation  ?s.  And  this  declaration  is  completely 
confirmed  by  the  history  of  the  Eastern  and  West- 
ern Churches,  neither  of  which  were  sufficiently 
instructed  in  the  languages  spoken  by  both  to  un* 
dertake  a  revisal 79.  But  what  renders  this  fact  of 
importance,  is,  that  however  the  copies  of  the  La- 
tin version  vary  among  themselves,  they  preserve  a 
conformity  to  some  edition  of  the  Greek  original. 
The  first  considerable  variety  in  these  copies  must 

78  Vid.  supr.  p.  57.  n.  *3. 

79  Vid,  supr,  p.  57,  n. 2*. 


be  of  course  dated  from  the  first  revisal  of  the  text 
by  St.  Eusebius,  of  Verceli ;  since  before  him,  there 
was  not  a  person  sufficiently  informed,  to  undertake 
the  correction  of  the  Italick  translation. 

Now  it  is  clearly  implied  in  the  circumstance  of 
St.  Eusebius's  undertaking-  to  correct  tbe  current 
translation,  that  this  translation  must  have  differed 
from  the  ordinary  Greek  text,  and  from  his  own 
corrected  Latin  version  :  otherwise  his  attempt 
must  have  been  without  an  object  from  the  first, 
and  without  effect  at  the  conclusion.  As  he  under- 
took his  revisal  at  the  command  of  Pope  Julius,  who 
came  to  the  Pontificate  in  the  year  337  8o ;  the  or- 
dinary Greek  text  was  obviously  contained  in  the 
edition  of  Eusebius  of  Ccesarea,  who  lived,  after 
this  period,  until  the  year  340 8|.  It  is,  of  course, 
manifest,  that  the  received  text  of  Eusebius  did  not 
correspond  with  the  Latin  version  in  Pope  Julius's 
age ;  and  is  consequently  destitute  of  the  primitive 
testimony  of  the  Latin  Church,  as  contained  in  the 
authorised  Latin  version. 

It  is  equally  clear  that  the  original  Latin  version 
did  not  agree  with  the  text  of  Hesychius.  As  St. 
Eusebius  has  unquestionably  adhered  to  the  edition 
of  the  latter,  in  revising  the  Latin  translation  ;  his 
undertaking  to  correct  the  one  by  the  other,  neces- 
sarily implies,  that  a  difference  at  first  subsisted  be- 
tween them.  It  is  consequently  clear  that  the  text 
of  Hesychius  is  equally  destitute  of  the  primitive 

80  Vid.  Patrr.  Benedd.  in  Vit,  S.  Athanas.p.  xxx.  §  1.  a. 
"Yid.  supr.p,  132.n.ss. 


testimony  of  the  Latin  Church.,  as  the  text  of  Eu- 
sebius of  Caesarea.  And  as  the  corrected  version 
of  St.  Eusebius  when  the  proposed  alterations  were 
made.,  must  have  differed  from  the  original  transla- 
tion which  remained  unconnected ;  it  is  apparent 
that  the  Corrected  I  'ersion  also  must  have  equally 
wanted  the  testimony  of  the  primitive  Western 
translation. 

As  St.  Jerome's  revisal  was  not  yet  made,  the 
question  now  rests  with  that  version  of  the  Old  Ita- 
lick  translation,  which  corresponds  with  the  Byzan- 
tine Greek  ;  and  which  consequently  must  have 
been  identical  with  the  primitive  version. 

But  here  it  may  be  objected,  that  St.  Eusebius's 
undertaking  to  correct  the  translation  by  the  original, 
equally  proves  that  the  former  differed  from  Lucia- 
nus's  text/  as  we  have  seen  it  differed  from  the  text 
of  Eusebius  Caesariensis.  But  if  this  objection  is 
not  rendered  null  by  this  positive  fact,  that  there  is 
a  third  version,  different  from  the  revisals  of  St. 
Eusebius  and  St.  Jerome,  and  confessedly  more  an- 
tient  than  that  of  the  latter  8z ;  and  that.,  while  it 
is  apparently  uncorrected s?.,  it  literally  corres- 
ponds with  the  Byzantine  Greek  8* ;  it  would  ad- 
mit of  the  following-  obvious  solution.  St.  Euse- 
bius undertook  his  revisal  of  the  Latin  version,,  not 
merely  when  the  Received  Text  of  the  Greek  was 

contained  in  Eusebius's  edition  ;  but  when  this  edi- 
f 

81  Vid.  supr.  pp.  70,  71. 

83  Vid.  supr.  pp.  90,  91,  92. 

84  Vid.  supr.  p.  63.  sqq. 


tion  had,  by  the  royal  mandate,  superseded  the 
Byzantine  text  at  Constantinople.  It  might  not, 
therefore,  have  been  safe85  for  Pope  Julius  to  au- 
thorise a  version  which  was  not  merely  different 
from  the  Received  Text  of  the  Greeks,,  but  coin- 
cident with  the  edition  which  it  had  superseded. 
And  this  change  took  place  after  that  greatest  per- 
secution of  the  Church.,  which  occurred  under  Dio- 
clesian  and  Maximian  :  in  which  the  sacred  Scrip- 
tures were  sought  with  more  care  and  destroyed 
with  more  fury  than  in  any  preceding  persecu- 
tion 86.  It  was  therefore  possible,  considering  the 
degraded  state  of  the  Church,  and  the  disastrous 
situation  of  the  bishop  of  Verceli,  that  a  correct 
copy  of  Lucianus's  edition  was  not  within  the  reach 
of  Eusebius  Vercellensis.  It  is  probable  that,  in 
his  choice  of  Hesychius's  edition,  in  correcting  the 
Latin  version,  he  was  influenced  not  merely  by  in- 
clination s?,  but  necessity.  It  is  certain,  that,  in 


85  That  the  Emperours  were  not  to  be  trifled  with  on  this  sub. 
ject  is  evident  from  the  severe  penalty  to  which  even  the  pos- 
sessour  of  Anus's  works  was  subject,  by  a  decree  of  one  of  the 
mildest  of  the  Christian  princes  ;  Epist.  Constant,  ap.  Socrat. 
Hist.  Eccl.  Lib*  I.  cap.  ix.  p.  32.  1.  3. 

tr     Aotla    cvvlctyiv 


86  Vld.  supr.  p.  27.  n.  46. 

17  St.  Eusebius  was  a  corrector  of  Scripture,  and,  in  his  ear- 
lier days,  a  reader  and  imitator  of  Eusebius,  whose  critical  ta- 
lents he  admired;  S.  Hier.  Cat.  Scriptt.  Tom.  I.  p.  130.  It  is  not 
improbable  that  he  imbibed  through  hiniFome  share  of  the  dis- 
taste to  the  Greek  Vulgate,  which  was  common  to  all  the  dis- 


the  state  of  the  Greek  Church,  there  existed  a  suf- 
ficient cause  to  deter  him  from  following  the  copies 

ciples  of  Origen's  school;  Id.  S.  Aug.  Ep.  Ixxxix.  Tom.  III. 
p.  319:  and  that  he  thus  chose  Hesychius,  instead  of  Lucia- 
nus, when  he  was  prevented  by  other  motives  besides  his  friend- 
ship for  St.  Athanasius  and  P.  Julius,  from  following  Eusebius 
of  Caesarea:  Vid.  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  III.  capp.  v.  vi.  vii. 
p.  176.  Conf.  Lib.  II.  capp.  xv.  xxiii.  p.  92.  109.  Hesychius 
certainly  receded  farther  from  the  Greek  Vulgate  than  Lucianus  ; 
vid.  supr.  p.  88.  n.  8h.  p.  72.  n.  37.  And  Eusebius  Vercellensis, 
as  a  follower  of  Origen,  must  have  held  the  Greek  Vulgate  in 
low  estimation ;  of  which,  and  of  St.  Eusebius,  St.  Jerome 
speaks  in  the  following  terms;  Hier.  S.  Aug.  Ep.  ub.  supr. 
p.  319.  "  Omnes  veteres  traclatores,  qui  nos  in  Domino  prae- 
cesserant,  et  qui  Scripturas  sanctas  interpretati  sunt,  &c. — 
maxime  in  explanatione  Psalmorum — quos  apud  Graecos  inter- 
pretati  sunt  multis  voluminibus,  primus  Origenes,  secundus  Euse- 
bius Ccesariensis — apud  Latinos  autem,  Hilarius  Pictaviensis  ef 
Eusebius  Vercdknsis  episcopus  Originem  et  Euselium  transtule- 

runt. Ego  enim  non  tarn  vetera  alolere,  quae  linguae  meae 

hominibus  emendata  de  Grceco  in  Latinum  transtuli,  quam  ea 
testimoniat  quae  a  Jud&is  pr&termissa  sunt  vel  corrupta,  prqferre 
in  medium :  ut  scirent  nostri,  quid  Helraica  veritas  continent. 
Si  cui  legere  non  placet,  nemo  compellit  invitum."  Conf* 
Praef.  in  Pentat.  Tom.  III.  p.  340.  Such  were  the  predilections 
of  Eusebius  Vercellensis,  and  such  the  object  of  a  true  disciple 
of  the  school  of  Origen ;  to  verify  by  the  Hexapla  the  quota- 
tions from  the  Old  Testament,  which  were  found  in  the  New, 
though  not  discoverable  in  the  Vulgar  Edition  of  the  Sepfaagint* 
Now,  if  it  can  be  shewn,  that  Hesychius  followed  this  plan,  and 
revised  the  New  Testament  by  the  Hexapla,  while  Lucianus 
merely  preserved  the  readings  of  the  Vulgar  Edition  of  the  Sep- 
tuagint;  and  if  it  will  appear,  that  Eusebius  Vercellensis  followed 
the  former  in  correcting  the  Old  Italick  translation,  we  shall 
have  thus  clearly  ascertained  one  cause  of  the  preference  which 
was  given  by  him  to  the  text  of  Hesychius  over  that  of 
LUCHUIUS.  Thus  much,  however,  may,  I  conceive,  be  dearly 


(     145    ) 

of  the  authorised  edition.  That  Church  was  then 
under  the  dominion  of  the  Arians.,  who  were  not 
merely  suspected  in  that  age  of  corrupting  the 
Scriptures,,  but  who  absolutely  expunged  a  remark- 
able text  which  St.  Eusebius  inserted  in  his  revi- 
sal'Vand  otherwise  corrupted  his  version89. 

shewn  from  one  of  the  most  remarkable  quotations  from  the  Old 
Testament,  which  occurs  in  the  New.  In  Luc.  iv.  18.  we  find, 
»acra<7$«*  -ra?  ffvvrerp(A[ji.e»ti$  rw  KotpXiav,  Rec.  which,  as  the  reading 
of  the  Greek  Vulgate,  was  found  in  Lutianus's  text.  The  same 
passage,  however,  occurs  verbatim  in  the  Septuagint,  Is.  Ixi.  1. 
»a<racrSa»  TK?  awvreTf^juwsc  iVxap^'ar ;  and  is  consequently  ren- 
dered, in  the  antient  Vulgar  Translation,  Ib.  Ixi.  1.  "  Sanare 
contritos  corde."  But  the  phrase,  Jac-ao-Sai  -ra?  ffuvrevg.fAp.eims 
vw  xog^tay,  is  not  conformable  to  the  Hebrew,  zb  »i:itw^  ttfnn^ ; 
this  phrase  was  consequently  noted  in  Origen's  Hexapla,  as  not 
being  synonymous  with  the  original.  Hence,  in  the  Cambridge 
MS.  which  contains  Hesychius's  text,  this  phrase  is  omitted 
conformably  to  the  text  of  the  Hexapla ;  and  the  same  obser- 
vation applies  to  the  Verceli  MS.  which  contains  St.  Eusebius's 
text,  in  which  this  text  is  also  omitted.  But  in  the  Brescia 
MS.  (which,  as  containing  the  Original  Latin  Version,  pos- 
sesses a  text  that  was  made  previously  to  Origen's  Hexapla,) 
we  read,  conformably  to  the  vulgar  text  of  the  Septuagint ; 
Ibid.  iv.  1 8.  "  Sanare  contritos  corde."  The  grounds  of  Ifesy- 
chius's  partiality  to  the  former  reading  will  be  revealed  in  the 
sequel :  the  cause  is  apparent  which  induced  St.  Eusebius  to 
give  it  the  preference;  and  it  must  be  obvious,  that  a  few  read- 
ings of  this  kind  would  give  him,  as  a  disciple  of  Origen,  a  mean 
opinion  of  the  original  Latin  Version,  and  a  high  opinion  of  the 
text  of  Hesychius ;  and  would  consequently  lead  him  to  correct 
the  one  by  the  other. 

3  Blanchin.  Prolegg.  in  Evang.  Qundrupl.  p.  62.  "  Antc- 
quam  vero  tollatur  nianus  e  tabula,  unieum  saltern  laudati  Co- 
dicis  [Verc.]  locum  recitemus,  quern  Ariani  eo  tempore  quo 
Auxentius  Mediolanensem  Ecclesiam  ar'mis  exercituque  bccu- 
pavcrat,  (Valente  et  Ursacio  Ecclesiam  Siruiiensem  incursanti- 


(    146    ) 

In  fact,,  when  all  these  circumstances  arc  taken 
into  account,  the  history  of  the  Latin  version,  which 

bus)  de  sacro  Joannis  Evangelio  punienda  raanu  sustulerunt, 
(nempe  vers.  6.  cap.  iii.)  Hoc  enim  flagitium,  quoniam  depre- 
hensum  fuit  circa  annum  reparatae  salutis  357,  miram  Euse- 
biani  Codicis  antiquitatem  ostendit,  atque  inolitae  traditioni 
addit  maximum  pondus  authorititis.  Legebatur  nerape  in 
laudato,  cap.  iii.  *  Evangelii  secundum  Joannem,'  vers.  6. 
*  Quod  natum  est  de  came  caro  est,  quia  de  came  natum  est  / 
et  quod  natum  est  de  Spiritu  Spiritus  est,  quia  Deus  Spiritus 
€i>t  et  ex  Deo  natus  estj  ut  adliuc  in  Vercellend  Ctidice  habetur. 
Sed  impii  homines  ea  verba  '  quoniam  Deus  Spiritus  est,*  dolo 
ac  fraude  ex  omnibus  Sacris  voluminibus  erasere  ;  ut  discimus  a 
S.  Ambrosio — in  libro  de  Spiritu  Sancto,"  &c.  Vid.  S.  Am- 
bros.  de  Sp.  Sanct.  Lib.  III.  cap.  x.  §  59.  col.  676.  This  textr 
however,  is  but  Joh.  iii.  6.  with  a  gloss  of  Tertullian,  de  Cam. 
Christ,  cap.  xviii.  p.  308.  which  S.  Cyprian,  Concil.  Carthag. 
p.  231.  had  repeated,  after  Nemesian,  Bishop  of  Thibunis ; 
and  which  was  probably  considered,  on  account  of  the  repe- 
tition, an  erased  text  of  Scripture,  when  the  Arians  fell  under 
a  suspicion  of  corrupting  the  sacred  text;  and  as  such  was  re- 
instated by  St.  Eusebius  in  his  revisal  of  the  Old  Italick  Ver- 
sion. In  vindication  of  St.  Eusebius,  it  may  be  observed,  that 
instances  occur  of  texts  similarly  repeated  by  Origen  after  his 
master  Clement,  which  even  M.  Griesbach  believed  genuine ; 
and  has  consequently  inserted  them  in  his  Corrected  Text. 

89  Such  is  the  Verona  MS.  published  by  M.  Blanchini,  which, 
independent  of  the  alteration  of  John  iii.  6.  as  corrected  by  St. 
Eusebius,  vid.  supr.  n.  88.  possesses  internal  evidence  of  being  an 
heretical  revisal  of  St.  Eustbius's  text.  It  is  a  curious  fact,  that 
the  authour  of  this  MS.  not  less  than  St.  Eusebius,  adopted  a 
text  from  Tertullian  de  Cam.  Christ,  but  which  originally  pro- 
ceeded from  the  Valentinians.  The  original  Italick  Version 
reads  in  Joh.  i.  13.  "  qui  non  ex  sanguine,  neque  ex  voluntate* 
carnis  neque  ex  voluntate  viri,  sed  ex  Deo  nati  sunt"  Brix* 
which  words,  with  the  single  correction  of  sanguine  to  san^uinibus^ 
after  etipxTo»  in  the  original,  St.  Eusebius  retained  in  his  revi* 


is  otherwise  involved  in  inextricable  confusion,  di- 
rectly ceases  to  be  perplexed ;  and  all  the  inci- 
dents detailed  in  it  naturally  arrange  themselves  in 
a  clear  and  consistent  order. 

The  destruction  of  the  Byzantine  edition,  under 
Dioclesian,  made  way  for  the  edition  of  Eusebius, 
at  Constantinople,  and  rendered  a  new  supply  of 
copies  of  the  Latin  version  necessary  to  the  West- 
ern Churches.  As  the  first  intercourse  cultivated 
by  the  Eastern  and  Western  Churches,,  which  in- 
troduced the  latter  to  a  knowledge  of  the  Greek, 
was  during  the  apostacy  of  the  former  to  the  Arian 
heresy:  the  first  endeavour  to  supply  this  defect 
produced  a  comparison  between  this  version  and  the 
original,  as  it  existed  in  the  authorized  text  of  Euse- 

sal.  But  in  the  Verona  MS.  we  read,  ibid.  "  Qui  non  ex  san- 
guine, neque  ex  voluntate  carnis,  neque  ex  voluntate  viri,  sed 
ex  Deo  natus  est."  On  this  subject,  Tertullian,  reasoning  against 
the  Valentinians,  observes,  ibid.  cap.  xix.  p.  308.  "  Quid  est 
ergo,  '  non  ex  sanguine,  neque  ex  voluntate  carnis,  neque  ex 
voluntate  viri,  sed  ex  De®  natus  est.9  Hoc  quidem  capitulo  ego 
potius  utar  quum  adulteratores  ejus  obduxero.  Sic  enim  scriptum 
esse  contendunt,  non  ex  sanguine  nee  ex  carnis  voluntate,  nee  ex. 

viri  sed  ex  Deo  natus  est. Intelligimus  ergo  ex  concubitu 

nativitatem  Domini  negatam."  What  the  Evangelist  had  gene- 
rally applied  to  the  new  birth  of  the  regenerate,  the  hereticks 
applied  to  the  nativity  of  our  Lord;  by  changing  "  nati  sunt" 
into  "  natus  est."  The  Valentinian  from  the  negation  in  "  non 
ex  sanguine  neque  ex  voluntate  carnis— natus  est,"  disproved 
the  incarnation  ;  and  the  Arian,  from  the  degradation  of  "  the 
only  begotten  Son,"  to  the  rank  of  those  sons  who  are  adopted 
through  Christ,  disproved  the  divinity  of  our  Lord.  These 
readings  of  Joh.  i.  13.  iii.  6.  will  sufficiently  reveal  the  true 
character  of  the  Verona  MS.  which  possesses  several  of  ths 
same  heretical  stamp. 

t  2 


(     148    ) 

bius  Caesariensis,  which  excited  suspicions  of  the 
fidelity  of  the  translation.  This  discovery  must  of 
course  have  awakened  the  vigilance  of  the  Western 
Church,  which  during  this  period  preserved  its  or- 
thodoxy :  and  P.  Julius,  who  then  occupied  the  pa- 
pal chair,  was  consequently  induced  to  employ  St. 
Eusebius  to  revise  the  authorised  version.  The  do- 
mination, however,  of  the  Arian  heresy  at  this  pe- 
riod, prevented  St.  Eusebius  from  correcting  the 
translation  by  the  received  text  of  the  Greek  Church, 
which  had  been  published  by  Eusebius  of  Caesarea : 
and  as  he  could  not  readily  obtain  a  copy  of  Lucia- 
nus's  text,  and  as  he  obtained  one  of  Hesychius's 
with  ease89,  he  consequently  followed  the  text  of  the 
latter,  in  forming  his  version. 

The  influence  of  this  emendation  of  the  Latin 
version  is  directly  perceptible  in  the  greater  number 
of  the  copies  of  the  Italick  translation;  as  they 
chiefly  conform  to  the  revisal  of  St.  Eusebius,  which 
now  formed  the  authorized  text  of  the  Western 
Churches.  So  general  was  this  influence,  that,  pro- 
bably on  account  of  it,  we  retain  but  one  specimen 
of  the  antecedent  translation,  which  is  contained  in 
the  Brescia  manuscript:  for  which,  we  are  most 

89  How  very  general  the  copies  of  Eusebius  of  Caesarea  were 
in  St.  Jerome's  age,  may  be  collected  from  the  declaration  01 
the  latter;  supr.  p.  35.  n.  63.  That  Eusebius,  of  Verceli,  might 
have  obtained  copies  of  Hesychius's  text,  previously  to  his  exile 
in  the  Thebais,  may  be  collected  from  the  intercourse,  which 
P.  Julius  maintained  with  the  Alexandrine  Church ;  Vid.  Epist. 
Jul.  ad  Alexandrinn.  ap.  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  II.  cap,  xxiii, 
p.-lll.  sqq. 


(    149    ) 

probably  indebted  to  Philastrius  Brixiensis.  This 
conjecture  will  be  doubtless  admitted,  when  the  age 
and  character  of  this  text  are  taken  into  account, 
together  with  the  consideration  of  the  place  in  which 
it  is  found,  and  of  the  learning  and  authority  of  Phi- 
lastrius, who  was  bishop  of  Brescia90.  Whatever 
opinion  be  formed  on  this  subject,  it  is  apparent  that 
the  Latin  Church  lost  all  confidence  in  the  antient 
version,  on  the  publication  of  an  amended  text  by 
Eusebius  Vercellensis.  The  influence  of  his  edi- 
tion is  directly  apparent  in  the  works  of  St.  Hi- 
lary91, who  was  the  friend  and  companion  of  the 

90  The  authour  of  a  work  on  the  Antient  Heresies,  which  is 
inserted  in  Bibliothec.  Patrr.  Tom.  IV.  p.  596.  sqq.  ed.  Colon. 
Agrip.  1618.     He  flourished,  under  the  Emperour  Theodosius, 
A.  D.  381.   and  is  mentioned  in  the  following  terms  by  St. 
Augustine;  Epist.  ad  Quodv.  Tom.  II.  c.  818.  a.     "  Philastrius 
quidam   Brixiensis   Episcopus,    quern  cum   Sancto  Ambrosio 
Mediolani  etiam  ipse  vidi,  scripsit  hinc  librum,  nee  illas  hsereses 
prEctermittens,  quse  in  populo  Judaeorum  fuerunt  ante  adventum 
Domini."     When  we  take  into  account  the  learning  and  ortho- 
doxy of  this  antient  father,  and  compare  the  peculiar  omissions 
of  the  Brescia  MS.  vid.  supr.  p.  92.  n.  IOZ.  with  the  description 
given  of  the  copies  rectified  by  the  orthodox  in  the  time  when 
he  lived,  vid.  supr,  p.  93.  n.  I03 ;  it  is  highly  probable,  that  the 
text  of  this  MS.   which  has   been  preserved  at  Philastrius's 
Church,  is  that  of  the  Antient  Latin  Version,  which  he  accom- 
modated to   the  orthodox  copies,  by  omitting  the  suspected 
passages:  vid.  infr.  p.  152.  n.  I0°. 

91  Sabat.  Bibl.  Ital.  Monit.  in  Vet.  Ev.  Int.  Tom.  III.  n  xxxiv. 
"  Quid  plura ;  versiculi  Evangeliorum,  quales  in  SS.  Patmm 
voluminibus  laudantur,  maxime  in  Hilarii  scriptis,  tales  leguntur 
iisdemque  verbis  in   Codice  Colbertino;  nee  ulla  est  descre- 
pantia,  si  quando  aliqua  occurrit,    quae  non   alicujus  antiqui 
doctoris  testimonio  possit  confirmari.    Quod  argumento  ess* 


(     150    ) 

bishop  of  Verceli9";  and  who  has  quoted  from  his 
edition.,  in  the  whole  of  his  theological  writings. 
The  quotations  of  Tertullian  and  Cyprian,  which 
differ  from  this  version,  and  yet  accord  with  the 
Greek,  contain  a  sufficient  proof  that  they  used  a 
different  translation 9J. 

From  the  publication  of  St.  Eusebius's  revisal, 
\ve  are  to  date  the  origin  of  the  varieties  which  were 
soon  introduced  into  the  Western  version.  The 
Latin  Church  now  possessed,  in  the  primitive  and  the 
corrected  edition,- two  translations;  and  these  soon 
generated  a  multitude  of  others,  through  various 
unskilful  attempts  to  accommodate  the  old  translation 
to  the  new,  and  frequently  to  adapt  it  to  the  Greek 
original.  Of  the  manuscripts  of  this  kind,  we  pos- 
sess a  specimen  in  the  Codex  Veronensis,  which  has 
been  published  by  M.  Blanchini.  It  is  manifestly 
formed  on  the  basis  of  St.  Eusebius's  version94;  but 
has  been  revised  and  corrected  throughout,  by  the 
original  text  of  Hesychius. 

debet,  eo  Codice  illam  contineri  ScriptursB  interpretationera 
qua  usi  sunt  antiqui  scriptores :  htec  autem  non  alia  est  quam 
Vetus  Fulgata."  Conf.  Blanchin.  Ev.  Quadr.  P.  I.  p.  70.  sqq. 

c*  Via.  supr.  p.  54.  n.  1?.  p.  58.  n.  26. 

93  Thus  much  is  in  substance  confessed  by  P.  Simon,  Hist. 
Crit.  du  Kouv.  Test.  chap.  vi.  p.  67*  "  Pour  ce  que  est  de 
TertMlen  et  de  Cyprien^  bien  qu'ils  ne  rapportent  pas  precise' 
ment  les  mots  de  I'ltaligue,  parce  qu'ils  consultoient  le  Grec, 
Us  la  suivent  pour  ce  qui  est  du  sens." 

t4  It  is  printed  in  parallel  columns  with  the  Verceli  MS.  in 
M.  Blanchini's  Evangeliarium  Quadruplex ;  and  so  exactly 
agrees  with  it,  in  the  general  tenour  of  the  text,  that  we  can 
constantly  supply,  from  the  one  manuscript,  those  passages  or 
-parts  of  words  which  time  has  obliterated  in  the  other. 


Such  was  the  state  in  which,  at  the  distance  of 
half  a  century,  the  Latin  version  was  found  by  St. 
Jerome,  who  describes  it  as  containing  nearly  as 
many  different  texts  as  different  copies95.  It  was 
merely  a  matter  of  accident,  that  he  was  brought  up 
with  a  dislike  for  the  vulgar  edition  of  the  Greek, 
and  with  a  predilection  for  the  corrected  text  of  Eu- 
sebius;  having  imbibed  an  early  partiality  for  this 
edition,  through  Gregory  of  Nazianzum 96.  And  as 
it  was  natural,  so  it  is  unquestionable,  that  he  took 
it  as  the  standard,  by  which  he  judged  of  the  merit 
of  other  texts;  without  suspecting  that  he  was  mea- 
suring by  a  line  of  which  he  had  not  ascertained  the 
positive  dimensions.  The  result  is,  that  he  was 
hence  led  to  underrate  the  edition  of  Lucianus,  not 
less  than  that  of  Hesychius97 :  and  consequently  to 
allow  neither  their  due  wreight,  when  he  was  re- 
vising the  text  of  the  Latin  translation.  Still,  how- 
ever, uninclined  to  feel  or  profess  an  open  partiality 
to  the  edition  of  Eusebius  Caesarensis ;  wrhose  text 
had  been  certainly  revised  by  the  orthodox  in  the 
same  age,  among  whom  we  cannot  include  the  ce- 
lebrated bishop  of  Caesarea98:  his  specifick  object 
was  to  adhere  to  no  particular  text,  but  to  follow  the 
autient  copies  of  the  original.  Under  this  view  he 
aSo,  not  less  than  St.  Eusebius,  overlooked  the  co- 
pies of  Lucianus's  edition,  as  modern.  For  the 

95  Vid.  supr.  p.  15.  n.  a6. 
s*  Vid.  supr.  p.  83.  n.  71. 

97  Vid.  supr.  100.  n.  J2°. 

98  Vid.  S.  Epiphan.  Ilaer.  LXVIII.  p.  723.  d.  conf.  ut  supr. 
p.  93.  n  ~ 


103 


(     152    ) 

Greek  Vulgate  having  been  partly  destroyed  under 
Dioclesian,,  and  superseded  under  Constantine",  it 
was  not  again  restored  until  the  reign  of  Theodo- 
sius100; when  it  quietly  reinstated  itself,  on  the  ex- 
tinction of  the  party.,  which  supported  the  Corrected 
Text  of  Eusebius. 

Under  these  circumstances.,  the  celebrated  Latin 
Vulgate  was  composed,  which  the  Roman  Church 
has  now  adopted  as  its  authorised  version.  Not- 
withstanding the  high  reputation  of  St.  Jerome, 
aided  by  the  authority  of  P.  Damasus,  it  was  but 
slowly  adopted  by  the  Western  Churches,,  which 
still  persevered  in  retaining  the  primitive  version. 
As  St.  Jerome's  reputation  in  Greek  literature  was 
however  deservedly  great,  considerable  use  was  made 
of  his  corrected  text,  in  bringing  the  old  Italick  ver- 
sion to  a  closer  affinity  with  the  original.  The  in- 
fluence of  the  Vulgate  on  that  version  is  conse- 
quently perceptible,  to  a  greater  or  lesser  degree, 
in  all  the  more  modern  copies.  Even  the  Brescia 
and  Verceli  manuscripts  have  not  wholly  escaped 

95  Vid.  supr.  p.  27.  n.  46.  p.  26.  n.  44. 

100  The  date  of  this  event  may  be  fixed  to  the  final  subver- 
sion of  the  Arian  authority,  under  Theodosius,  A.  D.  381  : 
when  the  Catholicks  were  reinstated  in  their  churches ;  vid. 
supr.  p.  29.  n.  49.  A  Council  convened,  at  this  time,  in  Con- 
stantinople, introduced  a  new  order  of  affairs,  with  a  new 
Bishop.  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccl,  Lib.  V.  cap.  viii.  p.  268.  1.  39. 

ETTi      TO      XptoTVIfCU      TV)V      f»     NlXfltW      1C\?W)      X^ 

TV)  K-uvravrivij  TroXsi   ETritrxoTroj/,  x.  T.  I.      Conf.  Sozom. 

Lib.  VII.  capp.  vii.  ix.  pp.  285.  288.     Theodor.  Lib.  V.  capp. 
'  vii.  viiLpp.'200,  201. 


(     153    ) 

alteration ;  though  they  have  been  corrected  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  preserve  the  original  readings I01.  The 
Corbeian  manuscript,  which  has  been  published  with 
them,,  has  been  however  more  systematically  cor- 
rected by  St.  Jerome's  text10*.  Of  the  four  manu- 
scripts, which  constitute  the  Evangeliarium  Quadru- 
plex  of  M.  Blanching  which,  it  is  curious  to  observe, 
contains  specimens  of  the  principal  varieties  of  the 
old  Italick  translation,  the  Verona  manuscript  is 
alone  free  from  the  influence  of  the  Vulgate  of 
Jerome IOJ. 

In  this  confused  and  unsettled  state,  the  Western 
version  continued,  for  more  than  a  century,  until  the 
times  of  Cassiodorus.  Of  the  effectual  method  which 
he  took  to  settle  the  authorised  version,  by  wholly 
superseding  the  old  translation,  and  establishing  the 
Vulgate  of  Jerome,  I  have  already  expressed  myself 
at  large  on  a  former  occasion104.  With  what  sue- 

101  Vid.  supr.  p.  92.  n.  I0a.  vid.  infr.  n. I03. 

104  Blanchin.  Evang.  Quadrupl.  P.  I.  f.  cclxiv.  "  Exhibe- 
mus  hie  Codicem  vetustiosimum  Corbejensis  Monasterii  n.  195- 
sexto  saecnlo  descriptum  Romanis  literis,  in  quo  vacabula  per- 
saepe  nullo  discrimine  sejunguntur.  Cum  autem  eo  Codice 
uterentur  in  Ecclesia,  ut  ex  eo  Evangelium  in  missa  canerent, 
hinc  persaepe  fit,  presertim  in  Matthaeo,  ut  interpolationes  occur- 
rant,  quibus  codex  simillimus  efficeretur  Vulgate  ex  Hieronymiana 
Versione.  Eae  tamen  correctiones  nullo  negotio  dignoscuntur, 
turn  ex  atramento,  turn  ex  literarum  forma."  Vid.  supr.  p.  20. 
n,  3S. 

103  Id.  ibid.  P.  II.  f.  dlxxvi.     "  Antiquam  Latinam  Italam 
Versionem  quatuor  Evangeliorum  repraesentat  [Cod.  Veronens.] 
cum  nativis  lineamentis  suis;  estque  nidlibi — ad  Hieronymianam 
emcndationem  exacta" 

104  Vid.  supr.  p.  16,  17. 


cess  his  efforts  were  crowned,  may  be  collected  from 
the  general  prevalence  of  this  text  which  he  ren- 
dered the  authorised  version.  So  universally  has 
it  obtained,,  that  if  some  copies  of  the  old  Italick  had 
not  been  preserved  as  relicks,  or  on  account  of  the 
beautiful  manner  in  which  they  were  executed105, 
we  should  probably  possess  no  specimens  of  this  ver- 
sion,, but  those  which  accord  with  the  corrected  text 
of  St.  Jerome. 

This  brief  sketch  of  the  history  of  the  Latin  ver- 
sion, to  which  it  is  necessary  to  attend,  in  order  to 
appreciate  the  testimony  borne  by  the  Latin  Church 
to  the  .integrity  of  the  sacred  text,  is  completely  con- 
firmed by  the  internal  evidence  of  the  version  itself. 
And  this  evidence,  when  heard  fully  out,  ends  in 
establishing  the  following  important  conclusions : — 
That  the  purest  specimen  of  the  old  Italfck  transla- 
tion is  that  which  is  preserved  in  the  Brescia  manu- 
script; that  consequently,  as  the  Byzantine  text, 
which  accords  with  it,  must  be  that  from  which  this 
translation  was  originally  made;  that  text,  of  course,, 
must  be  of  the  most  remote  antiquity,  as  the  Italick 
version  was  incontestably  made  in  the  earliest  ages 
of  the  Church. 

In  order  to  substantiate  these  points,  I  shall  begin 
with  the  investigation  of  the  text  of  the  Vulgate;  as 
in  constituting  the  last  version  of  the  Latin  Church, 
it  necessarily  inherits  the  peculiarities  of  those  ver- 
sions by  which  it  was  preceded.  As  St.  Jerome  has 
spoken  of  the  state  of  the  Latin  text  as  it  existed  in 

105  Vid.  supr.  p.  60.  n. 33. 


(     155    ) 

his  times,,  with  fulness  and  precision ;  and,  as  it  is 
implied  in  the  principles  of  the  scheme  which  it  is 
my  object  to  establish,,  that  the  three  classes  of  that 
text,  including  his  own  version,  exist  even  at  the 
present  day,  as  he  has  described  them :  it  ought  to 
follow,  that  what  he  has  delivered  on  the  subject  of 
these  texts  which  were  before  him,  should  agree 
with  the  copies  which  we  retain.  If  therefore  it 
will  be  found,  on  experiment,  that  what  he  has 
delivered  on  the  subject  of  the  Latin  translation,  is 
literally  verified  in  that  translation  as  it  remains  at 
this  day ;  the  result  will  surely  constitute  as  decisive 
a  confirmation  as  can  be  required  of  the  solidity  of 
the  foundation  on  which  my  whole  system  is  built. 
On  separating  St.  Jerome's  new  translation  from 
the  two  versions  which  remain,  there  will  be  then 
little  difficulty  in  proving,  that  the  Brescia  manu- 
script contains  the  text,  out  of  which  the  other  ver- 
sions were  formed. 

1.  The  general  description  which  St.  Jerome 
gives  of  the  Latin  copies  existing  in  his  times,  repre- 
sents them  as  having  the  Gospels  interpolated  from 
each  other105.  The  edition  which  principally  pre- 
vailed in  St.  Jerome's  age,  was  that  of  Eusebius 

106  S.  Hier.  Praef.  in.  iv.  Evangg.  Tom.  VI.  p.  i.  "  Mag- 
nus siquidem  hie  in  nostris  Codicibus  error  inolevit,  dum  quod 
in  eadem  re  alius  Evangelista  plus  dixit,  in  alio,  quia  minus 
putaverint,  addiderunt.  Vel  dum  eundem  sensum  alius  aliter 
expressit,  iUe  qui  unum  e  quatuor  primum  legerat,  ad  ejus 
exemplum  cceteros  qnoque  existimaverit  emendandos.  Unde  acci- 
dit,  ut  apud  nos  mixta  sunt  omnia,  et  in  Marco  plura  Lucae  et 
Matthaei,  rursus  in  Matthaeo  plura  Joannis  et  Marci,  et  in 
cceteris  reliquorum,  quce  aliis  propria  sunt  invcniantur" 


(    156    ) 

Verceliensis.  We  consequently  find,  that  the  Ver- 
cell  manuscript  accurately  accords  with  this  de- 
scription, and  exhibits  those  interpolations  in  its 
text  '°7. 

2.  This  censure  St.  Jerome  has  indiscriminately 
applied  to  the  copies  which  existed  in  his  age,  while 
he  speaks  of  the  editions  of  Lucianus,  as  well  as 
Hesychius loS.  We  infallibly  know  the  standard  by 
which  he  condemned  them;  as  we  possess,  in  his 
own  Vulgate  the  pure  text,  pruned  from  these  redun- 
dancies. But  on  collating*  the  Brescia  manuscript 
with  the  Vulgate,  we  find  the  latter  attributes  read- 
ings to  one  Evangelist,  which  the  Brescia  manu- 

107  The  proof  of  this  assertion  may  be  taken  from  Dr.  Mills  *s 
general  description  of  the  Cambridge  MS.  infr.  n.  "s.  which 
harmonizes  with  the  Verceli  MS.  in  an  extraordinary  manner. 
The  following  quotation,  taken  from  Luk.  xiv.  8,  9,  10.  and  in- 
serted in  the  Verceli  and  Cambridge  MSS.  after  Mat.  xx.  28. 
will  evince  the  coincidence  existing  between  these  MSS.  and 
exemplify  the  declaration  of  St.  Jerome ;  "  Vos  autem  quseritis 
de  pusillo  crescere,  et  de  majore  minores  esse.  Intrantes  au- 
tem et  rogati  ad  ccenam,  nolite  recumbere  in  locis  eminen- 
tioribus,  ne  forte  clarior  te  superveniat,  et  accedens  qui  ad 
ccenam  vocavit  te,  dicat  tibi ;  adhuc  deorsum  accede,  et  cen- 
fundaris.  Si  autem  in  loco  inferiori  recubueris,  et  supervenerit 
humilior  te,  dicet  tibi  qui  te  ad  ccenam  vocavit :  accede  adhuc 
superins.  Et  erit  hoc  tibi  utilius."  Fere.  ap.  Blanchin.  Evang. 
Quad.  P.  I.  p.  clxiv.  We  read  exclusively  in  Mat.  xxi.  12. 
Et  mensas  numulariorum  et  cathedras  vendentium  columbas 
ever  tit :''  Vul&.  but  we  read  in  Luk.  xix.  45.  as  well  as  Matt. 

O 

xxi.  12.  Et  mensas  numulariorum  evertit  et  cathedras  venden- 
tium columbas."  Verc.  These  passages  also  occur,  with  a 
slight  verbal  variation,  in  the  Verona  MS. 

IC8  Vid.  supr.  p.  100.  n.  m.  conf.  p.  155.  n.  IC*. 


script  ascribes  to  two109.  So  far  it  verifies  St.  Je- 
rome's account  of  the  different  copies  of  the  Latin 
version,  which  I  suppose  to  have  existed  in  his  aera. 

3.  In  referring  to  the  very  copies  before  him.,  St. 
Jerome  cites  different  passages  which  belonged  to> 
different  texts.     He  has  thus  quoted  Mat.  xi.  23.  as 
differently  read  in  his  different  manuscripts 1!0.    The 
one  reading  which  he  specifies,  is,  however,  found 
in  the  Verceli,  and  the  other  in  the  Brescia  manu- 
script111.    The  text  of  both  is  thus  almost  identi- 
fied with  that  of  the  very  copies  which  he  col- 
lated. 

4.  In  citing  this  peculiar  passage,  he  adopts  the 
reading  of  the   Verceli  manuscript ;    and    merely 
refers  to  the  Brescia  manuscript,  as  his  "  other 

109  The  following  passage  is  omitted  in  the  correct  copies  of 
the  Vulgate,  in  Mat.  xxiii.  14.  but  in  the  Brescia  MS.  it  is  in- 
serted, wholly  in  Mat.  xxxiii.  14.  and  partly  in  Mark  xii.  40. 
Luke  xx.  47.     "  Vse   autem   vobis    Scribae  et  Pharisaei   hypo- 
crite, qui  devoratis  domos  viduarum  sub  obtentu  prolixae  ora- 
tionis ;  propterea  sumetis  pluriorem  damnationem." 

110  In  the  text  of  the  Vulgate  we  read;  S.  Hier.  Com.  in 
Matt.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xi.  p.  19.     "  Et   tu  Capharnaum  numquid 
usque  ad  coelum  exaltaberis  ?    usque  in  infernum  descendes  :'• 
in  the  annexed  commentary  we  read ;  ib.    "  In  altero  exemplari 
reperimus ;  '  Et  tu  Capharnaum  qu<$  usque  in  ccelum  exaltata 
es,  usque  in  inferna  descendes." 

111  Mat.  xi.  23,     "  Et  tu  Capharnaum   numquid  usque   in 
ccelum  exaltaveris  ?  aut  usque  in  infernum  descendes.'*    Verc. 
"  Et  tu  Capharnaum,  qua  usque  ad  ccelum  exaltaveris,  usque 
in  infernum   descendes."    Erix.     In  Luk,  x.  15.  the  Brescia 
MS.,  approaching  still  nearer  to  the  Vulgate,  reads,    "  usque 
ip  ca'luna." 


(     158    ) 

exemplar lli.  But  he  evidently  took  the  received 
text  of  the  age  as  the  basis  of  his  revisal ;  and  that 
text  existed  in  St.  Eusebius'  edition.  The  Verceli 
and  Brescia  manuscripts,  of  consequence,,  must  not 
only  agree  with  his  Latin  copies,  but  the  former 
contained  the  received  text,  the  latter  the  superseded 
edition  of  St.  Jerome's  age ;  which  is  precisely  con- 
formable to  what  is  assumed  as  true  in  the  whole  of 
the  present  system. 

5.  In  speaking-  of  the  general  mass  of  text,  as  dis- 
persed in  the  different  copies,  which  existed  in  his 
age,  he  declares  that  there  were  nearly  as  many 
texts  as  manuscripts113;  yet  he  admits  that  some 
of  them  corresponded  with  the  Greek114.  It  is  a 
remarkable  fact  with  respect  to  the  Verceli  and 
Brescia  manuscript,  that  while  they  differ  from  each 
other  more  than  from  the  Vulgate,  they  respectively 
accord  with  the  Greek115.  We  of  course  discover 
the  Latin  text  preserved  in  these  manuscripts,  in 
the  state  in  which  it  existed  in  the  days  of  St. 
Jerome. 

It  is  thus,  I  trust,   apparent,  that  St.  Jerome's 

111  Conf.  supr.  n.  "°  et in. 

113  S.  Hier.  ub.  supr.  p.  i. — "  verum  non  esse  quod  variat 
etiam  maledicorum  testimoniis  comprobatur.     Si  enim  Latinis 
exemplaribus  fides  est  adhibenda  respondeant  quibus :  tot  enim 
sirnt  exemplaria  pene  quot  codices.'9 

114  Id-  ibid.     "  Novum  opus  me  facere  cogis  ex  veteri :   ut 
post  exemplaria  Scripturarum  toto  orbe  dispersa,  quasi  quidam 
arbiter  sedeam;  et  quia  inter  se  variant,  quae  sint  ilia  quae  cum 
Grtzca  consentiant  discernam." 

ns  This  will  fully  appear,  on  comparing  p.  156.  n.  I0~.  with 
p.  177.  n.  i53.  and  p.  157.  n.  1C9.  with  p.  186.  n.  IC* 


account  of  the  Latin  translation  in  his  own  age,  is 
fully  verified  in  the  copies  which  exist  at  this  day. 
It  now  remains,  that  we  put  the  above  system  to  the 
last  test;  and  examine  how  far  the  account  which 
he  has  given  of  his  mode  of  correcting-  the  antient 
version,  may  be  exemplified  in  the  same  manu- 
scripts ;  which,  as  we  have  seen,  accord  with  the 
copies  that  he  apparently  used.  The  Verceli  ma- 
nuscript, I  have  already  observed,  as  it  constituted 
the  received  text,  was  taken  as  the  basis  of  his  revi- 
sal.  On  putting  it  through  the  process  observed 
by  St.  Jerome,  if  the  above  system  be  true,  it  should 
confirm  the  account  which  he  has  given  of  his  me- 
thod, by  furnishing  similar  readings  to  those  which 
his  corrections  produced. 

In  making  this  experiment,  I  shall  confine  my 
attention  principally  to  the  first  ten  chapters  of  St. 
Matthew's  Gospel116.  Here,  if  any  where,  we  may 
expect  to  find  the  authour's  principles  accurately 
applied.  This  portion  of  Scripture,  as  including 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  is  obviously  among  the 
most  remarkable  and  important  parts  of  the  Canon, 
and  as  such  undoubtedly  laboured  by  St.  Jerome, 

116  As  it  is  necessary  to  bring  these  notes  within  a  moderate 
compass,  in  analysing  these  te'n  chapters,  I  shall  confine  my 
attention  to  the  Various  Readings  collected  by  M.  Blanching 
and  noted  in  the  lower  margin  of  his  Evang.  Quadrupl.  As 
that  collection  has  been  made  without  any  view  to  the  system 
which  it  is  my  wish  to  establish,  and  indeed  without  any  know- 
ledge of  the  classes  of  text  on  which  is  is  founded;  and  as  it  is 
my  intention  to  take  those  readings  collectively,  as  they  occur, 
no  objection  can  be  made  to  the  selection,  as  partial,  or  accom- 
modated to  my  system. 


(     160    ) 

with  the  greatest  care.  And  as  it  occurred  at  an 
early  period  of  his  revisal,  before  the  fatigue  at- 
tendant on  so  long  and  laborious  an  undertaking, 
had  induced  the  authour  to  relax  from  his  original 
design ;  it  thus  promises  to  furnish  a  juster  specimen 
of  his  mode  of  correcting,  than  any  that  may  be 
selected  from  his  work. 

1.  In  correcting  the  antient  translation,  St.  Je- 
rome treated  with  disregard  the  editions  of  Hesy- 
chivs  and  Lucianus117;  as  conceiving  the  Gospels 
in  those  editions  interpolated  from  each  other.     1 
have  already  stated  that  his  notions  of  the  genuine 
text  must  be  sought  in  his  own  version.   But  on  esti- 
mating the  Cambridge  and  Moscow  manuscripts118, 
which  contain  the  text  of  Hesychius  and  Lucianus, 
by  the  standard  of  the  Vulgate,,  they  answer  St.  Je- 
rome's description ;  and  appear  to  be  interpolated, 
as  he  has  described  them. 

2.  In  passing  over  these  editions,  St.  Jerome  de^ 
clares,  that  it  was  his  intention  to  follow  the  antient 

117  Vid.  supr.  p.  100.  n.  '*9. 

118  Dr.  Mills,  whose  notions  of  the  genuine  text  were  in  most 
cases  answered  in  the  Latin  Vulgate,  delivers  himself  in  the  fol- 
lowing terms  on  the  subject  of  the  Cambridge  MS.    Prolegomm. 
in  Nov.  Test.  n.  1274.     «'  Hujus  certe  [Cod.  Cant.]  de  quo  agi- 
mus,  Graeca  quod  attinet,  vix  dici  potest  quam  supra  omnem 
modum  in  iis  digerendis  licenter  se  gesserit,  ac  lascivierit  Inter- 
polator, quisquis  ille.     Jn  ammo  ipsi  fuisse  prirna  fronte  credi- 
deris,  non  quidem  textum  ipsum  exhibere,  quen\  ediderant  ipsi 
Evangejistae,  sed  observato  dumtaxat  S.  Textus  ordine  ac  his^ 
tpria,  singula  Evangeha  alsolutiora  ac  pleniora  reddere.     Hue 
enim  faciunt  intromisstf  in  cujusque  Evangelii  texlum  particulce. 

integrepque periodi  reliquorum,"  $c. 


copies,  in  forming  his  version  "9.  When  we  ex- 
cept the  editions  which  he  rejected  ;  by  "  the  an- 
tient  copies"  he  must  have  meant  those  which  con- 
tained Eusebius's  edition,,  and  the  Vulgar  Greek  ; 
both  of  which  were  antient  in  St.  Jerome's  estima- 
tion, particularly  when  compared  with  the  recent 
text  of  the  orthodox  revisers.  On  comparing  St. 
Jerome's  Latin  copies  with  Eusebius's  Canons,  they 
exhibit  a  redundancy  in  some  places,  and  a  defi- 
ciency in  others  Iio.  But  on  removing  the  super- 
fluous passages  according  to  Eusebius's  text,  the 
corrected  text  agrees  with  the  text  of  the  Vul- 
gate '".  And  when  a  coincidence  between  the 

119  &  Hier.  ub.  supr.  p.  i.  "  Igitur  haec  Praefatiuncula  pollice* 
tur  quatuor  tantum  Evangelia,  quorum  ordo  est  iste,  Matthaeus, 
Marcus,  Lucas,  Joannes,  Codicum  Gr&corum  etnendata  colla- 
tione,  sed  veterum." 

140  On  examining  the  majginal  reference  annexed  to  Luke 
xiv.  8,  we  find  in  the  Greek  MSS.  ^  I,  and  in  the  Latin  177 
X;  which  intimates,  that  section  clxxvii.  of  Luke  was  con- 
tained in  Table  X.  of  Eusebius's  Canons.  But  as  Table  X.  con- 
sists of  passages  found  only  in  one  Evangelist,  of  consequence, 
this  section  (which  is  repeated  after  Mat.  xx.  28.  in  the  Verceli 
MS.  vid.  supr.  p.  .  n.  107.)  was  not  repeated  in  Eusebius's  edi- 
tion. On  examining  the  marginal  reference  annexed  to  Mark 
xii.  40,  we  find  fxr  H,  and  136  VIII :  but  as  Tab.  VIIL  con- 
sists of  passages  in  which  merely  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke  corre- 
spond, this  section  was  not  found  (in  Matthew)  in  Eusebius's 
edition,  though  found  at  Matt,  xxiik  13.  in  the  Brescia  MS.  vid. 
supr.  p.  157.  n.  I09. 

L1  Thus  on  omitting  the  section  which  occurs  in  the  Verceli 
MS.  after  Matt.  xx.  28.  and  that  which  occurs  in  the  Brescia 
MS.  after  Matt.xxiii.  13.  vid.  supr.  n. I1Q.  according  to  Euse- 
bius's edition,  as  indicated  in  his  Canons,  the  text,  when  cor- 
rected, exactly  corresponds  with  that  of  th£  Vulgate, 

M 


C 

Vulgar  Greek  and  Latin  copies  discovered  a  defi* 
ciency  in  Eusebius's  text ;  the  version  of  St.  Je- 
rome, as  corrected  by  the  antient  copies,  corre- 
sponds with  the  text  of  the  former  *".  In  both  in- 
stances Eusebius's  edition  and  the  Greek  Vulgate, 
must  have  represented  St.  Jerome's  antient  co- 
pies. 

3.  In  formitig  verbal  corrections,  St.  Jerome  de- 
clares, that  his  method  was  to  collate  the  copies 
of  the  old  translation  together,  and  when  they 
agreed  with  each  other,  and  with  the  original 
Greek,  to  leave  the  version  in  the  state  in  which  he 
found  it Ii3.  We  consequently  find  that  when  the 
Brescia  and  Verceli  texts  agree  with  the  Greek, 
there  exists  a  correspondent  agreement  between 
them  and  the  Vulgate  IZ4.  In  a  few  instances  St. 
Jerome  has  deviated  from  this  plan  ;  but  they  are 
exceptions  which  strengthen  the  general  rule,  as  he 
deemed  it  necessary  to  apologise  for  them,  in  his 

121  Thus  Mark  xvi.  9—20.  Job.  vii.  53.— viii.  II. ;  though 
omitted  in  Eusebius's  edition,  vid.  supr.  pp.  36,  38.  yet  as  re- 
tained in  some  of  the  copies  of  the  common  edition,  or  Vulgar 
Greek,  vid.  supr*  p.  35.  n.  6S.  et  p.  37.  n.  65«  are  inserted  in  the 
text  of  the  Latin  Vulgate. 

113  S.  Hier.  ub.  supr..  "  Igitur  harc  Praefatiuncula  pollicetur 
quatuor  tantum  Evangelia — Codicum  Graecoruna  emendata  col- 
latione-— quae  ne  multum  a  lectionis  Latinse  consuetudine  discre- 
parent,  ita  calamo  temperavimus,  ut  his  tantum  quae  sensum 
videbantur  mutare  correctis,  reliqua  manere  pateremur  ut  fue- 
rant." 

m  The  reader,  on  turning  to  pp.  67,  68,  69,  may  see  this 
observation  exemplified  in  the  first  twelve  verses  of  St.  Mat- 
thew's fifth  chapter. 


(    163    ) 

commentary  "5.  The  Brescia  and  the  Verceli  texts, 
as  they  verify  his  account,  must  of  course  preserve 
the  Latin  version,  as  it  was  found  in  St.  Jerome's 
copies. 

4.  On  collating  those  copies  together,  if  they 
were  found  to  differ  from  each  other,  St.  Jerome's 
plan  was,  to  collate  them  with  the  old  copies  of  the 
Greek,  and  thence  to  determine  which  of  them 
agreed  with  the  original Ii6.  If  one  of  his  Latin 
copies  agreed  with  Eusebius's  text,  he  consequently 
adopted  the  reading.  But  if  neither  agreed  with 
it,  he  of  course  translated  the  original,  and  inserted 
the  correction  in  his  amended  version.  Now,  on 
supposing  that  the  Brescia  and  Verceli  texts  repre- 

ias  In  Matt.  iv.  1.  the  Old  Italick  reads  "in  Bethlehem  Ju- 
d<#<2,"  Brix.  Verc.  Veron,  and  the  Greek  Iv  Be$Ase/x  vw  la^ala.*;, 
Gr.  Vidg.  but  St.  Jerome,  on  the  authority  of  the  Hebrew,  cor- 
rected this  phrase  to  "  in  Bethlehem  Jud<#."  Lat.  Vulg.  He 
thus,  however,  apologizes  for  deviating  from  the  authority  of 
his  Greek  and  Latin  copies.  Com.  in  Matt.  Lib,  I.  cap.  ii,  p.  2. 
f.  "  Librariorum  hie  error  est,  putamus  enim  ab  evangelista  pri- 
mum  editum,  sicut  in  ipso  Hebraico  legimus,  "  Judse"  non 
"  Judaeae" — Judse  autem  idcirco  scribitur  quia  est  et  alia  Beth- 
lehem in  Galilaea.  Lege  librum  Jesu  filii  Nave.  Denique  et 
in  ipso  testimojno  quod  de  Michece  prophetia  sumptum  est  ita 
habetur  ;  "  Et  tu  Bethlehem  terra  Juda."  Here,  of  course, 
was  St.  Jerome's  authority. 

120  S,  Hier.  Sun.  et  Fretel.  Epist.  cxxxv.  Tom.  III.  p,  377. 
**  Sicut  autera  in  Novo  Testamento  si  quando  apud  Latinos 
qusestio  exoritur,  et  est  inter  exemplaria  varietas,  recurrimus  ad 
Jbntem  Grtzci  sermonis,  quo  Novum  scriptum  est  Instrumen- 
tum :  ita  in  Veteri  Testamento  si  quando  inter  Graecos  Lati- 
nosque  diversitas  est,  ad  Hebraicam  recurrimus  veritatem :  ut 
^uidquid  de  fonte  proficiscitur,  hoc  queer amus  in  rivulis" 


(     164    ) 

St.  Jerome's  Latin  copies,  and  that  the  latter 
was  the  basis  of  his  version  :  we  find  St.  Jerome's 
readings  accounted  for,  on  comparing  those  manu- 
scripts with  Eusebius's  edition.  The  Verceli  and 
Brescia  texts,  in  the  first  place  disagree,  where  the 
former,  which  was  St.  Jerome's  basis,  differs  from 
the  Vulgate  "7.  In  the  next  place  where  the 
Brescia  or  Verceli  text  corresponds  with  the  Greek, 
we  find  its  reading  inserted  in  the  text  of  the  Vul- 
gate Ii8.  In  the  last  place,  where  those  texts  do  not 


"*  Via.  infr.  n.  I28. 

118  The  Following  collection  of  texts  will  illustrate  the  diver- 
sity between  St.  Jerome's  Latin  copies ;  and  shew  the  peculiar 
readings,  which  were  inserted  in  his  Vulgate,  from  the  Primi- 
tive Latin  Version,  on  account  of  their  agreement  with  his  old 
Greek  copies.  Mat.  ii.  9.  supra  puerum.  Verc.  Veron.  [iira.vu 
§  yv  TO  <or«i&o».  Vat.  Gr.  Vulg.~\  supra  uli  erat  puer.  Brix. 
Vulg. — Hi.  16.  descendentem  de  ccelo,  Verc.  Veron.  [xara&aw. 
Vat.  Vulg."]  descendentem,  Brix.  F«/g.— Ibid.  1 7.  dicens  ad  eum 
hie  est.  Verc.  Veron.  [hiyveoe,,  «ro'?  \n.  Vat.  Vulg.~]  dicens  hie 
est,  Brix.  Vulg.  —  iv.  4.  omni  verbo  Dei.  Veron.  hiat  Verc. 
'\_iearri  ^[Aetli  ex9ro^eyo^evo>  Six,  fopta7oj-  @e3.  Vat.  Vulg.~\  omne 
verbo  quod  procedit  de  ore  Dei.  Brix.  Vulg. — Ib.  10.  vade  retro 
me  Satanas.  Veron.  vade  retro  Satanas.  Verc.  [vira.yt  Zalava. 
Vat.  Vulg.']  vade  Satana.  Brix.  Vulg. — Ib.  24.  omnes  curavit. 
Verc.  Veron.  fl&pawswo-w  aJ'Twr.  Vat.  Vulg.~]  curavit  eos.  Brix. 
yul«. — Ib.  v.  4,  5.  vid.  supr.  p.  63. — Ib.  11.  propter  justitiam 
Verc.  Veron.  [4's^o^evoi  susxey  £//?.  Vat.  Vutg."]  mentientes 
.propter  me.  Brix.  Vulg. — Ib.  12.  in  crelo.  Verc.  Veron.  [> 
TOK  ZpavoTs.  Vat.  Vulg.~]  in  coelis.  Brix.  Vtilg.—lb.  13.  valet.  Verc. 
Veron.  [lo-yjxH  sn.  Vat.  Vulg.~\  valet  ultra.  Brix.  Vulg — Ib.  14. 
hitjus  mundi.  Verc.  Veron.  [rS  xo^a.  Vat.  Vulg.']  mundi.  Brix. 
Vulg. — Ib.  32.  dico  vobis.  Verc.Veron  .\_hiyu  vpTv  on.  Vat.Vulg.] 
dico  vobis  quia.  Brix.  Vulg. — Ibid,  qui  dimissam  duxerit  mae- 
Chatur.  Brix.  Vlilg.  [o  x7rotehvpetr,v  ytxpwas  fA,a^S,ron.  Vat.  o;  10,9 


(     165     ) 

so  correspond,  in  which  case  both  St.  Jerome's  basis 
and  his  "  other  copy"  must  have  differed  from  the 
original,  we  there  find  that  the  Vulgate  not  only 
differs  from  both,  but  accords  with  the  Greek  of 
Eusebius  I29.  It  must  be  of  course  evident  that  the 

— yotfAvxry.  Vulg.~]  desunt.  Verc.  Veron. — Ib.  38.  dentem  pro 
dentem.  Verc.  Veron.  [*j  outlet  am  O&»TO$.  Vat.  Vulg.~]  et  den- 
tem pro  dente.  Brix.  Vulg. — vii.  13.  quam.  Verc.  Veron.  [OT» 
Vat.  Vulg.']  quia.  Brix.  Vulg. — ix.  15.  jejunabunt  in  illis  diebus. 
Verc.  Veron.  [xj  TOTE  ujrcvowu*  Vat.  Vulg.~\  et  tune  jejunabunt. 
Brix.  Vulg. — Ib.  25.  venit  et  tenuit  Verc.  Veron.  [twxSur  Ixpa- 
T»j<7e.  Vat.~\  intravit  et  tenuit.  Brix.  Vulg. — x.  1 8.  stabitis.  Verc. 
Veron.  [a^S^c-w^i.  Vat.  Vulg.~]  ducimini.  Brix.  Vulg. — Ib.  23. 
quod  si  in  aliam  persequentur  vos,  fugite  in  aliam.  Verc.  Veron. 
desunt :  Vat.  Vulg.  Brix.  Vulg. — Ib.  24.  dominum.  Verc.  Ve~ 
ron.  [TOV  xvpio*  auTv.  Vat.  Vulg.']  dominum  suum  Brix.  Vulg. 
— Ib.  35.  dividere  filium.  Verc.  Veron.  [^ao-ai  avtyuvov.  Vat. 
Vulg.~\  separare  hominem.  Brix.  Vulg. — Ib.  42.  non  peribit  mer- 
ces  sua  Verc.  merces  ejus.  Veron.  [«  ^  uTrohso-v)  rov  pio-Sav  avrit. 
Vat.  Vulg.~\  non  perdet  mercedem  suam.  Brix.  Vulg. 

The  following  collection  of  texts  will  equally  illustrate  the 
diversity  between  St.  Jerome's  Lat.  Copies,  and  shew  the  pecu- 
liar readings  which  he  adopted  from  the  Received  Version,  on 
account  of  their  agreement  with  Eusebius's  edition  of  the 
Greek.  Matt.  v.  11.  beati  eritis.  Brix.  Veron.  [/^axaptoi  Ire  Vat. 
Vulg.~\  beati  estis.  Verc.  Vulg. — Ib.  30.  mittatur,  in  gehen- 
nam.Brix.  [el{  ysmetv  ct&reX&y).  Vat.~]  eat  in  gehennam.  Verc.  Ve- 
ron. Vulg. — vi.  1.  elemosynam  Brix.  £&xawwi5iw.  Vat.~]  justitiam 
Verc.  Veron.  Vulg. — Ib.  13.  quoniam  tuum  est  regnum,  et  vir- 
tus et  gloria,  in  saecula.  Amen.  Brix.  desunt.  Vat.  Verc.  Veron. 
Vulg. — x.  3.  Jacobus  Alphei  et  Lebbeus  qui  nominatur  Taddeus. 
Brix.  [1«xa$»c  o  T«  AX^ala,  xj  GetWouos.  Vat.~\  Jacobus  Alphei 
et  Judas  Zelotes.  Verc.  Veron.  Jacobus  Alphei  et  Thaddaeus. 
Vulg. 

ll)  The  following  collection  of  texts  exhibit  the  peculiar  read- 
ings which  St.  Jerome  introduced  into  the  Vulgate  from  possess- 


(    166    ) 

Brescia  and  Verceli  manuscripts  must  preserve  the 
Latin  text  in  the  state  in  which  it  existed  in  the  best 
manuscripts  from  which  St.  Jerome  formed  the 
Vulgate. 

THIS  METHOD  of  correcting  the  Latin  version 
seems  liable  but  to  the  one  objection  which  it  is  my 
main  object  to  establish ;  that  the  text  of  Eusebius, 

ing  a  juster  knowledge  of  the  Greek,  and  preserving  a  closer 
adherence  to  the  copies  of  Eusebius's  edition.  Mat.  i.  25.  non 
cognovit.  Brix.  Cant.  Veron.  \_iywuo-xiv.  Vat.  Vulg.~\  non  cognos* 
cebat.  Vulg.  Corb. — ii.  9.  et  stetit  supra.  Brix.  Verc.  Veron. 
l_tug  ij-aSn  tTTclvu.  Vat.~\  usquedum  staret  supra.  Vulg.  Cork— • 
iv.  18.  cum  autem  transiret.  Brix.  cum  transiret  autem  Verc. 
Veron.  \_wip\'&cc,'rui$i  Vat.  Vulg.']  ambulans  autem  Vulg.  Corb. 
— v.  22.  fratri  suo  sine  causa,  Brix.  Verc.  Veron.  \_ru  u<t&<pu 
avrZ.  Vat.~\  fratri  suo.  Vulg. — vi.  2.  perceperunt  mercedem. 
Brix.  Verc.  Veron.  [aw^ao-i  TO>  pio-Sov.  Vat.  Vulg.~]  receperunt 
Vulg.  Corb. — Ib.  8.  nollite — similar -e  eis.  Brix.  Verc.  Veron. 
[jt*i — ofAowSvTt  aflloiV.  Vat.  Vulg."]  nollite — assimilari  eis.  Vulg. 
Corb. — ix.  QS.veniente  autem  eo  in  domum  Brix.  et  venit  in  do- 
mum.  Verc.  Veron.  [!x$o>I(  $\  t\$  tv  olakotv.  Vat.  Vulg.~\  cum  autera 
venisset  in  domum.  Vulg.  Corb. — Ibid,  coeci  illi.  Brix.  coeci  duo 
Verc.  Veron.  [o?  Tt^Xot.  Vat.  Vulg^\  cceci  Vulg.  Corb. — x.  5. 
praecipiens  eis  et  dicens.  Brix.  Verc.  Veron.  [-TO-apafy^as  atWc 
X/ywv.  Vat.  Vulg.']  praecipiens  eis  dicens.  Vulg. — Ib.  10.  dignus 
enim  est  operarius  mercedem  suam.  Brix.  Verc.  Veron.  [a|»c? 
yap  5  !f>yaT»?s  T^y  r^otpTK  ai5r«.  Vat.  Vulg.~]  dignus  est  enim  ope- 
rarius cibo.  suo.  Vulg.  Corb. 

While  these  examples,  together  with  those  quoted,  supr.  n. 
3*5.  et  infr.  n. l33.  demonstrate,  that  the  Vulgate  has  had  no  in- 
fluence on  the  Brescia  MS ;  they  illustrate,  in  the  particular 
instance  of  the  Co?'beian  MS.  the  influence  which  that  version 
h?s  had  upon  some  copies  of  the  Old  Italick.  The  examples 
quoted  supr.  n. 128.  on  the  other  hand,  evince  the  influence 
which  the  Brescia  text  has  had  on  the  Vulgate. 


(     167    ) 

by  which  St.  Jerome  in  some  places  '3°  modelled  his 
translation,  possessed  not  authority  equal  to  that  of 
the  Old  Italick  version.  And  we  consequently  find, 
that  this  very  objection  was  made  to  the  Greek  text 
by  Hilary  the  Deacon IJ1 ;  and  to  St.  Jerome.,  by 

130  In  the  examples  cited  supr.  nn.  "8  et I2p,  it  is  observable 
that  St.  Jerome  generally  possessed  the  authority  of  the  two 
species  of  text  contained  in  his  old  Greek  copies  ( i.  e.  Vat. 
Vulg.)  in  favour  of  his  corrections.  When  those  copies  dif- 
fered, and  Eusebius's  text  (Vat.)  agreed  with  his  basis  (Verc.) 
it  is  likewise  observable  he  followed  their  joint  authority, 
against  that  of  the  common  Greek  (  Vulg.).  In  one  instance, 
Mat.  v.  22,  he  has  followed  the  authority  of  Eusebius's  text, 
against  the  joint  authority  of  his  Latin  copies  and  the  Greek 
Vulgate.  But  for  this  deviation  from  his  usual  plan,  he  offers 
the  following  apology  ;  Com.  in  Matt.  Lib.  I.  cap.  v.  p.  6.  "  In 
quibusdam  Codidbus  additur  "sine  causa,"  caeterum  in  veris, 
definita  sententia  est,  et  ira  penitus  tollitur,  dicente  Scrip- 
tura ;  "  qui  irascitur  fratri  suo."  Si  enim  jubemur  verberanti 
alteram  praebere  maxillam,  et  inimicos  nostros  amare,  et  orare 
pro  persequentibus,  omnis  irae  occasio  tollitur.  Radendum  est 
ergo  "  sine  causa."  From  hence  it  appears  that  St.  Jerome's 
main  dependance  was  on  the  copies  containing  Eusebius's 
text,  which  were  indeed  generally  supported  by  the  Greek 
Vulgate ;  but  these  he  termed  his  "  true"  rather  than  his 
**  antient  copies.*'  His  declaration  that  "  sine  causa"  ivas  to  _ 
be  erased,  clearly  evinces  that  this  reading  was  found  in  the 
whole  of  the  Latin  copies  with  which  he  was  acquainted;  his 
words,  of  course,  by  implication  declare,  that  the  testimony 
of  the  Old  Italick  was  in  this  instance  collectively  against  Eu- 
sebius's edition  :  vid.  infr.  n.  l31. 

131  Vid.  supr.  p.  57.  n.  *3.  Hilar.  Comment,  in  Gal.  ii.  "  Tria 
haec  mandata  ab  Apostolis  et  senioribus  data  reperiuntur,  id 
est,  *4  ut  observent  se  ab  idolatria  et  sanguine"  sicut  Noe, 
"  et  fornicatione."  Quae  Sophistte  Grcccorum  non  intelligen- 
tes,  scientes  tamen  a  sanguine  non  abstinendum,  adultcrarunt 
Scripturam,  quartum  mandatum  addcntes  "  et  a  suffocate" 
observandum." 


(     168    ) 

Helvidius,  who  accused  him  of  following  copies 
that  had  been  corrupted  I?\  And  that  this  objec- 
tion was  made  with  effect,,  is  apparent ;  from  the 
Old  Version  having  still  maintained  its  ground  in 
the  Latin  Church  even  against  the  authority  of  St. 
Jerome  ;  and  from  the  difficulty  which  attended  its 
final  suppression  under  Cassiodorus I3J.  But  this 
testimony  of  the  Latin  Church  against  the  new 
version  is  not  merely  negative  ;  but  may  be  thrown 
on  the  side  of  the  Byzantine  Greek  and  of  the  Pri- 
mitive Version.  Hilary,,  indeed,  in  objecting  to  the 
Greek  copies,  supports  a  reading  IU  which  proba- 

131 S.  Hier.  adv.  Helvid.  cap.  iv.  Torn.  II.  p.  13.1  "  Et 
erant"  inquit  Lucas,  "pater  illius  et  mater  admirantes  super 
his,  quse  dicebantur  de  eo."  Licet  tu  mira  impudentia  hcsc  in 
Greeds  Codicibus  Jalsata  contendas,  quae  non  solum  omnes 
pene  Graeciae  tractatores,  sed  nonnulli  quoque  e  Latinis,  ita  ut 
in  Graecis  habentur,  assumpserint."  Here  consequently  the 
whole  nearly  of  the  Old  Latin  Version  was  against  the  Re- 
ceived Text,  of  Palestine,  as  published  by  Eusebius :  vid.  infr. 
n. «". 

'3i  Vid.  supr.  pp.  16, 17. 

134  The  history  of  this  reading  is  curious,  and  constitutes  one 
of  the  many  proofs  which  evince  the  integrity  of  the  Greek 
Vulgate.  In  Act.  xv.  20,  the  common  or  Vulgar  edition 

reads,  Kwixivbou  a-jro  ruv  u^cyvj^oifuv  ruv  t\$u\uv  xeti  TVJ;  <sropma? 
y£j  T£  WVJXT8  ^  T«  aVaVos-.  But  the  reason  of  the  prohibition 
"  from  strangled  and  from  blood"  not  being  understood ;  the 
following  explanatory  gloss,  which  has  crept  into  the  text,  xa* 

ccrex,  «,v  pn  S&uffiv  lat/]o*V  y^icrSat,    trepan  ^  &ou~v9  W3S   added,  in 

order  to  accommodate  the  passage  to  Gen.  ix.  4?.  5.  7.  6.  This 
meaning,  however,  seemed  to  some  of  the  revisers  of  the  Latin 
Version  to  be  expressed  in  aTrs^ecrOai  T«  a'/^aV ;  yet  apprehen- 
sive lest  it  should  be  understood  as  a  '  prohibition  from  eating 
frlood,'  they  superseded  "  a  suffocate"  by  "  sicut  Noe."  Such 


(     169    ) 

bly  existed  only  in  the  Received  Text,  as  revised 
by  St.  Eusebius  of  Verceli ;  and  thus  merely  sup- 
ports the  credit  of  that  translation.  But  Helvidius 
supports  a  reading  which  is  found  in  the  Brescia 
and  Byzantine  text,,  against  one  which  is  found  in 
the  Palestine  text  and  the  Vulgate  of  Jerome  IJ5. 


was  the  reading  of  Hilary's  copies,  vid.  supr.  n.  131 :  but  the 
Greek  which  is  left  behind,  after  expunging  T£  mix.™,  will  not 
bear  the  sense  he  assigns  it ;  or  any  meaning  but  that  of  refrain- 
ing from  partaking  of  blood,  vid.  1  Tim.  iv.  3.  The  vulgar 
reading  is,  however,  right ;  the  prohibition  of  the  Apostles  hav- 
ing been  evidently  levelled  against  the  inhuman  and  depraved 
lites,  in  which  the  early  Pagan  converts  fancied  themselves 
licenced  to  indulge;  vid.  2  Pet.  ii.  1,  13, 14,  19.  Rev.ii.  14,  20. 
conf.  Athenag.  Leg.  pro  Christt.  p.  4.  c.  et  Just.  Mart.  Apol. 
maj.  p.  70.  a.  b.  ed.  Par.  Orig.  contr.  Cels.  p.  272.  ed.  Cant.  S. 
Epiph.  Haer.  xxvi.  p.  84.  c.  87.  b. 

135  Luke  ii.  33.  6  ttafirip  ain$  x.ai  y  //.JJT»!£.  Vat.  pater  illius  et 
mater.  Fulg.  'I  warty  xal  v  pvTyf.  Vulg.  Joseph  et  mater  ejus. 
Brix.  Verc.  Veron.  Corb.  The  reading  of  Eusebius,  which  St. 
Jerome  adopts,  he  defends  by  reference  to  Joh.  i.  46.  "  Hier. 
adv.  Helv.  cap.  ix.  p.  138.  "  Ac  ne  forte  de  exemplariorum 
veritate  causeris,  quia  tibi  stultissime  persuasisti,  Grcecos  Co- 
dices essefahatos :  ad  Joannis  Evangelium  venio,  in  quo  ple- 
nissime  scribitur;  'Invenit  PhiHppus  Nathanael,  et  ait  illi ; 
quern  scripsit  Moyses  in  lege,  et  prophetse  mYenimus  Jesum 
Jilium  Joseph.'  Certe  hoc  in  tuo  Codice  continetur.  Responde 
mihi,  quo  modo  Jesus  sit  Jilius  Joseph,  quern  constat  de  Spi- 
ritu  Sancto  esse  procreatum?"  But  the  reading  of  the  Greek 
Vulgate  and  Old  Italick  Version  may  be  easily  defended  against 
this  solemn  trifling ;  and  th$  refutation  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome 
may  be  effected  with  ease.  In  Joh.  i.  46.  the  sacred  historian 
merely  relates  the  declaration  of  Philip  ;  in  Luke  ii.  33.  the  in- 
spired writer  speakst/or  himself.  From  Joh.  ii.  11.  vii.  5.  it 
will  appear  that  had  Philip  at  this  time  declared  his  belief  in 


(     170    ) 

He  consequently  not  only  supports  the  authority  of 
the  Greek  Vulgate  while  he  detracts  from  that  of 
the  Latin  ;  but  by  his  appeal  to  Latin  copies,,  he 
proves  that  the  Vulgar  Greek  was  exclusively  sup- 
ported by  the  authority  of  the  original  Latin 
Translation. 

As  St.  Jerome  is  thus  deserted  by  the  testimony 
of  the  early  Latin  Church,  his  own  testimony  is  in- 
adequate to  support  the  authority  of  the  new  Vul- 
gate against  that  of  the  old,  or  primitive  version. 
His  declaration,  that  he  purposed  following  the  old 
copies,  has  been  taken  in  a  positive,  not  relative 
sense156;  his  words,  instead  of  being  interpreted 
with  reference  to  the  rectified  copies  which  pre- 
vailed in  his  times,  have  been  understood  of  the 

the  divinity  of  our  Lord,  it  must  have  been  by  an  oversight  of 
the  sacred  historian.  And  from  Luke  ii.  48,  49,  50,  it  will 
appear  that  had  St.  Luke  assigned  any  Father  to  Christ  but  God, 
it  must  have  been  by  grossly  confounding  what  our  Lord  had 
expressly  distinguished.  However  "foolish  the  persuasion" 
may  be  deemed,  the  Vatican  MS.  and  Latin  Vulgate  are  here, 
I  am  persuaded,  grossly  corrupt. 

136  On  the  publication  of  a  new  edition  of  the  sacred  text  by 
the  orthodox  revisers,  vid.  supr.  p.  93.  n.  Io3.  p.  n.  Io°.  the 
Received  Text  edited  by  Eusebius  became,  properly  speaking, 
the  old.  This  mode  of  expression  was  not  unknown  to  the 
Greeks.  In  this  sense  St.  Irenaeus  speaks  of  the  old  copies  of 
the  Apocalypse,  while  he  asserts  even  of  the  original  work,  that 
it  was  published  in  the  age  in  which  he  flourished.  S.  Iren.  adv. 
Haer.  Lib.  V.  cap.  xxx.  p.  330.  Tal«»  l\ 

a.fft  oi  TO~S  OTF9an*t    *«' 


avraiv    EXE/VOW    r£v     xar'    o\J/iv 


«f-r-  Conf.   Ut  Supr.  p.  124.   D. 

p.  167.  n.  I3°. 


(     171     ) 

copies  of  Pierius  and  Grig-en,  to  which  he  appeals 
occasionally  IJ7.  They  have  been  however  strained 
beyond  what  they  will  bear :  for  no  general  decla- 
ration ought  to  be  taken  in  the  strictness  of  the  let- 
ter. As  he  was  professedly  a  reader  of  Adaman- 
tius  I38,  and  of  Pierius,,  whom  he  calls  the  younger 
Origen  I39 ;  he  might  have  found  the  readings  of 
their  copies,  in  their  commentaries.,  without  in- 
specting their  manuscripts.  Had  he  possessed  co- 
pies of  the  kind,  he  was  not  a  person  likely  to  sup- 
press the  fact;  or  introduce  them  to  the  acquaint- 
ance of  his  readers,  under  the  loose  and  indefinite 
title  of  "  antient  copies/'  Nor  is  his  shyness  to 
speak  explicitly  on  this  subject  to  be  reconciled 
with  his  minute  description  of  the  text  of  Lucianus 
and  Hesychius,  and  of  the  canons  of  Eusebius  of 

137  S.  Hier.  Com.  in  Mat.  cap.  xxiv.  Tom.  VI.  p.  54-.    "  In 
quibusdam  Codicibus  additum  est  "  neque  filius :"  cum  in  Gratis 
et  maxime  Adamantii  et  Pierii  exemplaribus,  hoc  non  habeatur 
adscriptum :  sed  quia  in  nonnullis  legitur,  disserendum  videa- 
tur."     Of  whatever  service  it  may  be  to   the  partisans  of  the 
Alexandrine  recension  to  talk  of  these  copies  of  Origen  and 
Pierius,  I  am  not  apprehensive,  that  any  advocate  of  Euse- 
bius's  text  will  quote  this  passage  against  the  Greek  Vulgate. 

138  S.  Hier.  Cat.  Scriptt.  Eccless.  in  Pamphil.  Tom.  I.  p.  128. 
"  Origenis  volumina  manu  ejus  [sc.  Pamphili]  exarata  reperi ; 
quae  tanto  amplector  et  servo  gaudio,  ut  Croesi  opes  habere  me 
credam.      Si  enim  lastitia  est  unam  epistolam  habere  martyris  ; 
quanto  magis  tot  millia  versuum." 

*:9  Id.  ibid,  in  Pier.  "  Pierius  Alexandrine  ecclesiae  presby- 
ter— florentissime  docuit  populos,  et  in  tantam  sermonis,  di- 
versorumque  tractatuum,  qui  usque  hoclie  extant,  venit  elegan- 
tiam,  ut  Origenes  junior  vocaretur." 


(     172    ) 

Cassarea  I4°.  But  what  must  lay  the  question  at 
rest,,  is  the  confession  of  St.  Jerome  himself ;  who 
not  only  declares  that  he  possessed  copies  of  Ori- 
gen's Commentaries  which  had  been  transcribed  by 
Pamphilus  I4V,  but  expressly  admits,,  that  Origen's 
library  had  fallen  into  decay,  and  had  been  partially 
restored  on  vellum  by  Acacius  and  Euzoius  I4a.  As 
Grig-en's  library  consisted  of  volumes  Avritten  on  the 
papyrus ;  such  a  library  having-  been  alone  suited 
to  the  finances  of  a  man,,  who  lived  in  poverty,,  and 
was  supplied  with  the  means  of  publishing  his  works, 
by  the  munificence  of  his  friend  and  patron  Am- 
brose I4? ;  it  would  have  been  rather  a  hazardous 
attempt  in  St.  Jerome  to  boast  of  possessing  his  ori- 
ginal copies.  The  authority  of  Origen's  Commen- 
taries became  a  sufficient  voucher  to  St.  Jerome, 
for  the  readings  of  Origen's  copies ;  in  this  manner 
they  are  occasionally  cited  by  him,,  while  he  gene- 
rally conforms  to  the  text  of  Eusebius. 

St.  Jerome's  authority  is  therefore  inadequate 
to  support  the  credit  of  the  Vulgate  against  the  au- 
thority of  the  antient  Latin  translation.  His  ver- 
sion, as  founded  on  a  preference  for  Eusebius's  text, 
was  built  on  an  accidental  partiality  I44 ;  and  on  the 
the  same  foundation  rests  the  standard  by  which  he 
condemned  the  text  of  Lucianus  T4J.  His  transla- 

140  Vid.  supr.  p.  100.  n.  11D.  p.  85,  n. 77.  infr.  p.  173.  n.  14S. 

141  Vid.  supr.  p.  171.  n. 13S. 

141  Vid.  supr.  p.  84.  nn.  7*.  et  7*. 
143  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib. 
>44  Vid.  supr.  pp.  84-,  85. 

That  he  condemned  it,  on  judging  it,  merely  by  Euse- 


*45 


(     173    ) 

lion  is  besides  destitute  of  the  authority  of  the  an- 
tient  Latin  Church,  which  continued  to  retain  the 
primitive  version.  But  as  far  as  was  consistent  with 
St.  Jerome's  plan,,  his  testimony  may  be  cited  in 
support  of  this  version,,  and  of  the  text  of  Lucianus. 
He  admitted  the  authority  of  the  former  in  correct- 
ing- the  Received  Text  of  his  times  :  and,  in  follow- 
ing- the  edition  of  Eusebius  Caesariensis,  he  ad- 
hered to  a  text  that  approximates  very  closely  to  the 
Byzantine  edition.  The  event  is,  that  the  Vulgate 
of  St.  Jerome  approaches  much  nearer  to  the  primi- 
tive version  of  the  Western  Church,  than  the  Re- 
ceived Text  of  his  age,  as  revised  by  the  hand  of 
St.  Eusebius  of  Verceli. 

We  have  now  brought  the  determination  of  the 
question  to  the  consideration  of  the  two  versions 
which  preceded  the  Vulgate,  and  which  exist  in 
the  Brescia  and  Verceli  manuscripts.  But  a  choice 
between  these  texts  may,  I  trust,  be  decided  with 
little  comparative  difficulty. 

Considering  the  question,  as  resting  between 
these  two  texts,  it  must  be  admitted,  that  one 

bius's  text,  taken  as  the  standard,  he  has  himself  placed  out  of 
dispute.  After  describing  Hesychius  and  Lucianus's  text,  as 
interpolated,  vid.  «upr.  p.  100.  n. '".  he  thus  observes;  Prrcf. 
in  iv.  Evang.  Tom.  VI.  p.  i.  "  Canones  quoque  quos  Eusebius 
Casariensis  Episcopus  Alexandrinum  secutus  Ammonium,  in 
decem  numeros  ordinavit,  sicut  in  Grceco  habetur  expressimus. 
Quod  si  quis  de  curiosis  voluerit  quae  in  Evangeliis,  vel  eadem, 
vel  vicina,  vel  sola  sint,  eorum  distinction^  cognoscet.  Magnus 
siquidem  h>c  in  nostris  Codicibus  error  inolevit,"  &c.  ut  supr. 
p.  155.  n.  **. 


forms  the  basis  of  the  other.  They  possess  that 
extraordinary  conformity,  which  can  be  only  ac- 
counted for  by  such  an  assumption  l46.  We  how- 
ever know  the  authour  of  the  Verceli  text 147 ;  while 
we  are  ignorant  of  that  of  the  Brescia  manuscript. 
Regarding  the  question  as  confined  to  the  consider- 
ation of  these  two,  St.  Eusebius  in  forming  the 
Verceli  text,  must  have  necessarily  taken  as  his 
basis  the  Brescia  translation.  Now  this  conclusion 
is  fully  confirmed  on  considering  the  mode  in  which 
St.  Eusebius  necessarily  proceeded  in  forming  his 
revisal.  On  going  through  the  process  which  he 
obviously  must  have  followed,  we  may  produce  a 
text  which  literally  corresponds  with  the  Verceli 
manuscript.  On  decomposing  the  version  which  he 
produced,  we  discover,  in  its  elements,  the  text  of 
the  Brescia  manuscripts. 

We  cannot  be  mistaken  in  the  version  of  St. 
Eusebius ;  as  the  Verceli  manuscript,  though 
clearly  not  the  authour s  autograph,  has  been  pre- 
served at  his  church  in  Piedmont  *48 ;  it  is,  beyond 
all  reasonable  ground  of  doubt,  a  copy  of  the  edition 
which  he  revised  :  and  we  discover  strong  and  in- 
delible marks  of  this  version  having  been  the  Re- 
ceived Text  from  the  times  of  P.  Julius,  in  the 
works  of  subsequent  writers  I49.  We  can  be  as  lit- 
tle mistaken  in  the  Greek  text  by  which  he  formed 

'+6  Vid.  supr.  pp.  67,  69,  et  p,  165.  n.  '** 
147  Vid.  supr.  p.  59.  n.  *3. 
'43  Vid.  supr.  p.  60.  n.  3\ 
*49  Vid.  supr.  p.  149.  n.  »', 


(     175    ) 

his  rcvisal ;  its  literal  coincidence  with  the  Cam- 
bridge manuscript  proves  it  to  have  been  the  edition 
of  Hesychius  *5° ;  and  this  supposition  is  confirmed 
by  the  fact  of  the  authour's  exile  in  Egypt,  where 
the  text  of  Hesychius  prevailed  *51.  Now  on  as- 
suming that  the  Brescia  text  formed  St.  Eusebius's 
basis,  which  was  to  be  corrected  by  the  Greek  of 
the  Cambridge  manuscript ;  every  difference  in  the 
VerceliMS.  which  was  formed  by  correcting  the  one 
from  the  other,  may  be  explained  and  accounted  for. 
This  assumption  may  be  established  by  a  brief  ex- 
emplification. 

1 .  When  St.  Eusebius's  basis  and  his  Greek  copy 
agreed,  there  was  no  room  for  a  correction;  we 
consequently  find  that  when  the  Brescia  and  Cam- 
bridge manuscripts  agree  there  is  a  correspondent 
agreement  in  the  Verceli  manuscript l^. 

2.  When  the  basis  and  Greek  disagree,   there 
ought  to  be  an  agreement  between  the  Greek  and 
the  revisal ;  consequently,  on  collating  the  Brescia 
and  Cambridge  manuscripts,    and  translating  the 
Greek  text  in  passages  where  it  differs  from  the 
Latin,  we  produce  the  text  of  the  Verceli  manu- 
script l5J. 

*st  Vicl.  supr.  pp.  63, 64,  65,  67. 

"'  Vid,  supr.  p.  54.  n.  i7. 

*  This  position  may  be  verified,  by  a  collation  of  the  ex- 
tracts given  in  pp.  67,  69,  from  the  Cambridge,  Brescia,  and 
Verceli  MSS. 

153  The  following  collection  of  texts  will  illustrate  the  diver- 
sity existing  between  St.  Eusebius's  Latin  basis  and  his  Greek 
ffjct ;  and  the  correspondence  of  his  Corrected  Text  with  the 


In  both  cases,,  therefore,  when  the  basis  and  ori^ 
ginal  agreed  or  disagreed,  to  the  consideration  of 


latter.  Matt.  ii.  9.  stetit  supra  ubi  erat  puer.  Brix. 
ivrdtu  T«  «r*»&a.  Cant.']  stetit  supra  puerum.  Verc.  Veron.  —  iii.  16* 
descendentem.  Brix.  [y.ot1a.@otrvov  ex  TH  «§av«.  Cant.~]  descen- 
dentem  de  ccelo.  Verc.  Veron.  —  Ib.  17-  dicens  hie  est.  Brix. 
[xiVacra  *&pos  ai/rov,  arc?  «$>  Cant.']  dicens  ad  eum  hie  est.  Verc. 
Veron.  —  iv.  4.  omni  verbo  quod  procedit  de  ore  Dei.  Brix.  [<nram 
pf-coh  ©£«.  Caw£.]  omni  verbo  Dei.  Verc.  —  ib.  10.  Vade  Satana. 
Brix.  [yWye  W/ffo;  /^«  I<$*wx.  Canf.]  Vade  re/ro  Satana.  Fere. 
Vade  Ye/ro  we  Satanas.  Veron.  —  Ib.  24?.  curavit  eos.  Brix. 
[«r«»1«s  «6ipa*sws."'Cfl'n#.]  omncs  curavit.  Verc.  Veron.  —  v.  4. 
beati  yof  li/gentj  &c.  Br/x.  ([^axaptot  oi  tspotiis  -  K.  T-.-I.  Ca??^.]] 
beati  wte.  ^e>r.  Veron.  —  Ib.  5.  beati  mansueti,  &c.  Brix. 
[^axa^ot  o*  Tzrej/OSi/lEs  x.  T.  I.  Ca?/^.]  beati  qui  lugent.  Verc.  Veron. 

—  Ib.  11.  beati  eritis.  Brix.  [paxctpioi  If  s  Cant.~]  beati  e^/>.  Verc. 
Veron.  —  Ibid,  mentientes  propter   me.  Brix.  [SMXSK  ^xatoo-^j}?. 
Ctfwrf.]   propter  justitiam.  Verc.  Veron.  —  Ib.  12.  in  coelis.  Brix. 
[iv  ru  uzctvui.  Cant.']  in  coelo.  Verc.  Veron.—  Ib.  13.  valebit  ultra. 
Brix.  [tV^^sj.  Cant.~]  valet.   Fere.  Veron.  —  Ib.  30.  mittatur  in 
gehennam.  Brix.   [«TE^  st?  yetwxv.   Cant."]  eat  in  gehennam. 
FJ?rc.  Ferow.  —  Ib.  32.  Dico  vobis  quia.  Brix.  [^syu  v^v.  Cant.~] 
dico  vobis.  Verc.  Veron.  —  Ibid,  qui  dimissam  duxerit  maechatur. 
Brix.  desunt.   Cant.    Verc.    Veron.—Ih.  38.  et  dentem.  Brix. 
£C&VT«.  Cant.~]  dentem.  Verc.  Veron.  —  Ib.  41.  vade  cum  illo 
duo.  Brix.    \JJTT  ay  z  pir   atvra  en  «X>.a  ^o.  Cant.~\  vade  cum  illo 
adkuc  alia  duo.  Verc.  Veron.  —  Ib.  44.  orate  pro  calumniantibus 
vobis.  Brix.  [V^oo-Ez^sc-Sg  virl%  T&;»  i7rv>£tci£ovTuv.  Cant.~]  orate  pro 
calumniantibus.  Verc.  Veron.  —  vi.  1.  elemosynam.  Brix.  [dixat- 
co-uvyv.  Cant.~]  justitiam.   Verc.  Veron.  —  Ib.  13.  quoniam  tuum 
est  regnum  et  virtus,   et  gloria,  in  saecula.  Amen.  Brix.  desunt. 
Cant.  Verc.  Veron.  [hiat  Cant,  a  cap.  vi.20.  ad.  ix.  2.]  —  ix.  5. 
tibi  peccata   tua.  Biix.  [<ro»  al  upap'iou.  Cant.~]   tibi  peccata. 
Verc.  Veron.~]  —  Ib.  15.  jejunabunt.  Brix.  f^rsy^ao-w  ev  l>ce/yaij- 
T«K  ry/xc'^ais-.  Cant."]  jejunabunt  in  illis  dielus.  Verc.  Veron. 

—  Ib.  28.  venicnte  a^utem  eo  in  domum.  Brix.  [x«t  sp^rou  EK  T^C 

F.  Cant.']  et  yen  it  in  domum.  Verc.  Veron.  —  Ib.  28.  cseci  illi. 


(     177    ) 

which  the  question  is  necessarily  limited,  the  result 
is  precisely  that  which  would  have  occurred.,  had  the 
Brescia  manuscript  formed  the  primitive  text  which 
St.  Eusebius  corrected  by  the  text  of  Hesychius. 

As  the  testimony  of  St.  Eusebius's  version  thus 
clearly  supports  the  antiquity,  in  evincing  the  pri- 
ority., of  the  Brescia  text,  it  appears  to  me,  that, 
when  it  is  taken  into  account  with  other  texts  of  the 
same  edition,  they  annihilate  the  authority  of  He- 
sychius's  text  ;  and  thus  undermining  the  very  foun- 
dation on  which  they  are  mutually  built,  necessa- 
rily destroy  their  common  credit  ;  and  by  conse- 
quence establish  the  exclusive  authority  of  the  text 
of  the  Brescia  manuscript. 


Brix.  [01  ^o  TI^XO*.  Cant."\  cfyo  cceci.  Fere.  Peron.—x.  3.  Jaco- 
bus Alphei  et  Lebbeus  qui  nominator  Taddeus.  Brix.  ['I«xa'/3o?  5 
7-S  'AApata  x«»  Ae/3j3a»oc.  Cant.']  Jacobus  Alphei  et  Judas  Ze- 
lotes.  Fere.  Feron.  —  Ib.  18.  ducimini.  Brix.  [r«6w<70£.  Cant.] 
stabitis.  Fere.  Veron.  —  Ib.  23.  [I<*»  £  I*  T>J  ato»j  huxvatv  £^«?t 
Qtvytit  tl<;  f\i  aMyv.  Cant.']  quod  si  in  aliam  persequentur  vos, 
fugite  in  aliam.  Verc.  Veron.  desunt.  Brix.  —  Ib.  35.  separare 
kominem.  Brix.  [^acrca  vfa.  Cant.]  dividere  filium.  Fere.  Veron. 
—  Ib.  42.  perdet  merce4em.  Brix.  FaTroXsV*?  5  ^»cr0o$.  Cant."]  pe- 
ribit  merces.  Fere.  Veron.  I  subjoin  from  the  Cambridge  MS. 
the  correspondent  passages  to  the  extracts  given  from  the  Ver- 
celiMS.supr.p.  156.  n.  I07.  Matt.  xx.  28.  'T^r?  ^  fi,Tam  I« 

pti^ovoq  sAarloj'   ttvcti'   t*ursp%p[ji.itQi    $1    xct*   Gra.- 
[1. 

xa* 

SI'TTTJ  opei*xET»  xarw  ^^ft*  x^  xaTa0'p£V»'S>}<7>j.    Eaf  oe  ct 
t»5   Toy   y)T\ovac   ToTror,   xeii    £9TEX3»3    att    v)Tiuvt 
"S,vvetys  £Tt  a.vu'  xa»  Iron  cr<ii  7»To    ^v}fft[A,ov.     Cant.   Luke    XIX.    45* 

vftirUV  i&XflV)   X«*    Taj    X«0/<5jp«;    Ti'H 

a?.  Cant* 

N 


(    178    ) 

The  most  remarkable  of  the  copies  of  the  old 
Italick  version,  which  conform  to  the  edition  of  St, 
Eusebius  Vercellensis,   are  those  contained  in  the 
Verona  and  Cambridge  manuscripts.     While  they 
preserve  a  verbal  coincidence  in  many  places,  and 
a  general  conformity  to  the  text  of  Hesy chins  I54- ; 
they  exhibit  a  diversity  between  themselves  in  num- 
berless readings.     From  those  peculiarities,  we  may 
make  several  deductions,,  which  will  serve  to  esta- 
blish the  foregoing  assumption.     If  in  accounting 
for  the  conformity  of  the  text  of  those  manuscripts 
to  the  Greek,  we  suppose  them  severally  made  from 
the  text  of  Hesychius  ;  their  conformity  to  his  edi- 
tion, and  their  diversities  among  themselves,  may 
be  explained ;    but  their  verbal  coincidences  arc 
wholly  inexplicable.     To  account  for  the  last  pecu- 
liarity, we  must  conceive  them  formed  on  the  basis 
of  some  common  translation.     And  taking  this  cir- 
cumstance into  account,  every  peculiarity  in  their 
respective  texts  admits  of  an  easy  explanation.     As 
their  coincidence  in  the  first  case  is  explained,  by 
conceiving  t\\emfor?ned  on  the  basis  of  some  ante- 
cedent version  ;  and  their  conformity  in  the  second 
by  conceiving  them    corrected   by  some  common 
Greek  text ;  their  diversities  in  the  third  are  'ex- 


154  The  coincidence  of  the  Verceli  and  Verona  MSS.  with 
Hesychius's  text  has  been  already  pointed  out;  supr.  p.  175.  n. 
l53.  The  whole  of  the  correspondent  readings  there  extracted, 
from  those  MSS.  are  found  also  in  the  Latin  version  of  the 
Cambridge  MS.  with  the  exception  of  those  mentioned  in  nn, 

>53  15 


plained,  by  conceiving  them  corrected  by  different 
hands155.  ' 

Now,  as  the  coincidences  of  the  Verceli,  Verona, 
and  Cambridge  MSS.  are  common  to  the  Brescia 
MS.  their  joint  testimony,  so  far,  proves,  that  this 
manuscript  contains  the  original  version,  on  which 
they  have  been  severally  formed.  And,  conform- 
ably to  this  notion,  we  find,  that  frequently  where 
those  manuscripts  differ  from  each  other,  and  one 
of  them  conforms  to  Hesychius's  text;  the  other 
coincides  with  the  Brescia  manuscript156.  It  is 

155  The  following  various  readings  of  a  single  text,  while  it 
illustrates  the  diversity  existing  between  the  Verona  the  Cam- 
bridge and  the  Verceli  MSS.  will  of  itself  almost  prove,  that 
both  the  former  MSS.  have  been  corrected  by  the  Greek. 
Matt.  x.  10.  a|io?  yog  o  ipyKTvq  T»??  T^O^V?;  oturz.  dignus  enim 
est  operarius  mercedem  suam.  Fere.  Brix.  dignus  enim  est  ope- 
rarius  mercedem  (ay-rS)  ejus.  Veron.  dignus  enim  est  operarius 
(T»J$  T£o<p?i?)  esca  sua.  Cant.  Instances  of  this  kind  occur  in 
almost  every  page  of  the  Cambr.  and  Veron.  MSS.  vid.  infr. 
p.  180.  nn.  I56  et IG1.  The  following  reading  appears  to  me  to 
demonstrate,  that  the  text  of  the  latter  of  those  manuscripts 
has  been  corrected  immediately  from  the  Greek  ;  Luc.  xv.  10. 
lirl  m  apapruKu  super  unum  peccatorem.  Verc.  Brix.  in  pecca- 
tore.  Veron.  The  authority  for  this  reading  plainly  lies  in  !»* 
ct/xaplwXw,  mistaken  for  lv  apafiuhu,  probably  on  account  of  the 
absence  of  £*•»• 

156  The  Cambridge  and  Verona  MSS.  appear  to  have  been 
first  formed  on  the  basis  of  the  Brescia  text,  by  corrections  taken 
from  the  Verceli  text;  after  which  those  MSS.  were  severally 
revised  by  the  original  Greek  of  Hesychius.  This  assumption 
is  confirmed  by  many  of  their  peculiar  readings,  which  re- 
mained unaltered,  both  under  the  first  correction  and  subsequent 
revisal.  I  subjoin  a  few  examples;  Matt.  ii.  1.  venerunt  Hiero- 
solyma.  Brix.  Veron.  (tl$  'je^sAt^a)  venerunt  in  Hierusalera. 


(     180    ) 

wholly  inconceivable,  that  this  result  could  take 
place,  if  the  text  of  this  manuscript  were  not  nearly 
identical  with  the  primitive  version,  which  formed 
the  basis  of  these  corrected  translations. 

While  the  mutual  coincidence  of  those  manu- 
scripts thus  confirms  the  authority  of  the  Brescia 
text,  their  mutual  dissent  from  it  seems  to  destroy 
the  credit  of  the  Greek  text  by  which  they  have  been 


Verc*  Cant.  —  Ib.  v.  11.  beat!  eritis.  Brix.  Veron.  (pmxfyfA  ere) 
beati  estis.  Verc.  Cant*  —  Ibid.  xii.  7.  misericordiam  volo  quani 
sacrificium.  Brix.  Veron.  (&teov  $&«  ^  a  Svc-ia*.)  misericordiam 
volo  et  non  sacrificium.  Verc  —  Job.  xiv.  28.  vado  ad  Patrem 
qiioniam.  Brix.  Cant.  (Tto^va^on  w^$  rov  vrcntpx  cm)  eo  ad  Pa- 
trem quia.  Verc.  Veron.  —  Ib.  xvi.  13.  diriget  vos  in.  Brix.  Cant. 
(o&jy^c-fi  vpoLq  »;)  deducet  vos  in.  Verc.  Veron.  By  the  same 
principle  I  account  for  Mat.  v.  4-,  5.  preserving  the  natural  order 
in  Brix.  Veron.  while  these  verses  are  inverted  in  Verc.  Cant. 
That  the  Verona  MS.  was  formed  on  the  basis  of  some  primitive 
text,  I  first  discovered  from  two  readings.  This  MS.  is  divided 
into  sections  and  verses,  (wtfuxon-a*  and  r»%o»),  the  latter  of 
which  generally  contain  three  short  words  ;  unless  they  termi- 
nate the  section,  when  they  consist  of  one  or  two.  But  in  Matt. 
ii.  9.  ix.  13.  the  last  two  lines  in  each  section  are  eked  out  by 
two  words  ;  in  ii.  9.  supra  puerum  ;  in  x.  1  3.  sed  peccatores. 
But  if  we  restore  the  reading  of  the  Brescia  MS.  *  supra  ubi 
erat  puer,'  and  of  the  St.  Germain  MS.  '  sed  peccatores  ad 
pcenitentiam,'  the  penultimate  line  will  have  its  full  comple- 
ment, and  the  r^o/^slpa  will  be  perfect.  In  like  manner,  the 
Verona  MS.  in  Mat.  v.  1  ;  videns  autem  Jesus  turbam,  omits 
Jesus  ;  but  supplies  its  place  by  mtdtatn,  added  to  turbam.  As 
in  MSS.  which  were  divided  r»%*3p&/?,  the  number  of  r*%«»  was 
generally  added  at  the  end  of  each  book,  hence  a  duty  was 
incumbent  on  the  copyists  not  to  multiply  or  diminish  the  num- 
ber, which  has  been  consequently  a  mean  of  preserving  the 
integrity  of  the  text. 


(    181    ) 

revised,  and  by  consequence  to  undermine  their 
common  authority.  For,  as  the  coincidence  of  all 
texts,  not  less  in  the  translation  than  the  original, 
proves  them  to  have  a  common  basis;  the  diver- 
sity of  the  manuscripts  before  us  proves,  that  the 
Greek  text,  by  which  they  have  been  corrected,  has 
been  recast,  since  the  Latin  Version  was  originally 
made,  which  furnished  their  common  basis :  were 
not  this  the  case,  they  would  as  uniformly  coincide 
with  the  former  as  with  the  latter.  Of  conse- 
quence, the  version  which  conforms  to  a  text,  that 
has  been  thus  new-modelled,  must  be  of  very  recent 
authority. 

Thus  tracing  this  labyrinth  through  all  its  wind- 
ings, and  pursuing  the  Latin  version  through  all  its 
changes,  we  ultimately  arrive  at  the  primitive  West- 
ern Version.  There  now  exists  but  one  test  by 
which  it  remains  to  be  tried ;  the  relative  merit  of 
the  translation.  And  submitting  it  to  this  last  assay, 
it  appears  to  contain  within  itself  a  sufficient  proof 
of  its  integrity. 

The  uniformity  of  the  text  declares,  that  it  is  an 
original  composition ;  and  by  consequence  the  basig 
of  those  different  texts  which  bear  it  a  general  affi- 
nity. The  archetype  by  which  it  was  formed  is 
one ;  being  that  particular  class  of  text  which  exists 
in  the  Greek  Vulgate157;  and  it  conforms  to  this 
model  in  all  its  parts,  while  the  other  versions  pos- 
sess inequalities  which  have  originated  in  attempts 
to  improve  upon  it,  as  the  primitive  translation IS8. 

157  Vid.  supr.  p.  164.  n. 128.  conf.  infr.  p.  186.  n. 164. 

158  This  is  apparent  in  the  uniformity  with  \vhicht  his  MS, 


(     182    ) 

A  minute  investigation  of  those  inequalities  con- 
stantly enables  us  to  distinguish  the  original  version 
from  the  derivative.  While  it  retains  the  common 
marks  by  which  they  evince  their  affinity  to  the 
Greek,  in  retaining  the  Greek  idiom159;  it  is  free 

generally  renders  the  same  Greek  term,  by  the  same  Latin 
word;  while  the  other  versions  constantly  vary  from  them- 
selves. Matt.  v.  27.  32.  po^evaeH;'  //.o^araj.  mcechaberis : 
mcechatur.  Brix.  mcechaberis :  adulterat.  Vulg. — Ib.  vi.  8. 
iw  o/xoi&^Te*  opoMo-v.  nollite  similare:  similabo.  Brix.  similare: 
similis  est.  Verc.  assimilari:  assimilabitur.  Vulg. — John  viii. 
13,  14.  iMtflvpt?  fAxglvgu.  testimonium  perhibes:  testimonium 
perhibeo.  Brix.  testificaris :  testimonium  dico.  Vcrc. — Conf. 
Joh.  i.  7.  14.  The  repetitions  in  the  following  passages,  taken 
from  Matt.  xxv.  21 — 46.  will  illustrate  this  remark  in  a  still 
more  satisfactory  manner.  Matt.  ib.  35.  37.  42,  faoTurotls  (**• 
I-jro-ncra^ei-*  liroricrctTe  pe.  potastis  me :  potavirnus :  dedimus  tibi 
potum.  Brix.  dedistis  mihi  bibere :  dedimus  tibi  potum :  dedis- 
tis  mihi  potum.  Verc. — Ib.  35. 38.  43.  irepuficiktls  pf  B-EpiEj&t&opuf 
vept@oh.tle  pi.  cooperiustis  me  :  cooperuimus :  cooperuistis  me. 
Brix.  operuistis  me  :  vestivimus  :  operuistis  me.  Verc. 

159  The  following  are  purely  idiomatick  phrases  adopted  from 
the  Greek.  Matt.  ii.  11.  §X$o1if  tl<;  Tnv  Q\K'I<X,V.  intrantes  in  do- 
mum.  Brix.  Verc.  Veron.  intrantes  domum.  Vulg.  Corb.-<—Ib. 
23.  KotTywff&v  tis  TroAtv.  habitavit  in  civitatem.  Brix.  Veron.  habi- 
tavit  in  civitate.  Verc.  Cant. — Ib.  vii.  13.  T»  vigifcfcyfi&t  quid 
operiemur.  Brix.  Verc.  Veron.  quo  operiemur.  Vulg.  Corb. — 
Joh.  xii.  18.  iflrvgEv  ETT'  e(ag  tr,v  iH^vctv.  levavit  super  me  calca- 
neum.  Brix.  Veron.  levavit  in  me  calcaneum.  Verc.  In  the 
following  passage,  we  find  the  traces  of  the  original  still  more 
strongly  marked  in  the  translation;  Matt.  xxiv.  15.  TO  /S&Ayy/a* 
Tri$  '^^a-sucy  TO  pvj&V.  abominationem  dessolationis  quod  dictum. 
Brix.  Verc.  Veron :  TO  p$«  being  here  literally  rendered  quod 
dictum,  without  much  attention  to  the  context.  The  phrase 
was  however  retained,  as  "  abominatio  quae  dicta  est'9  would 
have  imperfectly  expressed  the  original ;  and  TO  ^\v  h*  A«vt/A 
may  be  considered  parenthetical. 


,    (     183    ) 

from  peculiar  solecisms  which  they  have  evidently 
acquired  in  undergoing-  a  revisaP60.  In  the  choice 
of  terms,  it  constantly  exhibits  that  unfaithfulness  to 
the  original,  which  is  unavoidable  in  a  first  attempt 
to  transfuse  the  sense  of  one  language  into  ano- 

ICO  The  following  errours  have  plainly  arisen  from  imperfect 
corrections ;  the  context  not  having  been  adapted  to  the  emen- 
dation. Mat.  vi.  4.  !»  ?y  (pavspu.  in  manifesto.  Brix.  in  palam. 
Fere. — Ib.  ix.  25.  on  $.  I|*£A5jS>j  o  oxfiot,  tla-^av  6*.$&Tw*.  Et 
quum  ejecta  est  turba  intramt  et  tenuit.  Brix.  Et  cum  ejecta 
€st  turba  et  tenuit.  Cor b.  In  the  former  instance  the  cor- 
rector, in  rendering  lv  tu  Q»9t$9  would  have  changed  in 
manifesto  to  palam;  but  omitted  to  erase  in.  And  in  the 
latter,  St.  Matthew  having  already  declared,  ib.  23.  &§uv  £ 
l>jcrS?  sis  rw  olxistv ;  the  corrector  not  perceiving  the  force  of 
lA$w>  sit  TW  ol*,ictv9  "  coming  into  or  entering  the  house,"  and 
elo-thSuv,  "  entering  into19  an  inner  part,  or  room,  of  it,  be- 
lieved the  latter  phrase  implied  a  contradiction ;  and  conse- 
quently omitted  it  altogether.  Other  revisers  merely  softened 
the  phrase ;  and  thus  rendered  tlo-st&vv,  venit,  ( Fere.  Veron.) 
accedens,  (Germ}  ;  either  of  which  terms  betrays  a  correction 
of  the  text.  The  hand  of  a  corrector  is  still  more  apparent  in 
the  following  passage;  Matt.  xxv.  41.  its  TO  vv%  TO  etluvm  o 
yroipeic-tv  o  notify  /*a  ru>  Xiet&faa.  Cant,  in  igncm  seternum  quod 
paravit  Pater  meus  Diabolo.  Verc.  Tliis  solecism  is,  however, 
easily  accounted  for.  The  original  text  and  version  having 
Stood  thus  I  ils  To  vivo  TO  aluviov  To  ijTotjt/.acr^E^oj'  Tut  oiotpohu  I 

( Vtdg.)  in  ign&n  aeternum  qui  paratus  est  Diabolo,  (Brix) ; 
TO  ^To^ao-^ej/ov  was  changed  into  o  yroifAoto-ev  o  Trarfy  /x» ;  and 
this  phrase  being  literally  rendered  by  "  quod  paravit  Pater 
meus,"  was  inserted  in  the  text.  The  corrector  deceived  by 
the  juxtaposition  of  quod  to  aternum,  overlooked  ignem,  with 
which  it  should  properly  agree :  he  has  thus  left  a  clear  testi- 
mony in  favour  of  the  true  reading  of  the  original  Latin  ver- 
sion, and  consequently,  of  the  integrity  of  the  Greek  Vul- 
gate. 


(    184    ) 

therlfil ;  while  they  possess  many  niceties  which  are 
the  product  of  a  second  effort  to  approximate  the 
copy  still  more  closely  to  its  model 16Z.  And  in  the 

161  The  following  expressions  indicate  the  poverty  of  lan- 
guage, which  is  the  effect  of  a  first  attempt  at  translation : 
Matt.  vii.  24.  o/xoi^aw,  similabo.  Brix.  assimilabitur.  Vulg. — 
Ib.  vi.  8.  pi  o/xotwSijTE,  nollite  similare.  Brix.  nollite  assimilari. 
Vulg. — Luc.  xxi.  38.  ugdpt$,  manicabat.  Brix.  de  luce  vigilabat. 
fere. — Matt.  xxv.  35.  tvolia-Kls  /*e,  potastis  me.  Brix.  dedistis 
mihi  bibere.  Verc. — Joh.  x.  22.  iymlo  roe.  iyxawa.  facta  est 
dedicatio.  Brix.  facta  sunt  encaenia.  Fere.  Veron. — Matt.  xxii. 
19.  TO  vQpurpac,  r3  *Wa,  dtnarium.  Brix.  denarium  census.  Cant, 
numisma,  census.  Verc.  Vulg. — Luc.  ii.  1.  v7roy%ci(pt(r$ai  desert" 
~beretur.  Brix.  profiteretur.  Verc.  Veron. — Ib.  3.  vnoyf <*$*>. 
descriptio.  Brix.  professio.  Verc.  Veron.  In  the  last  instances 
the  corrector  has  been  detected  in  the  very  act ;  in  the  margin 
of  M.  Blanchini's  Evang.  Quadruplex,  the  following  observa- 
tion is  made  on  the  Codex  Gatianus,  "  ut  censum  describere- 

tur  :'*   recenti    manu,    *  profiteretur.' primis  curis    "  haec 

descriptio"  secundis  curis,  '  professio.' 

I62>  In  the  following  expressions  we  trace  the  progress  of 
improvement;  Matt.  xxii.  10.  omnes  quos.  Brix.  (Travra?  ocas'), 
orhnes  quotquot.  Verc.  omnes  quoscunque.  Corb. — Ib.  xiv.  22. 
statim  jussit.  Brix.  Verc.  (luftfoc  Tivayxa-ffc),  statim  coegit.  Cant. 
statini  compulit  Vulg.—Ib.  iii.  7.  ab  ira  ventura.  Brix.  Verc. 
(a*™  T^,-  ^£XX8ff7jr  «^^)>  aD  'mfotura.  Veron. — Marc.  xiii.  32. 
nemo  scit.  Brix.  Cant,  (a^t?  oIoEv)  nemo  novit.  Verc. — Ib. 
xi.  25.  stabitis  ad  orationem.  Brix.  (rw-tle  Trpusz^o/Aevoi), 
stabitis  orantes.  Verc.  statis  orantes.  Veron. — Joh.  i.  13.  ex  san- 
guine. Brix.  (1%  al^oiruv}  ex  sanguinibus.  Verc. — Ib.  xv.  7. 
quodcunque  volueritis  petere.  Brix.  Verc.  (o  lav  $e%j?i  aiT^£<r$i), 
quodcunque  volueritis  petite.  Veron. — Ib.  i.  12=  his  qui  ere- 
dunt  in  nomen.  Brix.  (TO*?  irirsvucrw  a?  TO  Sro/Aot),  credentibus 
in  nomen.  Veron. — Ib.  xv.  6.  projicitur — et  arescet,  et  colligent. 
Brix.  (c0?^$v — «ai  s|-^fa»3*),  xa*  ffvvayujw)  missus  est — et  amity 
et  colligent.  Veron.  I  subjoin  another  example,  as  forming  a 
various  reading  in  the  first  ten  chapters  of  St.  Matthew ;  v.  5. 


(     185    ) 

arrangement  of  the  words,  it  preserves  the  tenour  of 
the  sense  unembarrassed.,  while  they  exhibit  those 
breaches  in  the  sense,,  and  encumbrances  of  the  struc- 
ture, which  betray  the  hand  of  a  corrector  J6J. 


hereditabunt  terram.  Brix.  (n^ovo^a-ao-i  rr,v  yn>]  hereditate 
possidebuni  terram.  Fere.  St.  Jerome's  critique  upon  Ruffi- 
nus  may  be  here  cited,  as  in  point  ;  Hier.  Apol.  adv.  Ruf.  Lib. 
II.  cap.  i.  p.  24-2.  "  Homo  Greecus  videtur  mihi  se  ipsum 
interpretari  voluisse,  et  pro  eo  quod  apud  eos  dicitur 
jAiy«»o/*iwn*n,  et  apud  nos  uno  verbo  dici  potest  '  haereditabunt,' 
compositius  et  ornatius  dixisse,  "  haereditate  potientur." 

163  The  following  texts,  which  respectively  exhibit  a  defi- 
ciency and  a  superabundance  in  the  Corrected  Text,  will  illus- 
trate the  above  assumption  ;  Mat.  xv.  8.  efyifyi  ftoi  o  Aao?  «TO? 
To;  fO/Aom  auTuv,  ^  TO??  ^etAEcri  ^e  T»f*a"  Vulg.  Adpropinquat 
se  mihi  populus  hie  ore  suo,  et  labiis  suis  me  honorat.  Brix. 
'  Plebs  haec  labiis  me  diligit.'  Fere.  Here,  in  paring  down 
the  original  text  to  the  standard  of  Mark  vii.  6.  the  corrector 
gives  us  the  extraordinary  phrase,  '  labiis  me  diligit,'  which  is 
however  corrected  to  *  labiis  me  honorat.'  Feron.  St.  Jerome 
however,  adhering  still  more  closely  to  the  original  version, 
confirms  the  true  reading,  «  populus  hie  labiis  me  honorat.9 
Vulg.  Again,  Luc.  xii.  37.  M«xap»o»  of  (5Sxo»  x.  T.  I.  —  x«*  wapiPiSw* 

ct&x.owff:t  at/TOtV.  Kat  gai»  twq  Iv  T»J  oivTi^tx,  (pv^otx.^}  noil  it  T? 
TpiTv?  ^)yXax>j  sX$j73  tictl  evfr,  &TU,  paixdifioi  ticri*  ol  Sxhoi  ix.tTx.oi, 

Vulg.  Beati  servi,  &c.  —  et  transiens  ministrabit  illis.  Et  si 
venerit  in  secunda  vigilia,  et  si  in  tertia  venerit,  et  ita  in- 
venerit,  beati  sunt  servi  illi.  Brix.  But  the  subjoined  reading 
of  Marcion's  text  has  been  engrafted  on  this  verse  ;  *«*  lay 

sA$»j  tv  Ty  S0Yfj)i»5  (pt/Xax^  KOC,}  tvpvi  arw,  /^axctptoi  siViV,  ert  avaxXn/er 
ayr«?,  xai  IxSwv  •jroiv  ^axoi/^aet  avTo7<.  It  has  produced  the  fol- 
lowing, among  other  varieties  ;  Beati  servi,  &c.  —  transiens 
ministrabit  illis.  Et  si  venerit  in  vespertina  vigilia  beati  sunt, 
et  si  in  tertia  venerit,  et  ita  invenerit,  beati  sunt,  quoniam 
julcbit  illos  discumlere,  et  ministrabit  illis.  Feron.  Et  si  ve- 
nerit in  vespertina  vigilia,  et  ita  invenerit  beati  sunt  servi 
illi  quia  jubebit  illos  discumbere,  et  transiens  ministrabit  illis. 


(     186    ) 

Under  every  trial  therefore,,  it  bears  internal  evi- 
dence of  having  been  the  pure,  unsophisticated 
version,,  which  had  been  used.,  from  the  apostolical 
age,  by  the  Western  Churches. 

Having  thus  ascertained  the  testimony  of  the 
Western  Church,  as  contained  in  the  Primitive  Ver- 
sion, we  may  now  leave  the  coincident  testimony  of 
the  Greek  and  Latin  Church,  to  speak  for  the  inte- 
grity of  the  Received  Text164,  which  has  furnished 

Et  si  venerit  in  secunda  vigilia  et  si  in  tertia,  et  ita  invenerit 
beati  sunt.  Maf.  Mon.  In  the  former  instance  the  genuine 
and  spurious  text  are  blended ;  in  the  latter  they  are  kept  more 
apart ;  the  diversity  between  them  and  the  original  text  suffi- 
ciently evinces  their  corruption.  In  the  following  instance  we 
discover  the  members  of  the  genuine  text  distributed  in  differ- 
ent copies  of  the  corrected;  Mat.  x.  3.  'l«xw£o$  5  rS  'AXpafe, 
na.1  Asi3£aios  5  facut&q$s2c  &*}2au9s.  Vulg.  Jacobus  Alphei,  et 
Lebbeus  qui  nominator  Taddeus.  Brix.  One  part  of  this  text 
is  found  in  '  Jacobus  Alphaei  et  Tadd&us.  Corb :  the  other 
part,  in  *  Jacobus  Alphei  et  Lebbeus.  Cant.  These  texts  of 
course  destroy  the  testimony  of  each  other,  while  they  confirm 
the  reading  of  the  Brescia  MS.  In  the  present  case  the  Verc. 
and  Veron.  MSS.  are  neuter ;  reading,  '  Jacobus  Alphaei  et 
Judas  Zelotes.* 

164  The  extraordinary  coincidence  of  the  Greek  Pulgflte  and 
Brescia  MS.  have  been  pointed  out  in  the  course  of  the  pre- 
ceding pages  ;  see  particularly  pp.  63, 64, 65,  69,  &c.  The  few 
examples  in  p.  163.  n.  I28.  p.  157.  n.  l09,  which  have  not  been 
confirmed  by  the  authority  of  the  Greek,  maybe  here  inserted; 
Mat.  vi.  1.  ne  elemosynam  facite.  Brix.  fowpoffw,*  p*  irouw. 
y&lg. — Ib.  13.  quoniam  tuum  est  regnum  et  virtus,  et  gloria, 
in  saecula.  Brix.  on  <rs  irw  y  jtowAti*,  xai  T,  Krotpif,  xa*  y  oc>i;tx. 
si?  T»?  ctiuvce.c.  Vulg.  Ib.  xxiii.  14.  Vas  autem  vobis  Scribae  et 
Pharisaei,  hypocritac,  qui  devoratis  domos  viduarutn,  sub 
obtentu  prolixae  orationis  ;  propterca  sumetis  pluriorem  dam- 

Qion    ^uTy      foc-^a,^        y.oi,    ( 


(     187    ) 

the  model  of  our  Authorised  Version.  The  short 
specimen  which  I  have  already  given  of  their  extra- 
ordinary coincidence.,  even  in  passages  where  they 
mutually  vary  from  other  texts  and  translations, 
will  sufficiently  evince  the  integrity  of  the  text 
which  is  contained  in  the  Greek  Vulgate. 

In  determining  our  choice  between  the  three 
classes  of  text  which  have  descended  to  our  times, 
little  more  is  now  necessary,  than  to  state  the  com- 
parative instability  of  the  grounds  on  which  those 
criticks  have  built,,  who  have  made  a  different  elec- 
tion, and  expressed  a  different  partiality. 

The  scheme  of  Dr.  Bentley  is  manifestly  defec- 
tive. For  though  it  is  founded  on  the  mutual  testi- 
mony of  the  Greek  and  Latin  translation,  it  is  un- 
supported by  that  of  the  Western  Church  for  the 
first  three  hundred  years,  and  by  that  of  the  Eastern 
Church  for  the  last  thirteen  hundred.  For  the  La- 
tin Vulgate,  on  which  his  scheme  is  principally 
founded,  was  not  received  in  the  West  for  the  for- 
mer  period;  and  the  Greek  Vulgate,  which  differs 
from  it,  has  been  received  in  the  East,  for  the  latter. 
His  Corrected  Text  must  of  course  have  rested  on 
the  authority  of  St.  Jerome  and  Eusebius.  But  their 
authority,  though  unquestionably  great,  and  con  firm- 
ed in  all  important  points  by  the  general  testimony 
of  tradition,  is  not  of  consideration  to  the  Catho- 
lick  Church  which,  in  being  the  witness  and  keeper 


TE   Tag   clit'kotq    tuv   fflfiv)    KM    irpoQa.crsi    fj.otx.pci 

T«TO  Puj-vlWSe  itz^acQii^v  x^a.  Vulg.  For  the  au- 
thority of  Mat.  v.  32.  vid.  supr,  p.^  64  :  for  that  of  Mat.  x.  3. 
vid.  supr.  p.  186.  n.  *'3. 


!  II 


:[;"  ill 


f €  It:     I  t  bl  St  !  if    I  § 

1 1 1 1  I  HI  1 1 11 1 

C  fir  eg  )!i  ili  's  s|' ic  si ; '  i 

i  -    •  .   1  I     ,  *  i 

Vl  1C  1  1C    i'TW  53  *d  I 

iS  'I,    2J  p«  S<E  1    )|  |l  8    II1  I 

o  >i  t\  '$  IE  t<  IHP  bl  .$1 1 


(     189    ) 

antiquity  of  the  Alexandrine  text,  by  the  united 
testimony  of  Clement  and  Origen j65 ;  and  to 
strengthen  it  by  an  alliance  with  the  Western  text, 
in  order  to  form  a  counterpoise  to  the  immense  supe- 
riority in  numbers  on  the  part  of  the  Byzantine 
edition l66.  Both  the  pillars  are  unsound  on  which 
this  system  is  rested.  The  individual  testimony  of 
Origen,  proves  nothing;  as  his  readings  are  incon- 
stant, they  no  more  prove  the  antiquity  of  the  Alex- 
andrine text,  than  they  do  that  of  the  Byzantine, 
The  unity  of  testimony  between  him  and  Clement, 
is  not  more  conclusive ;  it  no  more  proves  that  these 
early  fathers  quoted  from  one  text,  than  it  proves 
that  Origen  quoted  from  his  preceptor.  Their  agree- 
ment with  the  Alexandrine  text  is  fully  as  inde- 
cisive ;  it  no  more  proves  that  they  used  that  text^ 
than  it  proves  that  Eusebius  corrected  it  by  their 
writings.  The  alliance  between  the  Alexandrine 
and  Western  editions  is  equally  beside  the  purpose ; 
it  no  more  proves  that  they  contain  the  genuine  text 
of  Scripture,  than  it  proves  that  Eusebius's  text  was 
brought  from  Palestine  to  Alexandria,  and  thence 
transported  into  the  West,  by  the  revisers  of  the 
Latin  Version. 

In  fine,  the  proofs  of  M.  Griesbach  conclude  not 

ie$  Griesb.  Symbb,  Critt.  Tom.  II.  p.  234-.  Praeter  Orige- 
niana  allegata  simul  ea  etiam  hie  exhibemus,  quae  in  scrip  tis 
Clementis  Alexandrini  occurrunt. — mcrentur  ipsius,  utpote 
Origenis  magistri,  allegata  cum  Origenianis  conferri.  Ubi 
utraque  condnnunt,  certo  nobis  constat  de  antiqiiissima  lectione 
Alexandrince  recensionis. 

**  Vid.  supr.  p.  118.  n15. 


(     190    ) 

more  strongly  in  favour  of  his  own  system,  than  of 
that  which  I  have  ventured  to  propose.  While  the 
latter  is  thus  far  supported  by  his  authority,  it  is 
equally  supported  by  that  of  Dr.  Bentley  and  M. 
Matthaei ;  as  it  builds,  with  the  one,  on  the  united 
testimony  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  Church;  and, 
with  the  other,  on  the  general  testimony  of  the 
Greek  manuscripts.  But  it  differs  from  both,  in 
confirming  the  testimony  of  the  Greek  Vulgate  by 
the  coincidence  of  the  primitive  Latin  Version. 
And  thus  it  secures  that  object  effectually,  which  M. 
Griesbach  but  imperfectly  attained;  as  it  has  the 
testimony  of  numbers  in  the  Greek  Vulgate,  of  anti- 
quity in  the  Latin  Version,  and  of  consent  in  both 
taken  together  :  and  this  evidence  it  possesses,  not 
as  the  testimony  of  private  men  or  particular 
churches,  but  as  that  of  the  two  great  Churches  in 
the  Eastern  and  Western  world,  which  were  not 
merely  witnesses  and  keepers  of  Holy  Writ,  but  the 
depositories  of  the  evangelical  writings. 


SECTION  IV. 


OF  the  three  classes  of  text  which  exist  in  the 
Greek  manuscripts,  it  is,  I  trust,  by  this  time  appa- 
rent, that  the  Vulgar  Greek  is  entitled  to  the  pre- 
ference :  as  that  alone  which  is  supported  by  the 
uninterrupted  tradition  of  the  Eastern  and  Western 
Churches.  Much,  however,  remains  to  be  ad- 
vanced in  favour  of  this  text,  before  it  can  be 
offered  as  a  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  manners.  To 
qualify  it  for  this  end,  its  integrity  must  admit  of  a 
perfect  vindication.  This  undertaking  is  indeed 
imperative,  as  its  credit  is  involved  in  the  impeach- 
ment of  three  remarkable  texts1;  which  relate  to 
points  so  essential  to  our  religion,  as  the  doctrine 
of  the  Incarnation,  Redemption,  and  Trinity.  The 
defence  of  the  Greek  Vulgate,  more  particularly  on 
these  points,  is  of  the  greater  importance,  as  involv- 
ing that  of  the  doctrinal  integrity  of  the  Sacred 
Canon, 

1  Griesb.  Prosf.  Nov.  Test.  ed.  1775.  "  Interim  uni  tamen 
dogmati  eique  palmario,  doctrinse  scilicet  de  vera  Jesu  Christi 
Divinitate,  nonnihil  a  me  detractum  esse  videri  possit  nomiuliis, 
qui  non  solum  locum  istum  celebratissimum  1  Joh.  v.  7.  e  textu. 
ejectum,  verum  etiam  lectionem  vulgarem  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  (ut 
et  Act.  xx.  28.)  dubitationi  subjectam  et  lectorum  arbitrio  per- 
roissam  invement," 


(     193    ) 

On  the  facilities  afforded  the  first  Bishops  of 
Rome  and  Ephesus,  to  form  perfect  copies  of  the 
Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament,  I  have  already 
spoken  *.  That  a  dispersion  of  the  sacred  books, 
commensurate  with  the  diffusion  of  the  Gospel,  took 
place  from  this  period,  is  rendered  not  merely  pro- 
bable from  the  reason  of  the  case,  but  is  deducible 
from  many  facts  expressly  recorded. 

A  brief  inquiry  into  the  state  and  history  of  the 
primitive  Church  will  be  sufficient  to  convince  the 
most  sceptical  inquirer,  of  the  constant  and  intimate 
intercourse  which  was  preserved  between  the  parti- 
cular branches  of  the  Catholick  Church,  which  were 
dispersed  in  the  remotest  regions.  Those  habits 
of  communication  were  the  necessary  result  of  the 
Christian  Polity  having-  arisen  out  of  the  Jewish. 
The  ceremonial  observances  of  the  synagogues, 
which  were  dispersed  through  the  Gentile  world, 
were  subject  to  the  controul  of  the  Sanhedrim  at 
Jerusalem J ;  and  the  obligation  laid  on  the  Jews  to 
visit  the  Holy  City  periodically,  facilitated  the  means 
of  communication  between  the  great  council  and  its 
most  distant  dependencies 3.  That  this  intercourse 

a  Via.  supr.  pp.  111,112. 

3  Intimation  was  thus  given  of  the  regulation  of  the  Jewish 
Calendar  to  the  remotest  synagogues ;  Vitring.  de  Synag.  Vet. 
Lib.  II.  cap.  xii.  §  4-.  p.  599.  ed.  1726.  "  Docet  ibi  Maimo- 
nides  [Kiddush  Hachod.  cap.  iv.]  qua  ratione  aimus  Judaicus 
et  a  quibus  intercalatus  fuit ;  a  Principe  nimiruni  Syflcdrii,  cum 
cmibusdam  Synedrii  detegatis.  Quo  facto  literne  missa  sunt  ad 
Synagogas  omnes  remotiores,  nomine  Principis  Synedrii,  quibus 
intercalatio  ej usque  rationes  expositae  sunt. — Exempla  ejus- 
modi  literarum,  nomine  Rnb.  Gamalielis  et  Filii  ejus  Sime- 


(    193    ) 

was  strictly  maintained  in  the  apostolical  age,  is 
rendered  unquestionable  by  many  passages  in  the 
apostolical  history.  Explicit  mention  is  made  of 
(<  devout  men  out  of  every  nation  under  heaven*," 
who  visited  Jerusalem  at  the  feast  of  Pentecost; 
the  number  of  the  Jews  who  were  not  disqualified 
from  joining  in  that  festival,  having  been  computed, 
from  a  census,  made  by  the  priests,  at  the  requisi- 
tion of  the  Romans,,  to  have  been  nearly  three  mil- 
lions5. We  consequently  find,  that,  while  the 
Jews  confessed,  on  St.  Paul's  arrival  at  Rome,  that 
they  were  acquainted  with  Christianity,  as  "  a  sect 
which  was  every  where  spoken  against6;"  they  ex- 
pressed surprise  that  they  had  "  not  received  letters 
out  of  Judea,  concerning7  "  the  apostle.  This  neg- 
ligence, however,  was  soon  remedied;  when  the 
rapid  and  extensive  diffusion  of  the  Gospel  rendered 

onis  editarum,  reperies  in  Gemara  Sanhedr.  fol.  10.  col.  2. 
Wl  Ml  «:n»V.  *  Fratribus  nostris  habitatoribus  Galilaeas 
Superioris  et  Inferioris.  Pax  vestra  augescat.  Notum  vobis 
facimus  tempus  abolitionis  advenisse,  ad  auferendas  decimas  ex 
oleario.'  Comp.  Lightfoot  Harm,  of  N.  Test.  P.  II.  p.  283. 

4  Act.ii.  5.  conf.  9,  10,  11. 

5  Joseph,  De  Bell.  Jud.  Lib.  VIL  cap.  ix.  §  3.  Tom.  II.  p. 
399.  ed.  Havercamp.  oV»  $1  ^xa^il  Tccrartf?  »j 

ITT*    Ktj-ia    o-i/vctf&ptSftTUv,    c?,    rriv    aKpyv    T»J$ 


o<r«a.    yivovrai   S*  ay^aJv,   »V  lx« 


£  ayton-     Conf.  Lib.  II.  cap.  xiv.  §  3. 
*  Act.  xxviii.  22. 
7  Ibid.  21, 

O 


<     194    ) 

Christianity  formidable  to  the  Jewish  nation.  The 
concurring  testimony  of  Christian  and  Jewish  wri- 
ters., places  it  beyond  a  doubt,  that  as  early  as 
the  reign  of  the  Emperour  Claudius,  when  the  new 
converts  were  known  under  the  appellation  of  Na- 
zarenes  8,  a  circular  letter  was  sent  from  Jerusalem., 
enjoining  the  dispersed  Jews  to  excommunicate  the 
Christians,  under  that  title,  in  all  their  syna- 
gogues9. 

8  Selden.  tie  Synedrr.  Vett.  Ebraeorr.  Lib.  I.  cap.  viii.  p.  122. 
ted.  1679.  "  Certe  ut  Suidas  ita  Joannes  Antiochenus,  in 
Chronologicis  suis  nondum  editis  cum  Euodii  illic  episcopato 
Christiani  nominis  Antiochiae  ortmn  conjungit,  quern  post  de- 
cennium  ab  Ascensu  Domini  evenisse  scribit,  seu  sub  Claudii 
initia.  Etiam  et  nominis  autorem  ibi  Euodium  ilium  facit. 
Verba  sunt  :  'E*  <fe  tous  oipyyiis  T%S  /3a<7iXetW  T& 
rCa/ffftf  Of,  /xsra  TO  apaT^paSjjvai  rov  Kvpiov  yipuv  xj  &eo 
(ASTa,  try  $ex»  wpuros  piroi  TOV  otyiot  TlsTfov  Tot  ATrsro^ov 
T??  AvTio^EWJ'  |xsyaA>K  woXsw?  T?? 
K«*  ITT*  ctvru 


TO   ovopM   TST«. 

ot  X§ifiavoi.     Comp.  Act.  xi.  1.  3.  22.  26.  28.     Pears 
Expos,  of  Creed.  Vol.  II.  p.  111.  ed.  Oxon.  1797. 

9  Just.  Mart.  Dial,  cum  Tryph.  Jud.  p.  335.  b.  ed.  Par 


cr», 
«7To  'IflffS  -TiVW  FaXiXa/a  TrAa^H.      Id.  ibid.  p.  234. 

E  yap  TOV  ^t'x.ajoi/,  KJ  irpo   O,VTV   T»?  TfWp-iTa?   ayrS'  xj 
lw     O.VTOV,     xai     TO 


xara§w/ocsvoi  gy  rats  cvwywyais 


ov.     S.  Epiphan.  Hser.  xxix.  p.  124-.  c.     Ov  povov  yap  b* 


(     195    ) 

At  how  early  a  period  the  Christian  Church 
adopted  this  mode  of  communication  from  the  Jew- 
ish Polity,  must  be  apparent  from  the  first  council, 
held  in  the  reign  of  the  same  Emperour,  at  Jerusa- 
lem, after  the  model  of  the  Jewish  Sanhedrim  "°. 
On  that  great  revolution  which  took  place  in  the 
divine  economy,  on  the  formal  abrogation  of  the 
Jewish  ceremonial,  and  the  emancipation  of  the  new 
converts  from  legal  observances,  that  strong  line 
of  distinction  was  drawn  between  the  Christians 
and  Nazarenes,  which  gave  to  the  new  religion  a 
new  appellation,  and  exhibited  Christianity  in  its 
extrinsick  purity.  On  this  occasion  cc  it  pleased  the 
apostles  and  elders  and  the  whole  church/'  assembled 
in  council,  (C  to  send  chosen  men/'  and  ff  to  write 


avroif,  act  a. 

o  €)eoy   T8f    Na^wga/gS1.   xat   yap   T«TOI$   vrsficrcrorsfov   ivexpo-i,  c»o& 
TO  anro  la^alav  a^TS?  orraq,  'l-nffSv   xr^tWetv    £»'ffl«   Xpror.      Comp. 

Lightf.  ut  supra,  p,  278. 

10  Vitring.  ub  supr.  p.  598.  "  An  itaque  non  vides,  Syne- 
drium  hoc  Hierosolymitanum  Christianum  prorsus  ordinatum  esse 
ad  formam  Synedrii  Hierosolymitani  Judaici,  et  de  omnibus 
rebus  sacris  in  et  extra  Judaeam  statuebat  ;  de  omnibus  Legis 
quaestionibus  majoris  momenti  judicabat  :  —  Orta  est  quaestio  non 
levis  momenti,  an  Gentes  salutis  suas  cupidae,  fidem  in  Christum 
necesse  haberent  munire  observantia  Legis  Mosaicae.  De  qua 
eum  variae  essent  Doctorum  sententiae,  visum  est  Ecclesiis  illius 
definitionem  committere  Senatui  et  Ecclesice  Hierosolynritance* 
Qui  postquam  de  hoc  negotio  decrevissent,  Legates  cum  Epis- 
tolls  mittunt  ad  varias  Ecclesias  Gentium,  quibus  suam  senten- 
tiam  de  proposita  quaestione  exponunt.  Formam  Literarum 
prorsus  convcnit  typis  Literarum  Synedrii."  Comp.  Lightf,  ub, 
supr.  p.  283. 


(    196    ) 

letters  by  them";  in  which  a  general  dispensation 
was  granted  from  Jewish  ceremonies,  and  precau- 
tions were  used  to  obviate  some  excesses,  which 
might  arise  from  the  unlicensed  abuse  of  Christian 
liberty11. 

In  such  habits  of  intercourse,  the  Christian 
Church  had  already  existed,  for  half  a  century,  on 
the  completion  of  the  New  Testament  Canon13: 
from  the  reign  of  Claudius,  in  the  middle  of  the  first 
age,  to  that  of  Domitian,  near  the  beginning  of  the 
second.  That  in  the  latter  period,  this  intercourse 
was  still  strictly  maintained,  is  rendered  certain  by 
documents  of  unquestionable  authority.  St.  Igna- 
tius and  St.  Polycarp,  who  lived  at  this  period,  and 
who  enjoyed  the  intimacy,  and  succeeded  to  the  la- 
bours, of  the  apostles,  explicitly  mention  the  custom 
of  convening  synods  for  the  purpose  of  ordaining 
persons  to  convey  circular  letters  through  the  differ- 
ent churches14:  and  in  this  manner  they  took  espe- 


11  Act.  xv,  22. 
"  Ibid.  23. 

13  Vid.  supr.  p.l24.n.  36. 

14  S.  Ignat.  Epist.  ad  Polyc.  cap.  vii.  p.  42*  ed.  Cler.  1724. 


xai    %ei£OTOvr)ffa/    riva,   on  ayawrjjTov   hiav  «%«TE  xa» 


rr,v  uoxvov  a-yd'Trw   ilq  &>fa»  X^r«.      Id.  ibid. 
cap.  viii.  p.  42.     'Eni  «v  Trauajf  fous  IxxXr^atV    8x   wSuvYiSw 
avj/ai,    hoc.  TO   t|ai<pv>3$    ir^itv  pi  awo  Tpwa^oj  els  Nta'TroAn',  us  T» 


K  TO  ^  aT«y  TO   avro  TTOiTjaaf    ot  /L*EV 
CE   HTifoXaff  £ia  T&/V  ^-TTO   era  ri/xTOf 
S^w  *»«»»«  ?pytf,  <^s  £|ie5  wx.    S.  Polycarp.  Ep.  ad  Philipp. 


(     197    ) 

cial  care  that  their  epistles  should  be  generally  dis- 
persed through  the  Christian  world.  Accounts  of 
the  martyrdom  of  those  primitive  bishops  were  thus 
transmitted  to  the  most  distant  provinces,,  in  epistles, 
attested  with  that  care  15}  which  I  formerly  had  occa- 


cap.  xiii.  p.  191.     'Eypa^are    fto»    xai  v(AZ~S  ^  'lyvaTW,  I'va  lav 

TK  tTreo^vtron  «*j  Eypfap,  Ksti  TCC  ?rag'  vfAuv  aTTOXo/x/ff 

OTTeO    TTQWO-Uy     1&V  h<X,Bu     Xai£0»    at$ITCV,    t"lT6     £yu    SITS    0V 

7n$-oXar  'IyvaTi«  ray  TT 
ci^o/xcv    TTag*   ^ 

t'   alnvss  vTroTSTOiy^ivxi  iiai  ry 
aurai.     Conf.  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  III.  cap.  xxxvi.  p.  132. 
1.  14.  25.  sqq.  et  infr.  p.  200.  n.  *3  et  2*. 

15  Superscrip.  Poly  carp.  Martyr,  p.  195.    'H  IxxXWa  T« 

xX»jcrU   T«   0*3 


xct  Trcais  THUS  xara  Trxvrx  TOTTOV  TTJS-  ayay  3 
'ExxXTjcJ/as"  TTa^oix/ats1,  a'?V£o?,  ti^i'*),  xai  ayasn?  a?ro 
©sS  riarpl?  xai  T£  Kfpia  rijtxwi/  Ivjua  XptrS  TrhriSurStiv).  Conf.  Euseb. 
Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  xv.  p.  162.  1.  21.  sqq.  This  form, 
which  was  adopted  from  the  Circular  Letters  of  the  Jews,  ap- 
pears to  have  been  general  ;  Epist.  Eccl.  Goth,  de  Mart.  S. 
Sabae.  "  Ecclesia  Dei  qucc  est  in  Gothia  Ecclesiae  Dei  quae  est 
in  Cappadocia,  et  omnibus  Ecclesice  Catholicce  christianis  ubique 
gentium  habitant  ibus,  misericordia,  pax  et  charitas  Dei  Patris  et 
Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi  impleatur."  ap.  Sim.  Metaphrast. 
And  suitable  care  was  taken  that  these  Epistles  should  be  deli- 
vered according  to  their  superscription.  In  the  Circular  Let- 
ter of  the  Synod  of  Palestine,  convened  on  the  controversy 
which  arose  respecting  the  time  of  keeping  Easter  A.D.  190? 
the  following  charge  is  inserted  ;  •  Euseb.  ib.  Lib.  V.  cap.  xxv. 

p.   250.    1.  10.   Kotla.   TO    TeXo;   T?K    ypa<p»5?j   aCroi? 
*Tri$  £t   I^nroX^f  vuv  Treia^yjTs    xara 


(    198    ) 

sion  to  remark,  was  observed  until  the  middle  of  the 
third  century16. 

After  this  view  of  so  remarkable  a  part  of  the  pri- 
mitive Ecclesiastical  Polity,  it  must  be  nugatory  to 
enter  into  a  detailed  proof,  that  the  particular 
churches,  dispersed  throughout  the  Christian  world, 
must  have  been  possessed  of  correct  copies  of  the 
Canonical  Scriptures,  from  the  earliest  period.  We 
are  expressly  assured  by  one  who  perused  a  collec- 
tion of  those  epistles  preserved  at  Jerusalem  17,  that 
numbers  of  the  primitive  pastors,  who  succeeded  to 
the  charge  and  labours  of  the  apostles,  traversed 
those  distant  regions  which  had  been  converted  by 
the  apostles,  established  churches  in  them,  and  deli- 
vered to  them  copies  of  the  Gospels18.  The  Epis- 

16  Vid.  supr.  p.  115.  n.14.     Conf.  Martyr.  Polycarp.  capp- 
xx.  xxi.  p.  203.  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  xv.  p.  173. 
1.  3.  sqq. 

17  Euseb.   Hist.   Eccl.   Lib.  VI.    cap.  xx.  p.  284.   1.   20. 

At    K«<    [jTriroXa*,  «?  wpo;  aAA^Xtf?  ^Wp^aparlov   01    Xoyioi   xa* 
a^ocE?]]    £t$    ^«?   I^vAop^vJjcraJ',   Iv  T»J  xoia  I 
irco$  TS    TTjvJxaoe   vr/v   avroSt    ouVoi/loy    IxxX»3<7tav 


lift    ravro    avvayayeu    ^wr^ot.      A  list  of  the  whole   of  those 
curious  documents,  which  are  expressly  cited  by  Eusebius,  may 
be  seen  in  M.  de  Valois*  edition,  after  p.  798. 
18  Id.  ibid.  Lib.  III.  cap.  xxvii.  p.  133.  1.  9. 

xola    TSCT^E,     vqv     •KfUTyv 
j£»j$*    ol    xa,l    ore  T*jXt>twi/«£ 

^taSrHa*)     Ttf?     xala     irctvlct,    rovrov     rat     ty.y.hr,ffivv 
VTTO  tuv   >A7roroAwi'  B^t^nq   ETrwxo^yi-*  —  ETmlat   ^E  a7ro^)j//.taf 
t'^yoy    gT/ie?;tfi>    eya/yEAirwy,    ToTf    E'T*    irccfATrctv    av^xoot? 

a»   rr/v   Ta/v 


(     199    ) 

ties,  which  constitute  the  remaining  part  of  the 
Canon,  had  been  addressed  to  particular  churches ; 
but  the  attention  which  the  inspired  penmen  had 
employed  to  authenticate19,  and  to  disperse  their 
writings20:  and  the  care  which  the  primitive 
churches  used  in  obtaining  and  circulating  the  com- 
monest documents ** ,  renders  it  morally  certain,  that 
the  whole  Scripture  Canon  of  the  New  Testament 
must  have  been  dispersed  as  widely  as  the  Chris- 
tian name,  within  a  short  period  of  its  first  publi- 
cation. 

As  we  derive  our  proofs  of  the  authenticity  of  the 
Scriptures  from  the  tradition  of  the  Church;  we 
deduce  those  of  their  integrity  from  the  universal 
dispersion  of  the  sacred  writings.  From  the  con- 
stant communication  which  was  maintained  between 
the  churches,  which  had  been  planted  by  the  apos- 
tles, and  were  the  immediate  depositories  of  their 
writings,  it  was  impossible  that  any  au  then  tick  work, 
which  proceeded  from  them,  could  have  existed  in 
one  church,  without  having  been  communicated  to 
another.  The  intercourse  between  the  Syriack 
Greek  and  Roman  Church,  was  of  the  closest  kind, 
under  the  immediate  successours  of  the  apostles; 
some  of  whom  were  vested  with  the  government  of 

o 

particular  churches,  at  the  very  time  in  which  the 
Scripture  Canon  was  perfected.  St.  Clement,  the 
companion  of  St.  Paul,  communicated  with  the  Co- 

19  Vid.  2Thes.  iii.  17.   comp.   1  Cor.  xvi.  21.   Gal.  vi.  11. 
Col.  iv.  18. 

20  Vid.  Col.  iv.  16.  1  Thes.  v.  27. 

*'  Vid.  supr.  p.  196.  n.  '4.  p.  197.  n. l5.  p.  115.  n. '4. 


(    200    ) 

rinthian  Church.,  from  Rome";  St.  Poly  carp,  the 
disciple  of  St.  John,  visited  Rome,  and  corresponded 
with  the  Syrian  Church  from  Smyrna13;  and  St. 
Ignatius,  his  contemporary  and  friend,  not  only 
communicated  with  the  churches  of  Ephesus  and 
Rome44,  but  visited  both  in  person25.  In  the  epis- 


** 


S.  Iren.  adv.  Ha>r.  Lib.  III.  cap.  iii.  p.  176.     M/l*  T» 


*t  rgru  TQTTU  «7ro  ruv     iro^o^uv  TJJ"     TTJO-XOTT      xXr^rai         r/poyjr,    o 


rut 

w  P.QVOS,  Irt  ya.(»  ^roAXoi  vTr&tkTrovlo  TOTS  VTTO  fut 
'.ETT*  T«ra  av  TS  KA^Eiflos,  rao"«w?  «*  o\iyr,$  rot's  iv 


ioiy  —  Conf.  S.  Clem.  I.  Ep.  ad  Cor.  cap.  i.  p.  146.     Eu- 
seb.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  V.  cap.  vi.  p.  217.  1.  12. 

a3  Vid.  supr.  p.  196.  n.  '4.     S.  Iren.  adv.  Haer.  Lib.  III.  cap. 
iii.  p.   176.     Tli'hvKot^'reos  $1  a  /^ovov   I/TTO 


aTro     TW» 
tit  T>?v  £xxX»jc7iav  rS  0£a.  —  e'r*  ^s  x 

x.  T.  I.     Conf.  S.  Polycarp.  Epist. 
ad  Philipp.  cap.  xiv.  p.  191.     Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  IV.  cap. 
xiv.  p.  161.  1.  1.  14.  34. 
44  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  III.  cap.  xxxvi.  p.  130.   1.  9. 

O   vrctfa.  wX£*roK   tiffin    *v»  diotfioyHos    lyvtzriK;,    T^J  X«T* 
iiaJb^ri?  ^^TE^O?  T^V  iiriffMTr/iv  x£xX^fW|ix£»'o?.  —  OWTW   ojjra   t» 

i;,  i&ce,  o  TLo^vKOt^Tfo^  yv,  (jiiacv  [J*lv  g^TifoX^V  TY}  xaTa  Tr/V 
TTO^EKOJ  ayrtj?  I^VY^QVIVUV  Qvfi&'kpv  trtgav 
T.  £.  IT^o?  rat;Taj5  ?c  T^  'P^jW.'ip  sxxXr/a/^c 
Conf.  S.  Ignat.  Ep.  ad  Ephess.  capp.  i.  ii.  pp.  43,  44. 
Ep.  ad  Rom.  cap.  x.  p.  74.  S.  Iren.  adv.  Haer.  Lib.  V.  cap. 
yxviii.  p.  327.  Euseb.  ubi  supr.  p.  1  32.  1.  8. 

*5  S.  Ignat.  Epist.  ad  Ephes,  cap.  xxi.  p.  52. 
fjirt(>  TJJ?  IxxXajc'las  T)??  Iv  Sy^ta*  o'Qsv  og^g^tEvo;  £tf    Pu^vt 

Id.  Ep.  ad  Trail,  cap,  xiii.  p.  68.     X<Mr«£f1ai  if 


(    201    ) 

ties  addressed  by  those  primitive  bishops  to  those 
different  churches,,  much  more  is  implied  than  that 
they  were  possessed  of  the  inspired  writing's.  St 
Poly  carp  speaks  of  the  Philippians  as  versed  in  the 
Scriptures,  while  he  quotes  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
tament16; and  St.  Ignatius,,  in  impugning-  some 
tenets  of  the  early  hereticks,  appeals  to  the  "  Gos- 
pels" and  the  (C  Apostles  z?,"  under  which  terms  the 
whole  of  the  Christian  Canon  may  be  properly  in- 
cluded. 

If  we  may  now  assume,  what  it  seems  vain  to 
deny,  that  any  two  of  those  churches  possessed  per- 
fect copies  of  the  Scriptures,  which  were  apparently 
possessed  by  the  Catholick  Church  ;  we  have  thus  a 
sufficient  security,  in  the  testimony  which  they  re- 
spectively bear  to  the  integrity  of  the  sacred  text, 
that  it  could  not  be  corrupted.  Admitting-  that  all 
the  members  of  any  particular  church  had  entered 
into  a  compact  to  corrupt  the  inspired  writings,  and 
without  this  unanimity  any  attempt  of  the  kind  must 
have  been  liable  to  be  defeated  by  a  few  dissentient 

T/Aypatwv  y.oti  EQwuv.  Conf.  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  ubi  supr.  p. 
130.1.  12. 

46  S.  Polyc.  Epist.  ad  Philipp.  cap.  xii.  p.  191.  "  Confido 
enim  vos  bene  exercitatos  esse  in  sacris  litteris,  et  nihil  vos  latet  ; 
mihi  vero  non  est  concessum  modo.  Ut  his  Script  ur  is  dictum 
est  *  Irascimini  et  nolite  peccare  :'  et  *  sol  non  occidat  super 
iracundiam  vestram.*  Beatus  qui  meminerit:  quod  ego  credo 
esse  in  vobis."  Conf.  Ps.  iv.  5.  Eph.  iv.  26. 

*7  S.  Ignat.  Ep.  ad  Philadd.  cap.  v.  p.  TS. 

vq 


xa»    fag    'n^c^ras'    eft    atyoiirujpiv    ^ta    TO    xa*    a^ra?    6*5    T» 


(    202    ) 

members  ;  still  they  must  have  wanted  authority  to 
influence  other  churches  to  become  a  party  in  the 
conspiracy.  But  the  different  interests  which  di- 
vided every  particular  congregation  must  have  ren- 
dered such  an  undertaking  wholly  impracticable. 
Within  less  than  a  century  after  the  publication  of 
the  apostolical  writings,  the  sect  of  the  Montauists 
arose,  in  the  very  bosom  of  the  church,  and  spread 
itself  from  Phrygia  to  Gaul  and  Africa18.  As  these 

i?  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  V.  cap.  iii.  p.  212.  1.  39.  w  *" 
a/x^t  rbv  Movravov  xal   Akx&diow  xon  ©EO&TOV,   TTsgi  TY,V 
aplt    TSTE    wWTov    TW    w»f*    T*    VJoQJIwtw    iirfay-^iv    net  fix. 


tp      run 

ol  xaTsc  rr/v  TaXX/av  «^eX(pol,   T/JK  t^iav  X^CTJV  xa»  TTE^ 
xat   o^SoSo^o^ol^i'ri'  £rol«7'Wn'*  e/tS's'/xevot   x^  TW»  Trap 

a?  £»  o&yo^ 


.  Eleutherius  is  mentioned  by  Hegesippus,  ap. 
Euseb.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  xxii.  p.  182.  1.  19.  and  S.  Irenseus  Lib.  III. 
cap.  iii.  p.  176.  as  bishop  of  llotne,  when  they  flourished.  Of 
Hegesippus,  Eusebius  declares,  that  he  lived  in  the  first  succes- 
sion after  the  apostles.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  II.  cap.  xxiii.  p.  78.  l.'l. 
and  St.  Irenaeus  will  speak  for  the  antiquity  of  his  own  testi- 
mony, vid.  supr.  p.  200.  n.  23.  conf.  infr.  p.  216.  n.  68.  Euseb. 
Lib.  V.  cap.  xx.  p,  238.  1.  36.  From  the  history  of  Tertullian, 
who  was  contemporary  with  S.  Irenseus,  Hier.  Cat.  Scriptt.  iu 
Luc.  Tom.  I.  p.  121,  we  may  not  only  collect,  that  Montanism 
had  spread  to  Africa,  but  that  if  the  Church  had  betrayed  it? 
trust  in  corrupting  the  Scriptures,  the  sacrilege  would  have  been 
exposed  by  the  hereticks  ;  Hier.  ibid,  in  Tert.  p.  126.  "  Ter- 
tullianus  presbyter,  —  provincial  Africee,  civitatis  Carthaginiensis, 
&c.  Hie  cum  usque  ad  mediam  aetatem  Presbyter  Ecclesice 
permansisset,  invidia  postea  et  contumeliis  clericorum  Romanae 
Ecclesiee,  ad  Montani  dogma  dclnpsus9  in  multis  libris  nova 


(    203    ) 

hereticks  were  every  where  mingled  with  the  Ca- 
tholicks,, and  used  the  same  Canonical  Scriptures, 
they  must  have  discovered  any  attempt  to  corrupt 
their  integrity.  Nor  could  they  have  wanted  the 
inclination  to  expose  it;  as  the  Catholicks  convened 
synods  against  them,  condemned  their  doctrines,  and 
expelled  them  from  their  communion19.  But,  in 
the  mutual  recrimination  to  which  their  differences 
gave  rise,,  the  hereticks  no  where  accuse  the  catho- 
licks.,  who  derided  their  "  New  Prophecies303'  of 
corrupting  the  sacred  oracles. 

Let  us  even  suppose  this  difficulty  surmounted,, 
and  that  the  catholicks  and  hereticks,,  forgetting 

prophetic^  meminit  :  specialiter  autem  adversum  Ecclesiam  texuit 
volumina,  De  Pudicitia,  De  Persecutione,"  &c.  In  fine,  Euse- 
bius  observes  on  the  origin  and  extent  of  this  sect,  and  their 
disaffection  towards  the  Church  ;  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  V.  cap. 
XVI.  p.  230.  1.  5.  oAtyot  ^'  vi?a.v  STOI  ruv  $>£Vyav  l 
trtv  Sg  xaSoXa  ^  Ttoiaoiv  .ryjy  VTT'Q  rov  xpav'bv  ex.yJwGi<zv 


tit;    avTviv    TO    •^tvctQ'Kfoty&iKW    sXapt/Save    TTVSVfAOC.      Vid. 
infr.  p.  208.  n.  ^ 

29  Besides  the  Synod  in  Gaul,  already  mentioned,  supr.  n.  *8. 
conventions  were  held  against  the  Montanists,  at  Ancyra,  An- 
tioch,  and  in  many  parts  of  Asia;  vid.  Euscb.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib. 
V.  capp.  xvi.  xix.  p.  228.  1.  13.  p-  236.  1.  22.  Respecting  these 
Synods,  a  contemporary  writer  observes  ;  Apolinar.  ap.  Euseb. 
Ib.  cap.  xvi.  p.  230.1.  10.  ruv  yap  xola  TW  'Aaictv 


TU        tv><;  re  exxrjatay  eect/<Ty3aav,  >o  rrts 
tipyfiwotv.     Conf.  Ibid.  p.  227.  1.  33.  sqq. 

30  Vid.  supr.  n.  23.  Conf.  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  V.  cap.  xvi. 
p.  229.  L  4.  sqq.  cap,  xviii.  p.  233.  1.  33.  sqq. 


(    204    ) 

their  mutual  animosities,  had  agreed  to  corrupt  the 
Scriptures  ;  still  the  disagreements  which  arose  be- 
tween different  churches,  must  have  rendered  any 
attempt  on  the  integrity  of  Scripture  wliolly  abor- 
tive, by  leaving  it  open  to  detection.  A  difference 
of  opinion,  respecting  the  time  of  keeping  Easter, 
interrupted  the  unanimity  which  had  long  subsisted 
between  the  Greek  arid  Roman  Churches  J1  ;  and  to 
such  an  extent  was  their  mutual  animosity  carried, 
that  the  Western  Church  proceeded  to  the  extre- 
mity of  excommunicating  the  Eastern31.  A  like 
diversity  of  opinion,  at  a  period  somewhat  later,  di- 
vided the  Roman  and  African  Churches  on  the  sub- 
ject of  baptizing  hereticks33.  Had  there  existed 

3*  Euseb.   Hist.   Eccl.    Lib.   V.  cap.   xxiii.  p.  24-1.   1.  26. 

a;  yt  pyv  Trf?  KopvSu 


*TH      8 

(>Giy/w    <y?    I*    wufotjoo-svf  a 

•JOVTO    Sen 

lv  ?,  &vew  TO  irfo@otlo»  'I«^a»oK  ^^yofsvlo.     The  Emperour  Corn- 

modus  came  to  the  throne  A.D.  180.  about  60  years  after  the 

death  of  Trajan,  and  70  after  that  of  St.  John  the  Evangelist; 

see  the  testimony  of  St.  Irenaeus,  supr.  p.  112.  n.  6.  who  took 

a  part  in  the  controversy  before  us  ;  Conf.  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl. 

Lib.  V.  cap.  ix.  p.  222.  1.  20.  cap.  xxii.  p.  241.  1.  5.  7.  14.  cap. 

xxiv.  p.  245.1.  9—17. 

3*  Euseb.  ibid.  cap.  xxiv.  p.  245.  1.  3.    in}  raroiq   5  p\v  TK 


'  x.a.1  rvfrHivu  ys  ^ia  y^ct^drufj  ccxcwuvrjTXS  a.$r,v  Tra 
voLHtyv'rluv  a^£?i^8f. 

33  Euseb.  ibid.  Lib.  VII.  cap.  ii.  p.  322.  1.  18.  TBT*  $? 


(    205    ) 

any  ground  of  accusation  against  any  of  those 
churches,,  on  this  head,  it  seems  wholly  inconceiva- 
ble, that  it  could  have  escaped  being*  urged  :  no  such 
charge  however  is  insinuated  even  obliquely  against 
any  of  those  churches. 

Though  the  proofs  which  are  here  adduced  in  fa- 
vour of  the  integrity  of  the  sacred  text,  are  merely 
negative  ;  they  must  be  allowed  to  be  fully  adequate 
to  its  vindication.  On  the  present  subject,  positive 
proofs  cannot  be  easily  produced,  and  cannot  be  re- 
quired in  reason  ;  any  formal  defence  of  the  inte- 
grity of  the  inspired  writings,  in  the  primitive  age, 
would  indeed  defeat  its  object,  by  conveying  a  sus- 
picion that  it  needed  vindication.  But  as  no  ground 
of  suspicion  existed,  wre  find  no  defence  undertaken, 
That  which  was  unquestionable  from  the  first  was 
received  without  exciting  a  doubt  ;  and  silence  on 
this  subject  conveys  a  sufficient  proof  of  inte- 
grity. 

It  may  be  shewn,  however,  that  the  integrity  of 
the  inspired  writings  was  an  object  of  attention  and 
research  at  a  period  so  early,  that  if  it  had  been  at 
all  suspicious,  it  could  not  have  escaped  detection. 
The  extraordinary  circumstances  which  attended 
the  ministry  of  our  Lord  and  his  immediate  follow- 
ers, had  given  rise  to  many  narratives,  founded  on 
traditionary  accounts,  in  wrhich  some  truth  was  re- 
tained with  a  great  admixture  of  errour  34.  A  num- 


5»«  7u/lp3  xa*$«fpij.     Conf.  capp.  iii.  iv. 
p.  323.  1.  5.  sqq. 

34  Orig.  Horn.  i.  in  Luc.  Tom.  III.  p.  932.  d.     T* 


(    206    ) 

ber  of  spurious  works  of  this  description  were  com- 
posed, particularly  by  the  hereticks,  who  infested 
the  Church  from  the  earliest  age  ;  and,,  under  the 
title  of  Gospels  and  Acts,  were  inscribed  with  the 
names  of  different  apostles  J5.  Besides  these,  many 
of  the  writings  of  the  apostles'  companions,  had  been 
read  in  different  churches  ;  and  had  thus  become  a 
part  of  the  authorised  text,  though  not  of  the  Cano- 
nical Scriptures  ?6.  In  discriminating  between  these 


To    xala 
at     xalc* 


ya.     Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  III.  cap.  xxv.  p. 
118.   1.  34.     'Ev    TO*?   »O$OK  xolalsja^w   x^    Twy    rTat/Aa  <7rf<i%tuv   w 
^y-^tj    IltT^.—  —>/»>}    o     If    TSTOJJ    TJVE?    t^    TO    xa& 
Eta/ysAiov    tt£fXsfa%     w    ^aXfra      E^aiwv    ot    TOJI 


35  Euseb.  ib.  p.  119.  I.  10.     a^ayxaiw?  ^i  xa;    rarwr   o^wj  TOK 

ri'jro^^t^a.  -  I'v      eJ^tvact      e^o^ai*     ayrcc?     TE 
ray    ovo/xart    TWV    'ATroro^wv    TT^OS    TC^V    eAI§6Tixa;v 


xa 

a-Xhuv    TLvotttXtx     iriixcru,:,''    v>    uq    Av^ss     $1    xotl 


Id.  ibid.  cap.  iii.  p.  90.  1.  7.     'ETT^  £e  5  avroc  'Aworo^o?    ! 
ITT*  TE'XE*   -Trpo^p^scT-i    T?;    wpo?    'Pw/xaitf?   fW^ 


xai  'Ef^ca,    »    ^aa**   t-TTap^EH-   TO  T8  'IIo^EVOf' 


—  O'SEV    72^7}    so     £V    IxxAoWaiS"     t'cr/Agv 


Id.   ibid.  cap.  XXV.    p.    119.   1.  2.     xai   9rfo5    T«TO»J    ^ 
xat    Tai*    'ATrofoXwv    a?    AEyo/xevat    ^t 
TWV     ccflihsyofAEvuv    av    t\r>»    ccvotyKaivs     «e     xat 


(    207    ) 

apocryphal  works  and  the  authentick  Scriptures, 
the  antients  have  stated  the  grounds  on  which  they 
rejected  the  former  and  admitted  the  latter  ;  they 
have  thus  enabled  us  to  judge  of  the  adequacy  of 
that  evidence,  on  the  authority  of  which  they  esta- 
blished the  Canon. 

In  selecting  a  period  out  of  the  primitive  ages, 
which  is  best  calculated  to  afford  us  satisfactory  in- 
formation on  this  subject,  our  attention  is  immedi- 
ately attracted  to  that  which  produced  the  contro- 
versy relative  to  Easter.  As  this  is  a  period  in 
which  party  spirit  ran  high57,  it  is  a  crisis  which  is 
likely  to  put  us  in  possession  of  the  truth,  by  exhi- 
biting both  sides  of  the  question.  It  is  likewise  dis- 
tinguished by  the  number  of  learned  and  inquisi- 
tive men,  who  adorned  Christianity  by  their  lives, 
and  supported  it  by  their  writings  ;  by  many  whose 
works  have  descended  to  our  times.  The  synods 
which  were  convened  almost  simultaneously  in  the 


rct<; 

;*    o/xws     <$e    TTocpo 

yijvwffxo/xs'var.     Id.   ibid.  cap.  xvi.   p.  107- 
1.    18.       T»T»    $rt    vv    T»    KXoq/xsvTo 

(pEgeraf  -  rat'-njv  ^e  xai  Iv  TrXE/f*'?  IxxfojaiW  ITT*  tS 
os^73/AO(7»ey/y.EV7jv  WXat  TE  ^  x^^'  v)[Acif  OCUTHS 
That  the  Epistle  of  St.  Barnabas  (of  which  Eusebius  speaks  less 
positively,  than  of  the  "  Pastor"  of  Ilermas,  and  the  Epistle  of 
St.  Clement)  was  read  in  the  Church,  is  apparent  from  St.  Je- 
rome's tract  De  Nominn.  Hebraicc.  Tom.  III.  p.  534.  in  which 
it  is  annexed  to  the  Apocalypse,  as  a  part  of  the  authorized 
text. 

*7  Vid,  supr,  p.  20  i,  nn.  *'  et  3\ 


(    208    ) 

most  remote  provinces 38,  would  constitute  a  suffi- 
cient proof  of  the  close  communication  which  was 
maintained  by  the  Christian  Pastors  at  this  early 
period  :  if  the  remains  of  their  circular  letters  which 
have  been  preserved,  did  not  put  it  out  of  dispute, 
that  they  considered  it  a  matter  of  conscience  to 
make  a  provision,  that  the  result  of  their  delibera- 
tions should  be  communicated  to  the  remotest 
branches  of  the  Catholick  Church 39.  At  this  period 
Narcissus,  who,  at  an  advanced  age,  had  Alexander 
for  his  suffragan,  was  bishop  of  Jerusalem  4° ;  Poly- 
crates,  Serapion,  Demetrius,  Victor,  and  St.  Ire- 
naeus,  respectively  settled  at  Ephesus,  Antioch,  Alex- 
andria, Rome,  and  Lyons,  were  vested  with  the 
government  of  the  principal  churches  in  the  Asia- 
tick,  Syriack,  Egyptian,  Italick,  and  Gallican  pro- 

38  Euseb.   Hist.   Eccl.  Lib.  V.   cap.  xxiii.    p.  242.   1.  11. 

"ZvvoScu  Svi   KA]  crvykfol&fi?   tKiexotruv  inl  ratvrot  £TO  Trepi  T£  Dac 
Qfliiuct]     tyivovlo*    •XGtfitt    TE    pice,     yvu^v)    $S    £<7rtj-oAo;v    I 

rot;  fntfafyjfot  hslvirtitlo .      <J>£<;sla»  51'  Eiovrt  tv»  tuv 

juxa^s    fftfy&KgflfitttW  yga^J;,   uv  9r^«TtTaxTO 

EV   KaKjapetar-    7rap»xia?   ewtcrxo'Troj,   xa*   Napxtcrao?  7^?    tv   "ifpocro- 
ttcti   Tuv    ITT*     P#/^?   $1    o^towj   ahhri  irtfi  rx  ctvTti 

Bixlopa   MfftSra*  TUV   te  XO.TO,  Tlotiov   iwiotoTruv  uv 
us     af^a»oTa.To?    wpaTETaxTe'    xa»     tut    jtala    Tjt& 
a;  'EIp»?varo$  ETTEC-xowe/  rn  TE  Tav  xa/a  'Oupojjyjjv  xa< 
xa*    I$'HI><;   Baxp^rMtf   T?;    Kop^ytwi'    txx?k>!o-i« 
x.  T.  I. 

39  Vid.  Euseb.  ut  supr.  p.  197.  n. IS.  infr.  n.  4*. 

40  Vid.  supr.  n.  *5.   Alexandr.  Epist.  ad  Antinoitt. 
rat    i/*«?    NapxK70-gf    o    TT^O    £/^S    hewuv   Ton    TQ<KQV 

y     !k$a&=,     xai     yyv    ffvvt^ra.^ofA£^^     pot    Sice    TUV    ilyuv^     ixarlv 

xai|  irv>  wvxvc,  x.  T.  I.    Vid.  Euseb.  ibid.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  xi. 
,  268. 1.  17.  s. 


(    209    ) 

vinces4'.  Among  the  writers  celebrated  at  that 
period,  we  particularly  distinguish  Pantaenus  and 
Clement,  of  Alexandria  4Z  ;  Origen,  afterwards  pres- 
byter, of  Palestine41;  Caius,  presbyter  of  Rome44; 
St.  IrenaBus,  then  bishop  of  Lyons  ;  and  Tertullian, 
presbyter  of  Carthage45.  From  the  joint  testimony 
of  witnesses  thus  competent,  and  thus  widely  dis- 
persed, the  most  unanswerable  body  of  evidence 
may  be  deduced  in  favour  of  the  integrity  of  the 
Canonical  Scriptures. 

In  the  first  place,  the  integrity  of  the  Sacred  wri- 
tings was,  at  this  period,  the  subject  of  particular 
investigation.  The  Marcionites,  a  sect  which  was 
particularly  opposed  by  St  Irenaeus  and  Tertul* 
lian,  had  rejected  the  principal  part  of  th«  Canon, 
and  corrupted  the  remainder46;  and  the  Theodo- 
tists,  who  had  been  excommunicated  by  Victor  47, 

41  Vid.  supr.  n.  38.  Euseb.  ib.  Lib.  V.  cap.  xix.  p.  236.  1.  20. 

ov  —  (Atrct   Ma£i^.rvovr    Iwfa'xowei'   rrfs    'Avno^ewv    Ix;iXij0-ta$ 

yoj    ytviffvaU)    [*.fu.vr,Tou    avru    £rS     AflroXu'apitf]]    tv    IM& 
*}    T»J    nrpo?   Kaptxox  xj    ftovrutov*    iv   y    $itu§utun   xcti    ctvro$  trj 
[tuv   Qgvyuv"^    ct\'gi?iV)    eir&tysi    Tuvrot.     "OTTW?   ^£    x«<   T« 

ri;  -vj/t/^aj  ravr^q  ra|sw?  r5}$  !7nmXSjix,fj/»j?  '  war? 

07    tvtpyiicc    vctfoe,    ira.ff'n    Ty    i»   noff^u    a^eXtpoT*?!* 
x.T.I.      *Ev  return  ft  T^  78  2«pa9n«»b$  87r»r«A?,  xj 


41  Vid.  infr.  p.  209.  n.  ". 

43  Vid.  infr.  p.  210.  n,  ".  Conf.  supr.  p.  12.  n.  *7 

44  Euseb.  ib.  Lib.  II.  cap.  xxv.  p.  83.  1.  36.  xa* 

ivn%   TaVo?   o»o/^ta    xala   Zt$tjp7m>    Pu^otiuv    ytyffvus    'vji'iffWitov'    of 
XlpoxXw  xala  OptJya?  7TpoVra/>t£»a>  yvw/*»j$  t/yga^wj  ^jaAi^t*?,  x.  f,  I. 

45  Vid.  supr.  p.  202.  n.  28'. 

46  Vid.  supr.  p.  53.  n.  l6. 

47  Euseb,  ib.  Lib.  V.  cap.  xxviii,  p.  252.  1.  27 


(    210    ) 

and  refuted  by  Caius,  had  systematically  corrupted 
the  sacred  writing's4-8.  From  the  remains  of  Cams, 
and  the  works  of  Tertullian,  it  appears,,  that  both 
these  antient  fathers  had  carefully  collated  the  ge- 
nuine and  the  adulterated  copies  49.  Alexander  and 
Origen,  who  were  friends  and  correspondents50, 
were  professed  collectours  of  books;  the  former 
founded,  at  his  own  expence,  the  library  at  Jerusa- 
lem Sl,  and  the  latter  laid  the  foundation  of  that  at 
Caesarea51.  Pantaenus  and  Clement,  who  had  been 
intimates  of  Alexander  and  Origen  5J,  were  travel- 


To*    <7x.v\tot    ©go^oloy,    rov    apwyov    x^    wolega    TCivrtis    T»J? 
civorctyioK;,  aTTEfcTjpi^e  rriS  xojvow'af,  irparov 
TOV  Xpiroy  — 

43  Id.  ibid.  p.  253.  1.  37.    TSTOK  i 
fuy  avruv  T 
TOJ»   TpoTroy. 

*9  Caius  ap.  Euseb.  ibid.  p.  254-.  1.  16.     EJ   y«^   T»? 
ctvruv   Ixarx    T&   atyliyooiQa    i^sliz 

u,cvuva,      xv   trail   rat, 


TtfTtn;  r       E^otpAs  »  <rvvcu.  ret  yct.% 

K^g  ay]a  lat/Io*;  Ij-»  cvptyuva..   eviri  ya%  o-vfafineti  ra.  nforsgov  VTT" 
tiOilxj-xiVoio-Stvlot,  TOK   vrtgov   7raA»y    iTrihxrgxQz't'?^    X;   E^ 

uvaoovlx.     Vid.  supr.  p.  146.  n.  89.     Tertullian  's  testimony  will 
be  more  particularly  considered  hereafter. 

50  Vid.  infr.  n.  53. 

51  Vid.  supr.  p.  198.  n.  1T. 
54  Vid.  supr.  p.  84.  n.  73. 

53  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  VI.   cap.   xiv.    p.  274.   1.   14. 

n«A»»  F  c  J*3^ft?$£»?  'AAi|a»^o?  T«  KXr/ptSVTOJ  afta  ^E  xj  T8  ITaVTa/vs 

6V     TV)    9I§0^    'i7cr/£V73V     ETTtroArj    pvnponvtlj     US     ^    ryVUgifAUV    CCVTV 

vsvo/xg'vwv  TWV  a»^£y.     Conf.  cap.  xi.  p.  269.  1.  24.     Id.  ib.  cap. 

\i.  p.  264.  1.  4.      Ilavlaivop  os  KX^»j?  ^a^|afxs»oj  T^?    X«T'  AA£|a»- 

<yj    «c    Tt»    'fis'KTjv    rut 


(    211     ) 

lers,  and  curious  enquirers  into  the  subject  under 
discussion.  The  former,,  in  a  mission  undertaken 
to  India,  on  which  he  was  deputed  by  Demetrius, 
suecessour  to  Julianus,  in  the  see  of  Alexandria, 
there  saw  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  as  originally 
written  in  Hebrew,  which  was  preserved  from  the 
times  of  St.  Bartholomew,  the  apostle  of  India54. 
And  the  latter,  who  was  Alexander's  messenger 
from  Jerusalem  to  Antioch,  has  perpetuated  the  tra- 
dition, which  he  received  from  an  elder  named 
Macarius,  respecting  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews; 
that  it  was  originally  written  by  St.  Paul,  in  the 
same  language,  but  afterwards  translated  into  Greek 
by  St.  Luke  the  Evangelist55.  These  facts  will 
sufficiently  evince  the  wide  dispersion  of  the  sacred 
writings,  and  the  attention  which  was  devoted  to 
the  subject  before  us,  at  this  truly  primitive  pe- 
riod 5*.  With  respect  to  Origen,  his  testimony 


5*  Euseb.  ibid.  Lib.  V.  cap.  x.  p.  223.  1.  15.—  -5   nMatn;  *} 
£{$•   Iv§8£   IXS'siv  Aey/lai*  st/Scc.  Aoyo?  suQBiv  avrbv  VfoQ&affett  fijv  avrx 
'uzv,  TO  xara  MaT&atov   EvaJyg'XiOV,  impd   no-it   avio&t   <ro» 

sTreyvux.oo'w'     oJ?    Zctp^o^of^otTov    TUV 
TS  'E@pct.iuv  ypa/x./>tacrj»  rrjv  T8 
>5v  ^  <7<y^£crS«t  EI?  rov  SyXuptvov  xgovov.     Conf.  S.  Hier.  Cat.  Scripp. 
Eccless.  in  Pantaen.  Tom.  I.  p.  124. 

55  Id.  ibid.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  xiv.  p.  273.  1.  8.  x«2  1\ 

n>j  Tlctt/Xx  [jili  tivctt  (p-r^tri  [o 


e»    TOJ»   ayrov   Xfuret   wttiff'fH    xala    r 
rs    rvq    EWtro/\»j?,  xj   TUV   TlpoO-tuv.  -  ETra  ^TrojS 
"H^JJ    ^E    W5    5    Maxap»o?    IXa'ye    vrpto-fivrspoS)    x.  r*  e»      Conf.  Lib.  III. 

(jap.  xxxviii.  p.  134.  1.  20. 

5  The  facts  which  have  been  related,  on  the  authority  of 


(    212    ) 

Would  be  of  itself  sufficient  to  establish  all  that  it  if 
my  object  to  evince.  Through  motives  of  curiosity 

Justin  Martyr,  and  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  relative  to  the  wide 
dispersion  of  the  name  of  Nazarenes,  and  to  the  discovery  of  a 
Hebrew  copy  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel  in  India,  supr.  p.  194. 
ti  9.  p.  211.  n.  54.  afford  each  other  mutual  confirmation,  and 
form  an  extraordinary  proof  of  the  wide  and  early  dispersion 
pf  this  Gospel,  within  a  few  years  of  our  Lord's  ascension:  vid. 
supr.  p.  194.  n.  8.  The  Scriptures  were  written  as  the  new- 
converts  were  able  to  receive  them.  Previously  to  the  formal 
abrogation  of  the  Jewish  ceremonial,  and  the  admission  of  the 
Gentile  converts  to  the  full  participation  of  the  Christian  privi- 
leges, St.  Matthew's  Gospel  contained  as  perfect  a  view  of  the 
New  Religion,  as  the  infant  Church  was  calculated  to  receive  ; 
comp.  Act.  xi.  1  —  4.  sqq.  And  this  Gospel,  in  insisting  parti- 
cularly on  the  name  of  Nazarene,  Matt.  ii.  23.  appears  to  me 
feo  contain  internal  evidence  of  having  been  written  previously 
to  this  period,  before  the  name  of  Christian  was  at  all  used  ;  vid. 
Act*  ib.  26.  It  may  be  further  observed,  in  illustration  of  this 
curious  subject,  that  Apollonius,  a  primitive  father,  who  flou- 
rished within  80  years  after  the  death  of  St.  John,  relates,  on 
the  authority  of  tradition,  that  the  Apostles  were  enjoined  by 
our  Lord  not  to  leave  Jerusalem  for  twelve  years:  Euseb. 
Hist,  Eccl.  Lib.  V.  cap.  xviii.  p.  236.  1.  8.  in  £  u$  IK 

«•««?  fc>v  "EtJIygct,  (fino-l  [o  AwoAXws'toc]]  •KfQCflilot.^ivoti  TO 
"AsroroAoi?,  ETfl  cta$E>ca  ereffi  pt-yj  y^upia^rtvai  T-TIS 
With  this  account  accords  the  opinion  of  the  Greek  Church, 
relative  to  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  This  work  was  sup- 
posed to  have  been  written  about  eight  years  after  our  Lord's 
Ascension,  in  Hebrew,  for  the  early  converts  ;  but  translated 
into  Greek  by  St.  John,  when  the  Church  was  emancipated  for 
its  subjection  to  the  Jewish  ceremonial.  Schol.  in  Matt,  xxviii. 
20.  e  Cod.  Vat.  361.  363.  et  all.  multt.  TO  y.ara 

'^EYotJV^'-  *    iyp&tyf)    Trap     avrS    It     Itptio'ciXvip.,    T>7     E/3p«»o» 


ap.  Birch.  Nov.  Test,  p.   181.     Conf.   Griesb, 
iymbb.  Critt.  Tom.  I.  pp.  ixv.  civ. 


(    213    ) 

Ac  visited  Rome^7,  and  was  deputed  on  a  mission  to 
Arabia38;  and  from  the  discovery  which  he  made  of 
some  obscure  versions  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  59, 
it  might  be  inferred,,  that  he  was  a  diligent  inquirer 
into  the  authority  of  the  New  Testament.  But  his 
testimony  may  be  collected  not  merely  by  implica- 
tion, but  from  his  express  declarations.  He  liar 
drawn  the  justest  line  between  the  canonical  and 
the  apocryphal  books60;  has  ascribed  the  former 

57  Euseb.   Hist.   Eccl.  Lib.   VI.   cap.   xiv.    p.   274.  L   27- 

o  yarot  A$x.fAcivlto$)  x«i  T&TO  y&f  W  TV  fJptyem  ovoitxee, 
xala  raa-^s  Tt?$  X^ya^  T^?  Pw/xaiwr  txxA^a-taj  ^yy^m?,  i 
TJ7  Pw/*»i  xa»  ctvroi;  ifti  y^apei  X/ywv.  Eyja/xevos1  T- 

Ic^eiV.   tv$»   a   TroXv  ^oli-vj/a?  iwatvsiffu   tit 


15  Id.  ibid.  cap.  xix.  p.  283.  1.  20.  tv>rxq  -n? 

«»£oioa     y^ajtc^tola    AyfArfyw,     TS    TU 

Tw    Tore    Tri£     Aly^TTTS     Igrapp^o;,    w»fa     T» 

i?   av    pfla  crTra^s   «7ra<r»5?   Tof   'flpyevvjv  trs^oiey   xoivuv/xroflot  ho 

aural.      1  oiyaohv  Tra^aTTcjt/.^S'EiS'  i>-^r'    «^rd;v,  a^txvc7T«t   i^l  rr/v 

'A§a/3/av.     Conf.  cap.  xxxvu  p.  299.  1.  29.  sqq. 

59  Id.  ibid.  cap.  xvi.  p.  275.  1.  21.     Tocravrvj  $  etV^y/Io   TJU 
ruv    §t\uv  Aoy  '' 


vaTo,  &;?  apa  7»jv  IA'.V  tvpoi  K 
r>j  TT^O;  'Ax.r'ia;  Ntx.o7roX£i*  riv  ^£  sv  Irspw  TOTTW  TOI^£.  Conf.  cap. 
xviii.p.  278.1.13. 

60  Id.  ibid.  cap.  xxv.  p.  290.  1.  12.   \v  ^  TW 


T'/3 


their  due  and  exclusive  weight61  ;  and  has  deduced 
their  authority  from  the  immemorial  tradition  of  the 
Catholick  Church62;  which  his  profound  learning 
and  local  researches  furnished  him  with  ample  means 
*  of  investigating. 

If  we  now  take  the  works  of  Clement,  Origen, 
and  Tertullian,  and  compare  them  with  our  Scrip- 
tureS;  as  preserved  in  the  original  Greek^  and  in  the 
Latin  translation,  it  is  impossible  to  resist  the  con- 
viction,, that  the  sacred  writings  must  have  retained 
their  integrity,  since  the  times  of  those  primitive 
fathers.  We  find  them  collectively  quoted  by  those 
early  fathers,  under  their  proper  titles,  and  on  all 
occasions  where  their  authority  could  be  adduced. 
Of  Tertullian  it  has  been  observed,  that  he  contains 
more  numerous  and  extensive  extracts  from  the  New 
Testament,  than  all  the  writers  of  antiquity,  for  a 
long  succession  of  ages,  have  adduced  from  the 
voluminous  writings  of  Cicero  6s  ;  though  his  works 

CI  Orig.  Horn.  i.  in  Luc.  Tom.  III.  p.  932.  d.     ol™  *a*  M 

ly     TY)    Kan/*)    AtaS^    tot     Evctfyfrux,    TioXXol    &i\rnaot.v    y^d-^ai' 
«A^'  01  ^oxiotci  Ta7T£Ta»  a  ra-tloe.   MtMMf  aX^a  nvx  otvruv  i£*X*£a»20i 


xa*    TO    '   Iwt^iJfwwuf'   fafa&tuui  £•%£!, 


yap    »*   iirtxt'^ricrw   aAA'  'iypoc.-^^   s%   ay/8  FIvs^/x  je.ro  f 


A«>ca$-.  Vid.  supr.  p.  205.  n.  3*.  The  testimony  of  Origen 
respecting  the  Epistles,  which  is  too  long  for  insertion  in  this 
place,  is  collected  by  Eusebius,  Lib.  VI.  cap.  xxv.  p.  291. 

61  Vid.  supr.  n.  f°. 

<3  Dr.  Lardn.  Cred.  of  Gosp.  Hist.  P.  I.  B.  I.  ch.  xxvii.  p. 
64-1,  "  There  are  perhaps  more  and  larger  quotations  of  the 
N.  T.  in  this  one  Christian  author,  than  of  all  the  works  of  Ci- 


(    215    ) 

have  formed  a  standard,,  by  which  succeeding  .wri- 
ters have  endeavoured  to  model  their  stile.  The 
writing's  of  Clement  and  Grig-en  have  undergone  a 
severer  scrutiny  than  those  of  Tertullian;  all  the 
scripture  quotations  which  are  discoverable  in  such 
of  their  works  as  are  extant,  have  been  extracted 
from  them,  and  have  been  disposed  in  their  proper 
order64.  They  contain  ample  and  connected  quo- 
tations from  all  the  books  of  Scripture,,  which  not 
only  evince  the  general  integrity  of  the  sacred  wrir 
tings,,  but  demonstrate,,  by  the  most  extraordinary 
coincidence  with  the  vulgar  Greek65,  that  the  tex- 
ture of  the  phrase  and  purity  of  the  language  have 
remained  uncorrupted  for  the  vast  period  which 
has  intervened,  since  the  age  of  those  primitive 
fathers. 

Ample  and  satisfactory  as  the  testimony  is,  whicjf 
is  thus  borne  to  the  integrity  of  the  sacred  Scrip- 

cero,  though  of  so  uncommon  excellence  for  thought  and  stile, 
in  the  writers  of  all  characters  for  several  ages." 

t4  Vid.  Nov.  Test.  Locc.  ab  Orig.  et  Clem.  Alex.  Allegatt. 
ap.  Griesb.  Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  II.  p.  229.  sqq. 

65  M.  Griesbach  has  noted  the  deviations  of  the  Vulgar  Greek 
from  the  readings  of  Origen,  in  the  lower  margin  of  his  Symbb. 
Critt.  ut  supr.  p.  24-1.  sqq.  When  we  throw  out  of  the  list  the 
inconstant  readings  of  Origen,  and  the  peculiar  readings  of 
Clement,  of  whom  M.  Griesbach  declares,  ibid.  p.  235.  "  S.  S. 
oracula  haud  raro  memoriter  excitat,  et  sensum  magis  quanj 
ipsa  auctorum  sacrorum  verba  repraesentat;'*  and  when  we  re- 
member the  insuperable  difficulties  with  which  the  antients  had 
to  contend  in  quoting  accurately,  as  not  knowing  the  use  of  & 
Concordance,  and  not  having  a  text  divided  into  verses :  the 
literal  coincidence  of  those  readings,  and  the  Greek  Vulgate, 
.must  be  considered  next  to  miraculous. 


(    216    ) 

tures,  it  seems  possible  to  connect  it  by  a  few  steps 
with  the  age  of  the  inspired  writers.  Origen  was 
the  disciple  of  Clement,,  and  Clement  the  disciple  of 
Pantaenus;  and  all  of  them  were  the  intimates  of 
Alexander,  bishop  of  Jerusalem65:  but  Pantaenus  is 
expressly  said  to  have  been  a  disciple  of  those  who 
were  the  immediate  auditors  of  the  Apostles66. 
Alexander  represents  Narcissus,,  who  was  likewise 
bishop  of  Jerusalem,  as  having  been  an  hundred  and 
sixteen  years  old.,  when  he  acted  as  his  suffragan  in 
that  see,  at  Jerusalem67;  he  of  course  must  have  en- 
joyed the  same  opportunities  of  conversing  with  the 
immediate  disciples  of  the  apostles,  which  were  pos- 
se^sed  by  Pantaenus.  Tertullian  is  referred  to  a 
period  near  that  of  the  apostles,  by  St.  Jerome,  wrho 
drew  his  information  from  one  who  was  informed 
by  an  acquaintance  of  St.  Cyprian,  his  disciple 

6*  Vid.  supr.  p.  210.  n.  ". 

6i  Phot.   Bibliothec.   cod.  cviu.     TZrov  roitvi  rov 
ot    xj    'A^a/xamov     ETroj/Ojtxa^Sai     <pa.<riv  -  ax^ali*    xa* 


68 


£xxXijcnar»xS    ^^WxaXeitf.      KA^s^a    ^s    Hatlxivu    yv> 
at  otx^oatl'/)v  xoc*  Ttf  ^otaaa^sia  ^a^op^oi/.      FlavTaiVOV  Se 
TE  THS  'ATros'oXas'  eo/gaxoTwv  axgoa<yao-^«i*    »  pcr^v  izXXa  xa/ 


67  Vid.  supr.  p.  208.  n.  4°. 

68  S.  Hier.  Cat.  Scripp.  Eccless.  in  Tertul.  Tom.  I.  p.  126. 
"    Vidi  ego  qaendam  Paulura  Concordiae,   quod  opidum  Italise 
cst,  senem,   qui  se  B.  Cypriani  jam  grandis  cetatis  notarium, 
cunj  ipse   admodum  esset   adolescens,  Romce   vidisse  diceret, 
referreque  sibi  solitum,  numquam  Cyprianum  absque  Tertul- 
liani  lectione   unam   diem   praeterisse:   ac  sibi  crebro  dicer  e.  ; 
1  Da  magistrum  ;'  Terttillianum  videlicet  significans.1J    Id.  ib. 


St.  Irenseus  mentions  his  having  been  acquainted 
with  St.  Polycarp,  who  was  placed  in  the  see  of 
Smyrna  by  St.  John  the  Evangelist69;  and  gives  an 
affecting  description  of  the  accounts  which  he  heard 
that  venerable  old  man  deliver  of  the  apostle,  and 
of  the  impression  which,,  while  he  was  yet  a  boy, 
they  had  made  upon  his  recollection70.  With  these 
facilities  of  arriving  at  the  opinions  of  the  apostoli- 
cal age,  on  a  subject  of  such  paramount  importance 
as  that  of  the  sacred  canon,,  it  remains  to  be  ob- 
served, that  the  apostolical  tradition,  as  preserved 
by  the  succession  of  bishops  throughout  the  Catho- 
lick  Church,  was  at  this  period  an  object  of  curious 
investigation71.  Poly  crates,  bishop  of  Ephesu^  ex- 

in  Luc.  p.  111.  "  Sed  et  Tertullianus,  vicinus  eorum  tempo- 
rum,"  £c. 

69  Vid.  supr.  p.  200.  n.  *?. 

70  S.  Iren.  Fragmm.  p.  340.   al  ya§  EX  vaQut  /^a^^o-si 

%u<7cci   TV   ^VXP)   **&>''"**   uvTi)*   art  p.t  SvvatffScu    Ei7rs*V   xai   TQV 


v 


o    waxatoi    noAvxawos*   xa» 


xat  T»S  Hiaoy;*   xa»  rov 

xat   ra?    hat,\i%u<i    a?    I9 

trvvtzvcc.r(>Qfynv    u$   asn^yiX^t*    xat  tr,v  pita,  TUV 

TO*  Kypiov*  xa*    wj  a.irei^vvifA.ovtvs  ta<;   Aoy»?   otiifuvy    XCCL   Trip*    T$   Kt>a»« 

Tiva    yv    a,    irotf    ixi'unn  ax^xoei*  xul    TTE^I  ovvccf^eu 

^JacrxaAtas,  w$  wafcs  cuvroffluv  T»JS  ^w?$   rS  Aoytf 

xapro$  a9rr5/V^^s  wavla  *vpf*9*  ruts  T^aipaK. 

7*  Clem.  Alex.  ap.  Euseb.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  xiii.  p.  272.  1.  29* 

xa<    lv  r 


wpo?  TWJ"   iraipuv  aj    ETwp^e   T<Tapa    TWV 


K<x.fot$0(rti<;,   ypa^ij    To<V   fjt.flcila.vra.  ^rapa^avat.      Clement,  an 

describing  the  sources  from  whence  he  drew  his  traditional 
knowledge,  proves  that  it  must  have  been  catholick,  and  di- 
rectly received  from-the  auditour?  of  the  Apostles;  Id,  Stromat 


(    218    ) 

press!  y  appeals  to  it  in  the  controversy  respecting 
Easter;  and  on  this  subject  of  comparatively  mjnor 
importance.,  states  the  traditionary  customs,  as  de- 
rived from  St.  Poly  carp  and  St.  John.,  in  the 
churches  of  Smyrna  and  Ephesus7*.  Similar  ap- 
peals are  made  to  it,  by  St.  Ireiueus71  and  Tertul- 
liair,  on  the  rule  of  faith  which  had  been  delivered 


Lib.   I.  p.    322.    ra~U>   0    plv    £9Ti    TVJ?    'EAAadSJ     0    'IWVIKOS*   0    $1    67T*    T»J$ 

j/,syaA»j;    'EAAaiSos*     T/;?    KctAij?     u.~tgo$    avruv    5)vpa$    r,V     o     o\     ait 
o-AAoi    ce    avcc    T'/iV     AyaloA>?v*    xai    ra^T'/;?     o    (jiev    <n?    TUV 
o  $1  iv  TV)  lTaXa»r»'>i  'E/3paio$  ar 
cpsi   a'&fci   wfvTo?   TJV,  UVlira.V&a.p'r.v,   iv 


01    ^EV    a^>/~      T»5?    ^cav.a^a?     i 
fa*  FlfTfja    J'.ai    'lax^'^y   y.at    luiwti    rt   y.cc]   Ila^Ay   T<£P 


Sr/    ff^v    0sa>    JC  fli"    vt^.af,    rot    KpoyoviKa,    IxeiVa    xa* 
xaT<x$rKT^i»oi   g-^i^ofra.      Corif.  Euseb.  Lib.  V.   cap.. 
xi.  p.  223.  1.  31.  sqq.  cap,  xxviii.  1.  16.  sqq. 

721  Polycrat.  Epist.  ad  Viet.  ap.  Euseb.  ib.  Lib.  V.  cap.  xxiv. 

p.  2-14.    1.    13.    fc'r*   ^8   )i«7^    o    fjuxfore^os   irarruv    vpuv 

/xa,      oTs1     x 


5ravroT£   riv  ^M^fftf  r/yayov  ct  (rffye^VS   /x,y,    oVav  o  Aaoj 

er»j    sw*    Iv   xvij    xoii 


73  S.  Iren.  adv.  Haer.  Lib.  III.  cap.  iii.  p.  177.  «AA«  ^  y  iv 


i  TWV  Tp0H#»3  %fotwv,  ij.oc.prvs 
sragaSoTswr.  Of  tlie  means  which  St.  Irenasus  possessed  of 
investigating  the  primitive  traditions,  and  of  the  curiosity  which 
he  exercised  on  this  subject,  he  has  thus  spoken  ;  S.  Iren.  adv. 
Hoer.  Lib.  IV.  cap,  xxvii.  p.  263.  "  Quemadmodum  audvoi  a 
quodam  Presbytero,  qui  andierat  ab  his  qui  Apostolos  viderant, 
-et  ab  his  <jui  didicerant,"  &c. 


(    219    ) 

to  the  Church  by  its  original  founders,,  and  preserved 
by  their  successours74.  The  former  states,  that  the 
apostolical  tradition  was  preserved  in  every  church 
throughout  the  world75;  the  latter  appeals  to  the 
apostolical  writings  as  preserved  in  the  particular 
churches,,  where  they  were  deposited  by  their  in- 
spired authours 7&. 

74  Tertul.  adv.  Marc.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  v.  p.  406.     "  In  summa, 
si  constat  id  verms  quod  prius,  id  prius  quod  ab  initio,  id  ab 
initio   quod  ab   Apostolis;  pariter  utique  constabit  id  esse  ab 
Apostolis   traditum,    quod   apud  Eccle.sias   Apostolorum  fuerit 
sacrosanclum.     Videamus  quod  lac  a  Paulo  Corinthii  hauserint ; 
ad  quam  regulam  Galatse  sint  recorrecti ;  quid  legant  Philip- 
penses,    Thessalonicenses,   Ephcsii;    quid   etiam    Roman!   de 
proximo  sonent,  quibus  Evangelium  et  Petrus  et  Paulus  san- 
guine quoque  suo  signatum  reliquerunt.     Habemus  et  Joannis 
alumnas  Ecclesias.     Nam  etsi  Apocalypsim  ejus  Marcion  res- 
puit,  ordo  tamen  Episcoporum  ad  originem  recenms,  in  Joan- 
nem,  stabit  auctorem,  sic  et  ctcterarum  generositas  recognoscitur. 
Dico  itaque  apud  illas,  nee  solas  jam  Apostolicas,  sed  apud 
universas,  qua3  illis  de  societate  sacrament!  confcederantur,  id 
Evangelium  Lucse  ab  initio  editionis  suce  stare  quod  cum  maxime 
tuemur :  Marcionis  vero  plerisque  nee  notum,  nullis  autem  np- 
tum  ut  non  eo  damnatum." 

75  S.  Iren.  adv.  Hser.  Lib.  III.  cap.  iii.  p.  175.     "  Traditio- 
nem  itaque  Apostolorum  in  toto  mundo  manifestatam,  in  omni 
Ecclesia   adest   respicere  omnibus   qui  vera  velint  videre:  et 
habemus  annumerare  eos  qui  ab  Apostolis  instil uti  sunt  Episcopi 
in  Ecclesiis,  et  successores  eonim  usque  ad  nos,*'  &c.     Id.  ep. 
ad  Florin,  p.   339.   Tavrct    to,   ooy^ctroc,   ocav^uva,   eft    T-/J   l 

• — To-vTce,  ret-  (toy para,  ol   TT^O  r,^,u>v  Trgeo'&vTegGi)  of  xa*   T& 
Cf/A^oiT^^avreg,  £  •jrafs^aKCtv   x.  T.  I. 

76  Vid.  supr.  p.  115.  n.  I4.  p.  218.  n.  74.     The  meaning  as- 
cribed to  authentic*?  litercc,  in  the  former  quotation,  has  been 
opposed  by  Dr.  Lardner,  Cred.  of  Gosp.  Hist.  P.  I.  B.  I.  cli. 


(    220    ) 

As  the  early  period  in  which  those  apostolical  fa- 
thers flourished  is  thus  easily  connected  with  the  age 

xxvii.  Vol.  II.  p.  636.  He  supports  his  opinion  on  the  autho- 
rity of  Cicero,  and  of  Tertullian,  the  former  of  whom  uses  the 
adverb  at^-nxw?,  and  the  latter  the  adjective  aictkenticus,  in 
designating  the  original  of  a  work,  as  distinguished  merely  from 
a  translation.  And  he  contends,  that  the  very  originals  cannot 
be  meant  by  the  phrase  authenticce  litercc  ;  as  it  is  inconceivable 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  could  have  been  read  at  Rome,  as 
written  in  Greek ;  or  that  the  autographs  of  the  different  Epis- 
tles of  the  inspired  writers  could  be  found  at  more  places  than 
one;  whereas  Tertullian  refers  to  different  places.  But  the 
former  instances  are  wholly  irrelevant.  The  case  of  an  epistle 
which  has  been  transcribed,  and  of  a  work  which  has  been 
translated)  are  essentially  different ;  and  the  latter  is  wholly  be- 
side the  point  in  dispute  between  Tertullian  and  Marcion. 
They  equally  reasoned  from  the  original  Greek;  of  course  with- 
out any  regard  to  a  translation.  What  seems  decisive  of  the 
point  is,  that  had  merely  authentick  copies  been  required  to  de- 
cide the  matter  in  debate,  it  was  useless  to  apply  to  the  places 
where  the  originals  had  been  certainly  deposited  ;  as  an  authen- 
tlck  transcript  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  to  speak  but  of 
a  single  instance,  might  be  as  easily  obtained  at  Carthage, 
where  the  question  was  debated,  as  at  Rome,  Corinth,  or 
Ephesus.  And  when  Dr.  Lardner  objects,  that  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans  was  not  read  in  the  original  Greek,  at  Rome,  it 
seems  to  have  escaped  his  observation,  that  it  was  written  and 
addressed  in  this  language  to  that  Church,  by  the  Apostle  ; 
doubtless  with  the  view  of  being  read  in  the  congregation.  I 
trust  also,  it  would  require  more  ingenuity  than  the  objectour 
possessed,  to  prove,  that  because  it  was  read  from  a  translation, 
which  I  am  forward  to  admit,  it  was  not  read  also  in  the  ori- 
ginal. Certainly  the  practice  of  the  Primitive  Church  as  fully 
warrants  me  in  this  conjecture,  as  the  objectour  in  the  con- 
trary :  see  1  Cor.  xiv.  27,  28.  The  reasoning  of  Dr.  Lardner 
is  therefore  as  unfortunate,  as  the  instances  which  he  has  ad- 
duced impertinent.  The  reasons  which  support  a  different 


(    221    ) 

of  the  apostles;  it  may  be  no  less  easily  connected 
with  that  in  which  the  Latin  Vulgate  was  made,  and 
the  Alexandrine  manuscript  written  ;  the  joint  tes- 
timony of  which  contains  a  sufficient  evidence  of 
the  integrity  of  the  canonical  scriptures  from  the 
latter  period  down  to  the  present  day. 

St.  Jerome,,  who  formed  the  Latin  Version,  drew 
his  information  respecting  Tertullian  from  one  who 
had  conversed  with  a  notary  of  St.  Cyprian77.  St. 
Athanasius,  who  lived  when  the  Alexandrine  manu- 
script was  written,  was  present  in  the  Council  of 
Nice  78,  and  the  acquaintance  of  St.  Epipha- 
nius,  the  Mend  of  St.  Jerome79.  But  the  great 

sense  to  the  passage  before  us,  are  possessed  of  different  weight. 
That  authentic^  literce  was  considered,  in  Tertullian's  age  and 
country,  synonymous  with  ipsa  epistola,  eadem  epistola^.  St.  Cy- 
prian places  beyond  controversial  :  vid.  supr.  p.  115.  n.  l4; 
and  of  all  suppositions  it  is  only  probable,  that  the  originals  of 
the  epistles  of  St.  Paul,  which  Marcion  had  corrupted,  in  his 
transcripts,  had  not  been  destroyed  in  the  age  of  a  person,  who, 
like  Tertullian,  lived  near  the  Apostles'  times;  vid.  supr.  p. 
217.  n.  68.  A  comparison  with  any  one  of  those  Epistles,  as 
preserved  at  Rome,  Corinth,  or  Ephesus,  would  have  demon- 
strated the  corruption  of  Marcion's  Apostolicum:  this  is  the 
whole  which  is  intimated  by  Tertuilian,  and  less  than  this  ren- 
ders his  argument  nugatory. 

7  Vid.  supr,  p.  216.  n.68. 

78  Socrat.   Hist.   Eccles.    Lib.   I.   cap.  viii.    p.  19.   1.   50. 


xar    avra 

X.T.  t.     Con£  Sozom.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib,  I.   cap.  xvii.   p.  26. 
J.  7. 

79  S.  Hier.  adv.  Ruffin.  Lib.  III.  cap.  vii.  Tom.  II.  p.  257. 
^  Malui  per  Maleas  jet  Cycladas  Cyprum  pergcre,  ubi  sitsceptus 


(    222    ) 

Athanasius  must  have  conversed  with  many  who 
had  known  the  disciples  of  Grig-en.  Demetrius, 
who  was  contemporary  with  the  latter,  governed  the 
church  of  Alexandria  forty-three  years;  and  his 
successours,,  Heraclas  and  Dionysius,  who  occupied 
the  same  see  for  thirty-three  years  subsequently  to 
his  times,  were  the  disciples  of  Origen80.  But 
Dionysius  was  summoned  to  the  Synod,  held  at 
Antioch.,  which  was  convened  against  Paul  of  Samo- 
sata81;  and  Lucianus,  the  martyr,  who  revised  the 
Byzantine  text,  was  contemporary  with  Paul,  who 
was  deposed  by  the  Synod  of  Antioch  8i.  As  he 

a  veneralili  Episcopo  Epiphanio,  cujus  tu  testimonio  gloriaris, 
reni  Antiochiam."  St.  Epiphanius  himself  has  placed  out  of 
dispute  that  he  was  personally  acquainted  with  St.  Athanasius. 
I  shall  subjoin  the  anecdote  which  he  relates  ;  as  drawn  from 
the  life,  it  paints,  with  the  utmost  truth  of  nature,  the  manners 
of  that  extraordinary  man,  who  was  an  ornament  to  the  sacred 
function.  S.  Epiphan.  Haer.  LXXII.  p.  837.  b. 


IHX.P  ion     9rept     ram 
eg 


TTW?    av     f%01    <z«7Ep»     crr.    o     eg    «TS 
«re  vrzXw  nos  aurov  ofae?£f  •wve'^S'yj,  pdvov  <&  ^ia  T« 

pv   /xax^av   CCVTQV   tlvcu,   au     us 


Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.    Lib.   VI.   cap.  xv.    p.  275.   1. 


Id.  ibid.  cap.  xxix.  p,  294?.  1.  2L   ry<;  $1  ru» 
T^»  ft*fcff*J?i»  ^a^sp^ETat  AMVCTUH;,   ei?  >ta*  sroj  rut 


81  Euseb.  ib.  Lib.  VII.  cap,  xxvii.  p.  357.  1.  12.   5  ^  X«T" 

apaxT^S 
e//.5   xat 


v   sp^oi  wspt  7W 

Alex.  Alexandr.  Epist,  ap.  Theod.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib,  L  cap. 


(    223    ) 

survived  this  period,  until  the  persecution  of  Maxi- 
min,  and  was  not  martyred  until  within  thirteen 
years  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  he  must  have  been  a 
contemporary  of  St.  Athanasius,  and  would  have 
been  doubtless  present  in  that  Synod,  had  he  not 
been  prematurely  cut  off  among  the  martyrs  of 
Palestine.  By  the  intervention  of  Dionysius  and 
Lucianus,  the  tradition  is  thus  connected  from  the 
times  of  Orig-en  to  those  of  St.  Athanasius,  St.  Epi- 
phanius,  and  St.  Jerome. 

The  testimony  of  St.  Athanasius,  who  stands  at 
the  end  of  this  succession,  is  adequate  to  decide  all 
that  it  is  my  object  to  establish  8?.  He  has  given  a 
list  of  the  canonical  and  apocryphal  books,  in  his 
Festal  Epistle84,  which  forms  a  sufficient  evidence 


iv.   p.    15.    zx   ctyvoiiflct;    on    r>    svotyxtx;    \irow  0,70,0-  a,    Ty 
E@iu»o<     In    *#» 


TWV 

AUx.ioc.voq 


83  Vid.  supr.  p.  131.  n.  56.     Conf.  S.  Athan.  de  Incarn.  Verb, 
Tom.  I.  p.  96.  b. 

84  St.  Atlmn.  Epist.  Fest.  Tom.  I.  P.  ii.  p.  962.  c.  tci  l\  ™; 


EYAPFEAIA  rsWa^a'  xa]a  MalSa'i'ov,  xala  Ma^xov,  xalct  Asx.ar, 
xala  \ua,vvfiv.  slra  /neW  TOCVTX,  HPAHEIS  TON  'AnOSTOAHN,  xa* 
STOA:  I  KA0OAIKAI  xaA«f/si/a»  TW>  'AfforoAw*  s^a*  «T^?  /^^> 
wjSa  a,  IlET^a  ^E  /3,  slra  luotvva  7,  x«J  fAs1a  ravra?  I«£a  a. 
TMTOH  OAYAOt  'A7roroA»  nViy  'EniSTOAAI  ^x 


oi;    r«?v«ra?*     x^     s|^?$   TT^O?     *E(pto-i)i<;*    lira 
po?    Ko>a5-i3-£<V,    xj   /^tla   rat-^a    frpo^  0 
Wo*  KJ    ^    w^o?  €EjSf«t»«*   K)    gtSu;    Trpo?    T»wo$so»   ^yo'   Trpo 


(    £24    ) 

«f  the  integrity  of  the  vulgar  edition  ;  in  proving 
the  same  books  to  be  now  in  use,  which  were  re- 
ceived at  the  time  of  the  Nicene  Council.  What 
adds  still  greater  weight  to  his  authority,,  is  the  ex- 
plicit appeal  which  he  makes  to  the  tradition  of  the 
Church,  while  employed  in  enumerating  the  Cano- 
nical Scriptures  85.  As  he  was  present  in  the  Coun- 
cil* of  Nice,  where  the  Bishops  of  the  Catholick 
Church  were  assembled  together,  and  as  he  visited 
the  churches  of  Greece86,  Syria87,  Gaul88,  and 
Italy89,  and  governed  that  of  Alexandria,  he  not 
only  possessed  the  means  of  tracing  the  tradition  to 
its  source,  but  of  ascertaining  how  far  it  was  catho- 
lick.  The  different  editions  which  are  incorporated 
|n  the  Alexandrine  manuscript90,  contain  a  sufficient 

rxvra,  •jr^yttl  rt?  o-ulr^a  x.  r.  I.  Conf.  Synops.  Script.  Tom.  II. 
p.  177.  d.  sqq. 

8s  Id.   in  Epist.   Fest.   p.  961.  e.   nrapaxaXi;   an';<;E,7$a»,    ft  irtfi 

aXijStyoJy  |3»jSAi«>]  ttayu  pWfAovtvuv 
TO  p^jjcri^on  tr,<;  iy.x.^yffiat$.  (Athhuv  at 
W  tvTTu  T«  EtajyEAirS  Aaxoiy  Xs 

vroi;'       '^.irv&riiftQ    v\v\$    iTr^si^aav     uvoflcli;otc-$a,i     e 
xj  l9rt/xi|at  TO.VTO.   TJJ  Sidirvivr 

rots    TrotTQacviv   of 


TO.    xavovi£o/x£va  ^  9ra§a$oSpe'yTa,  zjissvSivTot.   rs 


86  Patrr.  Benedd.  Vit.  S.   Athan.  p.  viii.   §  2.  d.  conf.  S. 
Athan.  Tom.  I.  p.  128. 

87  lid.  ib.  p.  xxi.  f.  vid.  supr.  p.  132.  n.  5?. 

88  Sozonu  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  II.  cap.  xxviii.  p.  86. 1.  4. 

89  Vid.  supr.  p.  132.  n. 56. 

90  Griesb.  Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  I.  p.  ix.  n.  *.     "  Ran  erant— 


(    225    ) 

proof  that  even  the  verbal  niceties  of  the  text  did  not 
wholly  escape  his  attention.  Having  intended  his 
revisal  should  become  the  Received  Text,  he  em- 
bodied the  three  editions,,  which  existed  in  his  age, 
into  one :  he  thus  took  the  most  effectual  means  of 
introducing  uniformity  into  the  Church,  on  a  sub- 
ject, in  which  a  difference  of  opinion  must  have  been 
productive  of  greater  ills,  than  could  arise  from' 
merely  verbal  inaccuracies,  in  the  authorised  Scrip- 
tures. Regarded  with  these  limitations,  this  cele- 
brated manuscript  may  be  considered  a  full  exposi- 
tion of  St.  Athanasius's  testimony  to  the  integrity  of 
the  Sacred  Text. 

To  the  testimony  of  St.  Athanasius,  as  fully  set 
forth  in  the  Alexandrine  manuscript,  we  may  now 
add  that  of  St.  Jerome,  as  delivered  in  the  Latin 
Vulgate ;  in  order  to  confirm  the  evidence  of  the 
Eastern  Church  by  that  of  the  Western.  Not  to 
insist  on  the  explicit  testimony  which  he  has  borne 
to  the  different  books  of  the  Canonical  Scriptures91, 

Codices  qui  universum  Novum  Testamentum  complecterentur ; 
plerique  partern  ejus  tantum  continebant;  nempe  alii  Evan* 
gelia,  alii  Epistolas  Pauli,  alii  denique  Actus  Apostolorum  cum 
Catholicis  Epistolis.  Hinc  accidit,  ut  Codex  Alexandrinus  non 
in  omnibus  libris  eandem  textus  recensionem  sequeretur.  la 

Evangeliis  exhibet    recensionem    Constantinopolitanam    ; 

in  Epistolis  Paulinis  repraesentat  Alexandrinam  recensionem 
•  ;  in  Actis  denique  et  Epistolis  Catholicis  textum  sequi- 

tur,    passim  ad   Occidentals™,   receusionem   conforma- 

tam." 

91  S.  Hier.  ad  Paulin.  Ep.  cm.  cap.  vii.  Tom*  II.  p.  340, 
"  Tangam  et  Novum  breviter  Testamentum.  Matthseus,  Mar- 
cus, Lucas,  et  Joaunes  .  PauJus  Apostolus  ad  septem 


(    226    ) 

his  Vulgate  contains  a  sufficient  voucher  for  the  tes- 
timony borne  by  the  Latin  Church  to  the  general 
integrity  of  the  Sacred  Canon.  St.  Jerome's  alte- 
rations extended  to  little  more  than  verbal  correc- 
tions94; he  supplied  some  passages,  and  he  ex- 
punged others,,  in  the  received  text  of  his  age :  but 
he  translated  no  new  book,  he  removed  no  old  one,, 
from  the  authorised  version.  From  the  New  Vul- 
gate, of  course,  we  may  ascertain  the  state  of  the 
Old ;  and  thence  collect  the  testimony  of  the  Latin 
Church  from  the  earliest  period.  As  St.  Jerome's 
version,,  however,  agrees  with  the  list  of  St.  Atha- 
.  nasius,  in  possessing  the  same  authorised  books,  the 
testimony  of  both  forms  a  sufficient  evidence  of  the 
integrity  of  the  Greek  Vulgate;  wiiich  contains  the 
same  Scriptures  which  those  early  fathers  agree  in 
pronouncing  Canonical. 

As  the  testimony  of  the  Alexandrine  manuscript 
and  the  Latin  Vulgate,  is  generally  corroborated  by 
that  of  the  great  body  of  manuscripts,  containing  the 
original  Greek,  as  well  as,  the  Oriental  and  Western 
translations,  their  united  evidence  contains  an  irre- 

acribit  ecclesias  (octava  enim  ad  Hebrseos  a  plerisque  extra 
numerum  ponitur)  Timotheum  instruit,  ac  Titura:  Philemonem 
pro  fugitive  famulo  deprecatur. — Actus  Apostolorum  nudam 
quidem  sonare  videntur  historiam,  et  nascentis  Ecclesiae  infan- 
tiam  texere :  sed,  si  noverimus  scriptorem  eorum  Lucam  esse 
medicum^  .cujus  laus  est  in  Evangelic ;  animadvertemus,  pariter 
omnia  verba  illius,  anirnse  languentis  esse  rriedicinam.  Jaco- 
bus, Petrus,  Joannes,  et  Judas,  Apostoli,  septem  Epistolas 

ediderunt. Apocalypsis  Joaniiis  tot  habet  sacramenta,  quot 

verba." 

91  Vid,  supr.  p,  162.  n.  I23. 


(    227    ) 

fragable  proof  of  the  general  integrity  of  the  Sacred 
Canon.  The  certainty  of  this  conclusion  may  be 
now  summarily  evinced,  from  a  recapitulation  of  the 
foregoing  deductions. 

From  the  constant  intercourse  which  subsisted 
between  the  different  branches  of  the  Catholick 
Church^  the  wide  and  rapid  circulation  of  the  Scrip- 
tures must  be  inferred  by  necessary  consequence95. 
From  their  universal  dispersion,,  must  be  inferred 
their  freedom  from  general  corruption 94.  Verbal 
errours  might  have  arisen  in  the  text,  and  have  been 
multiplied  by  the  negligence  of  successive  transcri- 
bers :  and  the  destruction  of  the  sacred  books  in  par- 
ticular regions  might  have  afforded  opportunity  to 
particular  revisers,  to  publish  editions  of  the  text  with 
fancied  improvements.  But,  from  the  different  in- 
terests which  divided  the  Church,  these  alterations 
must  have  been  confined  to  unimportant  points95; 
and,  from  the  general  dispersion  of  the  Scriptures,, 
must  have  been  limited  to  particular  districts,  or 
have  continued  but  for  an  inconsiderable  period96. 
The  state  and  history  of  the  text  furnishes  numer- 
ous confirmations  of  these  several  positions.  The 
testimony  and  quotations  of  the  primitive  fathers 
who  lived  at  the  time  of  the  Paschal  controversy, 
prove,  that  the  Scriptures,  which  were  then  gene- 
rally used  in  the  Church,  were  those  which  were 

&  Via.  supr.  pp.  192—201. 
94  Vid.  supr.  pp.  201—  20/5. 
55  Vid.  supr.  pp.  202—204. 
*  Vid,  supr.  pp.  120.  120—136. 


(    228    ) 

published  by  their  inspired  authours97;  and  as  far 
as  the  testimony  of  those  early  witnesses  extends, 
that  they  are  the  same  which  are  still  in  use  in  our 
churches98.  The  testimony  of  those  primitive  fa- 
thers is  connected  with  that  of  St.  Athanasius  and 
St.  Jerome,,  by  a  very  few  links,  which  prove,  that 
the  tradition,  which  was  preserved  in  the  times  of 
the  former,  could  not  have  been  interrupted  in  the 
times  of  the  latter99.  Their  evidence  is,  however, 
as  clearly  as  it  is  plenarily  set  forth  in  the  Alexan- 
drine manuscript,  and  the  Latin  Vulgate,  which,  as 
delivering  the  same  testimony  at  different  times,  and 
under  different  circumstances100,  furnish,  by  their 
coincidence,  an  unanswerable  proof  of  the  integrity 
of  the  Canonical  Scriptures. 

But  the  same  positions  admit  of  a  different  esta- 
blishment, from  some  antecedent  observations.  The 
Alexandrine  manuscript  contains  an  evidence  of  the 
existence  of  three  classes  of  text  as  early  as  the  year 
three  hundred  and  sixty-seven TCI ;  and  consequently 
a  proof  of  the  permanence  of  the  text  of  Byzantium 
from  that  time  to  the  present101.  The  existence  of 
this  peculiar  text  for  fourteen  centuries  involves  no 
inconsiderable  proof  of  its  permanence  since  the 
times  of  the  Apostles103.  This  presumption,  which 


97  Vid.  supr.  pp.  207— -2  H. 
93  Vid.  supr.  pp.  210.  214. 
59  Vid.  supr.  pp.  221—223. 

100  Comp.  p.  15.  n.  26.  p.  131.  n. 5C. 

101  Vid.  supr.  pp.  121, 122. 
lcl  Vid*  supr.  pp.  114.  126. 
"*  Vid.  supr.  pp.  114,  115. 


(    229    ) 

is  so  strongly  corroborated  by  the  multiplicity  of  the 
copies  of  this  edition;  and  by  their  extraordinary 
coincidence  with  each  other 104,  is  finally  confirmed 
by  the  testimony  of  the  primitive  Latin  version; 
which,  as  obviously  made  in  the  earliest  age,,  fur- 
nishes, by  its  coincidence  witl^the  Greek  Vulgate, 
a  demonstrative  proof  of  the  permanence  of  the  Re- 
ceived Text  or  vulgar  edition  ™5. 

In  fine,  thecoincidence  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  Vul- 
gate, which  contain  the  positive  testimony  of  the  Eas- 
tern and  Western  Church,  constitutes  a  sufficient  evi- 
dence of  the  integrity  of  the  Canonical  Scriptures. 
They  prove,  by  their  unity  of  consent,  that  the  Sar 
cred  Canon  is  complete;  without  any  deficiency  or 
superabundance  of  books ;  and  without  any  diminu- 
tion or  increase  of  their  parts  or  members.  Their 
joint  testimony  consequently  furnishes  an  adequate 
test  by  which  we  may,  in  most  cases,  correct  their 
variations  from  themselves,  and  rectify  the  imper- 
fections of  other  texts  and  editions.  Hence,  in  the 
first  instance,  they  sufficiently  establish  the  authority 
of  those  canonical  books,  which  have  been  question- 
ed by  private  persons,  or  by  particular  Churches Io5. 
In  the  next  place,  their  conspiring  testimony  esta- 
blishes the  authority  of  particular  passages,  which 
have  been  omitted  in  particular  versions,  or  can- 
celled in  particular  editions I07.  The  private  testi- 

104  Vid.  supr.  p.  118. 

105  Vid.supr.pp.  70,  71.  114-. 

106  Vid.  infr.  p.  230.  n.  I08.  p.  237.  n.  *37, 

107  Mark  xvi,  9—20.  Job,  vii.  63,—vin.  11,  vid,  supr.  pp. 
35— 38, 


(    330    ) 

mony  of  individuals,  the  bye  testimony  of  national 
churches.,  to  which  the  evidence  of  fathers  and  ver- 
sions,, as  well  as  of  particular  manuscripts,  is  neces- 
sarily reducible,  can  have  no  weight  against  the 
conspiring  testimony  of  the  two  great  Churches  in 
the  Eastern  and  Western  world,  which  were  the  de- 
positaries of  the  apostolical  writings.  We  may  very 
easily  account  for  the  suppression  of  particular  pas- 
sages, or  even  books,  in  a  limited  number  of  copies  ; 
but  their  occurrence  in  the  great  body  of  manu- 
scripts, which  properly  contain  the  testimony  of  the 
Church,  is  not  to  be  accounted  for.,  otherwise  than 
fey  admitting  them  to  have  possessed  that  authority 
from  the  first,  which  procured  them  a  place  among 
the  Canonical  Scriptures. 

A  closer  examination  of  this  point  will,  however, 
place  the  integrity  of  the  text  beyond  all  reasonable 
ground  of  contro  version.  Of  the  different  books 
which  are  numbered  among  the  Canonical  Scrip- 
tures, the  Apocalypse,  and  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
have  excited  the  most  serious  opposition  Io8.  Of  the 
various  passages  which  constitute  those  books,  Mark 
xvi.  9  —  20.  Johnviii,  1  —  ll'°9,  have  been  exposed 

108  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.    Lib.  III.   cap.   xxv.  p.  119.    I.  4. 


TOK    caoAoya/xE'voK.      Id.    ibid. 
Lib.  VI.  cap.  xx.  p.  285.  1.  6.  TU»  TS  iEs-3  ' 


rvy%xvEiv.     Conf.  Lib.  VII.  cap.  xxv.  p.  352.  L  4» 
q.  Lib.  III.  cap.  iii.  p.  90.  1.  2. 
103  Via.  S,  Hier,  ut  supr.  p.  35,  n.  6*.  p.  37.  n.  C5. 


(    231     ) 

to  the  most  formidable  objections.  If,  however,,  the 
canonical  authority  of  the  sacred  volume  be  ground* 
lessly  questioned  in  these  respects,  we  may  a  for- 
tiori conclude,  that  it  is  not  to  be  shaken  by  any 
objections. 

In  vindication  of  the  Apocalypse  and  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  it  must  be  observed,  that  the  objec- 
tions urged  against  them  are  merely  confined  to  a 
doubt  respecting  the  name  of  the  inspired  persons 
by  whom  they  were  written.  The  former  was  con- 
ceived to  have  proceeded  from  John  the  Elder, 
whose  tomb  was  shewn  at  Ephesus,  together  with 
that  of  St.  John  the  Evangelist110;  the  latter  was 
conceived  to  have  proceeded  from  St.  Luke,  St. 
Clement,  or  St.  Barnabas"1,  the  companions  of  St. 

"°  Euseb.  ibid.  cap.  xxxix.  p.  136.  1.  15.    &$«  y.at 

a^KJV     ot£     xalapSfxSiflt     avru      \_TU    FlaTTtaJ     TO      luuvva    wopa,* 

TOV     /X6V      TTQQTSpOV      IltTgU     ^     ItZKuftu     t£     Mal^ixlu     x) 

cxfyas  $rik£>v  rov  'EzJ^/VeTus^v*  TOV  §' 
TOV  hoyov,  ST&DO^J  ITU^U,  TOV  TUV 
aj  avrz  rov  'A^rwva,'  GOLEMS  T£ 
w?  xj  ha,  rsruv  ot,Ko$s'w.vvo-$ai  rviv 
tuv  $vo  KOCTO,  ff,v  'Aaixv  Ipuvvpiiz.  xe^pijcr^a 
T?  sv  'E(pe<7W  yeWfJ&at  povr)/^.aT«'  ^  exaTepv  'Iwana  IT*  vvv 
c'Scu'  ol<;  )£  a,va.yv.ot,~QV  Trpocrsp^sn'  TOV  v&v.  SiXoy  yxp  TOV  osc/Tc^oy, 
TU;  e6eAoi  TOV  vrfUTOv,  tw  ITT  ovo|LAaTo?  (ps^o^svrtv  *Ja/flcvva 
/tv  Ift/gaxg'vai.  Vid.  Lib.  VII.  cap.  xxv.  p.  353.  1.  44'. 
sqq.  Conf.  S.  Hicr.  Cat.  Scriptt.  Eccless.  in  Joan.  Tom.  I. 
p.  121. 

111  S.  Hier.  Cat.  Scriptt.  Eccl.  in  Paul.  Tom.  I.  p.  120, 
"  Epistola  autem  quas  fertur  ad  Hcbrceos,  non  ejus  creditur  prop- 
ter  styli  sermonisque  dissonantiam  ;  sed  velBarnabce  juxta  Ter- 
tullianum ;  vel  Luca  Evangelists,  juxta  quosdam ;  vel  Cle- 
menlh,  Romance  postea  Ecclesiae  Episcopi,  quern  aiunt  senten- 


(    232    ) 

Paul  the  Apostle1".  The.  particular  objections 
urged  against  those  books,  from  the  internal  evi- 
dence, I  shall  consider  hereafter;  the  following  con- 
siderations appear  to  me  to  remove  all  doubt  of 
their  authority,,  as  constituting  a  part  of  the  sacred 
Scripture. 

In  the  first  place  it  is  not  disputed.,  by  the  most 
strenuous  oppugners  of  those  books,  that  they  con- 
stituted a  part  of  the  Canon113.  Admitting  thus 
much,,  which,  by  the  way,  is  all  that  is  worth  con- 
testing, the  point  in  dispute  may  be  brought  to  a 
speedy  determination.  It  has  been  urged  in  objec- 
tion to  those  books,  that  the  one  introduces  the  name 
of  St.  John  "*,  the  other  omits  the  name  of  St. 

tias  Pauli  proprio  ordinasse,  et  ornasse  sermone."  Conf,  Tert. 
Lib.  de  Pudicit.  c.  xx.  p.  617.  Clem.  Alex.  ap.  Euseb.  Hist. 
Eccl.  Lib.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  xiv.  p.  273.  L  8.  sqq.  Con£  Lib.  III. 
cap.  xxxviii.  p.  134-.  1.  18.  sqq. 

111  Comp,  Act.  xiii.  2.  &c.  2  Tim.  iv.  1.  Phil.  iv.  3.  Conf. 
Euseb.  ibid.  cap.  iv.  p.  91.  1.  17.  p.  92.  1.  6. 

113  Dionys.  Alexandr.  ap  Euseb.  ibid.  Lib.  VII.  cap.  xxv. 
p.  352.  1.  23.  iyv  $s  aS'cT^jat  ///ev  UK  av  ToX/xrlffcfcjpu  TO  /3i/3X/ov* 
i^ovrav  ad&tpuv.  Id.  ibid.  p.  353.  1.  3. 


etvrov  .  'lua-vvyv,    •£ 


u.   otyu  pv  yag  Etvat   nvor  'gOTrveivfa  avvocivu. 

ri   p\v    vv  'luctwys    irlv    o   TO.VTU>    y£a,(puv    [xayw 
uv   x^   cc,x.&uv  Tctvrct^    otvru  heyovri   vrirtvTtov'    TroTo?   oe. 

Euseb.  ib.  Lib.  III.  cap.  xxxviii.  p.  134.  1.  14<« 


otvTo    TO;?    XoiTror?    elxaraXe^Tjvat    ypocfA&aat    T«    'A-zr- 
"4  Dionys.  ibid.  p.  353.  1.  5.     Oy  pw  ga 


(    233    ) 

Paul11*,  contrary  to  the  practice  of  those  Apostles, 
in  their  genuine  writings.  This  distinction  seems 
decisive  of  the  question,  and  directly  identifies  the 
true  authours  of  the  Apocalypse  and  the  Epistle. 
The  introduction  of  the  name  of  the  inspired  writer 
implies  an  authoritative  declaration  of  the  aposto- 
lical function  :  such  a  designation  is,  of  course,  as 
properly  abandoned  by  both  Apostles  in  dictating 
epistles  to  the  whole  church,  or  to  particular  congre- 
gations not  in  their  jurisdiction:  as  it  was  properly 
assumed  by  them,  in  addressing  those  churches  over 
which  they  assumed  an  immediate  authority.  St. 
John,  in  his  Catholick  Epistle,  and  St.  Paul,  in  his 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  declines  using  the  title;  for 
this  obvious  cause,  that  the  one  was  no  universal 
Bishop,  the  other  not  an  Apostle  of  the  Hebrews, 
but  of  the  Gentiles  "6.  But  in  addressing  the  parti- 

ittai    Toy    'ATroro^QVj    Toy   vw»  Zs/JsJafe*    rov   aaeX^ov   *leutv0q*    a    ro 
Eua/ye?uo»  TO    xola    ludvvviv  \Tr\yiyQO.yi.y.tvW)   x^ 
—o    p,t»    yoi^    Eyaj"y£?uj-i?>     fe^a/xS    TO    ovopta 

lot/Toy,  are  £ia  T«  Eyjc]ye^»,  Sre 
tv$v<;    rs 


"5  Vid.  supr.  p.  231.  n.  '".     Conf.  infr.  n.  II6. 
116  Clement,  of  Alexandria,   has  put  this  argument  more 
forcibly  ;  Clem.  Alex.  ap.  Euseb.  ibid.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  xiv.  p.  273-. 

1.  19.    iflTE*   o    Kt^io?,    aTToroAos    aiv  T«    IIa»Tox^aTo^fi^  aWHj-aA»j 


lat/Tov  'E^atwv  ATroroXov*    ^ia  T6   ?r;v 


O»T«  xj  AwoVoXov.  S.  Hier.  Comm.  in  Gal.  cap.  i.  Tom. 
VI.  p.  120.  f.  "  Et  in  Epistola  ad  Hebraeos,  propterea  Paulum 
solita  consuetudine,  nee  nomen  swim,  nee  ApostoU  •oocabvlum 
prceposuisse,  quia  de  Chrlsto  erat  dicturu*  :  «  Habentes  e-rgo 


(    234    ) 

cular  churches  of  Rome  and  Corinth,,  or  the  seven 
churches  of  Asia,  >  both  St.  John  and  St.  Paul,  in  in- 
troducing their  names,  assert  their  apostolical  autho- 
rity. With  respect  to  the  Apocalypse,  of  course 
the  controversy  must  be  now  at  an  end;  for  it  is  as 
certain,  that  John  the  Elder  possessed  no  authority 
over  the  seven  churches,  as  that  those  churches  were 
governed  by  St.  John  the  Evangelist,  until  the  reign 
of  the  Emperour  Trajan117.  And  with  respect  to 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  it  may  be  as  briefly 
decided.  Though  St.  Paul  has  declined  introduc- 
ing his  name  into  this  Epistle,  he  has  asserted  that 
authority  over  Timothy,  in  deputing  him  on  a  mis- 
sion118, which  is  irreconcilable  with  the  notion  of  its 
having  proceeded  from  any  person  of  inferiour  au- 
thority ;  or  is  indeed  clearly  demonstrative  of  the 
fact,  that  it  was  written  by  the  great  Apostle. 

As  these  considerations,  deducible  from  the  in- 
ternal evidence,  seem  to  annihilate  the  force  of  the 
objections  raised  to  those  canonical  books  ;  the  ex- 
ternal testimony  of  two  witnesses,  who  are  above  all 
exception,  fully  confirms  the  authority  which  they 
derive  from  the  ecclesiastick  tradition.  St.  Irenaeus, 
ivho  was  but  one  remove,  in  the  line  of  succession, 
from  St.  John,  having  heard  his  disciple  St.  Poly- 

Principem,  Sacerdotem  et  Apostolum  confessionis  nostras  Je- 
sum:"  nee  fuisse   congruum,  ut   ubi  Christus  Apostolus   di- 
cendus  erat,  ibi  etiam  Paulus  Apostolus  poneretur." 
117  Vid.  supr.  p.  112.  nn.  6et7. 
8  EuthaL  Argum.  in  Ep.  ad  Hebrr.  p.  671.  xa*  «*  T«  *iy&nt 


oi^a*  unih'jffiv  SK  hatxaviav  Ttft&Osoy,  E»  pr)  n&vhos  x.  r.  I 


(    235    ) 

carp  "9,  expressly  ascribes  the  Revelation  to  the 
Evangelist iao :  and  speaks  .of  the  apocalyptick  vi- 
sion as  having  been  seen  in  his  own  age,  towards 
the  end  of  the  reign  of  Domitian  1ZI.  And  a  con- 
temporary of  St.  Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
whose  authority  Eusebius  represents  as  decisive  "*, 
relates  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  written 
by  St.  Paul  in  his  vernacular  tongue,  but  translated 
into  Greek  by  Luke  the  Evangelist ta?.  To  the  tes- 
timony which  St.  Irenaeus  bears  to  the  work  of  St 
John,  we  may  add  that  of  Justin  Martyr  I24,  Ter- 
tullian1*5,  Melito  II6,  Theophilus  "7,  Apollonius1*8, 
and  Clemens  Alexandrinus  »29,  who  flourished  in  the 

119    Vid.  supr.  p.  200.  n.  *J.  p.  217.  n.  70. 
1ZO  Vid.  supr.  p.  170.  n.  136.  conf.  p.  112.  n.  c. 
l"  Vid.  Euseb.  supr.  p.  112.  n.  6_ 
m  Id.  ibid. 

123  Vid.  supr.  p.  211.  n. 55. 

124  Just.  Mart.  Dial,  cum  Tryph.  p.  308.  «r*^  r--r-    -'->--^-  * 
o»ojM,a  I&'scvv'TjS',    ctf   TWV  'A^ofoXo/v    T«   Xcifw,   Iv 


115  Vid.  supr.  p.  219.  n.  7*. 

116  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  xxvi.  p.  189.  1.  1.  «}  Ao 


ia7  Id.  ibid.  cap.  xxiv.  p.  187.  1.  27.  xj  <xAAo 


128  Id.  ibid.  Lib.  V.  cap.   xviii.  p.    236.1.   11. 

iaiS  CCTTO  TYiS  'ItoJCZVVH  '  AlFOIQxXltys 

'Jwawa  ev  T-/)  'E^sVw  iyvyifiai 

129  Id.  ibid.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  xiv.  p.  273.  1.  S.   'Ev  £ 

"fTrolvwucrsgt  %vvthovl»  liTrif 


(    236    ) 

age  of  St.  Irenaeus  ;  and  Grig-en  IJO,  who  flourished 
at  the  beginning  of  the  subsequent  sera.  And  to  the 
testimony  which  Clement  has  borne  to  the  Epistle  of 
St.  Paul,  we  may  add  that  of  St.  Clemens  Roma- 
nus  l31  in  the  same  age,  and  of  Origen  l3i  and  Bio- 
nysius  Alexandrinus  I5?  in  the  succeeding.  Euse- 
bius  of  Caesarea,  who  flourished  at  the  beginning  of 
the  following  century,  and  whose  opinion  must  be 
allowed  to  possess  great  weight,  though  he  speaks 
rather  dubiously  in  assigning  the  Apocalypse  to  St. 
John  134,  ascribes  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  to  St. 
Paul  I3S  without  hesitation.  And  St.  Athanasius  I36 


vcr&s*  [AY,    s  TOC.S 
Conf.  Gricsb.  Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  II.  pp.  616.  619.  620. 
131:5  Orig.  Horn,  in  Joan.  Tom.  IV.  p.  95.  d.  ri  &r  m^  ru 

vrs-ofos  \iyetv   \it\   TO  r'^°S  ^5  I>jcr£,  lucivvti;  o? 

£ypa\|/£  Se  ^  rwv  A'TToxaXyvJ/tv  x.  T.  I. 
j31  Vid.  supr.  p.  232.  n.  "3. 
131  Orig.  Horn,  in  Ep.  ad  Hebrr.  Tom.  IV.  p.  698.  lyu 

on  TQL  /XEV  vo'/jpta'/  ' 

ce,7rop.vrjiAOV£V?ccvlo<;    nvoq    TO.    a 


133  From  the  following  quotation  of  Heb,  x,  34.  and  express 
reference  to  St.  Paul,    Dr.  Lardner  has  concluded,  Cred.  of 
Gosp.  Hist.  Vol   IV.  p.  663.  that  Dionysius  considered  that 
Epistle  the  work  of  the  great  apostle  ;  Dionys.  ap.  EUS.  Hi*t. 
Eccles.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  xli.  p.  304-.  1.  3-1.  If/xTui-w  o\  x.a*  vira.v&^^» 

i.  KCtt  TY,V  cc.pffa.yw   TUV    VTTCtvluv,     OfAOlUS    6?t£iVOff    oif    3Q 
t(JLapTVQX0ff  ptTa  xafa 

134  Vid.  supr.  p.  230.  n.  I08. 
J35  Vid.  supr.  p.  232.  n.1'7. 
136  Vid.  gupr.  p.  223.  n.  s*. 


(    337    ) 

and  St.  Jerome  ni3  at  the  close  of  the  same  century, 
speak  in  the  same  terms,  without  limitation  or 
exception  ;  these  extraordinary  men  may  be  al- 
lowed to  deliver  the  opinion  of  the  Eastern  and 
Western  Churches Ij8.,  if  the  testimony  of  either 
may  be  collected  from  the  statement  of  individuals. 
Of  this  "  cloud  of  witnesses/'  each  of  whom  is  a 
host  in  himself,  the  earlier  part  lived  at  that  pe- 
riod l39^  when  the  true  state  of  the  question  could 

137  S.  Hier.  Dardan.  Ep.  cxxix.  Tom.  II.  p.  370.    "  Quod  si 
earn  [Epistolam  ad  Hebrceos'}  Latinorum  consuetude  non  reel- 
pit  inter  Scripturas  Canonicas ;  nee  Graecorum  quidem  Eccle- 
sia  Apocalypsim  Joannis  eadem  libertate  suscipiunt :    et  tamen 
nos  utramque  suscij)imust  nequaquam  hnjiis  temporis  consuetudi- 
nem,  sed  veterum  scriptontm  auctoritatem  seqnentes,    qui   ple- 
rumque  utriusque  abutuntur  testimoniis,    non  ut  interdum  de 
apocrypliis  facere  solent,  (quippe  qui  et  Gentilium  litteraram 
raro  utantur  exemplis,)  sed  quasi  canonicis  et  ecclesiasticis. 

138  Greg.  Nazianz.  Orat.  xxi.  ed.  Par.  Tom.  I.  p.  376.  c.  *ul 
/xsv  OTaXaiav  /S/.SXov  Waffav  £s  vs'av  [o  ASavaatoyJ   ixptfeX?- 
x.  T.  E.     Id.  ibid.  p.  397.  a.     ^<ra?  $1  xru,  -£  TzociSsvSsls'  -£ 

Wai^E^JaS1,  wrs  o^ov  pi*  \Tn(?wirr,c  elvoti  TCV  exstfa  @loy  ^  rpoTrov,  vo/U-ov 
5e  scj  opS-o^o^i'ar  roc  EXEI'VK  ^oy/xa7«.  S.  August,  contr.  Jul.  Pe- 
Jag.  Lib.  I.  cap.  vii.  Tom.  X.  p.  519.  b.  " .  Hieronymus — qui 
Graco  et  Latino,  insuper  et  Hebreco  eruditus  eloquio,  ex  Occi- 
dentali  ad  Orientalem  transiens  Ecdesiam,  in  locis  sanctis  et  in 
literis  sacris,  usque  ad  decrepitam  vixit  astatem.  Hie  omnes, 
qui  ante  ilium ^  aliquid  ex  utraquc  parte  orbis,  de  doctr'nia  eccle- 
siastica  scripserant,  legit,"  &c. 

'39  St.  Clement  is  referred  to  A.  D.  80:  Justin  Martyr  to 
A.D.130:  S.  Irenams  to  A.  D.  160:  Melito  to  A.  D.  170: 
Xheophilus  to  A.D.  180:  Clemens  Alexandrinus  to  A.D.  190. 
Apollonius  to  A.  D.  192:  Tertullianto  A.  D.  200  :  Hippolytus 
to  A.  D.  220 :  Origen  to  A.  D.  Z3Q :  Eusebius  to  A.  D  320 : 
S.  Athanasius  to  A.D.  330;  S,  Jerome  to  A,  D.  380,  The 


(    238    ) 

have  been  scarcely  missed  by  the  most  careless  in- 
quirer ;  and  the  testimony  of  those  primitive  fathers 
is  connected  by  a  very  few  intermediate  links  with 
that  of  the  last  witnesses  to  whose  authority  an  ap* 
peal  has  been  made  on  the  subject  under  discus- 
sion. 

As  far  as  respects  the  number  of  the  canonical 
books,  the  Vulgate,,  which  is  in  use  in  the  Eastern 
and  Western  Churches,  admits  of  the  clearest  vin- 
dication. If  even  those  books,  which  are  repre- 
sented as  of  doubtful  authority,  admit  of  so  full  and 
satisfactory  a  defence,  we  may  necessarily  infer  the 
unquestionable  authority  of  those  which  have  never 
excited  suspicion.  The  works  of  Clement'40  and 
Origen  '4I  in  the  East,  of  Tertullian  IAi  and  Cyprian 
143  in  the  West,  who  generally  quote  from  all  the 
canonical  books,  are  sufficiently  declaratory  of  the 
testimony  of  both  Churches,  as  derived  from  imme- 
morial tradition.  The  evidence  of  Lucianus  and 
Eusebius,  to  whom  St.  Athanasius  I44  and  St<  Je- 

earliest  of  those  witnesses  lived  nearly  in  the  age  when  St.  John 
saw  the  Apoealyptick  vision;  vidsupr.  p.  124.  n.  35. 

140  Vid.  supr.  p.  235.  n.  "\ 

141  Vid.  supr.  p.  215.  n.  6S. 
1+1  Vid.  supr.  p.  214.  n.6?. 

143  The  three  books  of  testimonies,  which  St.  Cyprian  Ed* 
Oxon.  p.  17.  sqq.  has  collected  not  only  from  the  New  but  the 
Old  Testament,  contain  a  sufficient  voucher  for  the  above  as- 
sertion. 

144  Vid.  Synops.  Script.  Tom.  II.  p.  204.  a.  conf.  Lib.  de  Sy- 
nodd.  Tom.  I.  p.  735.  e.  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  II.  cap.  x.  p. 
87. 1.  37.  Sozom.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  III.  cap.  vi.  p.  98.  L  39.  S, 
Kilar.  de  Synodd.  p.  1168.  c.  Ed.  Bened. 


(    239    ) 

tome  I4S  respectively  refer,  will  connect  the  tradi- 
tionary chain,  as  extending  from  the  apostolical  age 
to  the  final  establishment  of  Christianity  under  the 
EmperourTheodosius.  After  this  period  it  must  be 
unnecessary  to  search  after  proofs  in  support  of  the 
integrity  of  the  Canonical  Scripture  I45. 

At  the  last-mentioned  period.,  two  remarkable 
passages.,  as  I  have  already  observed,  had  been 
partially  withdrawn  from  the  sacred  text I47 ;  though 
now  admitted  almost  without  exception,  into  the 
vulgar  text  of  the  Eastern  and  Western  Chuches. 
The  testimony  of  those  Churches,  not  less  than  the 
integrity  of  the  sacred  Canon,,  is  involved  in  the  fate 
of  those  passages;  since  their  authority  must  be 
impeached,  if  either  passage  prove  spurious.  A 
few  considerations,  however,  in  addition  to  what  has 
been  already  advanced,  will  place  their  authority 
beyond  all  reasonable  exception. 

The  objection  to  those  passages  lies  in  the  cir- 
cumstance of  their  being  absent  from  some  copies  of 
St.  Jerome's  times,  and  from  some  which  have  de- 
scended to  the  present  period.  But  this  considera- 
tion falls  infinitely  short  of  proving  them  spurious, 
or  more  than  expunged  from  the  text  of  Eusebius, 

145  Via,  supr.  p.  125.  n. 38. 

*46  The  testimony  of  those  writers,  from  the  earliest  age,  has 
been  collected  by  Dr.  Lardner  in  his  Cred.  of  Gosp.  Hist.  The 
evidence  of  those  who  support  the  authority  of  the  Epist.  to  the 
Hebrews,  and  Revelations,  is  summed  up  in  Suppl.  to  B.  I.  P. 
II.  Vol.  II.  p.  331.  sqq.  Vol.  III.  p.  355.  sqq. 

147  Mark  xvi.  9 — 11,  John  via.  1 — 11.  vid.  supr.  p.  35.  n.  63. 
p.  37.  n.  *'>. 


(    240    ) 

and,  after  his  example,  omitted  in  the  text  of  the 
orthodox  revisers.  That  they  were  absent  from  the 
former  edition,  is  evident  from  the  testimony  of  the 
Eusebian  Canons,  in  which  they  do  not  appear 14S ; 
that  they  were  absent  from  the  latter,  appears  from 
the  positive  testimony  of  St.  Jerome149,  confirmed 
by  that  of  St.  Epiphanius  I5°.  The  determination  of 
the  question  must  therefore  turn  on  this  alternative ; 
their  having*  been  suppressed  in  the  received  text 
of  St.  Jerome's  age,  or  inserted  in  that  of  the  sub- 
sequent period.  The  entire  circumstances  of  the 
case  tend  to  establish  the  former,  and  disprove  the 
latter  supposition. 

The  probabilities  that  Eusebius  suppressed  those 
passages  in  his  edition,  have  been  already  calcu- 
lated 1SI,  and,  until  disproved,  I  am  free  to  con- 
clude, have  been  established  from  the  circumstances 
under  which  his  edition  was  published.  That  they 
were  omitted  also  in  the  text  of  the  orthodox  revi- 
sers, is,  I  conceive,  evident,  from  the  testimony  of 
St.  Jerome ;  as  he  lived  in  the  age  when  both  these 
editions  prevailed,  and  declares,  that  those  passages 
were  absent  from  the  generality  of  copies  extant  in 
his  times  liz.  Two  witnesses  will  be  now  sufficient 
to  establish  the  authenticity  of  those  passages,  and 
to  connect  the  chain  of  tradition,  from  which  their 
authority  is  derived ;  one^  to  prove  that  they  were 

148  Vid.supr.  p.  36.  n.64. 
349  Vid.  supr.  n.  147. 
153  Vid.  supr.  p.  93.  n.  10^ 
151  Vid.  supr.  p.  35.  sqq. 
isa  Vid.  supr.  n.  «*7. 


(    241     ) 

removed  from  the  prevailing-  text  of  the  age  ;  and 
one,,  to  show  that  they  existed  in  the  antecedent  edi- 
tion. For  the  first  position  St.  Epiphanius,  who 
describes  the  text  of  the  orthodox  revisers,,  is  the  best 
voucher.  He,  however.,  declares  that  these  persons 
positively  omitted  some  exceptionable  passages  :  and 
we  find  the  passages  in  question  omitted  in  those 
copies,  which  want  the  passage  which  he  declares 
was  suppressed  '54.  For  the  second  position,  the 
best  voucher  must  be  his  contemporary  St.  Jerome, 
who  has  inserted  those  passages  in  his  transla- 
tion I5*.  He  has  thus  implicitly  asserted  their  ex- 
istence, in  the  old  copies  of  the  original 15S,  by 
which  he  corrected  his  version.  As  his  testimony  to 
the  existence  of  these  passages  is,  consequently,  an- 
tecedent to  the  only  grounds  of  suspicion  on  which 
they  are  impeached  ;  it  is  adequate  to  remove  any 
objection  to  which  they  have  been  exposed,  as  fill- 
ing up  that  breach  in  the  ecclesiastical  tradition,  by 
which  their  canonical  authority  is  properly  sup- 
ported. 

Clear  as  the  case  is  in  which  it  is  conceived  that 
these  passages  were  suppressed ;  that  in  which  it  is 
supposed  that  they  were  interpolated  is  involved  in 
inextricable  difficulties.  On  reviewing,  however 
casually,  the  internal  evidence,  it  seems  as  fully  to 

153  Vid.  supr.  p.  93.  n.  * 3.      Hence  we   find,    that  not  only 
Luke  xxi.  43,  44,  is  wanting  in  the  Alexandrine,  Vatican,  and 
Brescia  MSS.  but  John  viii.  1 — 1 1»  The  Vatican  MS.  also  omits 
Mark  xvi.  9 — 11.  vid.  Griesb.  nott.  in  locc. 

154  Vid.  supr.  p.  94.  u.  I06.  p.  35.  u.  63.  p.  37.  n.  65. 
i$5  Vid.  supr.  p.  161,  n."9. 

R 


(    242    ) 

establish  the  former,  as  to  invalidate  the  latter  posi- 
tion. The  history  of  the  adulteress,  contained  in 
St.  John,,  would  be  likely  to  offend  some  over  scru- 
pulous readers ;  as  liable  to  be  misrepresented  by- 
persons  waywardly  inclined  to  pervert  the  sacred 
oracles.  The  narrative  of  the  resurrection,  con- 
tained in  St.  Mark,  would  be  likewise  liable  to  ex- 
ception ;  as  containing  some  circumstances  in  the 
account  of  that  event,  apparently  different  from  that 
of  the  other  Evangelists.  These  considerations 
would  operate  as  strongly  in  obtaining  the  suppres- 
sion of  those  passages,  as  in  preventing  their  in- 
sertion in  the  Sacred  Canon.  If  we  suppose  them 
authentick,  they  contain  no  difficulty  which  may 
not  be  easily  cleared  up ;  if  we  suppose  them  spu- 
rious, it  is  as  impossible  to  account  for  their  being  so 
exceptionable,  as  they  thus  appear,  as  it  is  to  ac- 
count for  their  having  been  admitted,  with  all  their 
imperfections,  into  the  vulgar  text  of  the  Eastern 
and  Western  Churches.  No  object  appears  to  ex- 
ist which  could  have  induced  any  person  to  invent 
such  passages,  no  influence  which  could  have  in- 
duced those  Churches  collectively  to  incorporate 
them  in  the  Canon. 

When  we  inspect  more  narrowly  the  purpose 
which  the  different  Evangelists  had  in  view,  we  find 
those  passages  more  than  reconcilable  with  the  ob- 
ject of  their  different  narratives.  The  proof  of  the 
resurrection  was  indispensable  to  the  completion  of 
the  Gospel  history,  by  whatever  person  it  might  be 
written  ;  this  being  the  great  miracle  on  which  the 
truth  of  Christ's  mission  depended,  and  the  proper 


(    243    ) 

object  of  the  apostolical  testimony l56  This  proof 
was  given,  by  the  express  appointment  of  our  Lord, 
in  Galilee  157 ;  and,,  by  manifesting  himself  by  the 
most  infallible  evidence  to  his  apostles,,  (C  showing 
them  his  hands  and  his  side  IsS."  Let  it  be  however 
observed,,  that  St.  Mark  records  the  promise,  which 
foretold  this  plenary  revelation  of  our  Lord  to  the 
disciples  *59 ;  and  that  liis  account  of  the  accom- 
plishment of  it  is  contained  only  in  the  suspected 
passage  I6°.  From  its  being  thus  indispensably  ne- 
cessary, not  merely  to  complete  the  general  pur- 
pose of  an  Evangelist,,  in  writing  a  Gospel ;  but  to 
complete  the  express  object  of  St.  Mark,  it  must  be 
considered  a  part  of  the  authentick  canonical  text. 

With  respect  to  the  questionable  passage  in  St. 
John,  the  proofs  of  its  authenticity,  though  more 
remotely  sought,  are  not  less  decisive.  According 
to  the  tradition  of  the  primitive  Church,  St.  John 
composed  his  Gospel,  with  the  express  view  of  op- 
posing the  rising  heresies  of  the  Nicolaitans  and 
Cerinthians  '6l.  Of  those  heretics  the  apostle  de- 

156  Act.  i.  21,  22.  x.  39,  40,  41.  comp.  Pears,  on  Creed.  Vol. 
I.  p.  380. 

157  Comp.  Matt.  xxvi.  32.  xxviii.  7,  10,  16. 

158  John  xx.  20,. 

159  Mark  xiv.  28.  "  But  after  that  lam  risen,  J  will  go  before 
you  into  Galilee." 

50  Id.  xvi.  14.  "  Afterward  he  appeared  unto  the  eleven  as 
they  sat  at  meat,  and  upbraided  them  with  their  unbelief  and 
hardness  of  heart,  because  they  believed  not  them  which  had 
seen  him  after  he  tvas  risen.  Comp.  Matt,  xxviii.  7,  10,  16,  17. 

61  S.  Iren.  adv.  Haer.  Lib.  III.  cap.  xi.  §  1.  p.  188.  "  Hanc 
fidera  annuncians  Joannes  Domini  discipulus,  volens  per  Evan- 

B  2 


(    244    ) 

dares ;  cc  thou  hast  them  that  hold  the  doctrineof 
Balaam,,  who  taught — to  eat  things  sacrificed  to 
idols,  and  to  commit  fornication.  So  hast  thou  also 
them  that  hold  the  doctrine  of  the  Nicolaitanes, 
which  thing  I  hate.  Repent,  or  else  I  will  come 
unto  thee  quickly  l6zy"  &c.  Marriage  had  been 
condemned  and  rejected  by  those  abandoned  mis- 
creants; who  asserted  the  lawfulness  of  the  most 
promiscuous  intercourse  of  the  sexes163.  And  by 
this  doctrine,  which  was  but  too  well  suited  to  the 
low  state  of  morals  in  the  times  of  heathen  supersti- 
tion,, they  had  seduced  numbers  from  the  severe 
discipline  of  the  primitive  church.  It  was  therefore 
required,  by  the  express  object  which  the  Evan- 
gelist proposed  to  himself,  in  writing  against  them, 
that  he  should  provide  a  remedy  for  both  evils ;  to 
prevent  the  inroad  of  vice  on  the  one  hand,  and  to 
provide  for  reclaiming  it  on  the  other.  With  this 
view,  he  selects  out  of  the  incidents  of  our  Lord's 

gelii  annuntiationetfi  auferre  cum*  qui  a  Cerintho  inseminatus. 
erat  hominibus,  errorem,  et  multo  prius  ab  his  qui  dicuntur 
Nicolaita,  qui  sunt  vulsio  ejus  quae  falso  cognominatur  scien- 
tia,"  &c.  Vid.  infr.  n.  IW.  Conf.  Tertul.  adv.  Hacr.  cap. 
xxxiii.  p.  210.  Hier.  Praef.  in  Matt.  Procem.  ad.  Euseb.  Creraon. 
Tom.  VI.  p.  xi. 

j6*  Rev.  ii.  14,  15,  16. 

163  S.  Iren.  ib.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xxvi.  §  3.  p.  105.  Nicolaita 
fLiitem  magistrum  quidem  habent  Nicolaum,  unum  ex  vn  qui 
primi  ad  Diaconiura  ab  Apostolis  ordinati  sunt ;  qui  indiscrete 
vivunt.  Plenissime  autem  per  Joannis  Apocalypsim  manifes- 
tantur  qui  sint ;  nullam  differentiam  esse  docentes  in  mcechando," 
&c.  Conf.  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  III.  cap.  xxix.  p.  123. 1. 18. 
S.  Epiphan.  Hasr.  xxv.  p.  77.  c.  , 


fife,  the  remarkable  circumstances  of  his  having 
sanctioned  a  marriage  by  his  presence16*;  and  par- 
doned a  penitent  adulteress,  on  the  condition  of  her 
fc  sinning  no  more l65."  Viewed  with  reference  to 
those  circumstances,  these  narratives  are  corrobo- 
rative of  each  other;  and  are  illustrated  by  the  de- 
clarations of  our  Lord,  which  the  Apostle  relates  ; 
fc  they  teach  to  commit  fornication — repent,  or  I 
will  come  unto  thee/'  &c.  In  this  view  they  are 
necessary  to  complete  the  object  of  the  Evangelist; 
whose  intentions  in  writing  are  in  a  great  measure 
frustrated,  if  we  suppose  them  suppressed. 

The  testimony  which  the  Eastern  and  Western 
Churches  bear  to  the  authenticity  of  Mark  xvi. 
9 — 20,  John  viii.  1 — 11,  in  adopting  those  passages 
in  the  great  body  of  manuscripts  of  the  Greek  and 
Latin,  is  consequently  most  amply  confirmed  by  the 
internal  evidence,  and  nothing  weakened  by  nega- 
tive testimony,,  by  which  they  have  been  condemned. 
Conceiving  those  passages  spurious,  it  is  above  the 
reach  of  ordinary  comprehension,,  to  discover  an 
adequate  cause  for  their  having  been  generally  re- 
ceived ;  considering  the  immense  number,  and  wide 
dispersion  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the  obvious  objec- 
tions to  which  those  passages  were  exposed  from  the 
earliest  period l66.  That  they  occur  in  the  vulgar 

164  Johnii.  1—11. 

165  Ib.  viii.  11. 

6  The  following  observation  of  Victor  Antiochenus,  on 
Marc.  xvi.  while  it  seems  to  establish  the  above  position,  will 
bring  the  subject  before  us  home  to  Eusebius  Caesariensis ; 
Biblioth.  Patrr.  Tom.  IV.  p.  336,  c.  d.  «  Etsi  Maria  Magda- 


(    246    ) 

edition  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  is  indisputable ;  and 
the  only  mode  of  accounting  for  this  circumstance, 
is,  by  conceiving  them  part  of  the  original  text,,  as 
published  by  the  inspired  writers. 

With  respect  to  John  viii.  I — 11,  it  is  indeed  less 
constantly  retained  in  the  Greek167,  than  Mark  xvi. 
9 — 20 l68;  but  while  the  cause  of  this  circumstance 

lena  et  Maria  Jacobi,  et  Salome  aromata  praeparaverant,  atta- 
men  si  Eusebio  Ccesariensi  jides  est,  non  sunt  tres  illae,  quae  orto 
jam  sole  ad  monumentum  venerunt,  sed  alia?  innominatae. — 
Secundum  Eusebium  igitur,  Marcus  non  de  Magdalena,  sed  de 
aliis  incerti  nominis  mulieribus  haec  narrat.  Neque  enim  fieri 
potest,  addit  idem,  ut  Magdalena  post  tantas  res  visas,  orto  de- 
mum  sole,  ad  monumentum  veniret,  aut  quis  lapidem  revolveret 
inquireret." 

167  Griesb.  Nov.  Test.  not.  in  Mar.  xvi.  9.     "  Habent  peri- 
copam  hanc  Codices  Greed,  excepto  uno  B,  omnes ;  Evange- 
listeria,   etiam  antiquiora,  e.  g.  1,  2,  6,  Mt.  B.  H;    Versiones, 
etiam  Syra  Hieros."  &c.  -  Id.  not.  in  Job.  vii.  53.     "  Pericopa 
de  adultera  extat  in   D,  G,  H,  K,  M,  N,"  &c.     On  Cod.  L. 
the  learned  M.  Griesbach  observes,  Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  I.  p. 
159.  "  vers.  53  usque  ad  viii.  11.  deest  in  L.  vacua  quidem  re- 
licto  spatio,  sed  non  tanto,  ut  pericopa  scribi  in  eo  potuisset." 
To  these  uncial  manuscripts,  M.  Griesbach  adds  more  than 
100  MS S.  written  in  the  smaller  character,  which  retain  this 
passage. 

168  Bengel.  Apparat.  Crit.  var.  in   Job.  viii.  1.   p.  251.  ed 
Burk.     "    Versio  Coptica  in  a'lio  cod.  habet)  in  alio  non  habet ; 
neque   habet   translatio    ejus    Arabica.      Versio    Syriaca    Nov. 
Test,  non  habet. — In  quibusdam  manuscriptis  codicibus  Si/riacis 
iircenitur^  inquit   Joh.   Gregorius,  sed   asterismo  hoc   notatur 
KD'ttfs:i  >mn'«  quod  non  sit  te\tus.J>     Id.  ibid.  p.  252.  "  ad 
cap.  x.  Joh.  amandata  est  in  Vaticano   Versionis  Persicce  Co- 
dice  ;  ad  calcem  Evang.  Joh.  in  nonnullis,  et  apud  Er.  et  Pari- 
sinis  tribus,  (quorum   duo  expresse  qffirmant,   earn  in  antiquis 
exemplaribus  exstaie;}  et  apud  Annenios  Cod.  duo  Seculi  X» 


(    247    ) 

is  sufficiently  apparent16',  we  can  trace  the  tradition 
in  favour  of  this  passage,  to  a  period  so  remote,  as  to 
place  its  authenticity  beyond  controversion.  It  will 
be  readily  granted,  that  if  this  passage  be  an  inter- 
polation, it  must  have  been  invented  by  some  one. 
But  of  those  persons,  who  possessed  the  power  of 
introducing  it  into  the  sacred  Canon,  as  having  re- 
vised the  Scriptures,  there  is  not  one  to  whom  it 
can  be  ascribed  with  the  smallest  appearance  of 
reason. 

1 .  As  this  passage  occurs  in  the  Greek,  it  cannot 
be  ascribed  to  Athanasius  or  the  last  revisers.  As 
far  as  we  possess  any  knowledge  of  their  editions, 
they  omitted  this  passage  17° :  it  is  quoted  by  antece- 

illud  exemplum  in  textu  non  habent,  in  fine  vero  Ev.  Joan,  est 
positum,  cum  notatione  in  Codd.  antiquioribus  et  melioris  notse 
non  inveniri." 

*'9  Id.  ibid.  p.  251.  "  Omittitur  etiam  in  Cod.  MS.  Ebne- 
riano,  sed  tantummodo  a  vers.  3.  ac  sub  finem  Evangelii  secun- 
dum  Johannem  it  a  suppletur,  et  versui  C2  annectitur,  ut  facile 
appareat,  libraries  periocham,  pro  gcnuina  agnitam,  a  pnblica 
tantummodo  lectione  removisse."  Id.  ibid.  p.  252 — -"et  plane 
Codices  hanc  periocham  omittentes  sunt  fere  Lectionaria:  ut 
mirum  sit,  earn  non  in  pluribus  codicibus  omissam,  et  tamen  hodie 
complures  de  ejus  germanitate  dubitare." 

170  A  distinctive  mark  by  which  those  rectified  copies  are 
known,  is  the  omission  of  Luke  xxii.  43,  44  ;  but  these  verses 
are  omitted  in  the  Alexandrine  and  Vatican  MSS. :  we  must 
therefore  rank  these  manuscripts  among  the  copies  rectified  by 
the  orthodox.  In  neither,  however,  is  Joh.  viii.  1 — 11.  appa- 
rent :  we  must  therefore  infer,  that  it  was  one  of  the  passages 
which  were  omitted  by  the  orthodox  revisers :  which  suppo- 
sition fully  accounts  for  the  variation  of  MSS.  with  respect  to 
this  passage. 


(    248     ) 

dent  writers I?I :  and  St.  Jerome,  in  introducing  it 
into  the  Latin  Vulgate,  has  implicitly  declared17*,, 
that  it  was  found  in  the  copies  antecedent  to  their 
revisal.  Nor  can  it  be  ascribed  to  Eusebius  Cacsa- 
riensis ;  it  does  not  occur  in  his  text  or  canons,  and 
is  apparently  glanced  at  in  his  history,  as  entitled  to 
little  credit17*.  Nor  can  it  be  assigned  to  Lucianus 
or  Hesychius;  for  their  real  or  imputed  interpola- 
tions were  rejected,  on  the  credit  of  the  same  copies,, 
by  St.  Jerome I74,  in  whose  Vulgate  this  passage  is 
certainly  retained.  As  it  exists,  however,  in  the 
Egyptian  and  Byzantine  text175,  and  was  not  in- 
vented by  those  persons,  by  whom  these  editions 
were  first  revised;  it  must  have  necessarily  existed 
in  the  original  text  from  which  they  were  respec- 
tively derived. 

2.  As  occurring  in  the  Latin,  this  passage  cannot 
be  ascribed  to  St.  Jerome,  the  last  reviser.  He  ex- 
pressly states  it  existed  in  the  old  Italick  version T?5, 
which  preceded  his  revisal;  and  in  it  we  conse- 
quently find  it  at  this  day 177.  Nor  can  it  be  as- 

171  Vid.  infr.  p.  250. 

171  Vid.  supr.  p.  161.  n."9. 

171  Vid.  supr.  p.  38.  et  nn.  in  loc. 

174  Vid.  supr.  p.  100.  n.  I2°. 

175  Of  this  assertion  the  MSS.  marked  D.  G;  viz.  the  cele- 
brated  Cambridge    and  Harleian   Manuscripts    are   sufficient 
vouchers :  vid.  supr.  p.  246.  n.  l67. 

176  Vid.  supr.  p.  37.  n.  65. 

'77  It  occurs  in  the  Codex  Corbeiensis  and  Gatianus,  not  to 
mention  other  MSS. :  and  these  MSS.  possess  that  similarity 
among  themselves,  and  that  diversity  from  the  Vulgate,  which 
proves,  that  this  passage  could  not  have  proceeded  from  St, 


(    219    ) 

cribed  to  Philastrius  of  Brescia,  or  Eusebius  of 
Verceli ;  for  it  does  not  occur  in  those  manu- 
scripts I?8,  in  which  alone  their  respective  texts  can 
be  supposed  to  exist.  As  it,  however,,  occurs  in  the 
Old  Italick  translation,  in  which  it  existed  in  the 
times  of  St.  Jerome;  the  only  inference  is,  that  it 
must  have  existed  in  this  version,  when  it  was  ori- 
ginally formed. 

Thus  following  up  the  tradition  of  the  Eastern 
and  Western  Churches,  until  it  loses  itself  in  time 
immemorial ;  we  find  their  united  testimony  as  deli- 
vered in  the  Received  Text,  fully  establishes  the 
authenticity  of  the  passage  under  consideration. 
And  this  evidence  is  finally  confirmed  by  the  ex- 
plicit testimony  of  early  ecclesiastical  writers. 
Wherever  we  might  expect  any  traces  of  this  pas- 
sage to  exist,  we  find  it  specifically  noticed.  It 
occurs  in  the  Harmony  of  Tatian  I79>  who  wrote  in 

Jerome.  I  subjoin  a  specimen  of  the  various  readings ;  Joh. 
viii.  1.  perrexit  in  montem.  Vulg.  ascendit  in  montem.  Corb. 
Gat. — Ib.  2.  et  diluculo.  Vulg.  et  mane  cum  factum  esset.  Corb. 
Gat. — Ibid,  et  sedens.  Vulg.  et  cum  consedisset.  Corb.  Gat. — 
Ib.  3.  in  adulterio.  Vulg.  in  mcechatione.  Corb.  Gat.  et  statuerunt. 
Vulg.  et  cum  statuissent.  Corb.  Gat. — Ib.  4.  et  dixerunt  ei.  Vulg. 
dixerunt  ad  eum. — Ibid,  in  adulterio.  Vulg.  in  mcechatione. 
Corb.  Gat. — Ib.  5.  Moyses  mandavit  nobis  hujusmodi  lapidare. 
Vulg.  prcecepit  nobis  Moyses  ut  qui  in  adulterio  deprehenditur 
lapidetur.  Corb.  Gat* 

178  Blanchin.  Prolegomm.  in  Evang.  Quadr.  p.  178. 

175  Vid,  Tatian.  Harm.  ap.  Biblioth.  Patrr.  Tom.  II.  p.  184. 
That  the  original  of  the  Latin  Harmony,  which  is  here  referred 
to,  was  the  Diatessaron  of  Tatian,  has  been  proved  by  Dr.  Lard- 
ner,  from  the  concurrence  of  the  Latin  and  Arabick  translations, 


(    250    ) 

little  more  than  fifty  years  of  the  death  of  St.  John ; 
it  is  noticed  in  the  Synopsis  of  Scripture18*.,  which 
is  generally  ascribed  to  St.  Athanasius ;  and  in  the 
Diatessaron,,  which  is  ascribed  to  Ammonius,,  by 
Victor  Capuanus l81.  Nor  was  it  unknown  to  Euse- 
bius18*.,  to  St.  Ambrose185,  to  St.  Chrysostome,  and 
St.  Augustine l84.  But  the  testimony  of  St.  Jerome 
is  definitive  in  establishing  the  authenticity  of  this 
passage.  While  he  expressly  states,  that  it  existed 
in  the  old  version  of  the  Latin l85,,  he  has  implicitly 
admitted,  that  it  existed  in  the  ancient  copies  of  the 
Greek,  by  giving  it  a  place  in  his  Vulgate l86.  Tak- 
ing therefore  the  testimony  of  the  Eastern  and  West- 
ern Churches,  as  contained  in  the  Received  Text 

and  the  external  testimony  of  St.  Ephrem :  Cred.  of  Gosp.  Hist. 
Vol.  III.  p.  123— 132. 

180  Vid.  Synops.   Scrip,  ap.  S.  A  than.  Tom.  II.  p.  185.  e. 
Although  this  work  is  now  generally  admitted  not  to  have  been 
compiled  by  St.  Athanasius  ;  vid.  Patrr.  Benedd.  ibid.  p.  124: 
the  learned  M.  Bengel  has  proved,  from  the  internal  evidence, 
that  it  must  have  been  written  in  or  near  the  age  of  that  ancient 
father ;  Apparat.  Crit.  P.  I.  p.  30. 

181  Vid.  Evangg.  iv.  Narrat.  Ammon.   Alex.  ap.  Biblioth. 
PatnvTom.  III.  p.  22.     Although  M.  de  Valois  has  proved  that 
this  Diatessaron  differs  from  Ammonius's  Harmony;   Euseb. 
Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  xxix.  p.  194.  n.  "  :  it  is  admitted  by 
Dr.  Lardner  to  contain  the  substance  of  that  work,  Cred.  ib.  pp. 
133,  134.     As  it  was  known  to  Victor  Capuanus,  who  probably 
disposed  it  in  its  present  form,  vid.  Eibl.  Patr.  ibid.  p.  22.  it 
must  have  existed  before  A.  D.  545. 

ISZ  Vid.  Euseb.  ut  supr.  p.  38.  n.  67. 

133  Vid.  S.  Ambros.Tom.  II.  col.  892.  §  4.  ed.  Benetl. 

134  Vid.  supr.  p.  37.  n. 6S. 
185  Vid.  supr.  p.  38.  n.  65. 
«85  Vid.  supr.  p.  116.  n.113. 


(    251     ) 

and  Version ;  as  supported  by  the  uninterrupted 
chain  of  tradition,  and  as  expressly  avouched  by 
St.  Jerome ;  we  must  acknowledge  this  pas- 
sage187 as  a  part  of  the  genuine  text  of  Scripture, 
or  reject  that  testimony,  on  which  the  whole  of  the 
Sacred  Canon  is  proved  authentick, 

The  determination  of  the  integrity  of  the  Greek 
Vulgate,  now  turns  on  the  decision  of  this  question, 
whether  those  texts  relative  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Incarnation,  Redemption,  and  Trinity,  which  have 
been  already  mentioned,  as  impugned  by  the  advo* 
cates  for  a  more  correct  text  than  exists  in  our 
printed  editions,  must  be  considered  authentick  or 
spurious. 

I  have  hitherto  laboured  to  no  purpose  if  it  is  not 
admitted,  that  I  have  already  laid  a  foundation  suffi- 
ciently broad  and  deep  for  maintaining  the  authen- 
ticity of  the  contested  verses.  The  negative  argu- 
ment arising  in  their  favour,  from  the  probability 
that  Eusebius  suppressed  them  in  his  edition,  has 
been  already  stated  at  large188.  Some  stress  may 

187  I  subjoin  M.  Bengel's  summary  of  the  external  testimony 
which  supports  the  authenticity  of  Mar.  xvi.  9 — 20.     Apparat. 
Crit.  not.  in  h.  1.  p.  170.     "  Irenaeus,  Ammonii  monotessaron, 
Harmonia  Tatiano  adscripta,   Eusebii  Canones,  Synopsis  apud 
Athanasium,  Ambros.  in  Luc.  xxiv.  et  Lib.  II.  de  Sp.  Sanct. 
c.  v.  et  Lib.  I.  de  Posnit.  cap.  vii.     Augustinus,   Gregorius, 
Photius,  Theophylactus. Agnoscunt  etiam  periocham  Cle- 
mens Rom.  Clemens  Alex.  Dionysius  Alex.  Justinus  Martyr, 
Hippolytus  in  trad,  apost.  de  charism.  Nestorius  ap.  Cyrillura 
Alex.  Cyrillus  Hier.  Damascenus,  Cassianus,  Procopius  Gazseus, 
Anastasius  Sinaita,  Nicetas,  alii." 

188  Vid.  supr.  pp,  27—42. 


(    252    ) 

be  laid  on  this  extraordinary  circumstance,  that  the 
whole  of  the  important  interpolations,  which  are  thus 
conceived  to  exist  in  the  Received  Text,  were  con- 
trary to  his  peculiar  notions.  If  we  conceive  them 
cancelled  by  him,  there  is  nothing  wonderful  in  the 
matter  at  issue;  but  if  we  consider  them  subse- 
quently interpolated,  it  is  next  to  miraculous  that 
they  should  be  so  circumstanced.  And  what  must 
equally  excite  astonishment,  to  a  certain  degree  they 
are  not  more  opposed  to  the  peculiar  opinions  of 
Eusebius,  by  whom  I  conceive  they  were  cancelled, 
than  of  the  Catholicks,  by  whom  it  is  conceived  they 
were  inserted  in  the  text.  When  separated  from 
the  sacred  context,  as  they  are  always  in  quotation, 
the  doctrine  which  they  appear  most  to  favour  is 
that  of  the  Sabellians ;  but  this  heresy  was  as  con- 
trary to  the  tenets  of  those  who  conformed  to  the 
Catholick  as  of  those  who  adhered  to  the  Arian  opi- 
nions. It  thus  becomes  as  improbable  that  the  for- 
mer should  have  inserted,  as  it  is  probable  the  latter 
suppressed  those  verses;  and  just  as  probable  is  it, 
that  both  parties  might  have  acquiesced  in  their  sup- 
pression when  they  w^ere  once  removed  from  the 
text  of  Scripture.  If  we  connect  this  circumstance 
with  that  previously  advanced,  that  Eusebius,  the 
avowed  adversary  of  the  Sabellians,  expunged  these 
verses  from  his  text,  and  that  every  manuscript  from 
which  they  have  disappeared  is  lineally  descended 
from  his  edition,  every  difficulty  in  wrhich  this  intri- 
cate subject  is  involved  directly  vanishes.  The  so- 
lution of  the  question  lies  in  this  narrow  space,  that 
he  expunged  them  from  the  text,  as  opposed  to  his 


(    253    ) 

peculiar  opinions :  and  the  peculiar  apprehensions 
which  were  indulged  of  Sabellianism,  by  the  ortho- 
dox, prevented  them  from  restoring  those  verses, 
or  citing  them  in  their  controversies  with  the 
Arians. 

Thus  far  we  have  but  attained  probability,  though 
clearly  of  the  highest  degree,  in  favour  of  the  au- 
thenticity of  these  disputed  verses.  The  question 
before  us  is,  however,  involved  in  difficulties  which 
still  require  a  solution.  In  order  to  solve  these,  and 
to  investigate  more  carefully  the  claims  of  those 
verses  to  authenticity,  I  shall  lay  them  before  the 
reader  as  they  occur  in  the  Greek  and  Latin  Vul- 
gate; subjoining  those  various  readings,  which  are 
supposed  to  preserve  the  genuine  text. 

Acts  xx.  28. 

npffsxA*  av  lauVs — v<np*b-  Attendite  vobis — regere  co- 
rn rut  ixyJw'Mv  T£  ©£»,  rlV  clesiam  Dei,  quam  acquisivit 
jrifmro»&r«llo  &*  r5  ^»a  al/AoIo,-.  sanguine  suo.  Vulg. 

Vulg. 

1  Tim.  iii.  16. 

Kai  o/xoXo^tf^lw?  piya.  §r»  TO          Et   manifesto   magnum  est 

<rr,q  eixripticts  (Avrr/pwv*  ©soy  £^-  pietatis     sacramentum,     quod 

attfiaSn    Iv   a-etfKt,    ihttouuS*    iv  manifestatum  est  in  carne  jus- 

Vulg.  tificatum  est  in  spiritu —  Vulg. 

1  Job.  v.  7,  8. 

fls?, —          Quoniam  tres  sunt  qui  tes- 
timonium  dant  in  ccelo;  Pater t 
Verbum,  et  Spiritus  Sanctus : 
et  hi  tres  unum  sunt.     Et  tres 
sunt  qui  testimonium   dant  in 
Jwp,  xa*  TO      terra  :    Spiritus,   et   aqua,  et 
TO  V>  tiffiv.     sanguis :  et  hi  tres  unum  sunt. 
Vulg.  Vulg. 


(    254    ) 

As  the  Byzantine  text  thus  reads,  in  Act.  xx.  28. 
ixKAuo-nsK  r5  0£#,  and  in  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  ©go£  epa^ft&u ; 
the  Palestine,  or  Alexandrine,  according  to  M.  Gries- 
bach,  reads,  in  the  former  place,  «i>aij<r*'av  T£  Kuj /», 
and  in  the  latter,  05-  {pained*.  In  1  John  v.  7.  the 
Byzantine  and  Palestine  texts  agree,  while  they 
differ  from  the  common  reading  of  the  Latin  Vul- 
gate;— Omitting  lv  TW  a^at/w,  o  flonypy  o  Ao'yo?  xj  TO 
aytov  Hit  iv  ft  *°  xj  XTOI  01  rpiTg  \v  itori.  K«t  T££K  £i<nv  •/ 

|ba^tvp£»fiii  lv  T?  <yy>  which  occurs  in  the  Received 
Text  of  our  printed  editions ;  and  answers  to  ff  in 
coalo,  Pater^  Verhum,  et  Spiritus  Sanctus :  et  hi  tres 
imum  sunt.  Et  tres  sunt  qui  testimonium  dant  in 
terra,"  in  the  Latin  Vulgate.  Such  are  the  prin- 
cipal varieties  of  those  celebrated  texts. 

In  proceeding  to  estimate  the  respective  merit  of 
these  readings,  the  first  attention  is  due  to  the  in- 
ternal evidence.  In  reasoning  from  it,  we  work 
upon  solid  ground.  For  the  authenticity  of  some 
part  of  the  verses  in  dispute  we  have  that  strong 
evidence  which  arises  from  universal  consent ;  all 
manuscripts  and  translations  supporting  some  part 
of  the  context  of  the  contested  passages.  In  the 
remaining  parts  we  are  given  a  choice  between  two 
readings,  one  only  of  which  can  be  authentick. 
And  in  making  our  election,  we  have,  in  the  common 
principles  of  plain  sense  and  ordinary  language,  a 
certain  rule  by  which  we  may  be  directed.  Gross 
solecisms  in  the  grammatical  structure,  palpable 
oversights  in  the  texture  of  the  sense,  cannot  be 
ascribed  to  the  inspired  writers.  If  of  any  two 
given  readings  one  be  exposed  to  such  objections, 


(    255    ) 

there  is  but  the  alternative,,  that  the  other  must  be 
au  then  tick. 

On  applying  this  principle  to  the  Palestine  Text, 
in  the  first  instance,,  it  seems  to  bring  the  point  in 
dispute  to  a  speedy  determination.  The  reading 
which  it  proposes  in  the  disputed  texts  is  not  to  be 
reconciled  with  sense,,  with  grammar,,  or  the  uniform 
phraseology  of  the  New  Testament. 

1.  In  Acts  xx.  28,  the  phrase  IxxAWav  rS  Kwp/* 
is  unknown  to  the  language  of  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment,, and  wholly  irreconcileable  with  the  use  of 
icft«  cc'iparos  for  a'/^aro?  aura,  in  the  context,  as  lead- 
ing to  a  false  or  absurd  meaning.  The  phrase 
IxxAWai/  T£  GE£  is  that  uniformly  used  by  the  evan- 
gelical writers,  and  that  used  above  ten  times  by  St. 
Paul l89,  to  whom  the  expression  is  ascribed  by  the 
inspired  writer.  And  ©**  is  absolutely  necessary  to 
qualify  the  subjoined  IMs ;  as  the  latter  term,  if  used 
with  Kupk,  must  imply  that  our  Lord  could  have 
purchased  the  Church  with  other  blood  than  his 
own190:  which  is  apparently  absurd,  and  certainly 
impertinent. 

189  1  Cor.  L  2.  x.  32.  xi.  16.  22.  xv.  9.  2  Cor.  i.  1.  Gal.  i.  13. 
1  Thes.  ii.  14.  2  Thes.  i.  4.  1  Tim.  iii.  5.  15.     While  the  Apos- 
tle is  thus  represented  in  the  Corrected  Text  as  deviating  from 
his  uniform  phraseology,  the  simple  term  Ixxtocriav,  which  is 
used  in  at  least  twenty-two  places  by  St.  Luke,  and  in  double 
that  number  by  St.  Paul,  would  have  answered  the  same  end 
as  the  unusual  phrase   I*x?^cr{a»  T»  Kypa;  since  the  Apostle 
might  have  said,  and  his  historian  have  written,  TW  !*x?^cna», 
yv  a  K&pio?  WEpuTro^craTo  &a,  T£  al^aros  a&Ttf. 

190  Pears.  Expos,  of  the  Creed,  vol.  ii.  p.  138,  ed.  Oxf.  1797. 
'  'l£»o»  «J««  is  opposed  to  «T^»  wMoTpov,     And  therefore  it  ii 


(    256    ) 

2.  In  1  Tim.  iii.  16^  the  phrase  oV  l$otvtpu&i  is 
little  reconcileable  with  sense  or  grammar*91.  In 
order  to  make  it  Greek,,  in  the  sense  of  ef  he  who 
was  manifested/'  it  should  be  o  $otvtpu$tig;  but  this 
reading-  is  rejected  by  the  universal  consent  of  ma- 
nuscripts and  translations.  The  subjunctive  article 
cV  is  indeed  used  indefinitely ;  but  it  is  then  put  for 
of  *i/,  of  ioiv,  on?  £v,  waff  ons19*;  as  in  this  state  it  is 
synonymous  with  whoever,  whosoever,  we  have 
only  to  put  this  term  into  the  letter  of  the  text,,  in 
order  to  discover  that  it  reduces  the  reading  of  M. 
Griesbach  and  of  the  Palestine  Text  to  palpable 
nonsense. 

observable  the  author  of  the  Racovian  Catechism,  in  his  answer 
to  this  place  of  Scripture,  doth  never  make  the  least  mention  of 
3$»o»  or  proprium, — whereas  the  strength  of  our  argument  lies  in 
these  words,  &»  ru  IK*  al'paroc,  or,  as  the  Alexandrine  MS.  and 
one  mentioned  by  Beza,  &»  T£  a^aro?  T«  »£«."  The  latter 
phrase  is,  indeed,  the  more  emphatical  of  the  two,  and,  as  we 
should  express  it,  means  '  by  blood,  his  very  blood.' 

>x  Objections  have  been  made  to  the  want  of  grammar  in 
this  passage,  by  M.  M.  Ernesti  and  Matthaei ;  on  whose  com- 
petency to  decide  this  point,  it  is  superfluous  to  add  an  obser- 
vation :  vid.  Matth.  Nov.  Test.  Praef.  in  Epistt.  Catholl.  Tom. 
XI.  p.  xlv.  The  former  contends,  that  the  structure  of  the  sen- 
tence requires  TO  <pavipu§lf ;  doubtless  in  reference  to  ^V^^QV. 
But  I  apprehend  the  tenour  of  the  sense  absolutely  requires 
o  ^cmpwSsif.  Instances  of  this  structure  are  easily  produced 
from  the  Old  and  New  Testament.  Sirac.  xlviii.  9.  o  dvxXrr 
(p§£is  in  AafoaTri  Trvfoi; ;  Act.  i.  11.  o  avaXrj(p3>Ets-  a^'  ipa*  £*?  ro» 
xfavov :  analogous  to  which,  the  phrase  o  l^^tvoq,  *  he  who  is  to 
come,'  is  applied  to  designate  the  Messiah,  Mat.  xi.  4.  Heb. 
x.  37. 

'5*  Vid.  Mar.  iv,  25.  ix.  4-0,  4-1.  Mat.  x.  27.   Conf.  x.   1* 
22,  33. 


(    257    ) 

3.  In  1  Job.  v.  7,  three  masculine  adjectives, 
TpcIV  ol  jwaprupavTSf,  are  forced  into  union  with  three 

neuter  Substantives,,  TO  TVfU/aa  xal  TO  v$up  xai  TO  aTjwa  \ 

a  grosser  solecism  than  can  be  ascribed  to  any  wri- 
ter, sacred  or  profane I9J.  And  low  as  the  opinion 
may  be  which  the  admirers  of  the  Corrected  Text 
may  hold  of  the  purity  of  the  style  of  St.  John ;  it 
is  a  grosser  solecism  than  they  can  fasten  on  the 
holy  Evangelist,,  who,  in  his  context,  has  made  one 
of  these  adjectives  regularly  agree  with  its  corres- 
pondent substantive  in  the  neuter:  xal  TO  *mu^« 

Ir»    TO   [jtagTVpvv,    on   TO   zD-nu^a    lru>    1!   tfo&f**.     "OT» 

TpfiV  n<nv  ol  jtxapTupsims.  x.  T.  I.  There  seems  to  be 
consequently  as  little  reason  for  tolerating  this  text 
as  either  of  the  preceding. 

From  the  alternative  to  which  the  question  has 
been  reduced,  it  might  now  be  inferred,  that  the 
reading  of  our  printed  editions,  which  is  supported,, 
in  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  by  the  Greek  Vulgate,  in  1  Job. 
v.  7.  by  the  Latin  Vulgate,  and  in  Act.  xx.  28.  by 
both  the  Greek  and  Latin  Vulgate,  contained  the 

193  This  objection  was  first  started  by  the  learned  Abp.  Eu- 
genius,  who  has  translated  "  the  Georgics"  into  Greek ;  and 
may  be  seen  in  a  letter  prefixed  by  M.  Matthaei  to  his  Greek 
Testament,  Tom.  XI.  p.  ix. — "  hand  plane  consisteret,  nisi  cum 
liolentia  quadam  dictionis,  et  per  solcecismum  patentissimum. 
Cum  etenim  TO  Tititv^a,  xal  TO  v$ap  xat  TO  al/jitx,  nomitia  neutrius 
generis  sunt,  qua  ratione  concordabit  cum  iis  quod  immediate 
praecedit;  Tf«*V  *wv  o»  jt*apTfp«»Te?,  et  quod  illico  Eequitur,  x«i 
*TO»  o»  Tpi;  x.  T.  x. — Sed  nonrie  quasso  dictio  naturalis  hin  et 

propria  potius  CSSet ;   Tpw   tiff*  rcc  ^aprfpavTa    h  TJ7   yy3    TO   TrvtVfAoi., 

TO  S^^,  xai  TO  aT^a'  K«»  T«  Tp*«  t»s  TO  E'V  twv ;  At  illud  tamen  est 
•criptum  non  hoc," 

8 


(    258    ) 

genuine  text  of  Scripture.  As  the  reading  of  those 
passages,  however,  admits  of  more  than  a  negative 
defence;  I  proceed  to  examine  how  far  this  testi- 
mony of  the  Eastern  and  Western  Churches  is  con- 
firmed by  the  internal  evidence  of  the  original.  An 
admirable  rule  is  laid  down  by  M.  Griesbach194  for 
determining,  between  two  readings,  which  is  the 
genuine :  I  am  wholly  mistaken,  or  it  may  be  shewn, 
that  every  mark  of  authenticity,  which  he  has  point- 
ed out,  will  be  found  to  exist  in  those  readings  which 
he  has  rejected  as  spurious. 

Directing  our  attention,  in  the  first  place,  to  the 
structure  of  the  phrase,  the  tenour  of  the  sense  and 
language  as  fully  declares  for  the  received  reading, 
as  against  the  corrected. 

1.  In  Act.  xx.  28.  the  apostolical  phrase,  ixxXtic-/* 
T£  @eS,  is  not  only  preserved,  but  its  full  force  con- 
sequently assigned  to  the  epithet  *#».  This  term, 
as  used  by  the  apostle,  has  an  exclusive  and  empha- 
tical  force;  an  exclusive,  in  limiting  the  sense  to 
if  God,"  the  subject  of  the  assertion; — an  empha- 
tical,  in  evincing  the  apostle's  earnestness,  in  using 
so  extraordinary  an  expression.  '  Feed  the  Church 
of  God,  which  he  purchased  with  no  other  blood 

194  Griesb.  Proleg.  Sect.  III.  p.  lix.  Insita  sua  bonitate 
comniendatur  lectio,  quae  vel  auctoris  cogitandi  sentiendique 
modo,  stylo,  scopo,  cseterisque  srsptraatcrt  sive  exegeticis,  ut 
contextui,  adjunctis,  oppositis,  &c.  sive  historicis  omnium  con- 
venientissima,  vel  ita  comparata  est,  ut  ea,  velut  primitiva, 
posita  facile  intelligi  queat,  quomodo  caeterae  lectiones  omnes— 
sive  librariorum  errore — aut  criticorum  inepta  sedulitate,  pro- 
genitae  ex  ilia  fuerint. 


(    259    ) 

than  his  own'  is  the  literal  meaning  of  the 
phrase195;  and  this  meaning  is  not  more  clearly 
expressed,,  than  we  shall  see  it  was  required  by  the 
object  of  the  apostle,  in  writing. 

2.  In  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  there  can  be  little  doubt  that 
the  fc  Great  Mystery/'  of  which  the  apostle  speaks, 
and  that  whereby  some  one  Cf  was  manifested  in  the 

flesh/'  must  be  the  Incarnation.  If  we  take  the  ac- 
count given  of  this  cc  mystery"  in  John  i.  1.  14.  it 
marks  out  "  God"  as  the  divine  person  who  cc  was 
manifested/'  And,  putting  this  term  into  the  letter 
of  the  text,  it  renders  the  apostle's  explanation  an- 
swerable to  his  purpose,  and  to  the  solemn  mode  of 
his  enunciation.  For,  as  the  manifestation  of  no 
person,  but  the  incomprehensible  and  divine,  can 
be  a  mystery,  any  (c  manifestation"  of  "  God/'  as 
ce  in  the  flesh,"  must  be  a  "  Great  Mystery" I9<5. 
So  far,  the  apostle's  phrase  is  as  just  as  it  is  sen- 
tentious. 

3.  In  1  John  v.  7.  the  manifest  rent  in  the  Cor- 
rected Text,  which  appears  from  the  solecism  in 

193  It  was  not  merely  possible,  but  it  was  only  probable,  that 
"  God9'  would  "  purchase  the  Church"  with  other  "  blood" 
than  "  his  otvn :"  but  it  was  wholly  inconceivable,  that  our 
'  Lord9  could  have  purchased  it  with  any  other  "  blood,"  but 
"  his  own."  On  the  possibility  implied  in  the  former  consi- 
deration rests  the  propriety  of  using  7&o$ ;  which  differs  from 
ctvfo-t  in  having  that  exclusive  force  which  is  solely  implied  in 
the  antecedent  of  those  different  considerations. 

16  S.  Iren.  adv.  Hser.  Lib.  III.  cap.  xvi.  §  6.  p.  206.— et 
hominem  ergo  [Dominus  noster]  in  semetipsum  recapitulans  est, 
invisibilis  visibilis  factus,  et  incomprehensibilis  foetus  comprehen- 
sibiliSy  et  impassibilis  passibilis,  et  Verovm  homo"  &c. 


(    260    ) 

the  language,  is  filled  up  in  the  Received  Text; 
and  o  Uonrio  xal  o  Aoyo;,  being  inserted,,  the  mascu- 
line adjectives,  r^  ol  ^.y.^\j^r^)  are  ascribed  suit- 
able substantives;  and,  by  the  figure  attraction, 
which  is  so  prevalent  in  Greek,  every  objection  is 
removed  to  the  structure  of  the  context.  Nor  is 
there  thus  a  necessary  emendation  made  in  the  apos- 
tle's language  alone,  but  in  his  meaning.  St.  John 
is  here  expressly  summing  up  the  divine  and  human 
testimony,  Cf  the  witness  of  God  and  man1 9l ;"  and 
he  has  elsewhere  formally  enumerated  the  heavenly 
witnesses,  as  they  occur  in  the  disputed  passage. 
In  his  Gospel  he  thus  explicitly  declares,  ef  I  am 
one  that  bear  witness  of  myself  \  and  the  Father 
that  sent  me  beareth  witness  of  me :  and  when  the 
Comforter  is  come,  even  the  Spirit  of  truth,  he  shall 
testify  of  me1?*."  And  yet,  in  his  Epistle,  where 
he  is  expressly  summing  up  the  testimony  in  favour 
of  Jesus,  we  are  given  to  understand,  that  he  passes 
at  least  two  of  these  heavenly  witnesses  by,  to  insist 
on  three  earthly;  which  have  brought  the  suppress- 
ed witnesses  to  the  remembrance  of  almost  every 
other  person,  who  has  read  the  passage,  for  the  last 
sixteen  centuries!  Nay  more,  he  omits  them  in 
such  a  manner  as  to  create  a  gross  solecism  in  his 
language,  which  is  ultimately  removed  by  the  ac- 
cidental insertion,  as  we  are  taught,  of  those  wit- 
nesses, from  a  note  in  his  margin.  Nor  is  this  all; 
but  this  solecism  is  corrected,  and  the  oversight  of 

197  1  Job.  v.  9. 

1S8  Job.  viii.  18,  xv.  26. 


(    261    ) 

the  Apostle  remedied,  by  the  accidental  insertion  of 
the  disputed  passage,  from  the  margin  of  a  trans- 
lation :  the  sense  of  which,,  we  are  told,  it  embar- 
rasses, while  it  contributes  nothing  to  amend  the 
grammatical  structure1"!  Of  all  the  omissions 
which  have  been  mentioned  respecting  this  verse, 
I  call  upon  the  impugners  of  its  authenticity  to  spe- 
cify one,  half  so  extraordinary  as  the  present  ?  Of 
all  the  improbabilities  which  the  controversy  re- 
specting it  has  assumed  as  true,  I  challenge  the 
upholders  of  the  Corrected  Text,  to  name  one,, 
which  is  not  admissible  as  truth,  when  set  in  com- 
petition with  so  flagrant  an  improbability  as  the  last. 
Yet,  on  the  assumption  of  this  extravagant  impro- 
bability, as  matter  of  fact,  must  every  attack,  on  the 
authenticity  of  this  verse,  be  built,  as  its  very  foun- 
dation ! 

From  viewing  the  internal  evidence  of  the  dis- 
puted texts,  let  us  next  consider  the  circumstances 
under  which  they  were  delivered ;  and  here,  I  am 
wholly  deceived,  or  the  investigation  will  lead  to  the 
ultimate  establishment  of  the  same  conclusion. 

It  is  of  the  last  importance  in  deciding  the  pre- 
sent question,  to  ascertain  the  subject  which  was 
before  the  apostles,  in  delivering  themselves  on  the 
occasion  before  us.  Some  light  arises  to  direct  us 

9  Though  the  reading  of  the  Greek  Vulgate,  r%c7$  tl<nt  ot 
fA.otqrvfivTss,  TO  9mi)pc.a  ^  TO  vtiwg  *£  TO  aT/xa,  is  not  to  be  tole- 
rated ;  the  reading  of  the  Latin  Vulgate,  (from  whence  it  is 
asserted  1  Joh.  v.  7.  has  crept  into  the  Greek  text,)  is  grammati- 
cally correct  j  "  ires  sunt  qui  testimonium  dant,  spiriius, 


et  sangu.is*" 


(    262    ) 

in  this  enquiry,,  from  the  consideration,  that  the 
words  of  both  apostles  were  addressed  to  the  Church 
at  Ephesus;  in  which  the  Gnostick  heresy  had 
made  some  progress  before  the  close  of  St.  John's 
ministry.  With  respect  to  St.  Paul,  the  point  is 
directly  apparent.  Acts  xx.  28.  occurs  in  the  ex- 
hortation delivered  to  the  bishops  and  presbyters 
assembled  in  that  city*00:  and  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  occurs 
in  the  Epistle  addressed  to  Timothy,  who  was  resi- 
dent in  the  same  place 101,  and  was,  for  some  time 
subsequent,  bishop  of  Ephesus zoz.  With  respect 
to  St.  John,  the  matter  before  us  is  not  involved  in 
greater  difficulty.  His  Epistle  was  written  towards 
the  c4ose  of  his  life,  which  was  ended  at  Ephe- 
sus aoj ;  in  which  city  he  had  an  interview,  with  Ce- 
rinthus,  the  leader  of  the  Gnostick  heresy104,  against 
whom  it  was  partly  directed205. 

It  is  further  deserving  of  remark,  that  both  apos- 
tles are  expressly  engaged  on  the  subject  of  those 
early  heresies,  with  which  the  Church  of  Ephesus 
was  menaced,  if  not  infected.  With  regard  to  St. 
Paul,  the  context  of  the  passages  before  us  puts  the 
matter  out  of  dispute.  ' f  Feed  the  Church  of  God/' 


*°°  Comp.  Act.  xx.  17.  28. 
301  Vid.  1  Tim.  i.  3. 
aoa  Vid.  supr.  p.  113.  n.  9. 
203  Vid.  supr.  p.  231.  n.110. 
*°*  S.  Iren.  Lib.  III.  cap.  iii.  p.  177.     K«< 
avrii  {]ra  IloXyxagwa]  on  'lua-vvys  o  TW  Kvpia  p,«SrjT^,  sv  TV) 


K.  T.  e. 

w  Vid.  supr.  p,  243.  n. 


(    263    ) 

he  declares  to  the  Ephesian  pastors,  "  which  he  has 
purchased  with  h's  own  blood.  For  /  know  this, 
that  after  my  departing,  shall  grievous  wolves  enter 
in  among  you,  not  sparing  the  flock.  Also  of  your 
own  selves  shall  men  arise  speaking  perverse 
things,  to  draw  away  disciples  after  them*06." 
To  the  same  purpose  he  delivers  himself  in  his 
Epistle  to  Timothy;  ee  And  without  controversy 
great  is  the  Mystery  of  Godliness ;  God  was  mani- 
fested in  the  flesh,,  justified  in  the  Spirit,  seen  of 
angels,  preached  unto  the  Gentiles,  believed  on  in 
the  world,  received  up  into  glory.  Now  the  Spirit 
speaketh  expressly,  that  in  the  latter  times,  some 
shall  depart  from  the  faith,  giving  heed  to  sedu- 
cing spirits,  and  doctrines  of  devils  z°7."  The 
early  tradition  of  the  Church208,  confirmed  by  the 
internal  evidence  of  St.  John's  Epistle,  fully  justi- 
fies our  forming  a  like  conclusion  with  respect  to  it, 
and  the  Epistle  to  Timothy,  to  which  it  appears  to 
allude.  <f  Little  children,*'  declares  the  Evange- 
list, fc  it  is  the  last  time,  and  as  ye  have  heard,  that 
Antichrist  shall  come,  even  now  are  there  many  anti- 
christs. They  went  out  from  us,  but  they  were  not 

206  Act.  xx.  28,  29,  30. 

207  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  iv.  1. 

)8  S.  Hieron.  in  Mat.  Procem.  ad  Eus.  Crem.  Tom.  VI.  p.  xi. 
Ultimus  Joannes  apostolus  et  evangelista — cum  esset  in  Asia, 
ct  jam  tune  haereticorum  semina  pullularent,  Cerinti',  Ebionis, 
et  c&terorum,  qui  negant  Christum  in  carne  venisse  :  quos  et  ipse 
in  Epistola  sua  Antichristos  vocat,  et  apostolus  Paulus  frequen- 
ter per  cutit ;  coactus  est  ab  omnibus  paene  tune  Asia?  episcopis, 
et  multorum  legationibus,  de  Divinitate  Salvatoris  altius  scri- 
lere,  &c. 


(    264    ) 

of  us. — Who  is  a  liar,  but  he  that  denieth  that  Jesus 
is  the  Christ.  He  is  antichrist  that  denieth  the  Fa- 
ther and  the  Son. — Beloved,  believe  not  every 
spirit,  but  try  the  spirits,  whether  they  are  of  God : 
because  many  false  prophets  are  gone  out  into  the 
world.  Hereby  know  ye  the  Spirit  of  God  :  every 
Spirit  that  confesseth  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh 
is  of  God ;  and  every  spirit  that  confesseth  not  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  thejlesh  is  not  of  God :  and 
this  is  that  spirit  of  Antichrist. — Whosoever  shall 
confess  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  God  dwelleth 
in  him,  and  he  in  God209/' 

In  order  to  determine  the  question  before  us,  it  is 
still  necessary  that  we  should  acquire  a  precise 
knowledge  of  the  fundamental  tenets  of  those  here- 
ticks,  whom  the  apostles  opposed.  St.  John  has 
very  expressly  declared,  that  they  ce  denied  the 
Father  and  the  Son;"  having  disputed  that  Cf  Jesus 
was  the  Son  of  God,"  and  that  tc  he  was  come  in 
the  flesh."  With  this  representation,  exactly  ac- 
cords the  account  which  we  receive  of  the  tenets  of 
the  Nicolaitans  and  Cerinthians;  those  hereticks 
whom  the  apostles  expressly  opposed*10.  They 
<e  denied  the  Father,"  not  merely  disputing  his  pa- 
ternity, in  denying  his  only-begotten  Sou111,  but 

ac9  1  Job.  ii.  18,  19,  22.  iv.  1,  2,  3.  15. 

ai°  Vid.  supr.  p.  243.  n. I61.  p.  263.  n.  2°8. 

"'  S.  Iren.  adv.  Haer.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xi.  p.  188.— "  Joannes 
Domini  discipulus,  volens  per  Evangelii  annunciationem  auferre 
eurn  qui  a  Cerintho  inseminatus  erat  hominibus,  errorem,  et 
multo  prius  ab  his  qui  dicuntur  Nicolait&, — ut  confunderet  eos, 
et  s-uaderet,  quoniam  unus  Deus  qui  omnia  fecit  per  Verbum 


(    265    ) 

representing  him  as  a  being  who  was  removed  from 
the  care  and  consideration  of  earthly  things ;  who 
had  permitted  the  creation  of  the  world  by. beings 
of  an  inferiour  and  angelical  nature,  and  had  con- 
signed it  to  their  superintendence ZTZ.  They  "de- 
nied the  Son/5  as  disallowing  his  eternal  filia- 
tion ZIJJ  and  degrading  him  into  the  order  of  secon- 
dary and  angelical  existences214.  Thus  far  the 

€uum ;    et   non,   quemadmodum   illi   dicunt,    alterum    quidem 
fabricator  em )  alium  autem  Patrem   Domini;    et  alium  quidem 
Jabricatoris  F ilium 9   alterum  vcro  de  superloribus   Christum,9 
&c. 

aii  Id.  ibid.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xxvi.  p.  105.  "  Et  Cerinthus  autern 
quidem  in  Asia,  non  a  ptimo  Deo  Jactum  esse  mundum  docuit, 
sed  a  Virtute  quadem  valde  separata  et  distante  ab  ea  Princi- 
palitate,  quae  est  super  universa,  et  ignorante  eum  qui  est 
super  omnia  Deum."  Conf.  supr.  n.  a".  S.  Epiphan.  Hacr, 
xxviu.  p.  110.  c. 
*'3  Vid.  supr.  n.  a". 

ai4  S.  Iren.  ibid.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xi.  p.  188. — quemadmodum  illi 
dicunt — initium  quidem  esseMonogeni:  Logon  autem  vcrumfilium 
Unigeniti."  On  the  former  passage  the  incomparable  Bp.  Bull 
observes,  Defens.  Fid.  Nicaen.  Sect.  III.  cap.  i.  §  8.  p.  160.  ed. 
Lond.  1721.  "Deniqueutrique  [Cerinthiani  etValentiniani]^- 
rinde  T»  Aoy«  ceternitatem  negarunt. — De  Cerinthianis  diserte  hie 
testatur,  quod  initium  tribuerunt  ipsi  Monogeni,  quern  Logi  patrem 
dixerunt."  The  learned  Benedictine  P.  Massuet  formed  the  same 
conclusion,  from  a  comparative  view  of  the  passages  relative  to 
those  antient  hereticks;  Dissert.  Praev.  in  S.  Iren.  p.  Ixv.  §  127. 
"  Eadem  fere  Cerintki,  quae  Simonis  Menandri,  et  aliorum 
Gnosticorum  somnia  fuere."  Id.  ibid.  p.  Ixvii.  §  133.  "  Dog- 
mata NicolaiLarum  theoretica  recensere  supervacaneum  duxit 
Irenasus :  eadem  quippe  fuisse  quae  cceterorum  Gnosticorum  per- 
spicue  innuit,  Lib.  III.  cap.  xi.''  Id.  ibid.  p.  xxxix.  "  Logos 
proinde  Angelus  erat,  qui  Dei  mentis  veluti  verbum  ac  interpres 


(    266    ) 

Nicolaitans  and  Cerinthians  agreed.  They  agreed 
also  in  (C  denying  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ;" 
though  they  maintained  this  doctrine  under  different 
modifications.  The  Cerinthians,,  dividing  the  per- 
son of  Jesus  Christ,  considered  Jesus  a  mere  man, 
born  in  the  natural  manner  from  Joseph  and 
Mary115;  but  mystically  united  with  the  angelical 
being  Christ,  who  descended  upon  him  at  the  time 
of  his  baptism xl6.  This  union,  they  conceived,  was 
dissolved  at  the  time  of  the  crucifixion;  the  man 
Jesus  having  suffered  on  the  cross,  while  the  impas- 
sible Christ  ascended  into  the  heavens117.  The 
Nicolaitans  "  denying  that  Jesus  icas  come  in  the 
flesh"  considered  Jesus  Christ  a  mere  phantasm, 
having  a  form  which  resembled  flesh,  but  which 
consisted  of  an  ethereal  essence il8.  At  the  time  of 

oracula  divlna  coeteris  pandebat,  ac  per  eos,  per  Salvatorem 
maxime,  hominibus  manifestari  curabat."  Conf.  ibid.  p.  Iv.  § 
100.  S.  Iren.  Lib.  I.  cap.  ii.  p.  13.  n.  E. 

215  S.  Iren.  ibid.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xi.  p.  188.  "  Jesum  autem 
subjecit  [Cerinthus]  non  ex  virgine  natum ;  impossibile  enim 
hoc  ei  visum  est :  Jidsse  autem  eum  Josephi  et  Marice  fdium, 
similiter  ut  reliqui  omnes  homines.3 '*  Conf.  S.  Epiphan.  Hacr. 
xxvin.  p.  110. 

116  S.  Iren.  ibid.     "  Et  post  baptismum  descendisse  in  eum 
ab  ea  Principalitate  quse  est  super  omnia  Christum,  figura  co- 
lumbae." — Conf.  S.  Epiphan.  ibid. 

117  S.  Iren.  ibid.     "In  fine  autem  revolasse  iterum  Christum 
de  Jesu,  et  Jesum  passum  esse,  et  resurrexisse:  Christum  autem 
impassibilem  perseverasse,  existentem  spiritalem." 

ZI8  Of  the  tenets  of  the  Nicolaitans  we  have  no  specifick  ac- 
count, as  this  heresy  was  soon  lost,  and  involved  in  the  great 
sect  of  the  Gnosticks  ;  vid.  supr.  p.  265.  n.  *'*.  Conf.  S.  Epi- 
phan, Ha?r.  xxv.  p.  77.  a.  We  may  therefore  take  our  notions 


(    267    ) 

the  crucifixion,,  they  held,  that  he  secretly  with- 
drew himself,  while  Simon  the  Cyrenean  suffered 
in  his  likeness*19. 

While  these  hereticks  thus  denied  the  Divinity, 
and  rendered  void  the  Incarnation  and  Redemption 
of  Christ,  they  seemed  not  to  have  erred  so  grossly 
on  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  As  they  were  re- 
spectively descended  from  the  Jews220,,  though  their 
notions  were  warped  by  the  peculiar  opinions  of 
Simon  Magus"1,,  they  must  have  derived  from  both 

of  their  opinions  from  the  Saturnilians  and  Basilidians,  who 
were  among  the  earliest  sects  of  the  Gnosticks,  and,  like 
the  Nicolaitans,  arose  at  Antioch ;  conf.  Act.  vi.  5.  S.  Iren, 
Lib.  I.  cap.  xxvi.  §  3.  p.  105.  cap.  xxiv.  §  1.  p.  100.  Respect- 
ing the  putative  body  of  Christ,  from  asserting  which,  they  re- 
ceived the  name  of  Docetas,  they  held  the  following  notions, 
S.  Iren.  ibid.  §  4.  p.  101.  "  Innatum  autem  et  innominatum 
Patrem. — misisse  primogenitum  Nun  suum,  (et  hunc  esse  qui 
dicitur  Christus,)  in  libertatem  credentium  ei,  a  potestate  eorum 
qui  mundum  fabricaverunt.  Et  gentibus  ipsorum  autem  appa- 
ruisse  eum  in  terra  hominem,  et  virtutes  perfecisse." 

ai9  S.  Iren.  ibid.  "  Quapropter  neque  passum  eum  [Chris- 
tum], sed  Simonem  quemdam  Cyrenaum  angariatum  portasse 
crucem  ejus,  pro  eo :  et  hunc  secundum  ignorantiam  et  errorem 
crucffixum,  transfiguration  ab  eo,  uti  putaretur  ipse  esse  Jesus: 
et  ipsum  autem  Jesum  Simonis  accepisse  formam,  et  stantem 


irnsisse  eos. 

12Q 


S.  Epiphan.  Haer.  xxv.  p.  76.  b.     NtxoXaos1  ytyonv  si?  asro 

KOVUV  -  ifTa?      OC.TTO    TUV       AvTiO%£b!V    O^W^EXOJ    7fOO(JYI\VTOf 

«y/v£Ta<.     Id.  Indie,  in  torn.  n.  lib.  i.  p.  53.  c.     K^uStaw  o?  xj 
To»  O.TFQ  Ky/^i^a  x^  Mr,f'n>Btij  lactaTo/  rives'  T 


™  S.  Iren.  ibid.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xxiii.  §  2.  p.  99.  "  Simon 
autem  Samaritanus,  ex  quo  universe?  hareses  substiterunt,  habet 
hujusmodi  sectse  materiam.*'  Id,  ibid.  Praef.  in  Lib.  II.  §  I. 


(    268    ) 

sources  some  knowledge  of  this  mystick  doctrine"*. 
Hence  it  is  of  importance  to  observe.,  that  the  Jews 

p.  115.  "  Diximus  quoque  inultitudinem  ear  urn  qui  sunt  ab  eo 
Gnostici,  et  differentias  eorum,  et  doctrinas,  et  successiones 
adnotavimus  ;  quaeque  ab  eis  haereses  institutae  sunt,  omnes  ex- 
posuimus.  Et  quoniam  omnes  a  Simone  liter  etici  initia  sumentes 
impia  et  irreligiosa  dogmata  induxerunt  in  hanc  vitam,  osten- 
dimus. 

aaz  The  whole  of  the  early  heresies  may  be  divided  into  two 
great  sects,  which  were  respectively  descended  from  the  Jews 
and  Magians  ;  Vid.  Pears.  Vind.  Ignat.  P.  II.  cap.  v.  p.  359. 
From  both  sources,  these  different  sects  must  have  inherited  a 
knowledge  of  the  Trinity.  Allix,  Judgm.  of  Jew.  Church  ag. 
Unitar.  ch.  i.  p.  6.  "  I  shall  prove  clearly,  that  the  Jews  before 
Christ's  time,  according  to  the  received  exposition  of  the  Old 
Testament  derived  from  their  fathers,  had  a  notion  of  a  plura- 
lity of  persons  in  the  unity  of  the  Divine  Essence  ;  and  that  this 
plurality  teas  a  Trinity."  Comp.  ch.  x.  pp.  138.P147,  148.  154. 
&c.  Pletho  Schol.  in  Orac.  Mag.  sub  fin. 


w-/)*  TSTOV  3a  ilvai  TOV  vno  ruv  hoy'iuv  Ilar/pa 
Ty  $e  Icrp/aTi?  'Apipcivyiv*  Mi^fijv  $1  rv)  jftojT  ^  TVTOV  &  a,v  slvsct 
Tot  Sivrzfov  N5»  xaXa^E^ov  VTTO  fuv  hoy'w  x.  T.  I.  This  account  IS 
confirmed  by  the  Zendavesta,  which  is  preserved  by  the  Per- 
sees  ;  who  still  profess  the  religion  of  Zoroaster,  and  assert  that 
they  retain  his  sacred  books:  M.  Anquet.  du  Perron,  Zendavest. 
Tom.  II.  Precis  Raisonnee  du  Syst.  Theol.  des  Pers.  p.  592. 
*'  Ormusd  et  Ahrimant  Principes  secondaires,  actifs  et  produc- 
teurs  ;  le  premier  bon  par  son  essence,  et  source  de  tout  bien  ; 
le  seconde  corrompu  et  auteur  de  tout  mal,"  &c.  Id.  ibid,  p, 
609.  d.  —  c'est  Mithra,  le  genie  qui  preside  a  la  fertilite  de  la 
tcrre,  Plzed  de  la  bienveillance,  Pennemi  de  la  Couleuvre  qut 
seme  1'envic  et  la  rnort  ;  c'est  lui  qui  est  charge  de  faire  naitre 
et  de  entretenir  cette  harmonic  entre  les  diftt-rentes  parties  du 
Genre-humain."  In  a  word,  this  doctrine  was  professed  by 
Simon  Magus,  from  whom  it  descended  to  the  different  sects 
of  hereticks  ;  vid.  supr.  p.  267.  n,  "z.  S.  Iren.  adv.  Ha?r.  Lib. 


(    269    ) 

expressed  their  belief  in  this  doctrine,  in  the  iden- 
tical terms,  which  occur  in  the  suspected  passage ; 
<c  and  the  three  are  one283/'  It  is  likewise  observ- 
sable,  that  as  these  notions  had  descended  to  the 
hereticks;  the  Nicolaitans,  in  particular,  expressed 

I.  cap.  xxiii.  §  1.  p.  99.  "  Hie  [Simon]  a  multis  quasi  deus 
glorificatus  est,  et  docuit  semetipsum  esse  qui  inter  Judaeos  qui- 
dem  quasi  Fiiius  adparuerit,  in  Samaria  autem  quasi  Pater 
descenderit,  et  in  reiiquis  vero  gentibus  quasi  Spiritus  Sanctus 
adventaverit."  Conf.  S.  Hier.  Comment,  in  Matt.  xxiv.  Tom. 
VI.  p.  52.  f. 

"3  That  the  term  Aoyo?,  adopted  by  St.  John  in  the  passage 
before  us,  had  been  previously  used  by  the  Jews  in  the  deter- 
minate sense  of  »»  *ODD,  the  WORD  of  God,  as  distinct  from 
the  speech  of  God,  is  placed  beyond  a  doubt  by  Rittangelius, 
Lib.  Jezir.  p.  81.  sqq.  ed  Amst.  164?2.  In  this  work,  which  is 
Jascribed  to  Abraham,  by  the  Jews,  and  is  confessedly  the  oldest 
of  their  Cabalistick  works,  we  meet,  Ibid.  Sect.  iii.  p.  207. 
1HN  ttfVttf,  "  the  three  are  one."  And  in  the  same  work,  a  long 
extract  is  inserted  from  Rabi  Schabte,  wherein  he  explains  the 
mystery  of  the  Three  Sephiroth,  in  the  divine  *  Nature,'  which 
turns  on  the  same  phrase ;  Id.  ibid.  p.  65.  "Dl — rum  TDttf  '•)• 
"  Rabi  Shabte  dicit :  Et  ecce  nobis  perspicuum  est  id  quod 
explicavimus  in  capitibus  superioribus,  Mysterium  nempe,  quod 
dixerint  Sapientes  Cabala?  seu  Theologiae,  Tres  primarias,  quse 
sunt  Corona  Summa,  Sapientia,  Intelligentia,  in  ccquali  dignitaie 
quasi  summe  Unum  quid  esse.9'  In  the  preceding  page,  the 
same  phrase  is  ascribed  to  Ilabi  Simeon,  ibid.  p.  64-. — 
nntt  in»K  Nil  |nn«  ni?n,  "  tres  sunt  unitates  et  ecce  unum 
sunt"  The  very  form  of  appeal  to  the  witnesses  in  St.  John, 
is  adopted  from  the  same  source  ;  the  book  Zohar  observes,  in 
referring  to  the  repetition  of  the  letter  Jod,  in  Is.  xliv.  6.  Id.  ib. 
p.  57.  131  fn»#D  ]nv  n^n,  "  Tria  Jod  testimoninm  perhibent 
de  eo,  quod  non  sit  supra  pra?ter  eum,  nee  infra  prseter  eum," 
ire.  Comp.  Allix.  ub.  supr.  cap,  xi.  p*  160,  sqq.  Maur,  Orient. 
Trin.p.  199.  sqq. 


(    270    ) 
the  same  belief  in  similar  language"4.     And  the 


124  S.  Epiphan.  Hacr.  xxv.  p.  78.  c.  aXXoi  $1  TOV 

|a£acrni,  "Ao^ovTst  TWO.  T«TOV  8T&;  xaXavrss1.  S.  Epi- 
phanius  having  made  this  declaration  relative  to  the  term 
Kal'X«t«%at'%,  gives  the  following  derivation  of  this  term,  which 
is  wholly  irreconcilable  with  the  above  declaration  ;  Id.  ibid. 
p.  78.  a.  ahhct  xotl  ns^  T«  KOLVka.vyjzuy^,  T*$  fuv 


To?    EWwjwr*    avaytva;-x8<7» 


vTroyrrogcv. 

tv  To;  Hcra'ux.  yiyya,y?[u.i9  hi%ts  T'H;  gffoo  tv  TV  QUOIX&.TT)  oootffii)  swoc, 
^iyn  —  y.ayAaxaux  xafXaxax,  eXTri?  e9r'  eton^.  PetaviUS,  not.  in 

h.  1.  Tom.  II.  p.  44<.  and  Feverdantius  not.  in  S.  Iren.  Lib.  I. 
cap.  xxiii.  p.  72.  refer  here  to  Isiali  xxviii.  10.  Tp^>  ip  ip!?  ip, 
which  is  rendered  in  our  Authorised  Version,  u  line  upon  line, 
line  upon  line  ;"  which  phrase,  of  course,  leaves  very  little 
meaning  in  the  etymology  of  St.  Epiphanius.  As  this  antient 
father  applies  the  term  to  a  Principle  of  the  Nicolaitans,  S.  Ire- 
naeus,  Lib.  I.  cap.  xxiv.  p.  102.  ascribes  it  to  an  JEon,  and 
Theodoret  to  a  Person  ;  Haer.  Fab.  Lib.  I.  cap.  iv.  p.  195.  d. 
which  different  representations  are  perfectly  reconcilable  among 
themselves,  though  wholly  irreconcilable  with  the  St.  Epipha- 
nius's  derivation.  The  'Ap^ri,  'AIUV,  and  EWT^,  with  which 
Kavhavxetvx  is  identified  in  these  explanations,  were  considered 
Angelical  Existences  :  vid.  Massuet.  Dissert.  Praev.  in  Iren.  p. 
xxxviii.  §  60.  The  term  Caulauchau  must  be  understood  with 
reference  to  the  Pleroma  of  the  Gnosticks  ;  a  term  by  which 
those  hereticks  designated  the  Divine  nature  ;  vid.  Massuet. 
Dissert.  Prav.  in  Iren.  $  12.  p.  xvii  :  the  Orientalists  having 
rejected  the  notion  of  a  vacuum,  and  conceived  that  all  things 
were  God  ;  who  produced  the  visible  and  invisible  worlds  by 
irradiations  or  protrusions  of  his  essence.  See  Burnet.  Archaeol. 
Philos.  Lib.  I.  cap.  vii.  p.  89.  Lond.  1728.  Comp.  Yajur 
Veda  in  Asiat.  Research.  Vol.  VII.  p.  251.  and  Maur.  Orient. 
Trin.  pp.  S37.  388.  We  thus  find  the  name  Caulaucau  applied 
to  the  /Eon,  in  whose  form  the  second  Christ,  or  the  Saviour, 


(    271     ) 

Hebrew  Gospel,    which  was   used  by  the  Ebio- 

descended;  S.  Iren.  ib.  cap.  xxiii.  §  5.  p.  102.  Quemadmo- 
dum  et  mundus  [1.  mundi]  nomen  (esse)  in  quo  dicunt  descen- 
disse  et  ascendisse  Salvatorem,  esse  Caulacau*  Igitur  qui  hacc 
didicerit,  et  omnes  angelos  cognoverit,  et  causas  eorum,  invisi- 
bilem  et  incomprehensibilem  eum  angelis  et  potestatibus  uni- 
versis  fieri,  quemadmodum  et  Caidaucau  fuisse."  The  applica- 
tion of  this  term  to  the  Saviour,  or  second  Christ,  is  thus  ex- 
plained by  S.  Irenaeus,  Ibid.  Lib.  III.  cap.  xvi.  J  1.  p.  204-. 
"  Qui  autem  a  Valentino  sunt  [dicunt]  Jesum — ipsum  esse  qui 
per  Mariam  transierit,  in  quern,  ilium)  de  Superiori,  Sahatorem 
descendisse,  quern  et  Christum  dici,  quoniam  omnium  qui  emi- 
sissent  eum,  haberet  vocabula :  participasse  autem  cum  eo,  qui 
esset  ex  dispositione — ut  cognosceretur  Pater,  per  eum  Salva- 
torem  quidein  qui  desuper  descendisset,  quern  et  ipsum  recepta- 
cidum  Christi,  et  universe  Plenitudinis  esse  dicunt,  lingua  quidem 
unum  Christum  Jesum  confitentes,  divisi  vero  sententia."  And 
on  another  occasion  he  describes  this  Personage  as  proceeding 
or  emanating  from  the  Father,  the  Christ,  and  Spirit,  and  the 
whole  Angelical  host,  by  an  union  and  congregation  of  their 
several  perfections  and  virtues ;  adding,  Ibid.  Lib.  I.  cap.  ii. 
$  6.  p.  12.  E»a  txetrov  rut  Aluwv,  e<7rsg 
«*dnp9TttV0J  <7'jyEV=yxa/A£i/y? — Trpo/SaXsc-Sai 
T«Auo»  xapTrov  Toy  'ijjcrsv,  tv  tteti  ^wr^oce.  TrgoGccy^svSrivoci,  ^  Xpi^ov, 
*£  Aoyov  mH^tttVfMtt^tt  Ky  Flavra,  ^ia  TO  £710  Tzdvrwv  si'va*.  The 
following  quotation  will  now  explain  how  the  term  Caulachaud 
has  been  applied  to  this  Saviour,  "  the  one  Christ,  who  was 
the  receptacle  of  the  Divine  Plenitude;  who  was  called  All 
things,  because  he  was  from  all ;"  Zohar.  P.  I.  fol.  31.  2  in 
Beresith.  ed  Mant.  IDI — »«n  >DV  itf.  "  Dixit  Rabbi  Jose,  quis 
sensus  illius;  "  Cui  sunt  Dii  seu  Elohim  propinqid?"  Potius 
dicendum  videtur  propinquus  quam  prop'mqui.  Sed  est  Deus 
Supremus,  Deus  timoris  Isaac,  Dcus  postremus.  Sic  propinqui 
dicendum.  Et  Forlitudines  seu  Majestates  aut  Potentice  sunt 
multce  qua  procedunt  ex  Uno.  Et  hi  omnes  Unum  sunt/9 
The  last  cited  words,  "  hi  omnes  unum  sunt,"  expressed  in  the 
original  by  in  in*?:,  clearly  contain  the  true  exposition  of  the. 


C    272    ) 

nites"5,  if  not  by  the  Cerinthians,  both  of  which 
sects  were  opposed  by  St.  John  "6,  not  only  retained 
the  same  doctrine,  but  inculcated  it  in  the  terms 
which  were  used  by  the  Jews"7*  It  is  therefore 

Gnostick  KAYAAYXAYA,  as  this  word  should  be  properly 
written ;  the  final  A,  which  was  omitted  by  St.  Epiphanius  to 
make  way  for  his  etymology,  being  preserved  in  a  MS.  of  St. 
Irenaeus,  quoted  by  the  Benedictine  editours,  which,  adding 
"  deus''  to  "  calaucu,"  probably  read  CAULAUCUD"S,  for 
CAULAUCAUD. 

115  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  III.  cap.  xxvii.     Ewa/yeXfy  $e  ^a 

fa   KOtS     E@pae.i8s  fayopeva  [01   Ej3jwvatoi]j   ^u^voi9  TUV  Xowuv  ff^K^tv 

kroi5»7o  xoyoir.  Conf.  S.  Hier.  Comment,  on  Matt.  cap.  xii. 
Tom.  VI.  p.  21.  b. 

316  Tertul.  Praescr.  adv.  Haer.  cap.  xxxiii.  p.  210.  "  At  in 
Epistola  eos  maxime  Antichristos  vocat  [Johannes],  qui  Chris- 
tum negarent  in  came  venisse,  et  qui  non  putarent  Jesum  esse 
Filium  Dei  ;  illud  Marcion,  hoc  Hebion  vindicavit. — Haec  sunt 
tit  arbitror  genera  doctrinarum  adulterarum,  qua  sub  apostolia 
Jidsse,  ab  ipsis  Apostolis  discimus.  Conf.  supr.  p.  243.  n.  Ito. 
p.  263.  n.  ao5. 

"7  From  the  following  passage  it  appears,  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  was  inculcated  in  the  Hebrew  Gospel ;  S.  Hier. 
Comment,  in  Ezech.  cap.  xvi.  Tom.  IV.  p.  371.  h. — "  et  refer- 
tur  ad  Spiritual  Sanctum,  qui  apud  Hebrseos  appellatur  genere 
fcemineo  mi.  In  Evangelio  quoque  Hebrtzomm,  quod  lectitant 
Nazaraei,  Salvator  inducitur  loquens;  f  Modo  me  arripuit 
Mater  mea,  Spirilus  Sanctus."  On  this  passage  Dr.  Allix  ob- 
serves; Judgm.  of  Jew.  Church,  p.  178.  "  This  passage  of 
the  Nazarenes'  Gospel  would  never  have  been  understood,  if 
we  had  not  known,  that  the  Jews  call  the  Holy  Spirit  Imma, 
Mother;  as  well  as  Binah,  Understanding :  as  we  see  in  Zohar 
and  other  Cabalists."  Comp.  p.  166.  sqq.  As  it  is  certain, 
that  Origen  used  the  Hebrew  Gospel,  Hier.  Cat.  Scriptt.  Eccll. 
in  Jacob.  Tom.  I.  p.  119;  the  conformity  of  the  following 
phrase  to  the  above  statement,  as  terming  the  Holy  Ghost 
sufficiently  declares,  that  this  Gospel  was  the  soure^ 


(    273    ) 

indisputable,  whatever  becomes  of  the  text  of  the 
heavenly  witnesses,  that  the  doctrine  which  it  incul- 
cates was  forcibly  obtruded  upon  the  attention  of 
St.  John,  in  the  very  words  in  which  the  suspected 
passage  is  expressed. 

Prom  viewing  the  state  of  the  subject,  as  before 
the  apostles,  let  us  now  consider  the  manner  in 
which  they  have  discussed  the  points  at  issue  be- 
tween them  and  the  hereticks.  The  determination 
of  this  matter  is  decisive  of  the  true  reading  of  the 
contested  passages.  With  respect  to  the  hereticks 
who  were  opposed  by  St.  Paul,  as  it  has  been  al- 
ready observed,  it  was  not  only  a  fundamental  arti- 
cle of  their  creed  to  deny  the  divinity  of  the  Logos, 
and  to  degrade  him  into  the  order  of  secondary  and- 
angelical  existences;  but  a  leading  doctrine  to  deny 
that  Christ  became  incarnate,  and  suffered,  other- 
wise than  in  appearance,  for  the  redemption  of 
mankind.  The  opposition  of  these  notions  to  the 
explicit  declarations  of  St,  Paul,  in  the  contested 
verses,  must  be  directly  apparent;  and  they  appo- 
sitely illustrate  the  strong  emphasis  with  which  the 
apostle  insists  on  the  Incarnation  and  Redemption, 

from  whence  Origen  adopted  the  passage ;  Orig.  Selectt.  in 
Ps.  cxxii.  Tom.  II.  p.  821.  &Ao»  Kvpiwv  Ha,r^bs  xj  Tta  WMU/*« 
x^  vTw^a*  wcii^Ip-xij  ^E  Kugias1  ra  eAyi«  Flve^ptaros1  YI  fyv%fii  ret.  & 
•rgfa  Ky^io?  o  ©so?  viput  l<rivy  oi  ja%  r^aV  TO  ev  slffiv.  The  lattei' 
part  of  this  phrase,  which  was  unquestionably  adopted  from 
some  heretical  sect,  who  evidently  borrowed  it  from  the  Jews, 
constitutes  another  evidence,  that  the  subject  of  1  Joh,  v.  7. 
was  before  St.  John  when  directing  his  Epistle  against  those 
heresies  which  arose  while  there  was  some  connexion  between 
Judaism  and  Christianity.  Coiif.  Horn,  in  Job.  Tom. IV.  p  6 !•.  a, 

T 


(    274    ) 

in  both  passages:  "  God,"  he  declares,  <e  was  mani- 
fested in  the  flesh  ;"  and  "  feed  the  church  of  God 
which  he  purchased  with  his  own  blood."  But 
what  is  more  immediately  to  our  purpose,  those  he- 
retical tenets  evince  the  obligation  which  was  laid 
on  the  apostle  to  assert  the  divine  nature  of  our 
Lord  as  strenuously  as  he  asserted  his  human, 
This  we  observe  to  be  as  effectually  done  in  the 
Received  Text,  where  the  term  God  is  expressly 
introduced;  as  the  contrary  is  observable  in  the 
Corrected,,  where  that  term  is  superseded  by  "  the 
Lord/'  or  "  he  who  was  manifested."  Of  conse- 
quence, the  circumstances  under  which  those  verses 
were  delivered  as  fully  confirm  the  reading  of  the 
one,  as  they  invalidate  that  of  the  other.  The  apos- 
tle expressly  undertakes  to  warn  the  Church  against 
those  hereticks,  whose  errours  he  is  employed  in 
refuting.  ff  Therefore  watch/'  he  declares  to  the 
Ephesian  pastors,  "  and  remember,  that  by  the 
space  of  three  years  /  ceased  not  to  warn  every  one 
night  and  day  with  tears  "  V  To  'Timothy  he  de- 
clares, "  If  thou  put  the  brethren  in  remembrance 
of  these  things,  thou  shall  be  a  good  minister  of 
Jesus  Christ/'  —  "  Take  heed  unto  thyself,"  subjoins 
the  apostle,  (f  and  to  thy  doctrine  ;  continue  in 
them"9"  &c.  But  if  we  omit  "  God,"  with  the 
Corrected  Text,  St.  Paul  is  so  far  from  delivering 
any  warning  on  the  subject  of  those  hereticks,  even 
while  he  expressly  alludes  to  the  doctrines  which 


Act.  xx.  31. 
I  Tim.  iv.  6.  16. 


(    275    ) 

they  had  corrupted,,  that  he  rather  confirms  their 
errours,  by  passing  them  over  in  silence.  And  this 
is  the  more  inadmissible,  as  it  is  contrary  to  the 
usual  practice  of  the  apostle,  who  on  similar  occa- 
sions, when  he  was  less  imperatively  called  upon  to 
deliver  his  sentiments,  asserts  the  Divinity  of  our 
Lord  in  terms  the  most  strong  and  explicit230. 

These  conclusions  are  further  supported  by  col- 
lateral evidence.  St.  Ignatius,  an  auditour  of  St. 
John,  who  impugned  the  errours  of  the  Nicolaitans 
respecting  the  divinity  of  the  Logos23',  adopts  the 
identical  expressions  of  St.  Paul,  in  an  Epistle  ad- 
dressed to  the  same  church  at  Ephesus1**,  and  in- 

130  S.  Iren.  adv.  Haer.  Lib.  III.  cap.  xvi.  p.  204-.—  sed  praevi- 
dens  Spiritus  Sanctus  depravatores  —  per  Matthseum  ait  ;  Christi 
autem  generatio  sic  erat  ;    et  quoniam  hie  est  Emmanuel,  ne 
forte   tantum  eum   hominem   putaremus  —  neque  alium  quidem 
Jesum    alter  urn    Christum   suspicaremus   fuisse,    sed   unum   et 
eundem  sciremus   esse.     Hoc  ipsum  interpretatus  est   Paul  us, 
scribens  ad  Romanes,  —  "  quod  promisit  —  de  Filio  suo  quijactus 
est  ei  ex  semine  David,  secundum  carnem"     Et  iterum  ad  Ro- 
manos  scribens  de  Israel,  dicit  ;  "  Quorum  patres  et  ex  quibus 
Christus  secundum  carnem  qui  est  Deus  super  omnes  benedictus 
in  saecula."     Et  iterum  in  Epistola  quae  est  ad  Galatas,  ait  ; 
<*  cum  autem  venit  plenitude  temporis,  misit  Deus  FiRwn  suum, 
factum  ex  muliere,"  &c.     Conf.  Rom.  i.  1.  3.  ix.  5.  Gal.  iv.  4-. 

131  Vid.  supr.  p.  243.  n.  I61. 

ai*  S.  Ignat.  Ep.  ad  Ephes.   cap.  i.  a»«£o;7n;^cram;  ev  at/xar; 
©£8,  T&  erjyywy.QV   epyo*  T&eiut;  uTeypTicraTz.  cap.  vii.   J?   t 
yxcmKog  Tf  y-Ott  KvtVfAOLTixoS)  yivrtToq   KO.\ 
©sos"  cap.  xix. 


ou/SfUTr'uive  (fave§y//.evH   £t?   x. 

Te  Tr^a  ®eu  «,7fHfrKry.sroy.    pp.  12,  13,  16. 


T'2 


(    376    ) 

sists  on  the  divinity,  incarnation,  and  passion  of 
Christ,,  in  language  the  most  full  and  explicit135. 
Had  all  antiquity  been  silent  on  the  subject  of  these 
contested  verses,  which  are  supported  by  the  most 
full  and  unexceptionable  evidence,  the  single  tes- 
timony of  this  apostolical  father  would  determine 
the  genuine  reading  beyond  controversion. 

With  respect  to  1  John  v.  7,  8.  it  has  been  al- 
ready observed,  that  it  was  directed  against  the 
peculiar  errours  of  the  Nicolaitans  and  Cerinthians. 
Of  those  sects  it  has  been  likewise  observed,  that 
they  respectively  denied  that  Jesus  was  (<  the  Son 
of  God/'  and  ff  came  in  the  flesh/'  though  they 
mutually  expressed  their  belief  in  a  Trinity.  Such 
are  the  fundamental  errours  which  the  apostle 
undertakes  to  refute  ;  while,  at  the  same  time,  he 
inculcates  a  just  notion  of  the  Trinity;  distinguish- 
ing the  Persons  from  the  substance,  by  opposing 

Tg    in   the   masculine  to    %»    in    the  neuter  ZJ4. 


233  Id.  ibid.  cap.  vii.   Elc   »«T^O?   ir»>,  ffftgxjxos1  re  xai  wn-y^a- 
XO?,  <ys\vrtros  xat  «yf«i»ta?,  sv  axgx.1  yevo/xcvos  ©eor,   Iv  a^a^arw 
»)  utoSwy,  xa*  ex  Mag/as1  xai  ex  ©e«,  Trgurov  "TraS'TjToy  xai  TOTS 
jfc.     Id.  ib.  cap.  xviii.  —  'o  y«,%  ©eoj-  r^uv  'Ir/<j»*  6   X^ror 
IKO  Mapicc<;t    xa,r    olxovoplav  0£«,  Ix.  a7T£fptx,To$  ra    Act/3»^, 
e   ayta.   of   £yevvry3'73    xat    l/Sa-TTT/aS'Tj,  iVa   TW    7ra$s»  T» 
i<7»j.      Ka*   fAa$£  TOV  afxpvTa.  ra  a,lu>o<;   lara   y    yretftttfa 
i  o  Toxsrof  aiJrTjf,  Q^OJWJ  xat  o  S'avaros1  T«  Kf£i». 
z34  T\vo  authorities,  which  are  above  all  exception,  will  fully 
evince  the  justness  and  happiness  of  this  distinction.     Tertul. 
a.dv,  Prax.    cap.   xxii.     "  Ego  et  Pater  unum  sumus."     Hie 
.ergo  jam  gradum  voluntfigerestulti,  immo  caeci  qui  non  videant, 
primo   "  Ego  et  Pater,"   duorum  esse  significationem  ;  dehinc 
in  novissimo,  "  sum  us"  non  ex  unlus  esse  persona,  quod  plu~ 
rditcr  dictum  est  ;  turn  quod  "  unum  sumus,"  non  unus  sumus. 


(    277    ) 

Against  those  who  denied  that  ff  Jesus  was  the 
Son  of  God/'  he  appeals  to  the  heavenly  witnesses ; 
and  against  those  who  denied  that  he  cc  was  come 
in  the  flesh/'  he  appeals  to  the  earthly.  For  the 
admission  of  the  one,  that  the  "three,"  including  the 
Word,  were  Cf  one"  God,  as  clearly  evinced  the  divi- 
nity of  Christ,,  as  identifying  him  with  the  Father; 
as  "  the  spirit"  which  he  yielded  up ZJ?,  and  ff  the 
blood  and  water"  which  he  shed  upon  the  cross*36, 
evinced  his  humanity,  as  proving  him  mortal.  And 
this  appeal  to  the  witnesses  is  as  obvious,  as  the 
argument  deduced  from  it  is  decisive :  those  who 
abjured  the  Divinity  of  our  Lord,  being  as  natu- 
rally confuted  by  the  testimony  of  the  heavenly 
witnesses,  as  those  who  denied  his  humanity  by  the 
testimony  of  the  earthly.  Viewred  with  reference 
to  these  considerations,  the  apostle's  argument  is  as 
full  and  obvious,  as  it  is  clear  and  decisive :  while, 
it  is  illustrated  by  the  circumstances  under  which 
his  epistle  was  written.  But  let  us  suppose  the 
seventh  verse  suppressed,  and  he  not  only  neglects 
the  advantage  which  was  to  be  derived  from  the 
concession  of  his  opponents,  while  he  sums  up  "the 
witness  of  men ;"  but  the  very  end  of  his  epistle  is 

Si  enim  dixisset  unus  sumus,  potuisset  adjuvare  sententiam 
illorum.  Unus  enim  singularis  numeri  significatio  videtur,  ad- 
huc  eum  duo ;  masculini  generis.  "  Unum"  dicit,  neutrali 
verbo,  quod  non  pertinet  ad  singularitem,  sed  ad  unitatem,  ad 
similitudinem,  ad  conjunctionem,"  &c.  In  the  justness  of  this 
distinction,  an  eminent  Critick  acquiesces:  Vid.  Pors.  Lett* 
p.  240. 

™  Luk.  .\xiii.  46. 

136  Job.  xix.  84>  35, 


(    278    ) 

frustrated,,  as  the  main  proposition  is  thus  left  un- 
established,  that  "  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God."  And 
though  the  notions  of  the  hereticks,  on  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity,,  were  vague  and  unsettled,  the  Church 
was  thus  left  without  any  warning,  against  their 
peculiar  tenets,,  though  the  apostle  wrote  with  the 
express  view  of  countervailing  their  errours.  Not 
to  insist  on  the  circumstances  of  the  controversy., 
the  object  of  the  apostle's  writing,  not  less  than  the 
tenour  of  his  sense,  consequently  require  that  the 
disputed  passage  should  be  considered  an  integral 
part  of  his  text. 

The  reader  must  be  now  left  to  determine  how 
far  the  internal  evidence,  supported  by  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  controversy  in  which  the  sacred 
writers  were  engaged,  may  extend  in  establishing 
the  authenticity  of  the  disputed  verses.  As  inter- 
polations, we  must  find  it  as  difficult  to  account  for 
their  origin,  by  considering  them  the  product  of 
chance  as  design.  For,  assuming  the  reading  of 
the  Corrected  Text  to  be  genuine,  is  it  not  next  to 
miraculous  that  the  casual  alteration  introduced  into 
the  Received  Text  should  produce  so  extraordinary 
an  effect  on  each  of  the  passages,  and  attended  by 
consequences  so  various  arid  remote ;  that  it  should 
amend  the  solecism  of  the  language,  supply  the  de- 
ec  tive  sense,  and  verify  the  historical  circumstances 
under  which  they  were  written  ?  But  how  is  the 
improbability  diminished  by  conceiving  them  the 
product  of  design ;  while  they  appear  to  be  unsuit- 
able to  the  *  controversies  agitated  in  the  primitive 
Church  ?  The  early  heretics  did  not  subscribe  to 


(    279    ) 

those  parts  of  the  canon  in  which  they  occur;  arid 
they  did  not  meet  the  difficulties  of  those  disputes 
which  were  maintained  with  the  later*37.  In  order 
to  answer  the  purposes  of  those  controversies, 
Christ,  in  two  of  the  contested  passages,  should 
have  been  identified  with  cc  God/'  who  "  was  mani- 
fested in  the  flesh/'  and  <c  purchased  the  Church 
with  his  own  blood/'  And  instead  of  "  the  Father, 
Word3  and  Spirit/'  the  remaining1  passage  should 
have  read,,  "  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost/' 
Otherwise,  the  interpolated  passages  would  have 
been  direct  concessions  to  the  Gnosticks  and  Sabel- 
lians,  who,  in  denying  the  personal  difference  of 
the  Father  and  Son,  were  equally  obnoxious  to 
those  avowed  adversaries,  the  Catholicks  and  the 
Arians.  Nor  did  the  orthodox  require  these  verses 
for  the  support  of  their  cause  ;  they  had  other  pas- 
sages which  would  accomplish  all  that  they  could 
effect  ;  and  without  their  aid,  they  maintained  and 
established  their  tenets.  Admitting  the  possibility 

137  Hence  we  find,  that  the  writers  who  stand  next  in  suc- 
cession to  the  apostles,  as  they  found  the  divinity  of  our  Lord 
impugned,  and  the  Scripture  testimonies  which  proved  it  ex- 
plained away  by  the  heretics,  insist  more  emphatically  on  this 
point,  vid.  S.  Ignat.  ut  supr.  p.  276.  n.  a".  To  this  early 
practice  of  perverting  the  language  of  Scripture,  St.  Polycarp, 
a  contemporary  of  S.  Ignatius,  and  auditour  of  St.  John,  bears 
witness,  in  the  following  apposite  testimony,  Ep.  ad  Philipp. 
cap,  vii.  p.  188.  n<2?  ya^,  o<j  av  /u//)  o/utotoyip  'iTjaSv  X^tfov  ev 
cxpx.1  s^T/XyS'ryvat,  ampere?  eri*  Jta*  os  a.v  (A&oSsuy  rot  Xoytx  Tb 


iivou,  aro?  W^WTC'TOKO?  lr»  T£  I«Ta;«.      Conf.    S,   Iren.    adv.    Hjer, 
Lib.  I.  cap,  i.  §  1.  p.  2. 


(    280    ) 

of  an  interpolation,  in  the  three  instances,  we  must 
be  still  at  a  loss  to  conceive  \vith  what  object  it 
could  have  been  attempted. 

On  taking*  the  reverse  of  the  question,  and  suppos- 
ing- the  Byzantine  text  preserves  the  genuine  read* 
ing-,  every  difficulty  in  the  subject  under  discussion 
admits  of  the  easiest  solution.  The  circumstances 
which  induced  Eusebius,  of  Caesarea,  to  suppress 
those  passages,  which  apparently  favoured  the  er- 
rours  of  the  Sabellians,  have  been  already  specified. 
And  the  alterations  which  they  underwent  in  his 
edition,  as  contained  in  the  Palestine  text,  were 
effected  with  as  little  violence  as  possible  to  the  con- 
text or  meaning,  Ku^'a,  as  a  word  nearly  syno- 
nymous with  ©£«',  was  inserted  in  Act.  xx,  28  zj8; 

138  That  the  term  Kt'pto?  has  thus  crept  into  the  text,  has 
been  determined  by  Prof.  Michaelis,  from  the  varieties  disco- 
verable in  the  subjoined  readings  ;  Marsh's  Mich.  Vol.  I.  ch.  vi. 
§  xiii.  p.  336.  "  Of  the  following  different  readings,  Acts  xx. 


the  first  is  probably  the  true  reading,  and  all  the  others  are  to 
be  considered  corrections  or  scholia,  because  <S>zu  might  easily 
give  occasion  to  any  of  these,  whereas  none  could  easily  give 
occasion  to  ©s£.  If  St.  Luke  wrote  0«£,  the  original  of  Kvf'm 
and  XpifS  may  be  explained  as  corrections  of  the  text,  or  as 
marginal  notes  ;  because  "  the  blood  of  God"  is  a  very  extra- 
ordinary expression  ;  but  if  he  had  written  Kvpi«,  it  is  inconceiv* 
able  how  any  one  could  alter  it  to  ©i=£,  and  on  this  principle 
the  great  number  of  different  readings  is  inexplicable.  It  seems 
as  if  different  transcribers  had  found  a  difficulty  in  the  passage, 
and  that  each  corrected  according  to  his  own  judgment." 
The  improbability  of  such  a  correction  is  infinitely  increased 
when  we  consider,  that,  if  a  change  has  been  made  from  Kfpia 
to  @£»?  it  must  have  been  made  early  in  the  fourth  century, 


(    281     ) 

the  Sabellian  tendency  of  the  passage  was  thus  ob- 
viated, and  the  harshness  of  the  phrase,,  which  as- 
cribed blood  to  God,  was  removed.  After  the  ana- 
logy of  a  similar  passage  in  Col.  i.  26,  27.  TO 

[AVgyptOV  stpavSftu&V]  roTg  txyiois  —  o    TrAarof    rrfs    <$s£r/f    TJJ 

pvrngtz  TST«  —  o$  Ir*  Xgirfa9  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  was  chang- 
ed into  n«ya  Ifi  pvrrpiov,  og  tQqitgu&i  :  o$  being  pre- 
served in  the  masculine  to  denote  a  person,  and  in 
this  form  agreeing  with  X^ro?,  sylleptically  impli- 
ed in  pvry£M  239.  Out  of  this  reading, 


when  Sabellianism  was  in  a  great  measure  revived  by  Mar- 
cellus,  of  Ancyra.  The  revival  of  this  heresy  must  have  raised 
insuperable  obstacles  to  prevent  this  text  from  being  admitted 
into  the  context  of  Scripture  by  the  orthodox  :  and  unless  it 
was  interpolated  by  them,  there  was  no  party  existing  at  the 
time  to  gain  it  admission  into  the  sacred  canon.  The  Arians, 
it  is  obvious,  cannot  be  accused  of  attempting  such  a  correc- 
tion ;  and  the  Sabellians  were  unable  to  effect  any  thing  in  this 
respect  ;  as  they  were  an  inconsiderable  sect,  rendered  still  less 
competent,  by  the  opposition  of  both  Arians  and  Catholicks. 

239  This  conjecture  is  supported  by  the  Oriental  versions,  the 
varieties  in  which  are  at  once  reconciled,  by  considering  the 
neuter  noun  pvryfiov  taken,  by  a  syllepsis,  in  the  masculine  ; 
which  notion  is  alone  reconcilable  with  the  reading  proposed 
by  M.  Gricsbach,  in  the  Greek;  ^iyoc.  Ir*  TO  T^J;  evo-tfttias 
pvrvpov,  o?  !<pavEpS»5.  This,  I  beg  leave  to  suggest,  is  the  sim- 
plest explanation  of  the  reading  of  the  Coptick,  Sahidick,  and 
Philoxenian  version  ;  and  thus,  M.  Griesbach  and  Dr.  Lau- 
rence, who  have  formed  very  opposite  conclusions  on  this  sub- 
ject, are  easily  reconciled  in  principle.  The  former  declares, 
Nov.  Test.  not.  in  h.  1.  "  Copt.  Sahid.  et  Syr.  p.  in  m. 
[exhibent]  o?,  qui;"  the  latter  declares;  liem.  on  Griesb. 
Classif.  of  MSS.  p.  78.  "  in  both  the  Coptic  and  Sahidic  the 
word  MTZTHPION  mystery  is  decidedly  proved  to  be  masculine, 
by  the  definitive  article  masculine  ni  in  one  case,  and  n  in  the 


(    282    ) 
naturally  arose*40,  merely  by  correcting 


other,  prefixed.  —  A  similar  remark,  respecting  the  Philoxenian 
version,  is  made  by  its  editour."  From  hence  I  would  con- 
clude, with  M.  Griesbach,  that  the  authours  of  those  versions 
read  in  the  Palestine  edition,  which  they  followed,  pvrvpK*  or 
tyavepaSv  :  but  I  here  reason  from  the  premises  laid  before  me, 
as  I  am  wholly  unacquainted  with  the  Oriental  languages. 

240  That  pvrvfw  o  Sfonpudu  is  not  the  original  reading,  is,  I 
conceive,  manifest  ;  as  it  is  thus  unaccountable  that  this  phrase, 
which  is  wholly  unexceptionable,  should  have  been  ever  chang- 
ed to  pvrytM  °s  tyayifu&vi.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  suppose 
05  lp*«pwS«j  the  original  reading,  the  change,  it  must  be  con- 
fessed, was  easy  both  to  o  t$*fyu&D  and  0eo?  i£eewp«Su  :  as  the 
neuter  gender  was  obviously  suggested  by  the  context  pv^* 
fw  ;  and,  in  the  uncial  character,  OS  is  easily  converted  into 
©2,  the  usual  abbreviation  of  ©EOS.  But  pyrtgwi  os  Ipa«g<uS»i 
could  not  have  been  the  original  reading  ;  as  unsuitable  to  the 
object  of  St.  Paul  in  writing  the  Epistle  before  us.  So  great  a 
solecism  as  I  shall  show  in  the  sequel,  finds  no  justification  in 
Col.  i.  27.  And  the  change  of  §?  to  ©to?,  which  is  not  at  all 
suggested  by  the  context,  if  at  all  made,  must  have  been  made 
in  the  fourth  century  ;  when  the  Sabellian  errours  raised  the 
same  obstacles  to  such  a  correction,  as  to  that  of  ©s£  to-  Kt/pia 
in  Act.  xx.  28.  If,  in  the  last  case,  we  suppose  ©S  the  ori- 
ginal reading,  OS  might  have  been  first  suggested  by  those 
transverse  lines  having  been  omitted,  in  the  hurry  of  transcrip- 
tion, which  distinguish  OS  and  ©S  ;  and  this  alteration,  which 
was  apparently  justified  by  Col.  i.  27,  might  have  been  finally 
-recommended,  as  the  word  OS  had,  in  this  form,  the  appear- 
ance of  an  accidental  omission  ;  and  as  it  afforded  a  ready  ex- 
pedient of  converting  ©S  into  OS,  by  an  erasure.  As  the  con- 
currence of  the  Eastern  and  Western  versions  proves  this  cor- 
rection to  have  been  made  as  early  as  the  fourth  century,  when 
the  text  was  revised  by  Eusebius  ;  it  is  certainly  a  correction 
which  he  may  be  supposed  to  have  made,  as  it  is  conformable 
to  his  peculiar  notions. 


(    283    ) 

the  false  concord.  1  Job.  v.  7.  presented  fewer 
difficulties  to  the  corrector ;  the  iteration  in  the  sen- 
tence made  it  merely  necessary  that  the  obnoxious 
passage  should  be  erased;  and  it  was  consequently 
expunged  by  Eusebius,  as  little  conducive  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  church,,  from  being  calculated  to 
support  the  Sabeilian  errours.  Regarded  in  this 
view,,  there  is  little  more  on  the  subject  before  us 
which  needs  a  solution.  The  last  evidence  of  au- 
thenticity,, which  is  specified  in  the  rule  proposed  by 
M.  Griesbach,  for  determining  a  genuine  from  a 
spurious  reading141,,  is  thus  clearly  made  out  in  fa- 
vour of  the  text  of  Byzantium ;  for  thus  all  the  vari- 
eties in  the  pa.sr-.ages  before  us,  are  easily  accounted 
for,,  on  considering  them  corruptions  of  the  genuine 
text,  as  preserved  in  that  edition. 

Thus  reasoning  on  the  very  grounds  chosen  by 
the  adversaries  of  those  texts,,  the  question  of  their 
authenticity  is  easily  decided;  as  far,  at  least,  as 
respects  the  internal  evidence.  It  is  now  merely 
necessary,  that  the  testimony  of  competent  witnesses 
should  be  adduced,  to  corroborate  the  internal  evi- 
dence, with  external. 

Of  the  manuscripts  wrhich  have  been  cited  on  this 
subject,  1.  the  Vatican Z4a,  and  fifteen  of  the  Greek 

441  Vid.  supr.  p.  258.  n.  I94. 

The  true  reading  of  this  celebrated  MS.  is  set  out  of  dis- 
pute by  the  following  document,  which  is  deposited  in  Sion 
College ;  to  which  my  attention  was  first  directed  by  my  learned 
friend,  Mr.  Watts,  the  librarian.  In  a  collation  of  the  Vatican 
MSS.  made  for  Dr.  Berriman,  when  engaged  in  the  defence  of' 
1  Tim.  iii.  16.  the  annexed  reading  of  the  Vatican  MS.  appears; 


(    281    ) 

Vulgate1*3,  read  in  Act.  xx.  28.  ®e*;  in  which  read- 
ing they  are  supported  by  the  manuscripts  of  the 
Latin  Vulgate,  without  a  single  exception Z44, 
About  fifty  Greek  manuscripts  of  the  same  edition 
also  read  ©*«_,  but  in  conjunction  with  Ku/»« 


2.45 


the  following  note  being  prefixed  to  the  papers  in  which  it  is 
found,  in  the  hand  writing  of  Dr.  Berriman.  "  In  the  year 
1738  I  obtained,  from  the  very  learned  Mr.  Thomas  Wagstaffe, 
then  at  Rome,  a  more  exact  and  particular  account  of  the 
Greek  MSS.  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  in  the  Vatican  library, 
and  that  of  Cardinal  Barberini,  than  had  been  ever  before  com- 
municated to  the  world.  Mr.  Wagstaffe  had  for  some  time  free 
access  to  the  Vatican,  and  the  liberty  of  collating  MSS.  in  the 
absence  of  the  librarian,  and  in  that  time  I  was  favoured  with 
the  accurate  collation  of  four  texts  which  I  desired,  (Act.  xx. 
28.  Rom.  ix.  5.  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  and  1  John  v.  7.)  and  of  five 
more  added  thereto,  (Gal.  i.  12.  Phil.  ii.  6.  Col.  ii.  9.  Tit.  ii.  13. 
and  1  Job.  v.  20.)"  The  following  collation  of  the  disputed 
text  is  added,  along  with  the  above-cited,  in  Mr.  Wagstaffe's 
hand,  "  Act.  XX.  28.  n^oe-gp^rg  savrofc^  xoc.1 
u  vpci<;  TO  vrnvfia  TO  ayiov  i§&ro  tTrurxowu 
T«  S'EW,  rjv  <7refH7Towcra.ro,  ha,  T£  ca//.aro?  Tfcf  j'^ta*  IMS.  Bible,  from 

whence  Sixtus  \Vs  Septuagint  was  printed."  And  this  testi- 
mony is  confirmed  by  the  collation  which  was  made  of  this 
MS.  for  Dr.  Bentley,  vid.  supr.  p.  61.  n.  73.  As  it  notes  no 
various  reading  of  this  text  but  ra  al'^aroi;  T«  »&»,  p.  74.  the 
MS.  must  have  read,  with  the  copy  which  was  collated,  I 


i43  Griesb.  Nov.  Test,  not,  in  h.  1.  "  Vulgatum  0;S  habent 
codd.  4-,  22,  4-6,  65,  66,  68,  et  quantum  e  silentio  collatorum 
suspicari  licet,  7,  12,  16,  23,  25,  37,  S9,  56,  64."  For  one  of 
iliose  MSS.  Cod.  25,  I  can  answer,  having  collated  it  in  the 
British  Museum,  where  it  is  marked  Harl.  5537  ;  it  reads  T>;» 


244  Mill.  Nov.  Test.  not.  in  h.  1.     "  Vulg,  in  omnibus  Codd; 
Lat.  JEthiop."  &c. 

a;s  Vid.  Griesb.  Nov.  Test,  not,  in  h.  1. 


(    285    ) 

2.  The  Alexandrine246,  and  all  known  manu- 
scripts Z47y  except  two  of  the  Palestine,  and  one  of 
the  Egyptian  edition,  read  in  1  Tim  iii.  16.  ®tvg~t 
the  Latin  Vulgate  reading*  <f  quod/'  in  opposition 
to  every  known  manuscript  but  the  Clerraont**5. 

a46  That  the  true  reading  of  the  Alexandrine  MS.  in  1  Tim. 
iii.  16.  was  ©so?,  not  o?,  we  may  appeal  to  the  testimony  of  those 
who  first  examined  the  MS.  Independent  of  that  of  Junius, 
\vho  first  examined  it,  and  of  Mr.  Huish,  who  collated  it  for 
the  London  Polyglot ;  of  Bps.  Walton  and  Fell,  of  Drs.  Mill 
and  Grabe,  who  have  published  its  various  readings ;  Dr.  Ber- 
riman's  testimony  seems  to  lay  the  question  at  rest.  Having 
taken  two  friends,  Messrs.  Ridley  and  Gibson,  to  examine  the 
MS.  in  the  sun,  and  with  the  assistance  of  a  glass,  and  having 
submitted  the  point  in  debate  to  two  indifferent  persons  stand- 
ing by,  Messrs.  Hewit  and  Pilkington ;  he  published  the  fol- 
lowing statement,  as  the  result  of  their  investigation ;  Dissert 
nt  supr.  p.  156.  "  And  therefore,  if  at  any  time  hereafter, 
the  old  line  should  become  indiscernible,  there  never  will  be 
just  cause  to  doubt,  but  that  the  genuine  and  original  reading 

of  this  MS.  was  02  i.e.  ©EOS."  Nay  more,  he  openly  charges 
M.  Wetstein,  whose  single  testimony  is  now  supposed  to  turu 
the  scale  against  this  host  of  witnesses,  with  having  admitted  to 
a  common  friend,  that  he  saw  the  transverse  line  of  the  Q,  the 
existence  of  which  he  afterwards  disputed  :  Ibid.  p.  156.  The 
extreme  futility  of  the  plea,  which  is  set  up  in  opposition  to  this 
weight  of  testimory,  will  be  exposed  in  the  sequel. 

i47  Dr.  Berriman,  Crit.  Disert.  up.  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  p.  163. 
specifies  ninety-one  MSS.  in  his  printed  text ;  but  in  a  manu- 
script note  of  a  copy  of  his  work,  which  was  deposited  in  Sion 
College,  extends  the  number  to  ninety-five.  After  the  labours 
of  Prof.  Birch,  of  Copenhagen,  of  M.  Mat  triad,  at  Moscow,  and 
other  criticks,  we  greatly  underrate  the  number  of  those  MSS. 
in  estimating  them  at  an  hundred. 

243  Griesb.  Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  II.  p.  75.     "  Itaque  extra 


(    286    ) 

3.  The  whole  nearly  of  the  manuscripts  of  the  Latin 
Vulgate  contain  1  Joh.  v.  7249;  which  is  not  found 
in  any  Greek  MS.  but  the  Montfort ;  a  manuscript 
which  has  been  obviously  corrected  by  the  Latin 
translation. 

Of  the  Christian  fathers  who  have  been  quoted  on 
this  subject,  the  following-  have  been  cited  in  fa- 
vour of  the  reading  of  the  Received  Text,  or  Greek 
Vulgate. 

1.  On  Act.  xx.  28.  St.  Ignatius  z*°,  in  the  aposto- 
lical age;  andTertullian*51,,  near  the  same  period. 
At  the  distance  of  a  century  and  upwards  from  those 
primitive  times,,  St.  Athanasius  Z5%  St.  Basil  *",  St. 

omnem  dubitationem  positum  jam  esse  videtur,  Claromontani 
Coclicis  lectionem  primitivam  non  fuisse  0£  sed  O." 

149  Bengel.  Apparat.  Crit.  not.  in  h.  1.  §  xix.  "  Habet  La- 
tina  Versio  antiquissima.  <  Versus  ille  solemniter  legitur  turn 
in  Epistola  Dominicae  in  Albis  dictae,  turn  in  octavo  Respon- 
sorio,  in  omnibus  Dominicis  a  festo  SS.  Trinitatis  usque  ad 
Adventum.  Reperitur  etiam  in  optimis  quibusque  et  vetus- 
tissimis  Vulgates  codicibus,  ita  ut  paucissimi  sint  in  quibus 
deest.'  Henr.  a  Bukentop  de  Vulg.  p.  307.  Videlicet  de 
Codicibus  Hentenii,  quorum  circiter  24  ad  hanc  epistolam  col- 
lati  sunt,  5  tantummodo  omittunt.  &c. 

aso  Vid.  supr.  p.  275.  n.  i]z. 

15 1  Tertul.  ad  Uxor.  Lib.  II.  cap.  iii.  p.  175.  "  Quod  sciam, 
"  non  sumus  nostri"  sed  "  pretio  empti ;"  et  quali  pretio? 
**  sanguine  Dei.9' 

251  S.  Athanas.  Ep.  i.  ad  Serap.  Tom.  II.  p.  653.  e.    I  to 

riaDAos*  iv  u  vpu,!;  TO  IIviVfA.cc  TO  o-ytov  eSaro  £9r»<7>iogra5  9ro»//ai»e(v  T>3/ 
tKn^a-ioiy  T«  ©e«,  yv  <7rtpn7row<rot.'ro  ow  TV  Ifrlx  at'^aToj. 

253  S.  Basil,  Moral.  Reg.  LXXIII.  cap.  xvi.  Tom.  II.  p.  285. 
a.  ed.  Par.  1618.  o  Tnu/xr/p  5  xaAoj  TVV  •>]/t'PC*"f' 


(    287    ) 

Epiphanius  ***,  St.  Ambrose  2S5,  and  St.  Chrysos- 
tome  Z5^  deliver  the  same  testimony.  In  the  follow- 
ing-age occur  Ibas*57  and  Coslestinus258;  and  in  the 
succeeding,  Fulgentius*59,  Ferrandus*60,,  and  Fri- 


254  S.  Epiphan.  Ilaer.  LXXIV.  p.  895.  a. 

x^  Tram  T«  7rot/x,yiw    Iv   u    sSero  £>//.£$    TO  Hi/tvpa.   TO   afyua   E 
TT&JjiAaij'sn'  £,««$  T'/jv  £x.xA>;cr(av  T«  ©c». 

*55  S.  Ambros.  de  Sp.  Sanct.  Lib.  II.  cap.  xiii.  Tom.  II.  col. 
663.  d.  "  Dixit  enira  Paulus  :  '  Adtendite  vobis,  et  omni  gregi, 
in  quo  posuit  vos  Spiritus  Sanctus  episcopos  regere  ecclesiaia 
Dei." 

*56  S.  Chrysost.  in   Actt.  Apostt.  Horn.  XLIV.  Tom.  IX.  p. 

333.    a.      Il£o<7e%i:Tg    «v    lai/ro^  —  Tjro^atm*    TV>V  l*yJhricr'ict,v   T8    ©ew, 
'rtv  'jrifniTrtitiO'otTO   ha,   T«  »^*S  a^ctTo?.  —  TOC.VTCC,    Xtyyi   «K    ezrEt^s    or'  «.» 
lauTo^   Kfwijfatiuft  TOTE   xj  TO  Trofptiov  jcEp^aivsj,  !>•  w   ^a?  TO 
TC   aytov  f<9iTQ   £7T»crK09rs?j    iroifAdivuv  fnv  tx.x.Xric'ix.v  T»  ty£«.  qp< 

&&    T«    TrvffwaTog  T^JV       HiToviai'    ltri    (yyi*    T^TO 


7  Ibas.    Epist.    ad  Marin,    Pers.    ^«^$u   $i   f  o  ©eos-'   o 

toi<y    al'^aT*'     a^ri* 
x.  T.  e.    a.    Lab, 


et  Cossart,  Concill.  Tom.  IV.  p.  665.  b.ed.  Par.  1671. 

258  Coelest.  Epist.  ad  Synod.  Ephes.  "  Respiciamus  rursum 
etiam  ilia  nostri  verba  doctoris,  quibus  proprie  apud  Episcopos 
utitur,  ista  preedicens  :  '*  Attendite"  inquit,  "  vobis  —  regere 
ecclesiam  Dei  quam  acquisivit  sanguine  suo."  A  p.  Baluz.  Nov. 
Collect.  Concill.  Tom.  I.  p.  491. 

*5j  Fulgent,  de  Fid.  ad  Petr.  Diac.  cap.  xix.—in  isto  autem 
sacrificio  gratiarum  actio  atque  commemoratio  est  carnis 
Christi,  --  et  sanguinis  quem  pro  nobis  idem  Dens  effudit. 
De  quo  Beatus  Paulus  dicit  in  Actibus  Apostolorum,  "  Atten- 
dite vobis  —  regere  Ecclesiam  Dei  quam  acquisivit  sanguine 
suo."  Max.  Bibl.  Patrr.  Tom.  IX.  p.  80.  h. 

50  Ferrand.  ad  Anatol.  Epist.  cap.  xiv.     "  Nam  ecce  apud 
Miletum  —  Beatus  dum  traderet  Paulus;  "Attendite/'  iuquit, 


(    288    ) 

masius26'.  In  the  next  age  we  meet  Antioclms*6*, 
and  Martin  I.a6j;  and  in  the  subsequent,  Bede26*, 
who  is  followed,,  after  some  distance  of  time,  by 
Etherius26^  CEcumenius*66,  and  Theophylact167. 

"  vobis  —  regere  Ecclesiam  Dei,  quam  adquisivit  suo  sanguine.'' 
I>ic  modo  Gentium  Doctor,  et  responde  nobis  aliquid.  — 
Dixisti  Deum  Ecclesiam  adquisisse  sanguine  suo  ;  quare  non 
addidisti  Filium,"  &c.  Max.  Bibl.  Patrr.  Tom.  IX.  p.  506.  h. 

161  prjmaSa  jn  Apoc.  cap.  vii.  I  add  this  reference  on  the 
authority  of  M.  Griesbach  ;  with  this  acknowledgement,  that  I 
«  believe  it  to  be  an  errour.  I  have  not  been  able  to  find  any 
reference  to  Act.  xx.  28.  in  Primasius,  nor  is  the  authority  of 
this  father  cited,  on  this  verse,  by  M.  M.  Bengel,  or  Sabatier. 
In  Primas.  ibid.  ap.  Max.  Bibl.  Patr.  Tom.  X.  p.  309.  b.  I  find 
a  sanguine  agni,"  which,  it  is  possible,  M.  Griesbach,  or  the 
person  whom  he  followed,  might  have  mistaken  for  "  sanguine 
JDei." 

z64  Antioch.  Horn,  cxxir.  Auctar.  Bibl.  Patrr.  Tom.  I.  p. 
1214.  e.  ed  Par.  1  624.  Tol?  ^  'Ep«n'o»f  tiya'r  vfo^xf^  iavroTq 
-  Ytf^&utw  7rtv  tx.xhr.eta,*  T«  ®£8.  Conf.  Hom.  LXl.  p. 

1122.  d, 

263  Martin,  in  Cone.  Later.  Rom.  —  "  et  maxime  praeceptum 
habentes  apostolicum,  "  attendere  nosmetipsis,  et  gregi  — 
regere  Dei  ecclesiam  quam  acquisivit  per  sanguinem  pro- 
priuin."  —  Id.  ibid. 


a  rS  i^»a  aij*fltloff.  ap.  Lab.  et  Cossart.  Concill.  Ton?. 
VI.  p.  93,  94.  b. 

264  Bed.  Comment,  in  Actt.  Apostt.  cap.  xx.  Oper.  Tom.  V. 
p.  6.59.  ed.  Col.  Agr.  1612.  —  "  Regere  Ecclesiam  Dei,  quam 
acquisivit  sanguine  suo."  Non  dubitat  "  sanguinem  Dei'* 
dicere,  propter  unionem  personse  in  duabus  naturis  ejusdem  Jesu 
Christi." 

5  Ether,  contr.  Elipand.  Lib.  II.  "  De  quo  Dei  sanguine 
sub  certo  Dei  hominisque  discrimine,  in  Apostolorurn  Actibus 
iegimus  :  "  Attendite  vobis,  et  universo  gregi  vestro,  in 


(    289    ) 

To  these  we  may  add  some  anonymous  authori- 
ties*68^ whose  age  is  not  easily  determined. 

2.  On  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  we  may  quote  St.  Igna- 
tius*69, in  the  apostolical  age  ;  and  Hippolytus  *7°> 
in  the  age  which  succeeded.  The  next  age  pre- 
sents St.  Athanasius171,  St.  Gregory  Nyssene*7*, 
and  St.  Chrysostome*73;  and  the  following  age,  St. 

vos  Spirltus  Sanctus  posuit  apostolos  regere  Ecclesia'm  Dei." 
Et  cujus  Dei  Ecclesiam  subsequens  sermo  demonstrat  ita  di- 
cens;  "  quam  acquisivit  sanguine  suo."  Aperte  hie  nomine 
Deitatis  et  sanguinis,  ccelestia  et  humana  sociavit."  Max.  Bibl* 
Patrr.  Tom.  XIII.  p.  383.  d. 

166  CEcumen.  Comment,  in  Actt.  Apostt.  Tom.  I.  p.  152.  ed, 
Par.     1634.      Wfoo-ep^Ele     «v     lawful—-  —  •—  TrcHpatvew    Trjv     \y.A>wia.r 
T«  ©£?. 

167  Theophyl.  Ope'r.  ed.  Finett.  Tom.  III.  p.  290.  b.   Venet. 

1758.    ff^offi^iii  «>  lat/Idt?  —  9roiaaivEn»  T»J»  £KKA*)<riay  T8  ©E». 

268  Anon.  ap.  S.  Athan.  Tom.  III.  p.  4.  a.  Al.  ap.  S.  Chry- 
sost.  Tom.  VI.  p.  510.  Auct.  de  XLII.  Mans.  Scholl.  Codd, 
15.  18.  37.  Confes.  Eccl.  Orient,  p.  139. 

a69  Vid.  supr.  p.  275.  n.  ^\ 

470  Hippolyt.    contr.    Noet.    cap.    xvii.      ©eof    i» 


'*  S.  Athan.  Ep.  iv.  ad  Scrap.  Tom.  II.  p.  706.  —  *%pn  yoi^ 

ffvfyw(4,v)V  avTofs  vipovla.,  t£  olovsl  ^Hfcc.  avroT^    iv  ru  hiyew 
OT»    xj    o^oX6y»^£fW5  pty*    !r*    TO    T^5    tvffeQuaq    /xt/r^*o»* 
fe/sos   ItpctvtpuSv)   Iv  trx(>x.i. 

172  S.  Greg.  Nyssen.   Orat.  iv.  Tom.  II.  p.  581.  ed.  Par. 


1638.  —  TraiOe?  ol  TO»   Aoycv  %r,gvtTG-ovli<;  Iv  T«TW  TO 
xcActpyyvuo-iV    oT»  ©soj  \q>u.*zpu§ri   l»  <ra§x*,    OT»   o   Aoyo? 

x.  T.  I.     Conf.  pp.  430.  445.  536,  595, 

a73  S.  Chrysost.    Comment,  in   1    Tim.   Tom.   XI.  p.  605. 

K.at    o/xoX&7»ft£i/&;?,    <£>»j<n,    jurya   er*   To    T^?    eva-ffitiGcq  (AVrfigtoV    0£o? 
ly  aagxi  i^xa»w'S>j  EV  vtwpotli*  r»Ier»»  ^  oJxovo^ta  ^  ^Trsp  ^w» 
TO  jAt'fqgioy  -  s»5   «Tigo»   (iyayEj  TO   <ffgu,y^»  hiyuv,   ©eef 
V 


(    290    ) 

Cyril*74,  of  Alexandria,  Theodorit  17J,  and  Eutha- 
lius  z?6.  At  a  considerable  distance  of  time,,  occur 
Damascene*77,  and  Epiphanius  Diaconus*78;  who 
are  followed  by  Photius*79,  (Ecumenius280,  Theo- 
phylact*81,  and  others182,  at  different  intervals. 

tyawepuSv)  it  ffotpKi,  turirw  o  £*jpittgyo?.  Conf.  Tom.  I.  p.  497. 
VIII.  p.  85.  sqq. 

a74  S.  Cyril.  Alex.  Orat.  I.  de  Rect.  Fid.  Tom.  V.  P.  ii.  p.  124. 

ed.  Par.  1638.  *}  o^ohoyuitwuc  piyot.  Ir*  TO  Trie  evrefisix;  pvrrifiov' 
©soj  ty«Mgi&»|  iv  trotyl  --  .  TK  *  «»  orotgii  ^«>H^wSeK  ;  y  c^Xov,  or* 
o  EK  ©E£  Ilalpo?  Aoyc?*  »Ta;  ya^  ET*'  jW/ya  TO  T?J 
©sof  s^avEpJ^vj  £?  tra^xt  --  .  Kat  o^cXoytf//.^^ 
£f»  To  T>7?  j^ag^Esa;  /xt'r'J^oj''  ©EOS'  l^avEfttf^rj  i>  cra^x*  x.  T.  e. 

Conf.  p.  153.  Tom.  VI.  p.  148. 

a7*  Theodor.  Comment,  in  1  Tim.  Tom.  III.  p.  478.  ed.  Par. 

1642.       ©SO*    SfU»»af0$1|     b    crafxi*      ©go*    ya^    <D»    x^    ©£«    vlof,    >cj 

t*9$f«nritff»f    lyiv&lo* 
yo.%  T>;y 


476  Euthal.  ap.  Zaccagn.  p.  692.    Ka*  §/x»Xty*jltf»«;  j^y*  *r* 
TO  Tijc  uwrcj3iut(  pvrriptv.      ©so?  E^ayjpwSrj  x.  T.  I. 

a77  Damascen.  Tom.  II.  p.  263.  ed.  Par.  1712.     Ka*  o.aoAoy»- 

-*   TO  T'/?f  ivcrtpHOK;    j,vrvpwv.      ©60S"  EavH^v*?   t?  o"«x* 


178  Epiphan.  Diac.  in  Cone.  IT.  Nic.  —  "  audi  igitur  Paulura 
magna  voce  clamantem,  et  veritatem  istam  corroborantem  : 
*  Dens  mamfestutus  est  in  carne,  justificatus  est  in  spiritu  —  . 
0  magni  doctoris  affatum  !  '  Deus9  inquit  manifestatus  est  iri 
carne,  &c.  Ap.  Lab.  et  Cossart.  Concill.  Tom.  VII.  col. 
618. 

z7;  Phot.  Comment,  in  1  Tim.  Ka*  o^oAoys/^tj-^f  /neya  «r»  T» 
T>5?  tvo-s&tton;  fAVrvpW  ©60S"  E^afj^wS)?,  x.  T.  I.  e.  Cod.  Mb. 
Cantab,  n.  2130.  250. 

250  (Ecumen.  Comment,  in  1  Tim.  Tom.  II.  p.  227,  228.  ed 

Par.    1631. 


(    291    ) 

3.  On  1  Job.  v.  7.  we  may  cite  Tertullian  Z8J  hi 
the  age  next  the  apostolical;  and  St.  Cyprian  in  the 
subsequent  aera284.  In  the  following  age,  we  may 
quote  Phoebadius285.,  Marcus  Celedensis*85,  and 
Idatius  Clams287;  and  in  the  succeeding  age^  Eu- 

afil  Theophyl.  Comment,  in  1  Tim.  p.  769.  ed.  Lond.  163$. 


7*j 


*8i  Ep.  Dionys.  Alexandr.  adscript*  Anon.  ap.  S.  A  than.  de 
Incarn.  Verb.  Tom.  II.  P.  ii.  p.  33.  Al.  ibid.  p.  5^4-.  Anon.  ap. 
Theodorit.  Tom.  IV.  pp.  13.  15.  Euthym.  in  Panopl.  'I  it.  xv. 

a33  Tertul.  adv.  Prax.  cap.  xxv.  p.  506.  "  Ita  connexus 
"  Patris"  in  Filio,  et  *  Filii'  in  '  Paracleto*  tres  efficit  cohae- 
Jrentes,  alterum  ex  altero,  qui  "  tres  unum  sunt,"  non  units; 
quomodo  dictum  est,  "  ego  et  Pater  unum  sumus,"  ad  sub- 
stantice  unitatem,  rton  ad  numeri  singularitatem." 

*8^  S.  Cypr.  de  Unit.  Eccles.  p.  109.  '*  Dicit  Dominus  ; 
«  Ego  et  Pater  unum  samus."  Et  de  ««  Patre  et'*  Filio  "  et 
SpiritU  Sancto"  scriptum  est  ;  "  et  hi  tres  unum  sunt."  Conf* 
Ep.  Lxxni  ad  Jubaian.  p.  203. 

485  Phcebad.  contr.  Ariann.  cap.  xlv.  *  Dominus  *'  Petam/* 
inquit,  "  a  Patre  meo  et  ahum  advocatum  dabit  vobis."  Sic 
alius  a  Filio  "  Spiritus"  sicut  alius  a  Patre  "  Filius."  Sic  tertia 
in  Spiritu,  ut  in  Filio  secuncla  persona:  unus  tamen  Deus 
(omnia)  quia  "  tres  unum  sunt."  Max.  Bibl.  Patrr.  Tom.  IV. 
p.  305.  b. 

*86  Marc.  Celed.  Expos.  Fid.  ad  Cyril.  "  Nobis  umis 
"  Pater,"  et  Unus  *  Films'  ejus  verus  Deus,  et  unus  "  Spiritus 
Sanctus"  verus  Deus,  "  et  hi  tres  unum  sunt  ;"  una  divinitas, 
et  potentia,  et  regnum.'*  Sunt  autem  tres  Personae,  non  duae, 
non  una,1'  &c.  Ap.  S.  Hier.  Tom.  IX.  p.  73.  g*  Conf. 
Ep.  LXXVII.  Tom.  II.  p.  302. 

287  Idat.  Clar.  de  Sanct.  Triii.  Lib.  I.  —  dicenle  Joanne  Evari- 
gelista  in  Epistola  sua  ;  "  tres  sunt  qui  testimonium  dicunt  in 
coelo,  "  Pater,  et  Verbum,  et  Spiritus,  et"  in  Christo  Jesti 
**  unum  sunt,"  noil  tamen  unus  est,  quia  non  est  in  his  una 


(    292    ) 

cherius*88,  Victor  Vitensis289,,  and  Vigilius  Tap- 
sensis*90.  Fulgentius*9'  and  Cassiodorus29*  occur 
in  the  next  age;  and -Maximus*93'  in  the  subsequent: 
to  whom  we  might  add  many  others,  or  indeed  the 
whole  of  the  Western  Church,,  who,  after  this  p£- 

persona."  Ap.  S.  Athafr.  Tom.  III.  p.  606.  f.  conf.  pp.  607.  b. 
622.  a. 

188  Eucher.  Formull.  Spirit.  Intellig.  cap.  xi.  n.  3. — in  Jo 
nnnis  epistola :  "  Tres  sunt  qui  testimonium  dant  in  coelo, 
Pater,  Verbum,  et  Spiritus  Sanctus :  et  tres  sunt,  qui  testi- 
monium dant  in  terra,  Spiritus,  Aqua,  et  Sanguis."  Max.  Bibl. 
Patrr.  Tom.  VI.  p.  838.  e. 

239  Viet.  Vitens.  de  Persec.  Vandal.  "  Et  ut  adhuc  luce 
clarius  unius  divinitatis  esse  cum  Patre  et  Filio  Spiritum  Sanc- 
tum doceamus,  Johannis  Evangelists  testimonio  comprobatur  .• 
ait  namque,  "  Tres  sunt  qui  testimonium  perhibent  in  ccelo, 
Pater,  Verbum,  et  Spiritus  Sanctus,  et  hi  tres  unum  sunt.  Max. 
Bibl.  Patrr.  Tom.  VIII.  p.  686.  a. 

290  Vigil.  Tapsens.  contr.  Varimad.     "  Johannes  Evangelist* 
— ad  Parthos:  "Tres  sunt"  inquit,  "qui  testimonium  perhibent 
.in  terra,"  aqua,  sanguis,  et  caro,  et  hi  tres  in  nobis  sunt :  "  et 
tres   sunt  qui  testimonium  perhibent  in  ccclo,  Pater,  Verbum, 
et  Spiritus,  et  hi  tres  unum  sunt."     Max.  Bibl.  Patrr.  Tom.  V, 
p.  729.  b. 

291  Fulgent.  Respon.  contr.  Ariann.     "  Beatus  Joannes  Apos* 
tolus  testatur  dicens;  Tres  sunt  qui  testimonium  perhibent  in 
.coelo,  Pater,  Verbum  et  Spiritus  :  et  tres  unum  sunt."     Quod 
ctiam  beatissiiuus  martyr   Cyprianus  in  Ep.  de  Unit.  Eccles. 
confitetur,"  &c.     Max.  Bibl.  Patrr.  torn.  IX.  p.  41.  f. 

292  Cassiod.   Complexionn.   in    Epistt.    Paulinn.     4t  Testifi- 
cantur  **  in  terra"  tria  mysteria,  "  aqua,  sanguis  et  spiritus," 
quae  in  passione  Domini  leguntur  impleta :    "  in  codo  autem 
Pater,  et   Filius,   et   Spiritus  Sanctus,"   et   hi  tres  uiius  est 
Deus." 

293  Maxim.   Disput.    contr.    Ariann.    v^    c\    T^O~?    irS,w, 

f  x^  o*  Tf&<,    re  'it  etVw."      Ap.  S,  AtllUn.  Tom.  IH« 


229.  a. 


(    293     ) 

riod,  generally  adopted  this  verse  in  their  authorised 
version Z94. 

With  respect  to  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  Acts  xx.  28.  it  is, 
I  trust,  unnecessary  to  add  another  argument  in. 
support  of  their  authenticity.  Admitting  that  there 
exists  sufficient  external  evidence  to  prove  that  those 
verses  constituted  a  part  of  Scripture;  the  internal 
evidence  must  decide,,  whether  we  are  to  consider 
them  genuine,,  or  must  reject  them  as  spurious.  The 
point  at  issue  is  thus  reduced  to  a  matter  of  fact,,  on 
which  there  is  no  room  for  a  second  opinion.  It 
has  been,  I  trust,  sufficiently  shown,  that  the  one 
text  is  supported  by  the  testimony  of  the  Eastern 
Church,  and  the  other  by  that  of  the  Eastern  and 
Western.  The  inference  is  of  course  obvious,  with- 
out a  formal  deduction. 

With  respect  to  1  John  v.  7.  the  case  is  materi- 
ally different.  If  this  verse  be  received,  it  must  be 
admitted  on  the  single  testimony  of  the  Western 
.Church ;  as  far  at  least  as  respects  the  external  evi- 
dence. And  though  it  may  seem  unwarrantable  to 
$et  aside  the  authority  of  the  Greek  Church,  and 
pay  exclusive  respect  to  the  Latin,  where  a  question 
arises  on  the  authenticity  of  a  passage  which  pro- 
perly belongs  to  the  text  of  the  former;  yet  when 

4  Mar.  Victoria,  in  Hymn.  iii.  Ambrosias  Ansbertus  Com- 
ment, in  Apoc.  &c.  Conf.  Bengel.  Appar,  Crit.  not.  in  h.  J. 
§  xviii — "  Post  Annum  M.  Radutyhus  Ardens,  Rupertm 
Tuiliensis,  Bernardus,  Hugo  Victorimusy  Lombardus,  Aquinas, 
Scotus,  ceteri,  sine  descrimine,  dictum  cifant.  Vid.  Dorschei 
Diss.  de  Sp.  Aq.  et  Sang,  p.  11.  Calov.  Bibl.  111.  h.  1,"  Vid. 
supr.  p.  286.  n.  *49. 


(    294    ) 

the  doctrine  inculcated  in  that  passage  is  taken  into 
account,  there  may  be  good  reason  for  giving  even 
a  preference  to  the  Western  Church  over  that  of 
the  Eastern.  The  former  was  uncorrupted  by  the 
heresy  of  the  Arians,  who  rejected  the  doctrine  of 
the  passage  in  question195;  the  latter  was  wholly 
resigned  to  that  heresy  for  at  least  forty  years*96, 
while  the  Western  Church  retained  its  purity.  And 
while  the  testimony  borne  by  the  latter  on  the  sub- 
ject before  us,  is  consistent  and  full;  that  borne  by 
the  former  is  internally  defective.  It  is  delivered  in 
language,,  which  has  not  even  the  merit  of  being 
grammatically  correct;  while  the  testimony  of  the 
latter  is  not  only  unexceptionable  in.  itself,  but  pos- 
sesses the  singular  merit  of  removing  the  fore- 
mentioned  imperfection,,  on  being  merely  turned 
into  Greek,,  and  inserted  in  the  context  of  the  ori- 
ginal*97. Under  these  circumstances  there  seems 
to  be  little  reasonableness  in  allowing  the  Western 
Church  any  authority,  and  denying  it,  in  this  in- 
stance, a  preference  over  the  Eastern. 

But  numberless  circumstances  conspire  to 
strengthen  the  authority  of  the  Latin  Church  in 
supporting  the  authenticity  of  this  passage.  The 
particular  Church  on  whose  testimony  principally 
we  receive  the  disputed  verse,  is  that  of  Africa, 
And  even  at  the  first  sight,  it  must  be  evident,  that 
the  most  implicit  respect  is  due  to  its  testimony. 

495  Vidf  supr.  p,  110.  n.  *. 
*»  Vid.  supr.  p.  29.  n.  49. 
137  Comp.  pp.  257.260. 


(    295    ) 

1  .  In  those  great  convulsions  which  agitated  the 
Eastern  and  Western  Churches,  for  eight  years, 
with  scarcely  any  intermission  i98  ;  and  which  sub- 
jected the  sacred  text  to  the  greatest  changes*99, 
through  that  vast  tract  of  country  which  extends 
round  the  Levant,  from  Libya  to  Illyricum,  the 
African  provinces  were  exposed  to  the  horrours  of 
persecution  but  for  an  inconsiderable  period  3°°. 
The  Church,  of  course,  which  was  established  in 
this  region,  neither  required  a  new  supply  of  sacred 
books,  nor  received  those  which  had  been  revised  by 
Eusebius  and  St.  Jerome  ;  as  removed  out  of  the 
range  of  the  influence  of  those  antient  fathers. 

2.  As  the  African  Church  possessed  this  compe- 
tency to  deliver  a  pure  unsophisticated  testimony  on 
the  subject  before  us;  that  which  it  has  borne  is  as 
explicit  as  it  is  plenary  :  since  it  is  delivered  in  a 
Confession  prepared  by  the  whole  church  assembled 

198  Euseb.  de  Martyrr.   Falsest,   cap.   xiii.  p.  437.    1.    10. 

TSivrot  pi*  &v  to.  xctrct  Tlctha.iriwv  £V  oXotf  £T£ffl  OX.TU  cv^Trai^a^^oe. 
potgtv^x,  *£  rotaror  o  xaS1'  fifAais  Sicuypcos"  a^|a^Hi/o?  p.l>  aTro  TJ?? 
•tuv  ixxXq<r'tft!j>  xaSa^gcrew?,  tl<;  pAycx.  $1  <jrpox.o-^a.<;  Iv  raTq  xara  xpov 

tTroLvotrcicecriv'     tv     aTj     Tro^i/Tpowot  —  r 
T»     7r\y§o$    ^ctfrvfuy    xala     Tracra*    lira-^Ktv 

»o  $f   oXTjj-   'Aly^Trrs,   Si/^/as"  TE 
t     ro    *JXXi/g/xov 


259  Vid.  supr.  p.  27.  n.  46. 

0   Euseb.  ibid.  p.  4-37.   1.  23.  —  r<*X?ua    TE    xj  oW  xala  ^vo 


rof     TTrotr     T« 


(    §95    ) 

in  council.  After  the  African  provinces  had  been 
over-run  by  the  Vandals301,,  Hunnerick,  their  king, 
summoned  the  bishops  of  this  church,  and  of  the 
adjacent  isles,,  to  deliberate  on  the  doctrine  incul- 
cated in  the  disputed  passage301.  Between  three 
and  four  hundred  prelates  attended  the  Council, 
which  met  at  Carthage303  ;  and  Eugenius,  as  bishop 
of  that  see,  drew  up  the  Confession  of  the  ortho- 
dox304,, in  which  the  contested  verse  is  expressly 
quoted  -°5.  That  a  whole  church  should  thus  con- 
cur in  quoting  a  verse  which  was  not  contained  in 

301  Evagr.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  xiv.  p.  395.   1.  45. 

'Ovwpi^o?     ryv      @cc,?frsia(.v     \K  r»£ep^»     J»*3^^*i»« 

QfypxEvvv,    waorara    oteriS'ETo  apty}    ra?    \v    At/3t/») 
rot    ofici 


301  Edict.  Hunneric.  ap.  Viet.  Vitens.  de  Persec.  Vandall.— 
"  Et  quia  in  Provinciis  a  Deo  nobis  concessis  scandalum  esse 
nolumus,  —  hoc  nos  statuisse  cognoscite,  ut  ad  diem  Kal.  Febr. 
proxime  futurarum,  araissa  omni  excusatione  formidinis,  omnes 
Carthaginem  veniatis,  ut  de  ratione  fidei  cum  nostris  venera- 
bilibus  Episcopis  possitis  inire  conflictum,  et  de  fide  Omousia- 
norum,  quam  defenditis,  de  divinis  scripturis  proprie  approbetis, 
quo  possit  agnosci  si  integram  fidem  teneatis."  Max.  Bibl. 
Patrr.  Tom.  VIII.  p.  682.  d. 

303  Viet.  Vitens.  ibid.  p.  683.  d.  "  Appropinquabat  jam  fu- 
turus  dies  ille  calumniosus  Kal.  Febr.  ab  eodem  statutus.  Con- 
veniunt  non  solum  universes  Africa,  verum  etiam  insularura 
roultarum  Episcopi,"  &c.  A  catalogue  of  the  bishops  is  given, 
p.  689.  e.  sqq. 

3°4  Max.  Bibl.  Patrr.  Tom.  VIII.  Praef.  p.  i.  "  lisdem 
[libris  Viet.  Vitens.  de  Pers.  Vand.]  inserta  Professio  fidei 
Catholicorum  Episcoporum  Africae,  quae  ex  Gennadio  cap. 
xcvii.  probabilius  creditur  esse  Eugenii  Carthaginiensis  Epis- 
copi  —  . 

305  Ut  supr,  p.  292.  n.  *89. 


(    297    ) 

the  received  text,  is  wholly  inconceivable :  and  ad- 
mitting  that  1  Joh.  v.  7.  was  thus  generally  received, 
its  universal  prevalence  in  that  text  is  only  to  be 
accounted  for  by  supposing  it  to  have  existed  in  it 
from  the  beginning. 

3.  The  testimony  which  the  African  church  has 
borne  on  the  subject  before  us,  is  not  more  strongly 
recommended  by  the  universal  consent,  than  tie 
immemorial  tradition  of  the  evidence,  which  attes's 
the  authenticity  of  the  contested  passage.  Victrr 
Vitensis  and  Fulgentius,  Marcus  Celedensis,  St.  CJ-T 
prian,  and  Tertuiiian,  were  Africans 5o6,,  and  have  rc^ 
ferred  to  the  verse  before  us  3°7.  Of  these  witnesses., 

306  Cave.  Cartophyl.  Eccles.   p.  99.     '«    Victor,  genie   AJtr 
Vitensis  in   Africa  Episcopus:    An.  487."     Id.  ibid.  p.  10k 
"  Fulgentiiis  Afer,  ex  Abbate,  Ruspensis  in  Africa  Episcopus : 
clar.  circ.  An.  508."     Id.  ibid.  p.  23.     "  Cypriamis,   Cart/a- 
giniensis — ab  An.  24-8.     Episcopus  Carthaginiensis."     Id.  ibil, 
p.    16.     "   Tertullianus,   Presbyter    Carthaginiensis   circa   An. 
192."     Bengel.  Apparat.  Crit.  var.  in   1  Joh.  v.  7.  §   xiv.  p. 
461.     "  Expositio  haec  [vid.  supr.  p.  291.  n.  a86.]  nomen  auc- 
toris  non  habet  adjectum ;    sed  praeter  cetera,  tenor  versioiis 
Latinee,  in  dictis  ibi  citatis,  ostendit,  in  Africa  olim  earn  eise 
scriptam.     Et   quidem  scriptorem   ejus  esse  Mar  cum  Presly- 
terem  Celedensem,  argumento  est  ilia  epistola  quam  Hieronymus 
ad  hunc  ipsum  Marcum  circ.  A.  C.  375  dedit,  ubi  ait,  "  De  file 
quam  dignatus  es  scribere  Sancto  Cyrillo,"  &c. 

307  Vid.  supr.  p.  291.  n.  2S3.  sqq.     It  has  been  indeed  disputed 
that  Tertullian  quotes  any  verse ;  and  that  St.  Cyprian  refers 
to  any  but  1  Joh.  v.  8.     Though  the  testimony  of  these  ea-ly 
fathers  must  stand  and  fall  together ;  as  St.  Cyprian  obviously 
follows  his  master  Tertullian:  yet  Tertullian 's  testimony  rray 
stand  by  itself.     I.  It  is  evident  the  words  "  qui  tres  umm 
Bunt,"  do  not  fall  casually  from  him,  in  his  controversy  w'th 
Praxeas.    (1.)  They  contain  Praxeas's  doctrine  expressed  in 


(    298    ) 

\vhich  follow  each  other  at  almost  equal  intervals, 
the  first  is  referred  to  the  age  of  Eugenius,  the  last 

his  own  language  ;  "  Ipsum  dicit  Patrem  descendisse  in  virgi- 
nem — ipsum  esse  Jesum  Christum."  [Tertul.  adv.  Prax.  cap. 
i.]  This  identity  of  Person  between  the  Father  and  Son, 
P.-axeas  proved  by  Joh.  x.  30.  "  Ego  et  Pater  untim  sumus." 
liic  ergo  jam  gradum  volunt  Jigere  stulti,  immo  coeci,  — - — . 
S  enim  dixisset  unus  sumus,  potuisset  adjuvare  sententiam  illo- 
ram."  [Id.  ibid.  cap.  xxii.]  The  diversity  between  the  Fa- 
ther and  Word,  he  explained  away  by  another  expedient ; 
*  quid  est  enim  dices  Sermo  nisi  vox  et  sonus  oris."  [Id.  ibid, 
dp.  vii.J  Hence  1  Joh.  v.  7.  "  tres  sunt  qui  testimonium 
perhibent  in  ccelo,  Pater  Verbum  et  Spiritus,  et  hi  tres  unum 
sjnt,1'  contains  as  just  a  description  of  Praxeas's  doctrine,  as 
tiat  heretick  could  have  given.  (2.)  Of  course,  those  words 
do  not  give  as  full  an  exposition  of  Tertullian's  notions,  as  this 
learned  antient  required,  in  answering  Praxeas;  "  Ego  et 
later  unum  sum  us."  Hie  ergo  jam  gradum  volant  figere 
Siulti  immo  cceci,  qui  non  videant  primo,  "  Ego  et  Pater"  duo. 
rim  esse  significalionem  ;  dehinc  in  novissimo,  "  sumus,''  non 
et  unius  esse  persona,  quod  pluraliter  dictum  est ;  turn  quod 
"unum  sumus,"  non  unus  sumus."  [Id.  ib.  cap.  xxii.]  He 
consequently  explains  his  meaning  by  other  adjuncts  and  epi- 
tlets ;  "  Filium  non  aliunde  deduco  quam  de  substantia  Patris. 
[id.  ibid,  cap,  iv.]  Caeterum  ubique  teneo  unam  substantiam, 
IE  tribas  coharentibus."  [Id.  ibid.  cap.  xii.]  In  order  to  e\- 
piess  Tertullian's  notions  fully,  1  Joh.  v.  7.  should  stand,  "  tres 
testiraonium  perhibent  in  ccelo,  Pater,  Filiust  et  Spiritus  Sanc- 
tus ;  quse  tres  persona,  una  substantia  sunt."  This,  by  the 
wty,  is  the  true  secret  of  his  omitting  the  first  clause  of  the 
verse ;  and  of  Cyprian's  altering  it  in  declaring,  "  de  Patre  et 
Fiio  et  Spiritu  Sancto  scriptum  est,  et  hi  tres  unum  sunt." 
F<r  this  exposition  he  certainly  offers  on  the  authority  of  Ter- 
tulian.  II.  In  meddling  at  all  with  "  qui  tres  unum  sunt," 
T<rtullian  must  be  supposed  to  introduce  it  as  a  quotation  from 
Seipture ;  and  taken  in  this  light,  it  adds  greater  force  and 
clarness  to  his  reasoning.  That  he  introduces  it  in  this 


(    299    ) 

to  that  nearly  of  the  Apostles.  They  thus  form  a 
traditionary  chain,  carrying-  up  the  testimony  of  the 

ner,  is,  I  think,  apparent  from  the  following  reasons:  (1.)  He 
quotes  it  precisely  in  the  same  manner  as  Joh.  x.  30.  "  co2ci 
non  videant,  primo,  **  Ego  et  Pater"  duorum  esse  significa- 
tionem  :  dehinc  in  novissimo  "  sumus,"  non  ex  unius  persona, 
quod  pluraliter  dictum  est ;  turn  quod  "  unum  sumus"  non  units 
sumus.  Having,  by  these  three  reasons,  wrested  Joh.  x.  30. 
from  his  adversaries,  he  applies  it,  thus  interpreted,  to  the 
explanation  of  1  Joh.  v.  7.  which  was  even  more  strongly  on 
the  side  of  his  adversaries;  "  tres  unum  sunt,"  non  umis,  quo* 
modo  dictum  est,  "  ego  et  Pater  unum  sumus."  The  expla- 
natory phrase  *  non  unus,'  added  to  1  Joh.  v.  7.  as  well  as  Joh. 
x.  30.  as  clearly  indicates  a  quotation,  in  the  one  case,  as  in 
the  other.  (2.)  Considering  the  whole  texture  of  Tertullian's 
argument,  it  requires  that  "  tres  unum  sunt"  should  be  con- 
sidered a  Scripture  authority.  As  Praxeas  built  on  Joh.  xiv.  8. 
x.  'JO.  Tertullian  builc's  on  Joh.  xiii.  16.  xvi.  7.  for  these  texts 
clearly  proved  thai  personal  diversity  between  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  the  lioly  Spirit,  which  Praxeas  denied;  as  they  re- 
presented the  Son  as  interceding  tvith  the  Father,  and  both  as 
sending  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  of  course  exhibited  the  three  in 
different  Persons.  But  it  was  necessary  that  Tertullian  should 
not  divide  the  substance,  while  he  distinguished  the  Persons ; 
and  this  it  is  which  induced  him  to  introduce  Joh.  xvi.  14. 
with  7.  and  to  bind  the  whole  doctrine  together  by  1  Joh.  v.  7. 
as  previously  e  plained  by  Joh.  x.  30:  at  the  same  time  that 
he  insists  on  the  personal  diversity  of  "  Pater  et  Fih'us."  His 
argument  will  now  speak  for  itself;  "  post  Philippum  et  totarn 
substantiam  quaestionis  istius  (Joh.  xiv.  8.),  quae  in  finem  Evan- 
gelii  perseverant  in  eodem  genere  sermonis,  quo  Pater  et  Filiiis 
in  sua  proprietate  tKstinguwntur',  Paracletum  quoqne  a  Patre 
se  postuldturum,  quum  ascendisset  ad  Patrem,  et  missurum  re- 
promittit  (Joh.  ib.  16.  xvi.  7),  et  quidem  alium,  sed  jam  prae- 
misimus  quomodo  alium.  Caeterum  "  de  meo  sumet"  inquit 
(ib.  xvi.  14.)  "  sicut  ipse  de  Patris."  Ita  connexus  *  Patria 
in  Filio,'  et  «  Filii  in  Paracleto*  "  tres"  efficit  cohaerentes,  aite- 


(    300     ) 

African  Church,  until  it  loses  itself  in  time  imme- 
morial. 

rum  ex  altero,  qui  "  tres  unum  sunt"  non  unus  (1  Job.  v.  7.) 
quomodo  dictum  e,\t  (John  x.  30),  "  ego  et  Pater  unum  sumus  ;'* 
ad  substantial  unitatem,  non  ad  numeri  singularitatem."  III. 
That  St.  Cyprian  quotes  Scripture  is  placed  beyond  con- 
troversion  by  his  express  declaration;  scriptum  est,  "  et  hi 
tres  unum  sunt."  And  that  this  text  is  not  1  Job.  v.  8.  is 
equally  incontrovertible.  (1.)  The  phrase  used  by  St.  Cy- 
prian is  "tres  unum  sunt,''  not  "  tres  in  unum  sunt;"  the 
latter  is  the  phrase  in  1  Job.  v.  8.  the  former  that  in  1  Job. 
v.  7.  (2.)  This  phrase,  as  found  in  1  Job.  v.  8.  when  under- 
stood according  to  Tertullian 's  interpretation,  which  St.  Cy- 
prian holds  fully  in  view,  is  nonsense  or  blasphemy.  As  the 
former  of  these  fathers  justly  determines,  that  "  unus"  in  the 
masculine,  opposed  to  "  unum''  in  the  neuter,  indicates  a  per- 
son as  distinguished  from  a  substance  ;  this  canon  applied  to 
"  et  hi  tres  unum  sunt,"  in  i  John  v.  8.  makes  "  the  water  and 
Hood"  not  only  Persons,  but  of  "  one"  substance  with  "  the 
Spirit.1'9  I  forbear  to  point,  the  inference.  In  following  Ter- 
tullian, and  referring  to  Scripture,  St.  Cyprian  of  course  must 
be  supposed  to  allude  to  1  Job.  v.  7.  when  he  declares ;  "  de 
Patre  et  Filio  et  Spiritu  Sancto  scriptum  est :  et  hi  tres  unum 
sunt."  The  case  of  Cyprian  being  made  out,  that  of  Tertul- 
lian  derives  impregnable  strength  from  it :  admitting  the  former 
to  have  seen  this  verse,  the  only  probability  is,  that  it  must 
have  been  seen  by  the  latter :  as  it  is  absurd  in  the  extreme  to 
conceive  it  could  have  crept  into  the  text  in  the  period  that 
intervenes  between  them,  and  have  so  generally  prevailed  as  to 
be  quoted  by  the  whole  African  Church  in  the  Council  of  Car- 
thage. IV.  But  one  or  two  further  considerations  seem  to  set 
the  matter  out  of  dispute;  and  to  demonstrate,  that  1  Job.  v. 
7.  could  not  have  been  forged  between  the  times  of  Tertullian 
and  those  of  the  Council  of  Carthage.  In  the  term  Son,  lay 
the  whole  strength  of  the  Catholick's  argument ;  in  the  term 
Word,  lay  that  of  the  hcreticks :  Tertullian  had  particularly 
insisted  on  the  former;  aod  St,  Cyprian  had  absolutely  coii- 


(    SOI     ) 

4.  The  testimony  of  the  African  Church,  which 
possesses  these  strong-  recommendations,,  receives 
confirmation  from  the  corroborating  evidence  of 
other  churches,  which  were  similarly  circumstanced. 
Phoabadius  and  Eucherius,  the  latter  of  whom  had 
been  translated  from  the  Spanish  to  the  Gallican 
Church,  were  members  of  the  latter308;  and  both  these 
churches  had  been  exempt,  not  less  than  the  Afri- 
can, from  the  effects  of  Dioclesian's  persecution  5°9. 
Both  those  early  fathers,  Phoebadius  and  Euche- 
rius,  attest  the  authenticity  of  the  contested  passage  : 
the  testimony  of  the  former  is  entitled  to  the  greater 
respect,  as  he  boldly  withstood  the  authority  of  Ho- 
sius310,  whose  influence  tended  to  extend  the  Arian 

nected  "  Pater  et  Filius  et  Spiritus  Sanctus,"  with  "  hi  tres 
unum  sunt  ;"  and  yet  the  Council  of  Carthage,  and  the  fathers 
of  the  African  Church,  thus  uniformly  quote  1  Joh.  v.  ?•  "  tres 
sunt  qui  testimonium  perhibent  in  ccelo,  Pater,  Verbum,  et  Spi- 
ritus Sanctus."  I  must  question  the  seriousness  of  any  man 
who  will  persist  in  declaring,  that  he  believes  the  latter  verse, 
which  is  directly  in  favour  of  the  hereticks'  notions,  and  in  op- 
position to  the  authority  of  Tertullian  and  Cyprian,  could  have 
been  inventcdby  any  memher  of  the  African  Church  ;  or  that 
any  authority  could  have  gained  it  admission  in  this  form  into 
the  received  text  of  that  Church,  but  that  which  it  derived  from 
the  implicit  conviction  of  its  members,  that  it  was  written  by 
St.  John  the  Evangelist. 

308  Cave.  ub.  supr.  p.  56.  "  Phcebadius.  Callus,  Agenni  Epis- 
copus,  clar.  An.  359."  Id.  ibid.  p.  88.  "  Eucherius  senior, 
ex  Monacho  Lerinensi,  ab  An.  circ.  434.  Lugdunensis 


J°9  Vid.  supr.  p.  295.  n.  3&0. 

310  Phcebad.  contr.  Ariann.  sub.  fin.     "  Sed  non  sum  nescius 
—  Osii   nomen  quasi   quemdam   in  nos   arietem   ternperan-r— 


(    302    ) 

opinions  in  the  Western  world,  at  the  very  period 
in  which  he  cited  the  contested  passage.  In  addi- 
tion to  these  witnesses,  we  have,  in  the  testimony  of 
Maximus,  the  evidence  of  a  person,  who  visited  the 
African  Church ;  and  who  there  becoming'  ac- 
quainted with  the  disputed  passage.,  wrote  a  tract 
for  the  purpose  of  employing  it  against  the  Ari- 
ans3".  The  testimony  of  these  witnesses  forms  a 
valuable  accession  to  that  of  the  African  Church. 

5.  We  may  appeal  to  the  testimony  of  the  Greek 
Church  in  confirmation  of  the  African  Churches. 

Seel  hanc  contra  nos  errigentibus  machinam  brevi  admodura 
sermone  respondeo.  Non  potest  ejus  authoritas  praescribi, 
quia  aut  nunc  errat  aut  semper  erravit/'  &c.  Max.  Bibl.  Patrr. 
Tom.  IV.  p.  305.  c. 

311  Vid.  supr.  292.  n.  *9J.  Berigel.  Apparat.  Crit.  var.  in 
jh.  1.  p.  471.  "  Auctorem  Collocationis  f  int.  opuscc.  Athanas. 
Tom.  III.  p.  226.]  hodie  docent  esse  Maximum  Confessorem  .- 
qui  A.C.  64*0,  monasterio  suo,  prope  Constantinopolin  relicto, 
in  African  wit:  An. 645.  Romam  veuit :  et  An.  655  Constan- 
tinopolin retractus  est.  Unde  colligas,  Maximum  dicti  Jo- 
hannei,  [1  Job.  v.  ?•]  antehac  sibi  ignoti,  apud  Afros  fuissc 
potitum  ;  eaque  re  exultantem,  ipsius  dicti  orriandi  et  produ- 
cendi  causa  Dialogum  fecisse. — multa  dicta  ex  Nov.  Test,  (ne 
de  LXX  interpr.  dicam.)  eo  modo  citat,  qui  Codicibus  African-is 
respondet :  et  hoc  dictum  "  tres  unum  sunt,w  si  ille  ex  scholia 
duntaxat  aliquo,  si  ex  Latinis  momnnentis  id  repetisset,  si  alle- 
gatio  ex  ulla  parte  minorem  firmitudinem  haberet:  quomodo 
Athanasius,  Graecus  doctor,  eo  utens  'potuisset  introduci  ?  quo- 
modo auctor  totius  Colloquii  coronidem  ac  summam  in  eo  posu- 
isset  f  quomodo  Johannes  id  diccre  diceretur  ?  quomodo  deni- 
que  Arianus,  diu  reluctatus,  cederet?  Vix  plus  huic  Dialogo 
tribui  potest,  quam  tribuimus  modo.  Latinis  Afrorum  Codi- 
cibus notitiam  dicti  sine  dubio  dtbet  ille  auctor :  ia  Grsecis  an 
deinceps  repererit,  considerent  eruditi." 


(    303    ) 

Not  to  insist  at  present  on  positive  testimonies111, 

311  To  the  testimony  of  Maximus,  already  cited,  n.  *".  we 
may,  I  believe,  add  that  of  Socrates,  who  not  only  asserts,  that 
the  Greek  text  of  St.  John's  epistle  had  undergone  some  cor- 
ruptions ;  but  appeals  to  the  old  copies  of  the  original,  on  a 
reading  of  1  Joh.  iv.  3.  and  to  the  ancient  interpreters,  as  assert- 
ing, that  "  some  had  corrupted  this  Epistle  ;  wishing  to  sever 
the  humanity  from  the  Godhead."  For  having  declared,  Hist. 

Eccl.  Lib.  VII.    cap.  XXxii.  p.  381.    1.    32.    avrixa.  yut   y 
«T»   iv    T»J    tiotSoKiKi)   'lucivi'8   yiyOitrlo  iv   ro 


trov  Knvucc.  o  «7rot;et  TOJ»  »j<7v,  OLTTO  T«  s  iK  6ft4  TO-UTVIV  yap 
rvjv  Sizvoiav  IK  ruv  TroiXataiv  avnyga(p6;v  srs^ielXov,  ol  x,vfifyi»  *'!T° 
T£  rSif  &?xovo/x.»a?  «»$p<y7ra  ^aAo/Agjot  TW  StoTr,Tcc  :  he  directly  ob- 
serves to  the  purpose  already  specified:  Ibid.  1.  36.  &•  x) 
ol  WaXaToi  ecptr/VcTs"  KI/TO  TWTO  l-rsyyt^vavroy  w;  rivet;  tliv  jp^^tap- 
Tr/v  ETTiS'oXr/v,  hveiv  01,7:0  rS  ©«3  TOV 


Valesius,  n.  4.  in  h.  1.  observes;  "  fallitur  hie  Socrates,  et  dum 
Nestorium  reprehendit,  in  Eutychetis  errorem  dilabitur,  qui 
post  unitioriem,  non  duas  in  Christo,  sed  unam  duntaxat  natu- 
ram  esse  existimabat."  And  yet  1  Joh.  iv.  3.  v.  7,  8.  as  read 
in  the  Latin  Vulgate  at  this  day,  fully  bears  out  the  allegation 
of  Socrates.  1.  It  reads  in  1  Joh.  iv.  3.  "  omnis  spiritus  qui 
solvit  Jesum,  ex  Deo  non  est  ;"  and  thus  exactly  corresponds 
with  110.1  Trnvpci  o  Xt/£*  TOV  'ITJCTHV  aTro  T«  0^5  ttx.  ?r»j  in  Socrates  ; 
in  opposition  to  the  Greek  Vulgate,  which  reads,  «J  wav  irvwpat, 
e  ptyj  o/xo^oyeT  TOV  'Ir/crav  Xptfov  ev  ffa^l  eXryXfS'ora,  e«  ra  ©E« 
ax  «r*:  expressly  with  St.  Polycarp,  5/.  John's  disciple,  vid. 
supr.  p.  279.  n.  *37.  2.  In  retaining  "  tres  sunt  qui  testimonium 
dant  in  ccelo,  Pater,  Verbum,  et  Sp.  Sanctus,  et  hi  tres  unum 
sunt,*'  together  with  "  tres  sunt  qui  testimonium  dant  in  terra, 
spiritus,  aqua,  et  sanguis,  et  hi  tres  unum  sunt  ;"  it  substantiates 
the  charge,  brought  against  the  Greek  copies,  by  Socrates  ; 
that  they  had  undergone  those  muiilations  which  separated  the 
humanity  from  the  divinity  ;  the  latter  being  demonstrable  only 
from  vers.  7,  which  has  been  obliterated  in  the  Greek.  3.  As 
reading  in  vers.  8.  "  tres  unum  sunt>"  instead  of  o»  rp^  el* 


(    304    ) 

the  disputed  verse,  though  not  supported  by  the 
text  of  the  original  Greek,  is  clearly  supported  by 
its  context.  The  latter  does  not  agree  so  well  with 
itself,  as  it  does  with  the  testimony  of  the  African 
Church.  The  grammatical  structure,  which  is  im- 
perfect in  itself,  directly  recovers  its  original  inte- 
grity, on  being  filled  up  with  the  passage  which 
is  offered  on  the  testimony  of  this  witness313.  Thus 
far  the  testimony  of  the  Greek  Church  is  plainly 
corroborative  of  that  of  the  Western, 

6.  In  fine,  as  Origen  and  Eusebius  have  both 

TO  sv  i*Vi,  Which  occurs  in  the  Vulgar  Greek ;  and  thus  predi- 
cating  "  unum  sunt"    of    Spiritus  et  Sanguis,"   as   well  as 
*4  Pater  et  Verbum,"  it  naturally  justifies  the  inference  of  So- 
crates, respecting  the  divinity  and  hamanity  of  Christ,  which 
he  represents  as  one,  xj  «x.eTt  e»V»  &/o,  «taa  ev.     The  allusion,  in 
this  passage,  to  "  et  hi  tres  unum  sunt,"  1  Joh.  v.  7,  8.  as  these 
verses  are  read  in  the  Latin  Vulgate,   is  sufficiently  obvious. 
It  seems  to  justify  a  conjecture,  that  Socrates  wrote  xj  a  •/.uraiy 
sin  oyo,   aAXa  ev.     But  some   officious  scribe,  ignorant  of  the 
variation  in  1  Joh.  v.  8.  (sic  TO  e>,  in  the  Greek  Vulgate,  being 
rendered  '*  unum  sunt,"  in  the  Latin)  turned  a  Scripture  quo- 
tation.into  an  heretical  assertion,  by  changing  K  xel'ren  into  &XETI. 
For  an  example  of  KE?TCU  in  the  sense  ascribed  by  S.  Jerome 
to  posit  urn  est,  ut  infr.  p.  310.  n.  a.  conf.  ib.  n.  '.  et  supr.  p.  93. 
•ft.  l63.     The  reader  may  determine  for  himself,  how  far  it  is  pro- 
bable, Socrates  might  have  acquired  so  much  knowledge  of  the 
Latrn  version  through  M.  Celedensis,  or  some  other  Latin'  in- 
terpreter.    As  he  long  survived  P.  Damasus,  vid.  Socrat.  Hist, 
Eccles.  Lib.  \1l.  cap.  ix.  p.  3 .54.  under  whom  St.  Jerome  revi- 
sed the  Latin  text  of  the  Vulgate  in  which   the  abore  readings 
occur,  he  had  sufficient  acquaintance  with  the  affairs  of  the 
Western  Church  to  attain  information  on  this  subject;  vid, 
Lib.  II.  capp.  xxx.  xxxi.  p.  T27.  sqq. 
-313  Vid.  supr.  p.  260.  conf.  p.  254. 


(    305    ) 

thought  that  one  church  becomes  a  sufficient  voucher 
for  one  even  of  the  sacred  books  of  the  Canon5'4; 
and  as  Eusebius  has  borne  the  most  unqualified  evi- 
dence to  the  integrity  and  purity  of  the  Church  of 
Africa115,  we  can  have  no  just  grounds  for  rejecting 
its  testimony,  on  u  single  verse  of  Scripture.  And 
when  we  consider  the  weight  of  the  argument  arising 
in  favour  of  this  verse  from  the  internal  evidence  ; 
how  forcibly  the  subject  of  it  was  pressed  upon  the 
attention  of  St.  John ;  and  how  amply  it  is  attested 
by  that  external  evidence  which  is  antecedent,  though 
deficient  in  that  which  is  subsequent^  to  the  times  of 
the  apostles,  our  conviction  must  rise,  that  this  pas- 
sage is  authentick.  But  when  we  add  the  very  obvi- 
ous solution  which  this  want  of  subsequent  evidence 
receives,  from  the  probability  that  Eusebius  sup- 
pressed this  passage  in  the  edition  which  he  revised; 
and  which  became  the  received  text  of  the  Church, 
which  remained  in  subjection  to  the  Arians,  for  the 
forty  years  that  succeeded :  I  trust  nothing  further 
can  be  wanting  to  convince  any  ingenuous  mind, 
that  1  John  v.  7.  really  proceeded  from  St  John 
the  Evangelist. 

I  shall  now  Denture  to  conclude,  that  the  doctrinal 
integrity  of  the  Greek  Vulgate  is  established,  in  the 
vindication  of  these  passages.  It  has  been  my  en- 
deavour to  rest  it  upon  its  natural  basis;  the  testi- 
mony of  the  two  Churches,  in  the  eastern  and  west- 

314  Vid.  supr.  p.  236.  n» 13*.     Conf.  Euseb.  Lib.  VI.  cap.x*v, 
p.  291. 1.4.0. 

315  Vid.  sijpr.  p.  295.  n.  3°°, 


(    306    ) 

ern  world,  in  whose  keeping-  the  sacred  trust  was 
reposed.  In  two  instances  alone,  which  are  of  any 
moment,,  their  testimony  is  found  to  vary ;  and  in 
these  the  evidence  is  not  discovered  to  be  contra- 
dictory, but  defective :  and  this,  merely  on  one  side, 
To  direct  us,  however,  in  judging  between  the  wit- 
nesses, the  internal  evidence  at  once  reveals,  that 
an  errour  lies  on  the  side  of  that  testimony  which 
is  less  full,  as  it  is  not  consistent  when  regarded 
alone.  Hence,  on  confronting  the  witnesses,  and 
correcting  the  defective  testimony  by  that  which  is 
more  explicit,  every  objection  to  which  the  former 
was  originally  exposed,  directly  disappears.  As 
this  is  a  result  which  cannot  be  considered  acci- 
dental, there  seems  to  be  no  possible  mode  of  ac- 
counting for  it,  but  by  supposing,  that  there  was  a 
period  when  the  witnesses  agreed  in  that  testimony 
which  is  more  full  and  explicit.  However  inade- 
quate therefore  either  of  the  witnesses  may  be  con- 
sidered, when  regarded  separately ;  yet  when  their 
testimony  is  regarded  comparatively,  it  is  compe- 
tent to  put  us  in  possession  of  the  truth,  in  all  in- 
stances, which  are  of  any  importance. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  any  further  to  prolong 
this  discussion,  by  specifying  the  relative  imperfec- 
tion of  those  systems,  to  which  the  present  scheme 
is  opposed.  Those  of  Dr,  Bentley  and  M.  Gries- 
bach  are  fundamentally  defective  in  sacrificing  the 
testimony  of  the  Eastern  Church  for  the  immense 
period,  during  which  the  Greek  Vulgate  has  pre- 
vailed; that  of  M.  Matthaei  is  scarcely  less  excep- 
tionable, in  rejecting  the  testimony  of  the  Western 


(    307     ) 

Church  for  the  still  greater  period,  during  which  it 
has  been  a  witness  and  keeper  of  Holy  Writ. 

In  fact,,  whoever  saps  the  basis  on  which  the  inte- 
grity of  the  inspired  Word  is  properly  sustained,  must 
necessarily  build  on  a  foundation  of  sand.  Whe- 
ther we  build  on  the  authority  of  Origen,  or  of  the 
Antient  Manuscripts,  or  that  of  the  Versions  of  the 
Oriental  or  of  the  Western  Church,  all  our  docu- 
ments must  be  taken  subject  to  the  testimony  of 
tradition.  But  it  seems  to  be  a  strange  perversion 
of  reason,  which  will  lead  any  man  to  give  a  pre- 
ference to  such  vouchers  over  the  proper  witnesses 
of  the  inspired  Word.  For  while  the  testimony 
of  the  former  is  subject  to  the  same  casualties  as 
that  of  the  latter,  in  having  the  stream  of  tradition 
rendered  turbid  in  its  course;  it  is  exposed  to  infi- 
nitely greater  chances  of  corruption,  from  external 
sources.  Particular  Manuscripts,  not  to  speak  of 
the  sacred  writings,  yet  of  the  antient  Fathers  are 
liable  to  gross  and  wilful  corruption  at  the  first ; 
and  Versions  may  be  made,  for  aught  we  can  deter- 
mine, from  corrupt  copies,  or  by  unskilful  hands. 
In  these  possible  cases,  we  are  possessed  of  no  cer- 
tain criterion  to  arrive  at  the  truth.  But  we  must 
be  assured,  that  the  Sacred  Writings  were  delivered 
in  immaculate  purity,  to  those  churches,  to  whom 
they  were  committed ;  that  they  were  guarded  from 
corruption,  by  commanding  that  veneration,  which 
has  never  been  excited  by  any  human  work;  and 
that  they  have  been  dispersed  to  a  degree,  which 
rendered  their  universal  corruption  utterly  impos- 
sible, and  consequently  not  likely  to  be  attempted, 

*8 


(    308    ) 

It  seems  therefore  to  savour  of  something  worse  than 
paradox,  to  proceed  on  the  supposition,  that  the 
copies  of  Scripture  are  generally  corrupted;  and 
that  the  true  reading  may  be  acquired  in  other 
and  suspicious  sources. 


< 


SECTION  V. 


J_HE  integrity  of  the  sacred  canon  being  once 
placed  beyond  the  reach  of  the  objectour's  excep- 
tions; the  main  object  of  the  present  inquiry  may 
be  said  to  be  already  accomplished.  The  great  end 
which  the  inspired  founders  of  the  Church  had  in 
view,  in  delivering  to  their  successours  a  writtea 
Instrument,  was  to  furnish  them  with  an  unerring 
rule  of  faith  and  manners.  But  it  is  not  necessary 
to  the  perfection  of  this  Instrument,  that  it  should 
be  guarded,  by  a  perpetual  miracle,  from  the  chances 
of  literal  errours.  The  real  practical  advantages 
of  any  rule  of  faith  or  morals,  must  result  from  a 
religious  adherence  to  the  precepts  which  it  incul- 
cates. But  it  will  not  be  disputed,  that  those  pre- 
cepts might  have  been  conveyed  in  an  endless  va- 
riety of  manners  by  the  inspired  writers;  and  that 
the  language  in  which  they  chose  to  deliver  the  pre- 
cepts may  be  endlessly  varied,  while  the  doctrine  is 
preserved  unchanged  in  its  intention  and  substance. 
Were  an  exact  literal  acquaintance  with  the  phra- 
seology of  the  sacred  text  indispensably  necessary 
to  an  attainment  of  the  important  truths  which  it 
reveals,  it  is  obvious  the  inspired  writings  could 


(    310    ) 

be  beneficial  to  a  very  limited  number  of  readers, 
and  to  those  merely  in  the  time  of  their  perusal. 
The  impression  which  the  facts  and  precepts  of  the 
divine  work  leave  on  the  mind,  is  indeed  vivid  and 
permanent  ;  but  when  the  volume  is  closed,  few  re- 
tain an  accurate  remembrance  of  the  language  in 
which  they  are  expressed  :  and  no  memory  was  ever 
adequate  to  the  task  of  retailing  the  whole  work 
without  many  omissions  and  misrepresentations. 

The  general  and  doctrinal  integrity  of  the  sacred 
canon  being  preserved  from  corruption,,  there  exists 
no  obvious  or  necessary  cause,  that  the  text  should 
be  preserved  immaculate.  How  fully  impressed 
with  this  conviction  the  inspired  writers  were,  must 
be  directly  apparent  from  the  use  which  they  have 
made  of  the  Septuagint,  which  was  ever  considered 
a  free  translation1.  Those  who  were  best  qualified 
to  inform  us  on  this  subject  have  expressly  declared, 
that  the  apostles  have  quoted  from  that  version  z. 

1  S.  Epiphan.  de  Menss.  et  PoncUl.  cap.  vi.  Tom.  II.  p.  163. 

cl.   tv    T6>   IxaTor#   Ttac'cfaHoj-w    Yatyxw    SXJITO  arwj*     'Aouv&l 


9$  crSy  slffsixticrov  j«,y.      Opcode?  T»J  (puny**  oga,  & 

l(3$o[j!.Y)KQvra$i!0    £p|«,»jt>£t/Iat     flrpocrk&ty.oTe?     TO,     ' 

svrowcrct.ii  rov  r'yovj   xat   v)ff*.v]v£vcrex.v.      c  Kvpts   Ix/^a|a 

[AX,      TTfOJ^St;    TV)     tyUVYl     T?f    ^65J<7£W5     (AX.'      KCtl     OfCt 
ci^tlcci    0    Yao?.       E'TT/fVlS't    TO/VfV    aTTO    T8 


optoiotr    a/'ro/v    xara    T»jy   •ffporSyy.yv  Trai/lap^S    vvo    ruv    ctvrur 


,  or/  KoiKus  ol  Xoyot  flrpoflcTg'S'ajaav  sir  (ppzaw  xa\ 
yw»  &ls  i\v   rS  0sS  v\fm  ayscrSou  x.,  r.  I. 
vid.  infr.  nn.  *  et  3. 

*  S.  Hier.  adv.   Ruffin.  Lib.  II.  cap.  ix.   Tom.  II.  p.  251* 
f.{  Apostolic!  viri  Scripturis  utuntur  Hebraicis  j  ipsos  Apostolos 


(    311    ) 

Yet  while  they  are  no  where  observed  to  follow  it, 
where  it  misrepresents  the  sense,  they  are  fre- 
quently observed  to  quote  it  where  it  merely  deserts 
the  letter3.  While  the  circumstance  of  their  wri- 
ting- in  Greek  clearly  demonstrates  the  prevalence 
of  that  language  among*  their  early  converts ;  it  is 
observable,  they  made  no  provision,  that  the  primi- 
tive church  should  possess  a  better  translation  of 
the  Old  Testament,  than  that  of  the  Septuagint. 
It  must  be  therefore  inferred,  from  their  practice, 
that  they  considered  the  literal  errours  of  that  tran- 
slation a  matter  of  minor  importance. 

et  Evangelistas  hoc  fecisse  perspicuum  est.  Dominus  atque 
Salvator,  ubicumque  Veteris  Scripturse  meminit,  de  Hebraicjs 
voluminibus  ponit  exempla: — in  ipsa  cruce  Mnittf  HD^>  »^K  >^ 
Eli  Eli  lama  azavtani:  quod  interpretatur ;  *  Deus  meus,  Deus 
meus,  quare  me  dereliquisti :'  non  ut  a  Septuaginta  position  est, 
4  Deus  meus,  Deus  meus,  respice  in  me,  quare  me  dereliquisti  :* 
et  multa  his  similia.  Nee  hoc  dicimus,  quod  Septuaginta  in- 
terpretes  suggillemus,  sed  quod  Apostolorum  et  Christi  major 
sit  auctoritas  :  et  ubicumque  Septuaginta  ab  Hebrceo  non  dis- 
cordant, ibi  Apostolos  de  interpretatione  eorum  sumpsisse  exem- 
pla, ubi  vero  discrepant,  id  posuisse  in  Graeco,  quod  apud  He- 
brcBos  didicerant."  Videatur  Id.  Procem.  in  Lib.  XV.  Com. 
Is.  Tom.  IV.  p.  174. 

*  Vales.  Epist.  de  Vers.  Septuag.  Interp.  subnex.  Euseb. 
Hist.  p.  791.  1.  88.  Caeterum  ut  ea  quse  dixi,  in  compendium 
redigam,  de  versione  LXX  ita  censeo.  Primum  quidem,  uni- 
cam  semper  fuisse  LXX  Seniorum  versionem — hac  semper  usos 
esse  Judccos  Alexandrinos,  et  reliquos  Hellenistas.  A  Judseis 
deinde  Christianos  earn  accepisse.  Neque  enim  Apostoli  et 
primores  illi  Christian!  alia  Veteris  Instrument  interpretations 
Grceca  sunt  usi,  quam  ea  qua  vw/go  in  Synagogis 
Hellenistarum  l 


We  are  not  however  at  liberty  to  conclude,  that 
the    inspired  writers  abstained  from  revising  the 
Greek  version  of  the  Jewish   Scriptures,  because 
they  considered  a  purer  text  of  no  importance  to  the 
early  converts.     It  is  rather  implied  in  their  prac- 
tice,, that  they  considered  the  advantages  resulting 
from  a  purer  text,  would  not  be  compensated  by 
the  inconveniences  which  would  arise  from  disturb- 
ing a  settled  state  of  affairs.     The  authority  of  the 
Greek  version  was  already  acknowledged  by  mul- 
titudes of  the  Gentile  proselytes  to  Judaism ;  and 
through  the  instrumentality  of  it,  numbers  might 
be  led  to  a  knowledge  of  Christianity,  who  would  be 
so  far  from  accepting  a  new  version  from  the  hands 
of  the  apostles,  that  they  rejected  the  notion  of  their 
divine  commission.     On  these  grounds,  I  will  not 
say  it  was  politick,  but  I  believe  it  was  agreeable 
to  the  principles  of  the  apostles,  who  never  gave 
unnecessary  offence,  to  retain  the    received  text, 
as  read  in  the  synagogue.     And  on  these  grounds, 
I  conceive  we  may  meet  the  advocates  for  a  Cor- 
.rected  Text  or  Improved  Version  of  the  New  Tes- 
lament,  in  defending  the  Received  Text  or  Vulgar 
edition.     Admitting  that  we  were  agreed  on   the 
discovery  of  such  a  text,  which,  for  my  own  part, 
I  reject  as  an  iclle  chimera;  the  general  reception 
of  the  Vulgar  Text  and  Authorised  Version,  and  the 
existing  prospect  of  its  extensive  diffusion,  would 
still  render  it  a  question,  whether  a  change  would 
not  be  for  the  worse,  instead  of  the  better.     And 
in  favour  of  these  prejudices,  we  may  plead  a  very 
antient  prescription.     On   the  first  endeavour  to 


(    313    ) 

impose  a  new  version  on  the  Latin  Church,  similar 
apprehensions  were  felt,  and  like  discontent  was 
manifested  by  its  members 4. 

Though  on  these  grounds  the  Greek  Vulgate 
would  admit  of  a  fair  defence,  I  am  prepared  to  dis- 
pute its  claims  to  a  preference  over  every  text  and 
edition,  on  different  principles.  It  challenges  the 
testimony  of  tradition  in  its  favour,  for  full  eleven 
hundred  years,  even  by  the  concession  of  its  oppo- 
nents * ;  and  unless  I  am  altogether  wrong  in  my 
calculations,  that  period  may  be  demonstrably  ex- 
tended to  full  fourteen  hundred6.  The  inferences 
flowing  from  these  circumstances  have  been  already 
made  ;  and  if  any  force  be  allowed  to  what  I  have 
advanced,  it  must  be  allowed  at  the  least, — That 
this  text  is  of  the  best  edition,  and  that  it  is  free 
from  any  considerable  corruption  in  the  general  te- 
nour  of  the  text,  and  in  the  parts  affecting  any  point 
of  doctrine. 

With  respect  to  the  verbal  integrity  of  the  text, 
I  am  far  from  asserting  that  I  conceive  the  Greek 
Vulgate  immaculate.  On  the  contrary,  1  believe  it 
may  be  inferred,  in  the  strictest  consistency  with 
what  has  been  hitherto  advanced,  that  the  Byzan- 

4  S.  August,  ad  Hier.  Epist.  LXXI.  Tom.  II.  col.  161.     "  Ego 
.pane  te  mallem  Greecas  potius  canonicas  nobis  interpretare  scrip* 

turns,  qu(E  Septuaginta  interpretum  auctoritate  perhibeRtur. 
Perdurum  enim  erit,  si  tua  interpretatio  per  multas  ecclesias 
cceperit  lectitari,  quod  a  Greeds  ecclcsus  Latince  ecclesice  disso* 
liabunt,  &c."  Conf.  supr.  p.  119.  n.  I8f 

5  Vid.  supr.  p.  126.  n.  4°, 
*  Vid.  supr.  pp.  71.  121, 


(    314    ) 

tine  text  may  possess  verbal  errours,  while  the 
Egyptian  and  Palestine  editions  preserve  the  ge- 
nuine reading.  As  these  different  texts  underwent 
the  revisal  of  separate  hands ;  it  is  possible  that  the 
care  which  was  employed  in  removing  an  imaginary 
defect,,  might  have  created  a  positive  errour;  and 
that  the  errour  which  thus  arose  might  have  been 
propagated  through  all  the  copies  which  have  de- 
scended from  the  same  edition.  1  here  only  enter 
my  protest  against  the  inference,,  that  these  errours 
could  have  extended  to  important  points ;  or  that 
the  edition  in  which  they  abounded  could  have  pre- 
vailed for  more  than  a  limited  period,  and  during 
the  operation  of  some  powerful  cause,  against  the 
received  text,  which  generally  prevailed  in  the 
Christian  world,  as  published  by  the  apostle  s. 

On  this  possibility  we  may  fairly  ground  an  in- 
quiry into  the  verbal  integrity  of  the  sacred  canon. 
And  the  undertaking  affords  additional  inducements 
to  invite  investigation,  as  it  is  not  only  curious  in 
itself,  but  promises  the  most  favourable  result  to 
the  reputation  of  the  Greek  Vulgate.  In  the  course 
of  this  inquiry,  I  am  wholly  deceived,  or  it  may  be 
shewn,  that  the  principles  on  which  the  Vulgar  Text 
has  been  judged,  are  wholly  fallacious;  and  that 
there  are  criteria  by  which  we  can  not  only  esta- 
blish the  relative  purity  of  that  text,  and  evince  the 
imperfections  of  other  editions ;  but  trace  the  cor- 
ruptions of  the  latter  to  the  very  source  in  which 
they  have  originated. 

I.  The  most  formidable  objections  to  which  the 
credit  of  the  Greek  Vulgate  is  exposed,,  arise  from  the 


(    315    ) 

complicated  apparatus  of  M.  Griesbach.  Some  idea 
of  the  manner  in  which  he  proceeded  in  forming  his 
Corrected  Text,  may  be  collected  from  his  critical 
description  of  those  manuscripts  which  he  denomi- 
nates Codd.  L,  17.  The  principles  of  his  criticism 
are  reducible  to  two  canons,  which  are  laid  down  in 
his  description  of  the  latter  manuscript 7.  In  j  udging 
between  different  readings,  he  decides ;  that  attention 
must  be  paid,  1 .  to  the  internal  marks  of  authenticity ; 
2.  to  the  consent  of  the  oldest  and  best  witnesses,  con- 
sisting of  manuscripts,  versions,  and  fathers ;  especi- 
ally if  they  are  of  different  kinds  of  text,  or  follow 
different  recensions8. 

With  respect  to  the  internal  evidence,  he  makes 
it  depend  upon  various  circumstances;  to  determine 
which  he  lays  down  a  variety  of  rules,  applicable  to 
most  possible  cases9.  In  estimating  the  external 
evidence,  he  considers  the  Alexandrine  and  Western 
editions  antient  and  separate  witnesses.  Of  the 
fathers  and  versions  which  he  principally  quotes,  he 
joins  in  alliance  with  the  Alexandrine  text  Origen 
and  the  Coptick  version I0;  or,  by  their  joint  or  sepa- 

7  Griesb.  Symb.   Critt.  Tom.  I.  p.  Ixxviii.  sqq.   Tom.  II. 
p.  87.  sqq. 

8  Id.  ibid.  Tom.  II.  p.  90.  n.  *.     "  In  judicandis  lectionibus 
spectatur,  (1)  internet  earum  bonitas,  qiue  pluribus  rebus  cer- 
nitur:   (2)  testium  (codicum,  versionum,  patrum)  antiquorum 
et  bonorum  consensus,  praesertim  si  e  diversis  familiis  orti  sint, 
diversasgue  recensiones  texlus  sequantur."     Conf.  Proleg.  N.  T. 

Ixxix.  §  e. 

9  Id.  Praef.  in  Nov.  Test.  Sect.  III.  p.  lix.  sqq. 

10  Id.  Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  I.  p.  cxl.     "  Copta   [>m/o]  tarn 
resse  sequitur  vestigia  turn  Origcnis  turn  cognatorum  cum  hoc 

win,  ut  meridiana  luce  clarius  appareat,  posse  omnino  ex 


(    316    ) 

rate  authority,  determines  those  readings  which  he 
deems  Alexandrine ' '.  To  these  witnesses  he  unites 
other  vouchers,  whenever  he  finds  them  coincident; 
combining-  the  testimony  of  Clement,  Eusebius, 
Athanasius,  Basil,  and  Cyril,  with  that  of  Origen  1Z ; 
and  strengthening-  the  evidence  of  the  Coptick  by 
that  of  the  Vulgate  and  Syriack  version13.  With 
the  Western  text  he,  of  course,  endeavours  to  unite 
the  testimony  of  the  Western  fathers ;  combining*, 

hac  translatione  judicium  fieri,  non  solum  de  indole  universa  sed 
de  singulorum  etiam  locorum  lectionibus  exemplaris  istius,  quod 
interpres  in  vertendis  sacris  libris  usurpavit,"  &c.  Conf.  Proleg. 
N.  T.  p.  Ixxviii.  c. 

11  Id.  ibid.  p.  cviii.  "  Lectiones  codici  nostro  [L.]  cum 
uno  alterove  Alexandrino  communes  pro  lectionibus  Alexandrines 
recensionis  indubie  sunt  habendae."  Id.  ibid.  p.  cxxix.  "  Inter 
omnes  quotquot  supersunt  Evangeliorum  codices  nullus  propinr 
quiore  affinitate  cum  L  et  Origine  conjunctus  est  Codice  C. — 
Sed  vix  unquam  C  et  L  in  lectione  a  textu  vulgari  diversa,  qua* 
non  sit  nullius  plane  moment!  conveniunt,  quin  Origines  ultra 
comitem  us  sese  adjungat.  Quac  observatio,  memoratu  longe 
dignissima,  firmissimum  praesidium  est  theorice,  quam  tuemur, 
de  recensione  Alemndrina,  et  de  textus,  (quern  hi  codices,  con* 
Junctim  spectati  exhibent,)  antiquitate, pairid,  et  prcestantia." 

1Z  Id.  ibid.  p.  cxxxiii.  "  Vicimus  igitur,  Codices  C  et  L — 
plenos  esse  Alexandrinarum  lectionum  vetustissimarum,  eosdem- 
que,  ubi  a  vulgari  textu  ita  discedunt  ut  inter  se  consentiant, 
semper,  paucissimis  forte  locis  exceptis,  lectiones  exhibere 
easdem,  qitas  Origines  ex  suo  exemplar!  excitavit. — Quos  in 
Evangeliis  perpetuos  fere  habuit  [Cod.  C]  comites,  (nempe 
Originem,  Clementem,  JEusebium,  Athanasium,  CyriUum,  et  in- 
terpretem  Coptum,  nee  non  ^Ethiopum  et  Armenum)  ad 
eorundem  in  Epistolis  quoque  societatem,  tantum  non  semper 
applicat.  Itaque  in  his  etiam  libris  textus  ejus  Alexandrinus 
est  et  vetustus." 

>J  Vid.  Symbb.  Critt.  ib.  p.  Ixxx.  sqq. 


(    317    ) 

as  far  as  is  possible,  the  evidence  of  Tertullian  and 
Cyprian,  with  that  of  the  Latin  translation14,  To 
those  readings,  which  are  supported  by  the  greatest 
weight  of  evidence,  he  necessarily  gives  the  prefer- 
ence. But  he  attaches  very  different  degrees  of 
importance  to  his  different  witnesses :  according  to 
the  following  scale  of  gradations15.  1.  The  testi- 
mony of  both  recensions  must  be  received  in  sub- 
jection to  the  internal  marks  of  perfection  or  errour. 
2.  A  reading  which,  when  internally  regarded,  is 
apparently  good,  is  admissible  on  the  single  testi- 
mony of  either  the  Western  or  Alexandrine  recen- 
sion, in  opposition  to  that  of  the  Byzantine.  3.  The 
authority  of  the  Alexandrine  is  preferable  to  that  of 
the  Western,  as  it  is  less  generally  corrupted ;  but 
the  conspiring  testimony  of  these  witnesses  is  of 
the  greatest  weight,  in  recommending  a  peculiar 
reading; 

The  main  stay  of  this  complicated  system,  which 
is  intended  to  form  an  alliance  between  the  Alexan- 
drine and  Western  texts,  in  order  to  outweigh  the 

14  Id.  ibid.  pp.  cxviii.  cxix. 

5  Ib.  ibid.  Tom.  II.  p.  624.  "  Ex  quibus  omnibus  efficitur, 
(1) — in  judicandis  lectionibus  alterutri  recensioni  peculiaribus 
sententiam  ferendam  esse  secundum  interim  bonitatis  lectionis 
cujusque  criteria  :  (2)  lectionem  in  se  spectatam  bonam  ac  pro- 
babilem — prauferendam  esse  lectioni  vulgarium — librorum,  si 
allenttrius  recensionis,  sive  Alexandrine?^  sive  Occidentals  ei 
patrocinetur :  (3)  mnjorem  tamen  esse. — Alexandrincu,  utpote 
minus  interpolate,  auctoritatem,  quam  Occidentals — .  Quanti 
vcro  moment!  nobis  esse  vidcatur  vtriusque  recensionis  consen- 
ticns  tcstivnoniuihi  saepius  diximus."  Conf.  pp.  143,  144,  145. 
Prolog.  N.  T.  p.  Ixxix.  sqq. 


(    318    ) 

authority  of  the  text  of  Byzantium,,  is  rested  on  the 
supposition,  that  both  the  former  are  antient  and 
separate  witnesses  16.  But  this  is  a  supposition 
which  is  certainly  founded  in  errour  With  respect 
to  the  antiquity  of  those  editions,  it  remains  to  be 
proved,  that  it  is  prior  to  the  times  of  either  of  those 
persons  of  the  name  of  Eusebius,  who  published  the 
Alexandrine  or  Palestine  text,  and  revised  the  West- 
ern version.  And  the  intercourse  which  St.  Euse- 
bius and  St.  Jerome  maintained  with  the  East17, 
renders  it  wholly  inadmissible,  that  their  versions 
should  be  considered  separate  witnesses  from  the 
Alexandrine  or  Palestine.  Their  known  predilec- 
tion for  Origen18,,  leaves  their  testimony,  when 
quoted  as  separate  authority  for  the  same  text, 
entitled  to  something  less  than  respect.  Not  to  in- 
sist on  later  intermixtures  of  the  Eastern  and  West- 
ern texts,  which  are  antecedent  to  the  existence  of 
almost  every  manuscript  with  which  we  are  ac- 
quainted19; we  need  not  pass  those  concessions, 
which  the  force  of  truth  has  extorted  from  our  op- 
ponents, for  a  proof  that  these  texts  are  inextricably 
confused,  and  blended  together20. 

16  Via.  supr.  p.  315.  n. 8. 

17  Via.  supr.  p.  54.  n. I7.  221.  n.  79.  83.  rm. G9  et  7°. 

18  Vid.  supr.  p.  144.  n. 87.  137.  n. 74.  171.  nn. I37  et  '38. 

19  Via.  supr.  p.  14.  sqq.  comp.  p.  22.  n.  *°. 

10  Griesb.  Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  I.  p.  cxxviii.  Ex  his  mani- 
festum  jam  est — nullum  superesse  Codicer/i,  qui  ubique  unam  atque 
eandem  recensionem  ita  exprimat,  ut  lectiones  ex  aliis  recen- 
sionibus  admixtas  habeat  nullas,  trium  quos  inter  se  compara- 
vimus  Coaicum  exemplo  constare  potest.  Nonnunquam  enim 
Qrigines  et  D  conspirant,  dissentients  Codice  L;  itemque  D 


(    319    ) 

Admitting  any  force  to  exist  in  the  foregoing  re- 
marks, it  is  still  a  point  in  dispute,  that  the  Palestine 
or  Western  text  is  antecedent  to  the  text  of  Byzan- 
tium. If  all  that  has  been  hitherto  advanced  be  not 
fundamentally  erroneous,  neither  of  those  texts  can  be 
antedated  to  the  fourth  century zt ;  at  which  period 
the  last-mentioned  text  demonstrably  existed12.  A 
priority  may  be  indeed  claimed  for  the  Alexandrine 
or  Palestine  text,  on  account  of  its  alliance  to  Ori- 
gen's  writings.  But  not  to  insist  on  the  possibility 
of  this  text  having  been  interpolated  from  his  wri- 
tings ;  the  inconstant  reading's  of  that  early  father 
renders  this  plea  at  best  inconclusive ;  as  it  evinces 
the  antiquity  of  the  Byzantine  text,  by  the  same 
proof  that  it  establishes  that  of  the  Alexandrine. 

Such  appear  to  be  the  fundamental  errours  in 
3YI.  Griesbach's  system  ;  which  have  spread  un- 
soundness  through  his  whole  superstructure.  But 
objections  do  not  apply  more  forcibly  to  the  plan  on 
which  he  has  built,  than  to  the  materials  which  he 
has  employed  in  erecting  his  structure.  We  find 
neither  solidity  nor  consistence  in  the  different  parts 
of  his  system.  His  theory,  which  is  founded  on  an 
assumption  of  the  existence  of  an  Alexandrine  and 
Western  recension,  is  borne  out  by  the  coincidence 
of  those  manuscripts,  which  he  considers  antient, 
with  the  quotations  of  Origen.  But  we  have  only 
to  take  his  own  account  of  the  state  in  which  he 

el  L   interdum  concinnunt,  rcfragrante  Ortgcne,"     ConF.  pp. 
dx.  cxi.     Proleg.  N.  T.  p.  Ixxviii.  b. 

a'  Vid.  supr.  pp.  25.  70.  130.  &c. 

M  Vid.  supr.  p.  119.  conf.  pp.  70,71. 


finds  the  best  part  of  his  materials,  in  order  to  dis-» 
cover  the  extreme  insecurity  of  the  fabrick,  which 
he  has  buttressed  with  props  so  unsound,,  and  raised 
on  so  hollow  a  foundation. 

With  respect  to  the  testimony  ofOrigen,  which 
is  the  basis  of  his  system ;  he  admits  sufficient  for  us 
to  see,  that  when  strict  verbal  accuracy  is  sought,,  it  is 
not  entitled  to  the  smallest  attention.  According'  to 
M.  Griesbach's  voluntary  concessions,  his  works 
must  have  gone  through  a  course  of  progressive 
deterioration,  which  must  leave  us  at  a  distance  infi- 
nitely more  remote  from  a  knowledge  of  the  pris- 
tine state  of  his  text,  than  of  that  of  the  inspired 
writings.  It  appears,  in  the  first  place,  that  no  re- 
liance can  be  placed  on  the  printed  editions  of  his 
vorks,  as  retaining  his  text;  and  as  little  on  the 
fidelity  of  his  different  transcribers25.  Admitting 
his  testimony  subject  to  these  errours,  it  is  further 
conceded,  that  no  dependence  can  be  safely  rested 
on  his  accuracy  of  quotation ;  as  he  constantly  de- 
serts his  written  authorities**.  And  supposing  that 
\ve  have  miraculously  escaped  an  errour  in  pursu- 
ing a  reading  through  these  chances;  it  is  further 

23  Griesb.  Symbb.  Ciitt.  Tom.  I.  p.  cix.  '*  librarii  etiam  qui 
Origenis  opera  transcribendo  propagarmit,  et  editores  qui  typis 
excudi  ea  curarunt,  saspenumero  justo  negligentiores  fuerunt  in 
describendis  aut  recensendis  locis  e  S.  S.  citatis,  eosqve  e  Codi- 
cibus  jtinioribus  aut   editionibus  bibliorum  Graecorum,  quibus 
adsueti  ipsi  erant,  inter  polar  unt." 

24  Id.  ibid.  p.  cviii.  "  tenendum  est — non  ubique  satis  certo 
nobis  constare,  quid  in  suo  exemplari  Jegerit  Origenes  ;  nam  non 
solum  jsaz*//o  liberius  interdum  oracula  S.  S.  excUavit,  pallulum 
immutato  uno  et  altero  vocabalo,  aut  constructionis  ordinr,"  &c. 


(    321    ) 

granted,  that  there  is  no  security  in  depending  on 
the  very  copies  which  he  used,  as  they  too  were  suf- 
ficiently often  corrupted as. 

With  regard  to  the  character  of  those  Manu- 
scripts, on  which  our  critick  chiefly  depends,  it 
finally  proves  to  be  the  case,  that  they  do  not  jus- 
tify his  speaking  of  them  in  terms  more  respectful. 
It  does  not  appear,  that  in  the  course  of  his  inqui- 
ries, he  discovered  one  which  preserved  either  of 
his  favourite  recensions,  unless  in  a  state  of  corrup- 
tion *6.  In  numberless  instances  he  demonstrates 
their  defects,  and  traces  the  errour  to  its  origin  *7, 
Nay,  in  one  sweeping  clause,  he  demolishes  their 
authority,  by  openly  proclaiming,  even  of  those 
which  he  holds  in  the  highest  repute,  that  they  are 
fouled,  in  every  page,  with  corruptions  from  mar- 

•5  Id.  ibid.  "  tenendum  est,  exemplar  Origenis,  utut  prasstan- 
tissimum,  et  alii  nulli  secundum,  non  tamen  ab  omni  omnino  lobe 
immune  fuisse  ;  fieri  igitur  potuisse,  ut  in  nostro  codice  [L^J 
conservaretur  prisca  et  nativa  lectio — ubi  Origenis  exemplar  in" 
terpolatum  jam  esset."  Conf.  p.  cxxxii. 

26  Vid.  supr.  p.  318.  n.  *». 

17  Griesb.  ibid.  p.  cvi.  "  Certe  exemplar!  usus  est,  [libra- 
rius  qui  Cod.  L,  scripsit],  in  cujus  margine  a  manu  recentiori 
annotate  erant  lectiones  variae,  e  junioribus  libris  decerptae, 
quas  cum  librarius  noster  correctiones  esse  autumaret,  passim, 
praetulit  eas  antiquis  et  genuinis  lectionibus,  quae  in  archetypi 
sui  textu  primitus  exstabant.  Atque  sic  irrepsere  in  codicem 
nostrum  lectiones  nonnullce  sed  perpaucse  juniores  nullius  pretii.'* 
Conf.  p.  96.  If  the  point  were  worth  disputing  in  the  present 
place,  the  assertion  might  be  reversed,  and  the  contrary  con- 
clusion to  what  is  here  assumed  as  true,  might  be  just  as  easily 
established. 


(    322    ) 

ginal  scholia,  and  from  the  interpretations  of  the 
antient  fathers  **. 

With  respect  to  the  testimony  of  Versions,  we 
find  as  little  reason  to  repose  a  greater  degree  of 
confidence  in  them,  than  on  the  authority  of  parti- 
cular Manuscripts.  The  Coptick  and  Sahidick, 
the  later  Syriack  and  Italick  *9,  cannot  be  accounted 
antient  or  separate  witnesses.  As  these  versions  are 
divided  by  the  Eusebian  sections30,,  they  possess  in- 
ternal evidence  of  having  in  some  measure  descend- 
ed from  the  Palestine  edition.  An  agreement  be- 
tween such  witnesses,,  may  thus  furnish  evidence  in 
favour  of  the  reading  of  Eusebius's  text,  but  none 
whatever  of  the  text  of  the  Apostles  and  Evange- 
lists. With  respect  to  the  Persick  and  Arabick5', 

as  Griesb.  Praef.  in  Nov.  Test.  Sect.  II.  p,  1.  "  Caeterum 
nullius  codicis  vitia  de  consulto  me  ceksse  aut  dissimulasse, 
satis  inde  patet  quod  innumeros  gravissimosque  errores,  in  ii& 
eommissos  codidbus,  quos  caeteroqui  magni  Jacio,  velut  B  C  I> 
1  1  33  1^4  157,  #c.  ingenue  indicavi."  Conf.  Sect.  IIL 
p.  Ixiv. 

*9  In  the  present  instance  I  would  be  ^understood  to  mean 
that  edition  of  the  Old  Italick^  which  was  revised  by  St.  Euse- 
bius  Vercellensls,  and  through  bis  influence  generally  adopted 
in  the  Latin  Church,  between  the  times  of  Droclesian's  perse- 
cution, and  the  reception  of  a  new  reviaal,  made  by  St. 
Jerome. 

30  Adler,  cle  Verss.  Syriacc.  Lib.  II.  p.  50.     "  Idem  Thoma* 
Evangelia  [Vers.  Syr.  Philox.]  in  capitula  vel  sectiojies  distri- 
buit,  et  pericopas  cKebus  festis  recitandas  constituit."     Conf. 
«upr.  p.  82.  n.  65.  p.  29.  n.  ^    Woid.  Prolegg.  in  Vers.  Salu'd. 
fragment!,  p.  140» 

31  No  one,  it  is  presumed,  will  claim  a  nigher  antiquity  for 
these  versions,  tha»  the  age  of  Constantine,  when  Eusebiws  re- 


(    323    ) 

they  follow  the  fate  of  the  same  edition,  .Of  these 
versions,,   however,  as  well  as  of  the 


Vised  the  Scripture.  Whether  we  conceive  them  made  'in  jthat 
age,  or  at  a  subsequent  period,  we  can  easily  axxnount-for  their 
affinity  to  the  Palestine  edition,  by  making  due  aUowahces'ibr 
the  influence  of  Eusebius's  text,  as  authorised  by  Cpnstantine; 
vid.  supr.  p.  26.  n.  44.  conf.  p.  34.  n.  °°.  It  is  certain,  that  this 
pious  prince  took  the  Christians  in  Persia  under  his  protection, 
and  propagated  the  Gospel  more  extensively  in  Arabia;  Euseb. 

Vit.  Const.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  viii.   p.  631.    1.  2.   »y$o^ero?   ysro* 

fa  Tlepcuf  yivu  •fftwSvvtw  ra?  rS  ©sS  IxxX»jcr*a?,   A«»$  rt 

TaTf    Xp»r«  'jro^fAt/ec^  ivayehoifyffScti,   yjz'^uv    ITT*    T»J    T&TCM  axe*),    oT« 

Ti?   xo»»o$   ruv   awarra^S  K-rdtpuv  irafav   xaLvravSoc.  <rw  rvv  aTravrvt 

Socrat.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xix.  p.  49.  1.  31. 


o  X^/s'iaviff/u.oj  ETravvso*  ryvmoivTat  yo%      vov  re  rwv 

jjj  'ifiyguv  Ta  t§vv!9   TT^o?   TO  ^pirt«i'»^Et»  EXa/x/Save   Tr/y    ap%«v.      Confl 

Euseb.  Vit.  Const.  Lib.  I.  cap.  viii.  p.  502.  1.  20.  Lib.  IV.  cap. 
1.  p.  654.  1.  15  —  21.  It  is  equally  certain,  that,  as  this  prince 
was  ambitious  to  diffuse  the  knowledge  of  revelation,  and  mul- 
tiply copies  of  the  Scripture,  (Euseb.  ib.  Lib.  I.  cap.  viii.  p.  502. 
1.  26.  Lib.  III.  cap.  i.  p.  576.  1.  17.)  the  Gospel  was  read  in 
Arabia  in  the  reign  of  his  successour,  Constantius.  Theophi- 
lus,  who  was  deputed  by  this  prince  on  a  mission  to  that  coun- 
try, and  founded  three  churches  in  it,  brought  back  this  infor- 
mation, on  his  return  to  the  Emperour;  Philostorg.  Hist.  Eccl. 
Lib.  III.  §  5.  p.  488.  I.  17.  ed.  Read.  Cant.  1720. 

L©£o^tXo?]|     elf  ' 

1.  27.]]  j 


,  x.  ?.    . 

'*  As  the  Goths  embraced  Christianity  through  motives  of 
policy,  to  conciliate  the  Emperour  Valens,  who  was  addicted 
to  Arianism,  they  adopted  the  faith  with  the  errours  of  that 
heresy;  Conf.  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  i.  p.  213.  1.  29. 
cap.  xxxiii.  p.  256.  1.  1.  sqq.  At  the  early  period  when  this 
Emperour  reigned,  the  Gothick  version  was  made;  Id.  ibid. 


(    324    > 

'S  and  Slavonick3^  the  testimony  of  which 


p.  256.  1.  8.  rort  $1  xj  'OYX^iXas  o  ruv  Torvuv  I 

itptiifs   TorStxa*   xj   ra?  0£»a?   Fgapa?   sis  rviv  ForSwv 

T»?  /?a||3a£8$   ^a*Savs»v    ra  $£^0.   *oy»a   wa^acrxEuacrfi'.      But  3S  this 

translation  was  made  during  the  period  when  the  Church  was 
under  the  dominion  of  the  Arians,  and  by  a  person  who  propa- 
gated the  errours  of  those  hereticks  among  the  Northern 
tribes,  it  was  obviously  accommodated  to  the  text  revised  by 
Eusebius.  We  thus  easily  account  for  the  affinity  discoverable 
between  the  Gothick  Version  and  the  Palestine  text,  or,  as  M. 
Griesbach  terms  it,  the  Alexandrine  Recension.  It  is  worthy 
of  remark,  that  at  this  period  St.  Athanasius  was  alive,  who 
revised  Eusebius's  text  under  the  Emperour  Censtans  ;  vid. 
.supr,  p*  131*  sqq,  Socrat.  ibid.  cap.  i.  p.  214.  1.  19. 
e>£  *Ap6iav«$'  avtyaoti  Tr^oaiga/xevoj1,  kivoi  xa.ro.  ruv 

o  T?$ 


[Ji.v 


33  The  testimony  of  the  Gothick  version  being  disposed  of, 
we  have  nothing  to  apprehend  from  the  Anglo-Saxon  or  Sla-* 
vonick.  What  influence  the  Gothick  or  Latin  Vulgate  may 
have  had  on  the  former  of  these  last-mentioned  versions,  I  am 
•unable  to  determine  ;  the  destruction  of  the  sacred  books,  as 
far  westward  as  Britain,  and  the  dispersion  and  influence  of 
Eusebius's  edition,  as  authorised  by  the  Emperour  Constantine, 
will  sufficiently  account  for  any  affinity  this  version  may  possess 
to  the  Palestine  edition  ;  vid.  supr.  p.  27.  n.  46.  The  British 
Churches  are  certainly  numbered  among  those  who  are  men- 
tioned in  the  Epistle  of  Constantine,  as  having  concurred  in 
the  decision  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  respecting  the  time  of 
keeping  Easter  ;  Epist.  ap.  Euseb.  Vit.  Constant.  Lib.  III.  cap. 
xix.  p.  588.  1.  37.  »' 


,  —  [/.HZ    KJ    a-vptyuvu    (pvhoirltrou 

irpQ<r$i&rai  CVVXTK;.    The  historian  further  observes,  that 
copies  of  this  Epistle  were  dispatched  into  all  the  provinces,  of 


(    325    ) 

is  unaccountably  drawn  into  the  decision  of  the  pre* 
sent  question,,  it  must  be  observed,  that  if  they  are 
admitted  as  antient  witnesses,,  they  cannot  be  re- 
ceived as  separate  authorities. 

Descending-  from  the  testimony  of  Manuscripts 
and  Versions  to  that  of  the  primitive  Fathers.,  we 
find  no  more  reason  to  admit  their  voice,,  as  defini- 
tive, against  the  tradition  of  the  Church  and  the 
authority  of  the  Greek  Vulgate.  The  testimony  of 
Eusebius,  Athanasius,  Basil,  and  Cyril,  cannot 
reckon  as  the  evidence  of  antient  or  separate  wit- 
nesses15; their  concurrence  proves  no  more  than  is 
proved  by  the  coincidence  of  the  Coptick  and  Phi- 
loxonian  version  ;  that  this  conformity  is  derived 


the  Empire;  Ibid.  cap.  xx.  p.  589.  1.  28. 


As  he  addressed  an  Epistle  to  Eusebius  on  the 
subject  of  keeping  Easter  ;  he  at  the  same  time  enjoined  him 
to  prepare  copies  of  the  Scripture;  Euseb.  ib.  Lib.  IV.  cap. 
xxxiv.  p.  644.  1.  29.  o  $1  tuv  ix-Ktwiuv  ra  ©sa 


«AAa  ^  xj  ws^l  trts  ayicJlzms  ra. 


3*  Tliis  Version,  according  to  M.  Griesbach,  follows  the  By- 
zantine text,  instead  of  the  Alexandrine;  Prolegomm.  in  Nov. 
Test.  Sect.  III.  p.  Ixxv.  —  "  h&c  recensio,  quam  Constant  inopo- 
litanam  hinc  nominare  licebit,  in  Patriarchatu  Constantinopoli- 
tano  potissimum  propagata  ac  per  libraries  innumeros  deinccps 
longe  lateque  disseminata,  et  in  Slavonicam  etiam  Versionem 
(cujus  tamen  codices  ipsi  inter  se  haud  raro  dissentiunt,) 
transfusa." 

**  On  this  subject  I  shall  have  an  opportunity  of  speaking  at 
large  hereafter, 


(    326    ) 

from  the  text  of  Eusebius.  The  concurrence  of 
demerit- and  Origen  in  the  East,  with  Tertullian 
and  Cyprian  in  the  West  may  be  conceived  enti- 
tled to  greater  attention ?6.  But,,  in  the  first  place , 
the  very  existence  of  such  *a  coincidence  of  testi- 
mony,, must  be  disputed  n.  And  granting  that  it 
exists  in  some  cases,  it  is  still  a  point  to  be  proved,, 
that  it  at  all  identifies  the  Scripture  text  used  by 
those  antient  fathers. 

The  works-  of  those  early  writers  lie  under  the 
positive  imputation  of  being  corrupted 58.     The  co- 

36  Griesb.  Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  I.  p.  cxviii.     "  Hinc  enim 
colligimus,   plerasque  lectiones   Codicis   D — extitisse  jam  in 
in  illis  libris  Greeds,  e  quibus  conficta  est  Versio  Latino,  Vetus9 
qua  usi  sunt  Tertullianus,  Cyprianus,  aliique. — recte  etiam  pro 
antiquissiroa  earn  a  nobis  haberi,  cum  eandem  in  Tertulliani  et 
Cypriani  allegationibus  jam  inveniamus.     Sed  altera  Recensio, 
quam  proper  perpetuum  patribus  Alexandrinis  et  cum  versi- 
onibus  in  ^Bgypto   confictis   Alexandrinam   appellamus  ague 
vetusta  est,  utpote   quae  dementis  jam   et   Origenis  &vo  ex- 
stitit." 

37  I  subjoin  a  few  examples  of  remarkable  texts,  in  which 
Origen  differs  from   Clement,  and  Cyprian  from  Tertullian. 
Mat.  v.   48.    o  iroLTip  o  Iv   vois  vpavots,    Vulg.  Clem,   o  war^p 
o  b^avio*.    Vat.  Orig.Ib.  x.  39.  evgtaei  avrw.   Vulg.  Orig.  cwati 
av-r^v.  33.    Clem.  Luc.  xii.  9.  Ivuviov  rut  afyfruv.   Vulg.  Orig. 
gpwsrgoffStev  TUV  afyiXw*.  Cant.  Clem.    Mat.  xxv.  41.  TO 
<rpt-£vov  ra  ^i»j3oAw  Vulg.  pr&paratum  diabo  lo  . 

3  Trar^p  /^a  fa  hot&fau  Cant,  quem  paravit  pater  meus  diabolo. 
Cypr.  Gal.  i.  9.  a/yeAoy  ||  «^a»tf,  i^acft^U^lai  wa§'  o.  Vulg. 
angelus  de  ccelo  aliud  adnunciet  praeterquam,  Cypr.  aiy&os  e| 
i^a»5  s^alVsXiff^at.  Alex,  angelus  ex  ccelo  aliter  evangelizaverit. 
Tert. 

38  The  monks  of  Palestine  brought  this  charge  against  those 
who  took  a  part  in  the  Nestorian  and  Eutychian  controversy, 


(    327    ) 

pies  of  Clement  and  Grig-en  were  corrupted  in  their 
life  time 59 ;  the  manuscripts  from  which  Tertullian's 

which  arose  very  shortly  after  the  death  of  St.  Athanasius ; 
Epist.  Monn.  Palest  ap.  Evagr.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  III.  cap. 
xxxi.  p.  363. 1.  34.  xj  a  Safyta,  xj  y<y  xj  Xoyw  noflipuv  woXXaxtf 
vevoS'guKactt'  woXAaj-  $1  'AwoAmaps  *oy»?,  'A§a.icty'iu  xj  Tfnyop'w  TV 
Gctv^Gtla^yaj  xj  'la^'w,  &a  TWV  tTTiypoitpuv  ayolsSttWo-U''  oT$  p.aX»j-a 
<r«?  oroAAas  wpof  Taj  t^Mt?  aa-sfcias  ff<p{ltgi£otlat.  RuffinuS,  about 

the  same  period,  brings  the  same  charge  against  the  heterodox, 
not  only  of  the  Greek  but  of  the  Latin  Church ;  Rufin.  de 
Adult,  librorr.  Orig.  "  Verum  ne  cui  forte  minus  ad  creden- 
dum  videantur  idonea  ea  quae  ex  libris  Grcecorum  Scriptorum 

exempla  protulimus, non  pigebit  etiam  Latinis  Scripioribus 

talla  qnadam  accidissc  monstrare,  et  calumnias  immensas,  ex 
adulteratione  librorum  suorum,  sanctis  et  probatissimis  viris  esse 
commotas.  Et  ne  quid  apertae  credulitati  desit,  res  qu<z  sint 
adhuc  memorial  nostrce  retexam,  quo  testimonii  veritas  neminem 
lateat."  Int.  Operr.  spectt.  ad  Orig.  Tom.  IV.  p.  53.  b. 

39  Thus  much  is  apparent  from  the  controversy  between  Ru- 
finus  and  St.  Jerome,  on  the  adulteration  of  Origen's  works  ; 
Rufin.  de  Adult,  libror.  Orig.  p.  50.  sqq.  S.  Hier.  Apolog.  adv. 
Ruffin.  Lib.  II.  capp.  iv.  v.  p.  244*.  sqq.  The  charge  of  Ruffi- 
jius  is  expressed  in  the  following  words ;  Rufin.  ib.  p.  50.  b. 
M  Et  quamvis  quamplurimi  sint  ex  veteribus  in  quorum  libris 
hujuscemodi  deprehenditur  adulter'ntm,  paucorum  tamen  sufficit 
adhibere  teslimonia,  ex  quibus  facilius  quid  etiam  Origenis 
libris  accident,  agnoscatur."  After  which  he  particularly  spe- 
cifies Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  then  quotes  an  Epistle  of 
Origen,  in  which  that  early  father  utters  the  same  complaint, 
of  his  works  having  been  corrupted  in  his  life  time.  St.  Je- 
rome replies  in  the  following  terms,  S.  Hier.  ib.  cap.  v.  p.  246. 
"  Praemissa  falsatione  ab  haereticis  Apostolorum,  et  utriusque 
Clementis,  atque  Dionysii,  venit  ad  Oi  iginem.9'— The  merits 
of  this  part  of  the  controversy  between  Ruffinus  and  St.  Je- 
rome, are  summed  up  by  the  learned  P.  Huet,  and  decided  in 
favour  of  the  former;  Origenn,  Lib,  II.  cap.  iii.  §  x. 


(    328    ) 

works  have  been  printed  are  notoriously 
and  the  copies  of  Cyprian  demonstrate  their  own 
corruption,,  by  their  disagreement  among  them- 
selves,, and  their  agreement  with  different  texts  and 
revisals  of  Scripture41.  It  is  likewise  indisputable, 

40  Rigalt.   de   Tert.  Praef.    [p.  ii.]      "  Tanti  viri   scripta 
legentibus,  etiara  haud  mediocriter  litteratis,  occurrunt  difficilia 
non  pauca,  sermonis  et  scripturae,     Nam  serraonis  quidem  Afri- 
can! superbia,  doctrinarum  ferme  omnium  date  praestans,  lee- 
tores  sibi  poscebat  ad  nutum  attentissime  sagaces.     Posteaquam 
vero  ip  longe  alios  incidit,  mutari  ccepit  a  quibus  non  potutt 
capi :  et  spurias  dictiones  pro  legitimis,  adultery  manus  inverere~ 
cundia  sparsit.     Scripturae  autem  nativae  ruina,  auctoris  verbis 
semel  interceptis,  ut  obtrito  corpore,  sensum  una  quoque  ipsum 
et  mentem  profligavit.     Sic  pessimi  correctores  emendaLissima 
perdidere, — Dira  natiq  tarn  fcede   Septimii  nostri  librosy  adeo 
quoque  pridem  vexavit,  ut  jam  falsi  vetustas  longi  temporis  prae* 
scriptionem  obstruat  veritati.     Quod  si  veterum  librorum,  ap- 
pelles   fiflem,  etiam  veterum  librorum  jide  Jalsissimce  lectione$ 
ctdseruntiir.     Nam  sunt  et  libri  veteres  depravatisshne  correcti ; 
lieque  ulla  spes  reducendae  unquam  veritatis,  nisi  tarn  veteres 
nanciscamur,    ut    sint   omni   correctorum    antiquitate    vetus- 
tiores." 

41  Fell.  not.  in  Cypr.  Lib.  Testim.  p.  17.     "  Sperabam  qui- 
dem ex  largo  hoc  quod  in  tractatu  isto  habetur  Scripturarum 
spicilegio,  ad  Versionis  Latirae  quae  Hieronymianam  praecessit 
j-estitutionem,   gradum  aliquem  praestrui  potuisse,     Et  certe  si 
modo  sibi  ubique  constaret  Cypriani  textus,  Joca  ilia  quae  a  lec- 
tione  vulgata  discrepare  deprehenduntur,  pro  Antiques  Versia- 
nis  feliquiis  non  immerito  haberemus.     Sed  cum  ea  sit  lectionmn 
in  MSS.  codicibus  varietas,  ut  plura  simul  occurrant  quas  a  vul- 
gatis  discrepent;  et  in  his  quid  a  Cypriano  scriptum  fuerit, 
codicibus  sibi  ipsis  non  respondentibus,  minime  constet :  porro 
cum  primorum  saeculorum  patres,  in  S.  Scripturis  laudandis, 
diversimode  se  habeant ;  curam  lianc  ceu  tantum  non  deplorataw 
censemus.    Flam.  Nobilius,  aliique  viri  eruditi,  Tertulliani,  Cy» 


(    329    ) 

that  these  fathers  not  only  followed  each  other41, 
adopting  the  arguments43  and  quotations44  of  one 

priani,  Hilarii,  Ambrosii,  Hieronymi,  et  Augustini  lectiones 
Scripturarum,  exlibris  impressis  afFatim  ingerunt;  pnrum  me- 
mores  in  codicibus  MSS.  rem  aliter  attpie  aliter  passim  sc 
habere.'* 

4Z  The  works  of  Tertullian  opened  a  channel  through  which 
the  peculiar  texts,  that  were  cited  by  Justin  Martyr  and  St. 
Irenaeus,  might  be  transmitted  to  St.  Cyprian  and  other  Latin 
writers.  Tert.  adv.  Valentinn.  cap.  v.  p.  248.  "  Mihi  autem 
cum  archetypis  erit  limes  principalium  magistrorum,  non  cum 
adfectatis  ducibus  passivorum  discipulorum.  Nee  undique 
dicemur  ipsi  nobis  Jinxisse  materias,  quas  tot  jam  viri  sanctitate 
€t  praestantia  insignes,  nee  solum  nostri  intecessores,  sed  ipso- 
rurn  haeresiarcharum  contemporales,  instructissimis  voluminibus 
et  prodiderunt  et  retuderunt :  ut  Justinus  Philosophus  et  Martyr, 
ut  Miltiades  Ecclesiarum  sophista,  ut  Irenceus  omnium  doctri- 
narum  curiomsimus  exploratory  ut  Proculus  noster,  virginis 
senectae,  et  christianae  eloquentise  dignitas :  quos  in  omni  opere 
Jidei,  quemadmodum  in  isto,  optaverim  assequi." 

43  Thus,  Is.  Ixv.  2.  «  I  have  spread  out  my  hands  all  the 
day,"  is  applied  to  our  Saviour  on  the  cross,  by  Just.  Mart. 
Apol.  p.  76.  a.  Tertul.  adv.  Jud.  cap.  xiii.  p.  105.  S.  Cypr. 
adv.  Jud.  cap.  xx.  p.  44.  Again,  Amos  viii.  9.  **  I  will  cause 
the  sun  to  go  down  at  noon,"  is  applied  to  our  Lord's  passion, 
by  S.  Iren.  adv.  Haer,  Lib.  IV.  cap.  xxxiii.  p.  273.  Tert.  adv. 
Marc.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  xlii.  p.  450.  S.  Cypr.  adv.  Jud.  cap.  xxiii. 
p.  46.  In  the  same  manner  Is.  Ivii.  1 .  "  the  righteous  perish- 
eth,  and  no  man  layeth  it  to  heart,"  is  applied  to  the  same 
subject,  by  Just.  Mart.  Dial,  cum  Tryph.  p.  234.  c.  d.  S.  Iren, 
adv.  Haer.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  xxxiv.  p.  276.  ,  Tert.  adv.  Marc.  Lib. 
III.  cap.  xxii.  p.  398.  S.  Cypr.  adv.  Jud.  cap.  xiv.  p.  40. 

4  Instances  constantly  occur  of  Origen  following  Clement, 
and  Cyprian  following  Tertullian  in  readings,  which  are  found 
in  no  manuscript  or  version;  Mat.  x.  26.  &&v  yup  er*  xixotoj*- 
vx.  a,itwa.\v(fiwitoU)  «J  jifwrtov  o  a  yvu§y&i-rou    Vil'g.  v$li 
o  tf  $x>ty§yirtTW,  v$l  nwfasnr  9  £ 


(    330    ) 

another  ;  but  that  they  quoted  from  the  heterodox 
as  well  as  the  orthodox45.     They  were  thus  also 


Clem.    Oiig.     Mat.   vi.   33.   *}   ravra   naura, 

Vulg.  xal  KcivTa,  x.  T.  I.   -OUTSITS  ya.   /xeyaXo,  xj  ra 

jasTa*'    j£    aireiTE   ra    £««£avja,    ^    ra   eir/yetsc 
i  v/xtv.    C/tfrw.   Orfg1.  Euseb.     1  Thes.  v.  21. 
fo  xabov  #aTs%t7*  Vulg*  yivaff^g  ^£  ooxi/xot   T 

ro    ^«    xaXoc  '  x«T£^oiirc(.     Clem. 
7*3?  IIaj;,\8    et^a^tjy    i^(Zirxo»TC5*    Hcivroe, 
TO  xaXo»  xaTs%6T<«   Orig.   Mat.  vi.  13.  xj  ^tx>   ttcr/viyxr? 

t  K  Tjrstpacr^ov.  Vulg.  DC  nos  inducas  in  tentationem,  id  est,  ne  nos 
patiaris  induci*  Tert.  et  ne  nos  patiaris  induct.  Cypr.  Joh,  iii.  6* 
ir»so/^a  lr».  FM/^.  spiritus  est,  quia  Deus  spirit  us  est  et  ex  Deo 
natus  est.  Teit.  Cypr.  1  Cor.  vi.  20.  ^o|aoraiT£  ty  TO»  ®to»  lv  ry 
<rup.ix.Ti.  Vulg.  Glorificate  et  tollite  Deum  in  corpora  vestro. 
Tert.  Glorificate  et  portate  Deum  in  corpore  vestro.  Cypr. 
The  two  last  readings  are  however  found  in  some  MSS. 

45  Origen  expressly  quotes  from  the  Hebrew  Gospel,  decla- 
ring that  he  referred  to  it  not  as  authority,  but  in  illustration  : 
in  Mat.  Tom.  III.  p.  671.  "  Scriptum  est  in  Evangelic  quodam, 
quod  dicitur  secundum  Hebraeos  :  si  tamen  placet  alicui  red- 
pere  illud,  non  ad  auctoritatem9  sed  ad  manifestationem  pro- 
positce  quaestionis;  *  Dixit*  inquit,  *  ad  eum  alter  divitura: 
Magister,*'  £c.  He  thus  not  only  quotes,  but  comments  on 
texts  of  that  Gospel,  indiscriminately  with  those  of  the  Scrip- 
ture; Com.  in  Joan.  Tom.  IV.  p.  64.  a.  &»  $\  TrgoariiTa.!  n<;  T» 

HaSr*  'E^pai«?  Eya/V^tov,  iv$a  ayrd?  c  "Zurvif  tyv\ffW  '  "Apn  eXa^e 
f*E  n  fx^Tijp  f*»  TO  "Aytot  TlvtVfjirCt.  lv  pia,  rut  Tfi^uv  /wtf,  xj  a.frey&'yx.i 
tee  si?  TO  ocoj  TO  (Acya  0a/3o7p.'  ITT  'x-Trofy,  a  'ti  irax;  (JWTyp  Xp*r5  TO  oiac, 


x.  T.   . 


Another  exampl%4ias  been  already 
given  supr.  p.  273.  n.  "7.  Hence  St.  Epiphanius  traces  the 
reading  of  1  Thes,  v.  21.  or  Mat.  xxv.  27.  quoted  supr.  p.  329. 
n.44.  to  the  heretick  Apelles;  S.  Epiph.  Hasr.  xliv.  p.  382.  b. 


which  has  been  cited  by  a  long  succession  of  writers  from  Clu- 
ment  to  Chrysostome.     Conf.  Orig.  Tom.  I.  p.  912.  b.  1. 


(    331     ) 

likely  to  transmit  from  one  to  another  erroneous 
quotations,  originally  adopted  from  sources  not 
more  pure  than  heretical  revisals  of  Scripture45, 
When  a  few  of  these  readings  were  recommended 
by  the  successive  adoption  of  different  fathers,,  they 
were  easily  transferred  from  their  comments  to  the 
margins  of  particular  manuscripts,  and  were  thence 
transplanted  into  the  text  from  the  margin47.  New 

46  The  orthodox,  in  reasoning  against  the   hereticks,  fre- 
quently derived  their  authorities  from  those  Scriptures  which 
were  acknowledged  by  their  opponents.     S.  Iren.  adv.  Haer. 
"Lib.  TIL  cap.  xii.  p.  198.     "  Unde  et  Marcion  et  qui  ab  eo 
sunty  ad  intercidendas  conversi  sunt  Scriptures,  quasdam  quidem 
in  totum  non  cognoscentes,  secundum  Lucam  autem  Evange- 
lium,  et  Epistolas  Pauli  decurtantes,  hoec  sola  legitima  esse 
dicunt,  quae  ipsi  minoraverunt.     Nos  autem  etiam  ex  his,  qttcc 
adliuc  apud  eos  CKStodiuntur,  arguemus  eos,  in  alter  o  conscrip* 
Hone.     Conf.  S.  Epiphan.  Haer.  XLII.  p.  310.  b.     An  example 
of  this  mode  of  conducting  the  controversies  maintained  against 
the  hereticks,  has  been  already  given  from  Tertullian  ;  supr. 
p.  147.  n.89. 

47  The  following  appear  to  be  readings  which  have  demon*- 
"  strably  originated  in  this  manner  ;  Mat.  x.  23.  pevysre  fit  <rw 

ato^.  Vulg.  (pzvysTt  sis  rr,v  iregav  x$ev  l>c  ravrw  Stuxuaiv  vfAcif, 
(pewysrs  £if  rrtv  aA^iji/.  Orig.  1.  33.  22.  al.  <pe6yere  «?'  TW  aMw9 
lav  OB  EV  r*  aXX  SicuxutJiv  v^as  fa&yslG  its  rvv  aXXTjv.  Cawf. 


sis  -rv)v  aAX^v.  Orig.  alibi.     Act.  iv.  25.  5 

wat^o?  o-«  tliruv.  Vulg.  o  via.  Trvs^/xa^os"  ay/a  Sid  ro^arcx; 
«7rat£o$  a-a  ilnyy.  Didym.  Syr.  Copt,  o  T«  'TTalpof  ri^aiv  oiae.  TTVEU- 
fAQtio'.-  5tyi8  re/^*ros  Aa/3i^  -Trat^o?  era  tltruv.  Vat.  AleK.  Laud.  Sl/r.p* 
Ib.  iv.  31.  tXaXyy  TO*  hoyov  —  pita.  Trappjcrwts.  Vulg.  &othuv  TOV  ?ujyo» 
.  —  ^e^a  Tra^r/ata?  TiavTi  TO;  S'fcXovVi  Trifsuziv.  Iren.  Cant»  Laud. 
Jb.  32.  V  xa^wfr  xj  i  4/t'%^  !"•»«•  Vulg. 
j  gy 


(    332    ) 

revisals  of  Scripture  were  th\is  formed,  which  were 
interpolated  with  the  peculiar  readings  of  scholiasts 
and  fathers*8.  Nor  did  this  systematick  corruption 
terminate  here  ;  but  when  new  texts  were  thus 
formed,  they  became  the  standard  by  which  the 
later  copies  of  the  early  writers  were  in  succession 
corrected49.  From  such  progression  m  errour,  it  is 


rtv  %^§t<j/xos-  ev  avrois  ns.  Laud.  Ib.  xv.  20.  a 
f.  Vulg.  uKBxto-Soti  —  75  al'/xaTo?,  ^  o<7£  av  / 
lai/7oiV  ytWS'a*,  krspois  ^  Troisiv.  Iren.  Cant.  Sahid.  The 
variations  in  these  readings,  or  the  embarrassment  which  they 
create  in  the  sense,  sufficiently  declare  them  to  be  interpola- 
tions of  explanatory  glosses  taken  from  the  fathers.  Similar 
examples  of  interpolations  of  the  Latin  Version  have  been  given 
supr.  pp.  14-6,  147.  nn.  88  et  8p.  p.  127.  n.  4s.  The  passage  re- 
ferred to  in  the  last  note,  and  inserted  in  the  Verceli  MS.  after 
.Mat.  iii.  15.  is  traced  by  St.  Epiphanius  to  the  Hebrew  Gospel. 
S.  Epiph.  Haer.  XXX.  p.  138.  b.  >j  £e  ap^Jj  r5  irctf  etvro7<  EtJaf. 


rov 

48  The  peculiar  readings  which  have  been  pointed  out  in  the 
Cambridge  and  Verceli  MSS.  supr.  p.  127.  n.  45.  p.  146.  nn. 
88  et  £9.  &c.  sufficiently  prove  them  to  be  revisals,  which  have 
been  made  in  this  manner. 

49  The  number  of  MSS.  which  we  retain  of  St.  Cyprian's 
works,  enables  us  to  verify  this  assertion,  particularly  in  his 
quotations  ;  which  occasionally  conform  to  the  three  species  of 
text  which  were  published  of  the  Latin  Version.     An  antient 
MS.  of  his  Book  of  Testimonies  is  preserved  in  the  British 
Museum,  Coton.  Cal.  A.  xv.  f.  41.     I  collated  it  in  one  of  the 
longest  and  most  remarkable  passages  which  S.  Cyprian  has 
quoted,  Mat.  xxv.  31  —  46,  and  which  he  has  repeated  three 
times  in  his  writings.     Lib.  I.  adv.  Jud.  p.  51.  Lib.  III.  Testi- 
inonn.  p.  59.     De  Operr.  et  Eleemm.  p.  207.     But  while  it 
differs   considerably   from   the  Brescia,  Verceli,   and  Verona 
MSS.  it  agrees  verbatim  with  the  modern  Vulgate.     It  can  he 


(    333    ) 

Evident  that  nothing  -but  uncertainty  can  be  the 
result,,  when  we  proceed  to  determine  the  antiquity 
of  any  reading-  or  text,  by  its  consent  with  the  pre- 
sent copies50  of  the  works  of  the  early  writers. 

In  fine.,  when  this  system  is  pushed  to  its  neces- 
sary extent,  it  ends  in  establishing  such  paradoxes, 
as  subvert,  by  their  inconsistency,  the  principles  of 
the  system  out  of  which  they  arise.  On  estimating 
the  antiquity  of  any  text,  by  its  coincidence  with 
the  readings  of  particular  fathers,  whose  works  have 
undergone  successive  corruption ;  it  necessarily 
happens,  that  when  that  text  is  most  systematically 
corrupted,  it  possesses  the  best  claims  to  be  ac- 
counted antient.  Such  is  the  virtual  concession 
which  M.  Griesbach  is  reduced  to  the  necessity  of 

therefore  no  matter  of  wonder,  that  TertulHan  and  Cyprian  not 
only  differ  from  themselves,  but  that  they  occasionally  conform 
to  different  texts  or  recensions. 

'°  Still  more  uncertain  must  be  our  ground  when  we  pretend 
to  determine  the  true  readings  of  the  primitive  fathers  from, 
antient  translations ;  for  these  were  certainly  adapted  to  the 
received  text  of  the  countries  in  which  they  were  made.  We 
thus  find,  that  they  frequently  differ  from  the  originals.  A  few 
examples  will  illustrate  this  assertion.  Mat.  ix.  13.  xaAeVa* 
&xak??,  aAAa  a^caprwXs?  et$  ptTavoiotv.  Vulg.  Barnab.  VOCare 
justos  sed  peccatores.  Fere.  Barn.  Inter pr.  Rom.  v.  14.  fa* 
T«<J  apagrwa.vTon.  Orig.  in  eos  qui  non  peccarunt.  Vulg.  Orig. 
Interp.  Hence  also  we  find  the  translation  frequently  contra- 
dicts itself,  as  it  is  rendered  conformable  to  different  texts ; 
Mat.  xxv.  4<1.  qui  praeparatus  est  diabolo.  Gr.  Vulg.  Orig.  bis. 
quem  prseparavit  Deus  diabolo.  Orig.  scepe.  That  the  genuine 
reading  of  Mat.  ix.  13.  xxv.  4<1.  is  retained  in  the  Greek  Vul- 
gate, has  been  already  made  evident  from  the  context  of  the 
Jtalick  Version,  supr.  p.  180.  n. 156.  p.  183.  n.  16°. 


(    334    ) 

making,  in  explaining  his  system.  He  very  freely 
admits,  that  neither  of  those  texts  on  which  his  sys- 
tem is  built,  is  consistent  in  itself51;  as  we  might 
\yell  conjecture,  from  the  heterogeneous  materials 
which  enter  into  their  composition.  Nay  more,,  he 
is  forward  to  confess,  that  the  manuscripts  from 
which  those  antient  texts  were  originally  formed, 
were  grievously  corrupted sz.  Reasoning  from  his 
own  concessions,  of  course  this  corruption  of  the  sa- 
cred text  must  have  preceded  the  times  of  Clement 

51  Griesb.  Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  I.  p.  xxviii.     "  Scimus  enim, 
omnes  Recensiones  variis  vicissitudinibus  domesticisque  casibus 
obnoxias,  et  procedente  tempore,  multis  modis  immutatas,  aut 
cum  aliis  recensionibus  permixtas  confusasgue."      Id.   Prole- 
gomm.  in  Nov.  Test.  Sect.  III.  p.  Ixxviii.     "  Nulla  Recensio 
in  codice  ullo  jam  superstite  reperitur  intaminata.     Eo  tern* 
poris  intervallo,  quod  inter  Recensionum  origines  et  codicum 
hodie  extantium  natales  intercessit,  singuli  codices  Recensio- 
num omnium  multifariam  Jiiere  corrupts     Quilibet  librarius  in 
apographo  suo  exarando  splialmata  qusedam  cornmisit ;  erepse- 
Titnt  e  margine,  vel  aliunde  nova  interpramenta,  glossce,  addita- 
menta  ;  negligens  et  festinans  scriba  nonnulla  passim  omisit; 
alterius   Recensioms  lectiones   illatse   sunt   in  alterius  Jamilix 
libros."     Id.  Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  I.  p.  cxxi.     "  Hinc  nosmet 
ipsi,  quamquam  utramque  illam  Recensionem  £  Alex,  et  Occi- 
dent-3  magni,  ut  par  est,  faciamus,  tamen  in  nostra  ^ov.  Test^ 
editione  lectiones  sexcentas  Alexandrinas,  et  millenas  Occident 
tails  vel  prorsits  damnammusy  vel  improbabiles  saltim  esse  pro- 
nuntiavimus ;  immo  hand  paucas  lectiones  in  ulriusque  Recen- 
sionis  codicibus  obvias  repudiavimus." 

52  Id.  Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  I.  p.  cxxi.     "  Ultro  tamen  fatemur 
nullam  Recensionem  a  ncevis  immvnem  esse,  aut  unquam  fuisse. 
Nam   nee  Alexandria  neque  Occidentalis  ex  autographo  pro- 
fluxit,  sed  utraque  ex  apogrqphis  passim  interpolfttis  derivattt 
etc.1* 


(    335    > 

and  Tertullian,  \vhich  are  his  earliest  vouchers, 
and  must  be  necessarily  referred  to  the  age  which 
directly  succeeded  to  the  apostolical "  \  After  the 
concession  of  this  point,  it  is  difficult  to  discover 
what  further  objections  remain  to  be  made  to  this 
system.  To  me  it  appears,,  that  the  person  would 
subvert  M.  Griesbach's  theory  to  the  foundation, 
who  would  prove,  that  this  conclusion  necessarily 
followed  from  the  principles  on  which  it  was  found- 
ed. That  the  sacred  text  should  have  been  thus 
grossly  corrupted  at  this  primitive  period,  and  yet 
have  so  far  preserved  its  characteristick  peculiari- 
ties to  the  present  day,  that  we  should  be  able  to 
recover  any  just  notion  of  it,  is  a  paradox  so  mon- 
strous, that  the  man  who  maintains  it,  may,  1  con- 
ceive, be  left  in  unmolested  enjoyment  of  his  opinion, 
as  not  worth  the  pains  of  convincing. 

Thus  hearing  the  advocate  of  this  system  out,  and 
reasoning  merely  from  his  own  concessions,  it  is,  I 
trust,  apparent,  that  no  reliance  can  be  placed  on 
it;  as  it  rests  on  the  credit  of  vouchers,  who,  by 
his  own  confession,  are  grossly  and  systematically 
corrupted.  In  fact,  it  requires  but  a  slight  ex- 
ertion of  sagacity  to  discover,  that  the  theory  of 
sacred  criticism  must  be  absolutely  inverted  in  that 

*• 

53  Id.  Prolcgg.  in  Nov.  Test.  Sect.  III.  p.  Ixxrv.  «  Poste- 
riorem  hunc  textum,  quern,  post  Clementem  et  Originem,  Alex- 
andrini  ac  ./Egyptii  potissimum  adhibuerunt  ac  disseminarunt, 
non  incommode  Alexandrinum  dixeris;  Alter  inde  a-Tertul~ 
Hani  tempore  ab  Afris,  Italis,  GalJis  aliisque  occidentalibus* 
usurpatus  baud  inepta  Occidentals  nomine  insigniri  po- 
tuit."— i-*  Conf.  supr.  p.  326.  n..3\ 


(    S36    ) 

system,  which  supposes  the  sacred  text  to  have  been 
grossly  corrupted  in  two  principal  branches,  in  the 
age  which  succeeded  the  apostolical.  As  it  is  im- 
possible to  proceed  a  step,  in  inquiries  like  the  pre- 
sent, without  reasoning  from  some  assumed  proba- 
bilities ;  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  what  can  be  deemed 
probable,  if  the  direct  contradictory  of  what  is  here 
taken  as  true,  be  not  considered  morally  certain. 
Assuming  it  as  a  fundamental  principle,  that  the 
sacred  text  could  not  have  been  corrupted  at  a  pe- 
riod thus  early ;  the  text,  of  course,  which  merits  no 
better  character,  must  be  referred  to  that  early  pe- 
riod, in  subversion  of  the  first  principles,  from  which 
all  our  reasoning  is  deducible.  It  is  vain  to  hang 
the  authority  of  such  a  text  on  the  testimony  of  an- 
tient  manuscripts,  fathers,  or  versions,  in  violation 
of  this  fundamental  principle.  Until  we  have  esta- 
blished the  integrity  of  those  vouchers,  the  principle 
on  which  we  build  must  want  stability.  To  take 
the  consent  of  those  witnesses  as  an  evidence  of 
their  integrty,  is  to  reason  against  the  undisputed 
fact  of  their  having  been  corrupted  by  one  another. 
And  to  refer  them,  in  consequence  of  this  coinci- 
dence, to  the  primitive  age  of  the  church,  is  to  act 
in  forgetfulness  of  an  equally  positive  fact; — that 
since  that  early  period,  the  sacred  text  has  under- 
gone revisals,  in  which  it  was  not  merely  liable  to 
interpolation,  but  positively  acquired  those  peculi- 
arities, which  are  now  taken  as  evidence  of  its  an- 
tiquity J4.  We  may  be  indeed  told,  that  a  critick, 

**  Vid.  supr.  p.  72.  n. 37.  p.  100.  n.  '*.  pp.  H— 33. 


(    337    ) 

•who  is  moderately  skilled  in  his  art,  well  knows  how 
to  clear  those  obstacles ss.  But  while  ten  lines  of 
proof  would  be  worth  volumes  of  such  modest  asser- 
tions, it  seems  to  be  rather  inauspicious  to  the  suc- 
cess of  such  undertakings,  that  they  should  com- 
mence, and  proceed,  and  terminate,  without  any 
attention 56  to  the  changes  which  the  text  has  posi- 
tively undergone,  since  the  time  of  its  first  publi- 
cation. 

II.  Such  appear  to  be  the  most  striking  objec- 
tions which  lie  against  the  plan  proposed  by  M. 
Griesbach  for  restoring  the  corrupted  integrity  of 
the  canonical  Scripture.  As  his  fundamental  rule 57, 
with  which  I  am  not  in  the  least  disposed  to  quarrel, 
is  thus  unapplied  and  inapplicable  to  his  theory ;  it 
now  remains  that  we  should  enquire,  how  far  it 
may  be  accommodated  to  the  principles  of  that,  on 
which  I  have  ventured  to  believe  the  integrity  of 
the  same  text  may  be  defended.  To  such  a  mode  of 
defence,  we  may  give  the  preference,  not  only  be- 
cause it  is  least  exposed  to  the  exceptions  of  the 

55  Griesb.  Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  I.  p.  cxx.     "  Viri  criticae  artis 
leneperiti  ejusmodi  maculas,  quibus  codices  singuli  polluti  sunt" 
nullo  negotio  abstergunt,  comparatis  inter  se  pluribus  ejusdem 
Recensionis  codicibus,    versionibus,   et   patribus,   ac  adhibitis 
regulis  criticis,  quae  interpolationes  seriores  et  glossemata  a 
lectionibus  genuinis  ac  primitivis  discernere  decent."     C.onf. 
Prolegg.  in  Nov.  Test.  p.  Ixiv.  sqq. 

56  Id.  Prolegomm.  in  Nov.  Test.  Sect.  III.  p.  Ixxiv.     "  Origo 
variarum  textus  Novi  Test.  Recensionum,  deficientibus  docu- 
mentis  satis  vetustis  ac  testimoniis,  historice  declarari  nequit, 
nee  hujus  loci  est,  conjectaris  defectim*  ilium  sarcire." 

57  Vid.  supr.  p.  315.  n.  8. 

Z 


(    338    } 

objectour,  but  as  it  affords  as  advantageous  ground 
as  can  be  easily  chosen,  for  vindicating-  the  Greek 
Vulgate. 

Laying  it  therefore  down  as  a  principle  agreed 
upon,  that  the  best  witnesses  of  the  integrity  of  the 
sacred  text,  are  those  which  are  most  antient,  and 
which  deliver  a  separate  testimony ;  the  main  point 
of  enquiry  consequently  is,  where  such  witnesses 
may  be  discovered.  After  this  difficulty  is  sur- 
mounted, an  appeal  must  be  made  to  their  joint 
testimony,  to  decide  the  point  in  dispute,  respecting 
the  relative  purity  of  the  Palestine  and  Byzantine 
editions. 

The  space  to  which  our  enquiries  are  limited,  in 
seeking  those  antient  and  separate  witnesses,  is 
necessarily  bounded  by  that  tract  of  country,  in 
which  we  are  infallibly  assured  the  Gospel  was 
planted,  and  copies  of  the  Scripture  dispersed,  at 
the  earliest  period.  This  consideration  directly 
fixes  our  attention  on  the  Syriack  Church  in  the 
East,  and  the  Latin  in  the  West;  as  being  wit- 
nesses possessing,  above  all  others,  the  necessary 
requisites,  of  being  antient  and  separate.  Situated 
at  nearly  equal  distances  on  each  side  of  the  Greek 
Church,  which  must  be  considered  the  natural  wit- 
ness of  the  sacred  text,  as  speaking  the  language 
of  the  New  Testament;  those  churches  are  of  the 
most  remote  antiquity,  as  founded  by  the  apostles. 
The  versions  which  they  used,  whether  made  in  the 
apostolical  age,  or  not,  are  confessedly  more  antient 
than  any  with  which  we  are  acquainted. 

The  antiquity  of  these  vouchers,  is,   however, 


(    330    ) 

determinable  for  a  definitive.,  and  an  immense  pe- 
riod. The  old  Syriack  version  cannot  be  brought 
down  lower  than  the  fourth  century,  the  Old  Italick 
not  lower  than  the  third ;  as  both  translations  are 
quoted  by  the  writers  who  lived  at  these  different 
periods58.  Though  both  versions  underwent  con- 
siderable alterations  at  this  period,  two  revisals  of 
the  Latin  version  having  been  published^  by  St.  Eu- 
sebius,  and  St.  Jerome,  and  probably  of  the  Syriack 
version  also59,  by  some  unknown  persons:  it  is 
probable,  that  both  retained  most  of  the  charac- 
teristick  peculiarities  which  distinguished  them, 
when  they  were  originally  published.  But  this 
point  will  be  placed  beyond  mere  conjecture,  by 
the  consent  of  those  versions  with  the  Greek  Vul- 
gate, when  it  is  rendered  apparent,  that  they  were 
neither  corrected  by  it,  at  that  time,  nor  at  any  sub- 
sequent period.  For  assuming  this  to  be  the  case, 
there  can  be  no  mode  of  accounting  for  their  agree- 
ment among  themselves,  but  by  supposing  them  to 
preserve  their  conformity  to  the  common  source 
from  whence  they  have  respectively  descended. 

The  antiquity  of  these  versions  being  not 
less  remote  than  the  fourth  century,  it  follows, 
of  course,  that  they  must  be  separate  witnesses; 
as  far,  at  least,  as  they  are  coincident  with  the 
Greek  Vulgate.  For  let  us  assume,  that  they  have 
been  corrected  by  each  other;  and  either  the 
original,  or  one  of  the  translations,  rhust  be  con- 
sidered the  common  source  of  their  agreement, 

38  Vid.  supr.  p.  25.  n.  41.  pp.  70,  71. 
'5S  Vid.  supr.  p.  4-9.  n.  9,  p.  82.  n.  «6. 


(    340    ) 

But  that  the  Vulgar  Greek,  with  which  we  are  at 
present  concerned,  could  have  been  corrupted  from 
either  of  those  versions,  is  a  supposition  so  utterly 
improbable,  as  not  to  deserve  a  moment's  consi- 
deration. The  point  before  us  consequently  admits 
of  no  alternative,  but  that  it  must  be  the  source  of 
the  agreement  of  the  original  and  these  translations; 
admitting  that  they  have  had  an  immediate  influ- 
ence on  each  other.  The  antiquity,  however,  of 
both  versions,  renders  it  wholly  impossible  that  they 
could  have  been  new-modelled  by  this  text. 

According  to  the  principles  of  our  opponents,  the 
vulgar  text,  or  Byzantine  edition,  had  scarcely  an 
existence  in  the  fourth  century60,  when  those  ver- 
sions were  generally  received.  It  is  therefore 
utterly  impossible,  that  at  that  period  it  could  be 
taken  as  the  model,  by  which  they  were  corrected ; 
unless  indeed  the  point  be  conceded,  which  is  the 
main  object  of  this  inquiry  to  evince,  that  the  vulgar 
Greek  is  of  the  most  remote  antiquity. 

The  fact,  however,  is,  that  so  enlightened  was 
that  age,  and  so  intimately  are  we  acquainted  with 
its  history,  that  we  can  give  a  clear  and  consistent 
account  of  every  considerable  change,  which  the 
sacred  text  underwent,  at  the  same  period.  Chris- 
tianity then  assumed  a  new  form,  under  the  Empe- 
rour  Constantine,  in  becoming  the  established  reli- 
gion. Under  the  auspices  of  this  monarch,  a  new 
revisal  of  the  sacred  writings  was  published  by  Euse- 
• ".  .-•  - .  .  .  « 

60  Vid.  supr.  p.  126.  n.  4°.   Conf.  Griesb.  Prolegoinm.  in  Nor. 
Test.  Sect.  III.  p.  Ixxv. 


(    341     ) 

feius ;  to  the  influence  of  which  we  must  impute  al- 
most every  considerable  change  which  the  text 
underwent  in  the  original  or  in  translations61.  The 
extension  of  Christianity  about  this  period.,  added 
to  the  list  of  Versions,  a  Gothick  and  Ethiopick,  if 
not  an  Armenian  and  Arabick,  translation 6l.  Re- 
visals  of  the  Old  Italick  and  Syriack,  undertaken  in 
the  same  century,  produced  the  Latin  Vulgate  and 
Jerusalem  Syriack.  The  agreement  of  these  ver- 
sions with  each  other,  and  with  the  Greek  ma- 
nuscripts, imported  into  the  West  from  Palestine, 
and  divided  by  the  sections  of  Eusebius63,  enables 
us  very  clearly  to  determine  his  edition,  which  was 
authorised,  from  the  reign  of  Constantine  to  that 
of  Theodosius 64.  As  the  Syriack  and  Italick  pro- 
vinces were  exposed  to  the  same  casualties 65, 
which  destroyed  the  sacred  books  as  far  westward 
as  Britain 66 ;  the  versions  which  were  generally  re- 
ceived in  those  regions,  most  probably  underwent 
some  change  at  this  period.  But  this  change  pro- 

C1  Vid.  supr.  p.  25.  sqq.  p.  322.  sqq. 

61  Vid.  supr.  p.  48.  n.  7.  p.  322.  sqq. 

fc3  Griesb.  Prolegomm.  in  Nov.  Test.  Sect.  III.  p.  Ixxiv. 
Hie  [textus  Alexandrinus]  cum  Evangeliorum  Codicibus  C, 
L,  33,  102,  106,  et  (in  postremis  Matthsei  capitibus,  Marco, 
Luca,  et  Joanne)  Vaticano  B,  versionibus  Coptica,  JEthiopica, 
Armenica,  Syra  Philoxeniana,  et  allegation ib us  Eusebii,  &c.— 
concinere  solet.'9 

64  Vid.  supr.  p.  29.  n.  4S>.  p.  152.  n.  10°. 

65  Such  is  Eusebius's  express  declaration,  as  quoted  supr. 
p.  295.  n.  293.  &'  oX-xjs-  'AIyiV7w,  2t/gi'xr   rz   xj 

Vid.  supr.  p.  27.  n.  46. 


(    343    ) 

eeeded  not  from  the  Byzantine,  but  the  Palestine 
text.  And  we  consequently  find,  that  the  revisal 
of  Eusebius,  has  had  some  influence  on  the  Old  Ita- 
lick  and  Syriack ;  as  both  versions  agree  with  the 
Palestine  text,  in  omitting  some  remarkable  pas- 
sages 6?.  But  this  consideration  does  not  affect  the 
main  point  in  dispute;  that  those  versions  are 
wholly  free  from  the  influence  of  the  Byzantine 
text :  admitting  which  to  be  the  case,  it  must  follow, 
that  they  are  separate,  as  we  have  seen,  they  are 
antient  witnesses. 

As  the  influence  of  Eusebius's  text,  and  the  au- 
thority of  those  Emperours  who  favoured  the  Arian 
heresy,  render  it  next  to  impossible  that  the  Byzan- 
tine text  should  have  had  any  effect  on  the  Old 
Italick  and  Syriack  versions,  at  this  early  period; 
the  history  of  those  versions,  and  the  state  of  the 
Latin  and  Syrian  Churches,  render  it  wholly  impos- 
sible, that  the  vulgar  Greek  should  have  attained, 
at  a  subsequent  period,  such  influence  over  the  Ori- 
ental and  Western  versions,  that  it  should  be  taken 
as  the  standard  by  which  they  were  corrected. 

The  case  of  the  Western  version  may  be  sum- 
marily decided.  At  the  close  of  the  fourth  century 
it  was  revised  by  St.  Jerome;  and  the  extraordi- 
nary reputation  of  that  learned  father,  renders  the 
supposition  not  merely  improbable,  that  any  person 
would  undertake  to  do  over  again,  what  he  had  so 
ably  accomplished ;  but  absurd  in  the  extreme,  that 
such  a  person  would  complete  the  task,  withoui 

C7  Vid.  supr.  p.  35.  sqq. 


(    343    ) 

availing  himself  of  the  improvements  made  by  St. 
Jerome.  This,  however,  has  not  been  the  case, 
with  the  text  of  the  Brescia  manuscript,  which  I  am 
alone  concerned  in  defending ;  as  it  contains  those 
errours  of  the  primitive  Latin  version,  which  were 
corrected  in  the  modern  Vulgate68.  These  charac- 
teristick  marks,  and  some  others,  which  have  been 
already  pointed  out69,  very  decisively  evince,  that 
the  text  of  this  manuscript  cannot  be  brought  lower 
than  the  close  of  the  fourth  century. 

The  case  of  the  Syriack  version  is  not  involved  in 
greater  difficulty.  As  the  Peshito,  or  Syriack  Vul- 
gate, is  the  received  text  of  the  two  great  sects  into 
which  this  Church  is  divided  7° ;  it  is  impossible  that 
any  general  corruption  of  this  text  could  have  taken 
place  since  the  year  451,  and  the  meeting  of  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon.  After  this  period,  those  re- 

68  Vid.supr.  p.  166.  n.  '*.  sub  fin. 

69  Vid.  supr.  p.  173.  sqq.^  p.  181.  sqq. 

70  Walt.  Prolegomm.  in  Bibll.  Polyglott.  Sect.  xin.  p.  89. 
§   3.     "  Praeter  hanc  Versionem  Syriacam,  quam  Simplicem  €t 
Antiquam  appellant  Maronitce,  qua  sola  in  Divinis  publice  utun- 

iur, aliam  etiam  habent  recentiorem  ex  Graeco  expressam, 

tarn  Vet.  quam  Nov.  Testament!."   Id.  ibid.  p.  92.  }  3.     "  De 
Versione  Syriaca  testatur  Sionita,  quod  ut  semper  in  summa 
venerations  et  auctoritate  habita  erat  apud  omnes  populos,  qui 
Chaldaica  sive  Syriaca  utuntur  lingua,  sic  publice  in  omnibus 
corum  ecclesiis  antiquissimis,  constitutis  in  Syria,  Mesopotamia, 
Chaldaea,  JEgypto,  et  denique  in  universis  Orientis  partibus, 
dispersis  ac  disseminatis,  accepta  et  lecta  fuit^     Having  speci- 
fied the  Nestorians  and  Jacobites,  he  subjoins ;   "  ex  hoc  cal- 
culo  \iquetprcEcipuasper  totum  Orieutem  christianonnn  ecclesias, 
longe  lateque  propagatas,  Scripturas  et  officia  sacra  lingua  Sj/- 
riaca  legere  et  cdebrare" 


(    344    ) 

ligious  differences,  which  had  commenced  under 
Ibas,  Theodoras  Mopsuestenus,  and  Theodorit71, 
and  which  were  widened  under  Barsumas,  Philox- 
enus,,  and  Severus7*.,  rapidly  spread  through  the 

71  Beth-arsem.  ap.  Asseman.  Biblioth.  Orient.  Tom.  I.  p.  203. 
"  A  Theodoreto  [Nestorianum  errorem]  accepit  Ibas,  qui  praeter 
alias  multas  blasphemias,  quibus  praefatos  magistros  suos  ad 
amussim  imitabatur,  istam  in  quadam  sua  oratione  adjecit 
dicens,  '  Ego  Ibas  nequaquam  invideo  Christo,  qui  Deus  factus 
est :  nam  Deus  appellatus  est,  quum  homo  esset  mei  similis,  et 
ejusdem  mecum  naturae."  Quapropter  anathematis  sententia 
lata  fuit  in  Ibam,  ct  Theodoretum  Cyri,  unacum  omnibus 
eorundem  sociis  et  sectariis.  Id.  ibid.  p.  204«.  "  Ab  Iba  Nes- 
torianum errorem  accepit  Mares  quidam  ex  urbe  Hardeschir  ; 
atque  inde  ccc.pit  Persarum  regio  Nestorianismo  infici  per  lice 
epistolas,  et  per  magistrorum  ejusdem  Orationes  atque  Commen- 
taria  (Nestorii  nimirum,  Theodoreti,  Theodori  Mopsuesteni,  ac 
Diodori)  qua?  in  Syrorum  sermonem  convertebantur."  Conf. 
Assem.  Dissert,  de  Syris  Nestoriann.  §  ii.  Bibl.  Orient.  Tom. 
III.  p.  Ixix. 

71  Asseman.  Dissert,  de  Monophysitt.  §  ii.  Bibl.  Orient.  Tom. 
II.  p.  i.  "  In  Oriente  Barsumas  Archimandrita,  qui  Conci- 
liabuli  Ephesini  pars  baud  exigua  fuit,  Syrorum  enim  mona- 
chorum  nomine  ei  interfuit,  postquam  a  Concilio  Chalcedo- 
Densi  justam  damnationis  sententiam  excepit,  in  Syriam  regret- 
suSy  eandem  hccresim  popularilus  suis  propinavit :  nee  iis  dum- 
-taxat,  sed  et  jinitimis  Armenis,  ad  quos  Samuelem  discipulum 

suum   misit .      Atque  haec   fuere  Monophysismi  initia  in 

Syria,  Mesopotamia,  et  Arabia;  auctore  scilicet  Barsuma, 
ej  usque  discipulis,  qui  eandem  plane  cum  Eutyche  opinio- 
nem  tenebant."  Id.  ibid.  p.  iii.  "  Ad  Syros  quod  spectat, 
licet  iis  Barsumas  Eutychisque  sententia  ab  initio  placuerit, 
hanc  tamen  paulo  post  rejecerunt:  quando  nimirum  Philoxenus 
Xanajas  Mabugi  sive  Hierapoleos  episcopus,  et  Petrus  Gnapheus 
Antiochence  sedis  invasor,  nee  non  haeretici  Imperatores,  Zeno 
atque  Anastasius,  aliud  ejusdem  temper  amentum  per  Orientert 


(    345    ) 

East/ from  Edessa  and  Antioch,  to  Arabia,  Mesopo- 
tamia, and  Armenia.     It  is  therefore  wholly  incon- 
ceivable, that  both  sects  should  agree  in  correcting 
the  received  text73;  or  that  one  of  them/  haying- 
introduced  any  change  into  that  text,  could  prevail 
on  the  other  to  accept  it  as  the  authorised  version. 
During  the  period  which  intervenes  between  this 
early  age,  and  that  in  which  Eusebius  revised  the 
original  Greek,  it  is  equally  inconceivable,  that  any 
other  Greek  text  but  the  Palestine,  could  have  had 
any  influence  on  the  Syriack  translation.     The  in- 
ternal evidence  of  the  later  Syriack  version,  which 
was  made  under  the  auspices  of  Philoxenus74,  by 
whose  exertions  Eutychianism  was  established  in 
Syria,  clearly  proves,  that  the  influence  of  the  Pa- 
lestine text  had  continued  during  the  whole  of  this 
period;  as  that  version  corresponds  with  the  Pales- 
tine text75;  where  the  vulgar  Syriack  corresponds 
with  the  Byzantine.     During  the  reigns  of  the  elder 
and  younger  Theodosius,  which  nearly  occupy  the 
space  of  time  intervening  between  the  years  400  and 
450,  it  is  not  possible  to  conceive  how  the  Byzantine 
text  could  have  acquired  such  authority  in  Syria, 
as  to  influence  the  authorised  version.     Previously 
to  that  period,  the  preponderancy  of  the  Arian  fac- 

disseminarunt.  Severus  ut  eandein  sectam  stabiliret,  phirimum 
operae  contulit :  cujus  studium  aemulati  sunt  diversarum  Syrice^ 
Cilicicc,  Mesopotamia,  et  Capadocite  urbium  eprscoj.ri,"  &c. 

7?  Vid.  supr.  p.  343.  n.  70. 

7*  Vid.  supr.  p.  77.  n.  5°. 

75  Vid.  supr.  p.  341.  n.  ^ 


(    346    ) 

tion  in  this  country76,  rendered  it  wholly  impos- 
sible, that  any  text  should  have  prevailed  over  the 
edition  of  Eusebius,  whose  interests  were  identified 
with  those  of  that  heresy. 

It  is  indeed  true,  that  the  Emperour  Charlemagne 
undertook  the  correction  of  the  Latin  translation  by 
the  Syriack  and  Greek77;  from  whence  it  may  be 
conceived,  those  versions  have  acquired  a  resem- 
blance, which  cannot  be  deduced  from  their  com- 
mon original.  But  we  have  only  to  remember  that 
the  correction  of  the  former  version  was  undertaken 
in  the  middle  of  the  eighth  century,  and  that  the  Vul- 
gate of  St.  Jerome  became  the  authorised  text  from 
the  middle  of  the  sixth75;  in  order  to  discover  that 

7(5  A  i  the  time  when  the  Emperour  Valens  published  an  edict 
against  the  orthodox,  shortly  after  the  death  of  St«  Athanasiug, 
Conf.  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lih.  IV.  cap.  xvii.  p.  232.  1.  26. 
Sozom.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  xviii.  p.  240.  1.  9.  the  follow- 
ing description  is  given  of  the  state  of  Syria  ;  Sozomen.  ibid. 
cap.  xxi.  p.  243.  1.  45.  2u§»'a  $&  ^  roc,  <ai%i%  ebvn,  xj 


r&v    ra.        §a8 

Under  Constantius  and  Valens  the  same  historian  declares,  they 
became  thus  numerous  and  powerful;  Id.  Ib.  Lib.  VII.  cap.  vi. 

-  284.  1.  8.   i'r»  $t  «rot 


.  &*XiTo»1o.  In  the  first  consulship  of  Gratianus  and  The- 
jwlosius,  they  are  represented  as  having  possession  of  every 
church  in  Syria,  without  the  precincts  of  Jerusalem  ;  Id.  Ibid. 
Cap.  ii.  p.  280.  1.  17.  «'  Tarw  cle  wX»jv  *ltfQj-&vp.uvy  ert  fat  «ffli 
fr.y  tu  ixxfoffiuv  ol  TOC.  Aft'm  fyovvfof  £.f|ar«>.  Conf.  SUpr.  p.  29. 
B.49. 

f  Vid.  supr.  p.  21.  n.  36. 
*  Vid.  supr.  p.  33.  n.  59. 


(    347    ) 

this  consideration  does  not  affect  the  main  point  in 
dispute,  which  is  confined  to  the  primitive  Latin 
version.  It  may  indeed  account  for  some  resem- 
blances, which  the  old  Syriack  bears  to  the  modern 
Vulgate,  and  to  those  manuscripts  on  which  the 
latter  version  has  had  some  influence79;  but  it  has 
little  relevancy  to  the  pure  copies  of  the  Old  Italick, 
and  none  whatever  to  the  Brescia  manuscript,  which 
is  free  from  that  influence.  At  all  events,  however 
adequate  such  a  supposition  may  be  deemed  to  ac- 
count for  the  affinity  of  the  Latin  and  Syriack  ver- 
sions; it  is  wholly  inadequate  to  account  for  that 
of  the  Syriack  translation  and  the  original  Greek; 
which  are  the  witnesses  whose  integrity  I  am  par- 
ticularly employed  in  defending  against  any  charge 
which  may  affect  their  integrity,  as  forming  separate 
witnesses  to  the  text  of  Scripture. 

Regarding,  therefore,  the  subject  before  us  in 
every  view,  and  judging  of  it  by  the  light  reflected 
on  it  from  the  history  of  the  text  and  versions  of  the 
New  Testament,  it  as  certainly  appears,  that  the 
primitive  Syriack  and  Latin  versions  are  ancient 
and  separate  witnesses  when  adduced  in  favour  of 
the  Byzantine  Greek;  as  that  the  later  Western 
and  Oriental  versions,  which  are  cited  in  support 
of  the  Alexandrine  text,  derive  their  common  affi- 
nity from  the  immediate  influence  of  the  Palestine 
text,  as  revised  by  Eusebius.  ~ 

Here  therefore  we  may  lay  the  foundation  of  the 
defence  of  the  Greek  Vulgate :  in  asserting  that  the 


Vid.  supr.  p.  22.  conf.  p,  20.  n. 


(    348    ) 

Latin  and  Syriack  versions,  to  which  an  appeal  is 
now  to  be  made.,  on  the  verbal  integrity  of  the  text, 
are  ancient  and  separate  witnesses. 

The  bond  of  connexion  by  which  every  part  of 
the  system,  which  rises  upon  this  foundation,  is  held 
tog-ether,  is  the  connected  testimony  of  tradition. 
Whether  we  consider  the  original  Greek,  or  the 
two  versions,  which  are  the  witnesses  of  its  inte- 
grity, the  evidence  of  these  vouchers  is  held  toge- 
ther by  this  connecting  principle,  for  the  immense 
period  of  fourteen  centuries80.  From  the  very  con- 
cessions of  our  adversaries,  it  appears,  that  the 
vulgar  text  of  the  Greek,  the  Latin,  and  the  Syriack 
Church,  has  existed  for  the  whole  of  that  time 81. 
As  the  tradition  extended  far  above  this  period,  it 
is  implied  in  the  very  nature  of  this  species  of  evi- 
dence, that  it  could  not  have  sustained  any  consi- 
derable change  during  the  earlier  part  of  that  term; 
unless  from  the  operation  of  some  powerful  cause, 
and  for  a  very  limited  time.  It  is  wholly  inconceiv- 
able, that  any  age  would  accept  a  text,  transmitted 
by  their  immediate  predecessours,  having  weaker 
evidence  of  its  integrity,  than  their  predecessours 

80  Vld.  supr.  p.  114. 

81  Griesb.   Prolegomm.    in  Nov.  Test.    Sect.  Ixxv.      «  Hi 
omnes   [Codd.  A  E  F  G  H  I]   in  Evangeliis  cum  iis  Jere  Pa- 
ir ibns  (quantum  ex  imperfectis  horum  collationibus  colligere 
licet,)  qui  saculo  quarto  txeuate  quintoque  et  sexto  in  Grsecia, 
Asia  Minore,  et  provinces  ^inis  floruere,  fuitque  haec  Recen- 
sio,  quam  Constantinopolitanam  hinc  nominate  licebit."     That  the 
Latin  and'Syriack  version  are  equally  antient,  may  be  seen  on 
referring  to  the  authorities  already  cited ;  supr.  p.  25.  n.  43. 
p.  70.  n. 


(    349    ) 

had,  in  adopting  it  from  those  who  preceded  them, 
This  reasoning-  is  applicable  to  the  present  age,  and 
may  be  applied  to  every  age  which  has  preceded, 
until  we  ascend  from  our  own  times  to  those  in 
which  the  tradition  commenced.  The  testimony  of 
tradition  is  thus  adequate  to  its  own  vindication; 
and  admitting  its  integrity  to  be  thus  unimpeachable, 
we  must  thence  necessarily  infer  the  integrity  of 
the  text  which  it  supports.  This  mode  of  reason-* 
ing,  which  is  true  in  theory,  may  be  easily  verified 
in  fact.  By  the  destruction  of  the  sacred  books  in 
the  persecution  of  Dioclesian,  and  the  publication  of 
a  new  text  under  Constantine ;  the  course  of  tradi- 
tion was  interrupted  in  the  region  occupied  by  the 
Greek,  Latin,  and  Syriack  texts.  Yet,  though 
these  causes  must  have  powerfully  operated  to  turn 
the  stream  in  a  new  direction,  it  speedily  recovered 
its  natural  course.  In  forty  years,  the  traditionary 
chain  was  re-united,  and  the  vulgar  Greek  restored 
at  Byzantium82.  The  Latin  and  Syriack  texts,  as 
existing  merely  in  a  translation,  and  consequently 
as  separated  from  the  parent  source,  had  greater 
obstacles  to  surmount,  in  regaining  their  original 
tenour.  .  The  immediate  authority  of  St.  Jerome 
and  Eusebius  in  the  different  regions  where  the  La- 
tin and  Syriack  were  received,  must  have  also  giveu 
these  versions  a  stronger  bias  towards  the  Palestine 

o 

text,  than  to  the  Byzantine.  Yet  against  the  ope- 
ration of  these  causes,  the  influence  of  tradition  in- 
sensibly prevailed;  and  notwithstanding  the  near 

. 
**  VitLsupr.  pp.  123,124-. 


(    350    ) 

alliance  between  these  versions  and  the  former  text, 
they  possess  a  close  affinity  to  the  latter85.  Now, 
as  we  have  just  seen,  that  this  relationship  cannot  be 
in  the  collateral  degree,,  but  in  the  hereditary  line, 
since  those  versions  have  not  been  corrected  by  the 
vulgar  text ;  the  affinity  sufficiently  proclaims  how 
far  they  are  supported  by  the  authority  of  tradition, 
as  it  is  only  through  it,  that  they  can  possess  an  alli- 
ance to  the  Greek  Vulgate. 

The  foundation  of  the  system  which  it  is  my  ob- 
ject to  establish,  is,  therefore,  I  trust,  not  less  securely 
laid,  than  the  connecting  principle,  by  which  it  is 
held  together,  firmly  cemented.  But  the  same 
strength  and  consistency  will,  I  hope,  be  found  to 
exist  in  the  materials  which  are  employed  in  the 
superstructure.  And  in  evincing  this  point  not  less 
than  the  preceding,  sufficient  is  granted  us,  in  the 
concessions  of  our  opponents,  to  bear  out  all  our 
deductions. 

With  respect  to  the  evidence  of  Manuscripts, 
on  which  our  main  dependance  is  rested,  it  is  not 
disputed,  that  they  are  faithful  to  the  tenour  and 
testimony  of  tradition,  as  far  as  it  extends.  Through 
the  fourteen  centuries,  for  which  the  vulgar  text  has 
confessedly  existed,  they  agree  with  one  another; 
and  though  their  number  is  proportionably  multi- 

83  Griesb.  ibid.  p.  Ixxv.  "  Nulli  harum  recensionum  [Occi- 
dent. Alexandr.  Contantinopol.]  Syriaca  Versio,  prout  quidem 
typis  excusa  est  similis  est,  vcrum  nee  vtti  prorsus  dissimilis  est. 
In  multis  concinnit  cum  Alexandrina,  in  pluribus  cum  Occiden- 
tali,  in  nonnullis  etiam  cum  Constantinopolitana9*9  &c.  Vid. 
infr.  p.  352.  n.  *°. 


(    351     ) 

plied  with  the  progression  of  time,  at  the  end  of  this 
immense  period,  this  agreement  is  preserved8*. 
Among  the  many  concessions  which  are  made  us, 
this  is  not  the  least  important  to  the  establishment 
of  the  conclusion  for  which  I  contend.  It  is  indeed 
true,  that  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine  texts  are  al- 
most wholly  preserved  in  manuscripts  which  are  of 
greater  antiquity  than  any  which  preserve  the  By- 
zantine ;  the  Alexandrine,  Vatican  and  Cambridge 
manuscripts  conforming  to  the  former  editions  in- 
stead of  the  latter.  But  while  it  can  be  never  in- 
ferred from  the  antiquity  of  these  manuscripts,  that 
the  Egyptian  or  Palestine  text  is  prior  to  the  By- 
zantine ;  it  may  be  concluded  from  their  preserva- 
tion for  so  long  a  time,  that  the  manuscripts  have 
not  been  in  use,  and  that  the  text  which  they  con- 
tain is  of  course  unsupported  by  the  uninterrupted 
testimony  of  tradition.  From  their  antiquity,  in 
fact,  we  can  only  infer  that  they  were  written  at  a 
period  and  in  a  country  wherein  the  Egyptian  or 
Palestine  texts  respectively  prevailed;  and  from 
their  preservation,  that  they  have  been  regarded  as 
relicks  in  the  monasteries,  in  which  they  have  been 
preserved85.  Yet,  waving  these  considerations,  the 
testimony  of  two  of  these  manuscripts,  and  those 
which  are  apparently  the  most  antient,  may  be  fairly 
cited  in  favour  of  the  vulgar  text.  With  this  text 
the  Vatican  manuscript  is  found  to  coincide  in  the 

84-  Vid.  snpr.  p.  108.  n.  <37.  p.  118.  n.16.  p.  126.  n.  40.     Co»f. 
Ci-iesb.  Prolegomm.  in  Nov.  Test.  Sect.  III.  p.  Ixxii. 
«~  Vid.  sup'r.  p.  IS.  n.  '3.  p.  121.  et  n.  ". 


(    352    ) 

opening  chapters  of  St.  Matthew85,,  and  the  Alex- 
drine  in  the  whole  of  the  Gospels 87 :  whatever  be 
the  antiquity  of  these  manuscripts,  it  is  consequently 
subsequent  to  that  of  the  Byzantine  text.  Such 
being  the  case  with  the  oldest  manuscripts  with 
which  we  are  acquainted,  the  Greek  Vulgate  has 
nothing  to  apprehend  from  the  testimony  of  the 
Codex  Cantabrigiensis.  As  this  manuscript  is  di- 
vided by  the  sections  of  Euthalius,  it  cannot  be  older 
than  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century88;  but  that  the 
Byzantine  text  existed  previously  to  this  period,,  is 
fully  allowed  us89:  by  this  concession,  of  course, 
the  testimony  of  the  Cambridge  manuscript  is  left 
little  weight,  when  cited  against  the  Greek  Vul- 
gate. 

With  regard  to  the  testimony  of  Versions,  our 
choice  is  principally  limited  to  the  Latin  and  Syriack 
translations.  It  is  however  sufficient,  that  in  their 
evidence  we  possess  the  testimony  of  ancient  and 
competent  witnesses;  and  that  their  testimony  is 
admitted,  even  by  the  concession  of  our  adversaries, 
to  be  virtually  on  our  side90.  And  however  the  in- 

86  Vid.  supr.  p.  341.  n.  6J. 

87  Vid.  supr.  p.  123.n.a?. 

88  Marsh.  Michael.  Vol.  II.  p.  715.  n.  m.     "  If  we  argue 
therefore  from  the  omission  of  the  Ammonian  sections,  we  may 
fairly  conclude,  that  the  Codex  Beza  is  as  old  as  thejifth  cen- 
tury.    But  as  the  writer  of  this  manuscript  inserted  sections  in 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  which  imply  the  previous  existence  of 
the  Euthalian  sections,  I  would  not  ascribe  to  it  greater  antiquity." 
Conf.  supr.  p.  85.  n. 79. 

89  Vid.  supr.  p.  348.  n.  ". 

90  Griesb.    Prolegoram.  in  Nov.  Test,    Sect,  III.   p.  Ixv. 


(    353    ) 

tfinsick  weight  of  this  evidence  may  be  disputed,  its 
momentum  is  encreased  by  the  comparative  light- 
ness of  the  testimony  by  which  it  is  counterpoised. 
The  Coptick,  and  later  Syriack,  the  Ethiopick,  Ar- 
menian, and  Gothick  versions,  which  are  the  natu- 
ral allies  of  the  Palestine  text,  cannot  stand  in  com- 
petition with  the  old  Italick,  the  antient  Syriack 
and  the  Vulgate,  which  are  the  unbiassed  witnesses 
of  the  Byzantine  Greek.  That  the  former  versions 
should  possess  an  affinity  to  the  corrected  text  of 
Eusebius  instead  of  the  vulgar  Greek,  has  been 
owing  to  circumstances  which  have  been  already 

"  Recentior  quidem  Vulgata  quippe  quae  multis  in  locis  ad 
Juniores  Codices  Gr&cos  reficta  est,  quod  Syriac(Z  etiam  acci- 
disse  arbitror^  &c.  We  are  here  agreed  on  the  fact,  that  the 
vulgar  Latin  and  Syriack  Versions  correspond  with  the  multi- 
tude of  modern  MSS.  which  contain  the  Vulgar  Greek ;  but 
completely  at  issue  as  to  the  cause  of  this  agreement.  M. 
Griesbach  supports  his  assumption  by  the  argument  contained 
in  the  word  "  arbitror ;"  the  force  of  which  I  leave  to  be  ap- 
preciated by  his  disciples.  I  have  already  stated  what  appears 
to  me  to  amount  to  a  proof,  that  the  old  Syriack  Version  could 
not  have  been  thus  corrupted  from  the  modern  Greek :  and  as 
much  might  be  advanced  to  prove,  that  the  charge  of  corrup- 
tion from  the  same  source  is  equally  without  truth,  when  ap- 
plied to  the  modern  Vulgate.  Admitting  that  the  Latins  were 
competent  to  the  task  of  correcting  their  translation  by  the 
Greek,  which  is  a  supposition  that  I  not  only  question,  but 
shall  undertake  in  the  sequel  to  disprove ;  it  is,  however,  an 
absurdity  too  gross  for  me  to  admit,  that  they  would  undertake 
not  merely  to  correct  St.  Jerome's  version,  but  to  recast  it  by 
modern  copies  of  the  Greek,  while  he  had  expressly  corrected 
it  by  the  antient.  In  this  single  consideration,  the 
of  M.  Griesbach  finds  a  sufficient  reply. 

Aa 


(    354    ) 

explained91.  Their  immediate  connection  with  that 
edition,,  if  not  their  direct  descent  from  it,  renders 
the  joint  testimony  of  such  witnesses  entitled  to 
very  little  attention ;  when  weighed  against  the  con- 
curring evidence  of  witnesses  like  the  Greek,  Syri- 
ack,  and  Latin  texts,  which  have  not  been  yet  even 
presumptively  proved  to  have  had  the  smallest  in- 
fluence on  each  other. 

With  respect  to  the  testimony  of  ancient  Fathers, 
the  Greek  Vulgate  is  not  left  unsupported  by  their 
authority.  Of  those  who  preceded  the  Council  of 
Nice,  none  but  Clement  and  Origen  of  the  Greek 
Church,  and  Tertullian  and  Cyprian  of  the  Latin, 
have  made  copious  extracts  from  Scripture9*;  but 
sufficient  has  been  already  advanced  to  prove,  that 
implicit  reliance  cannot  be  always  placed  on  their 
authority.  It  may  be  however  observed  in  support 
of  the  vulgar  text,  that  in  all  points  of  importance, 
their  testimony  may  be  cited  in  its  favour91.  We 

91  Vid.  supr.  p.  322.  sqq. 

92>  The  controversies  of  Justin  Martyr,  as  directed  against 
the  Jews  and  Pagans,  are  necessarily  void  of  references  to  au- 
thorities, which  the  Christian  Apologist's  adversaries  did  not 
acknowledge.  Of  St.  Irenaeus's  quotations,  we  unfortunately 
know  no  more  than  can  be  seen  through  the  medium  of  a  tran- 
slation, which  has  been  obviously  accommodated  to  a  barbar- 
ous version,  which  prevailed  in  the  West  when  his  works  were 
translated. 

93  In  the  quotations  extracted  from  Origen,  and  inserted  in 
the  Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  II.  p.  241.  sqq.  M.  Griesbach  has  pre- 
fixed to  the  express  references  the  mark  § .  and  noted  the  read- 
ings of  the  Vulgar  Greek  which  deviate  from  them,  in  his  lower 
margin.  After  some  search  after  these  passages,  I  find,  that 
out  of  the  great  variety  of  instances  cited,  Origen  is  observed 


(    355    ) 

may,,  however,  appeal  to  still  earlier  witnesses, 
among  the  apostolical  fathers,  on  the  integrity  of 
the  Greek  Vulgate.  Though  those  primitive  wri- 
ters are  not  copious  in  their  Scripture  quotations, 
they  are  often  found  to  correspond  with  the  Vulgar 
Greek,,  in  readings  wherein  that  text  differs  from 
the  Palestine94.  With  regard  to  those  writers  who 
flourished  in  the  age  which  succeeded  the  Council 
of  Nice ;  our  adversaries  are  free  to  claim  Eusebius, 
Basil,,  Cyril.,  and  others,  who  followed  the  latter  edi- 
tion, as  the  authorised  text ;  while  they  give  us  up 
their  contemporaries,  who  favoured  the  text  of  By- 
zantium95. 

to  differ  from  the  Vulgar  Greek,  not  in  twenty  places ;  of  which 
three  only  are  admitted  by  M.  Griesbach  into  the  text  of  his 
Greek  Testament.  I  subjoin  the  examples;  adding  an  asterism 
to  the  readings  adopted  by  M.  Griesbach,  Matt.  iii.  8.  xapvov 
al/ov*.  Orig.  xa£7ra?  «|is?.  Vulg.  ib.  V.  32.  ^fn^v^von.  Orig. 
f*o;x«o-$«j.  Vulg.  ib.  XV.  34.  «raga/y£&Aft.  Orig.  sxfawfft.  Vulg. 

ib.  xvii.  20.  »$£».  Orig.   imSSt*.  Vulg.    ib.  xix.  17.  Igwraj-  weg* 

•rS*.  Orig.  heysif.  Vulg.  ibid.  29.  woMawXao-ioi'a.  Orig.  EXOLTOV- 
rotfr^ota-fova.  Vulg.  ibid,  deest.  yvv<*7x«.  Orig.  yvta,~*a.  Vulg. 
Mar.  x.  46.  «^«T«I.  Orig.  tpxptrui.  Vulg.  Luc.  iii.  5.  sv$si*f. 
Orig.  tvStTav.  Vulg.  Joh.  viii.  38.  «  rucaa-are.  Orig.  o  ewpaxam. 
Vulg.  viii.  42.  T«*.  Orig.  deest.  Vulg.  ib.  xiii.  18.  -ma?.  Orig. 
Vulg.  ibid.  26.  &^u.  Orig.  $0.^*1 .  Vulg.  ibid.  30.  !|fa$i» 
.  Orig.  iv&uf  i%Mfv.  Vulg.  1  Cor.  vii.  34.  wnvfAa-n  xat 
Orig.  xai  <rup»Ti  xa*  irvivpctrn.  Vulg.  1  Thes.  ii.  6. 
.  Orig.  ynioi.  Vulg.  On  these  readings  it  must  be  how- 
ever observed,  that  three  only;  those,  namely,  which  are 
adopted  by  M.  Griesbach,  are  unequivocal.  On  this  subject, 
however,  I  shall  speak  more  at  large  in  the  sequel. 

9*  The  authorities  which  support  this  assertion  will  be  pro- 
duced in  the  sequel. 

95  Vid.  supr,  p.  348.  n,  8r. 


(    356    ) 

Prom  the  premises  thus  laid  down,  we  may  pro* 
ceed  to  make  the  necessary  inferences.  Instead  of 
the  rules  for  determining  the  verbal  integrity  of  the 
sacred  text,  deduced  by  M.  Griesbach  from  the  tes- 
timony of  the  Alexandrine  and  Western  recen- 
sions96; I  would  beg  leave  to  propose  the  following, 
founded  on  the  testimony  of  the  Greek  Vulgate  and 
the  Old  Italick  and  Syriack  Versions,  viewed  com- 
paratively with  that  of  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine 
texts,  and  the  later  Eastern  and  Western  Ver- 
sions. 

1.  When  the  Palestine  text  agrees  with  either 
the   Egyptian   or  Byzantine,  the   coincidence  can 
reckon  but  as  the  testimony  of  a  single  witness ;  but 
when  the  Egyptian  and  Byzantine  texts  agree,  they 
confirm  the  reading  which  they  support,  by  the 
testimony  of  antient  and  separate  witnesses. 

2.  When  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine  texts  agree, 
and  yet  dissent  from  the  text  of  Byzantium ;   the 
consent  of  the  Old  Italick  or  Syriack  Version  with 
the  Byzantine  Greek  outweighs  the  testimony  of 
the  antecedent  witnesses. 

3.  When  the  Old  Italick  and  Syriack  Versions 
agree  with  the  Palestine  text,  and  dissent  from  the 
text  of  Byzantium ;  the  consent  of  the  later  Eastern 
and  Western  Versions  with  the  Byzantine  text  will 
adequately  confirm  a  various  reading  of  the  Greek 
Vulgate. 

The  reasonableness  of  these  rules  may  be  easily 
evinced  from  the  foregoing-  observations.     It  must 

*«  via.  supr.  p.  317. 


(    397    ) 

be  here  evident  at  a  glance,  that  there  is  scarcely  any 
witness  from  \vhich  the  Palestine  text  can  receive 
support;  scarcely  any  but  the  Palestine.,  from  which 
the  Byzantine  text  must  not  derive  confirmation. 
From  the  fundamental  principles  already  laid  down, 
it  appears,  that  in  order  to  entitle  any  witness  to  a 
voice.,  it  must  deliver  a  separate  testimony 97.  But 
so  universal  has  been  the  ascendancy  of  Eusebius's 
text,  which  is  identical  with  the  Palestine  edition, 
that  not  a  text  or  version  with  which  we  are  ac- 
quainted can  be  said  to  be  free  from  its  influence98. 
No  other  text  of  course,  not  excepting  the  Byzan- 
tine, can  appeal  to  its  testimony,  or  afford  it  sup- 
port, as  a  separate  witness.  But  as  every  text  and 
version,  which  we  know,  was  originally  formed  in- 
dependent of  the  text  of  Byzantium;  as  none  of 
them  has  subsequently  possessed  any  influence  on 
it,  and  as  it  has  had  no  influence  on  any  of  them ; 
the  concurrence  of  any  with  this  text  must  reckon 
as  the  testimony  of  a  separate  witness.  A  very  few 
observations  will  now  enable  us  to  determine  the 
weight  of  testimony  which  may  be  adduced  in  favour 
of  a  various  reading  from  an  application  of  the  fore- 
going rules. 

1.  When  the  Egyptian  text  agrees  with  the  By- 
zantine, the  Palestine  edition  must  stand  by  itself; 
as  there  is  no  fourth  edition  with  which  it  can  be 
coincident.  In  this  case,  the  Palestine  text  must 
want  every  requisite  which  can  give  it  authority  as 

97  Vid.  supr.  p.  315.  n.  8. 

88  Vid.  supr.  p.  25.  sqq.  p,  322.  sqq.  p   340.  sqq. 


(    358    ) 

an  adequate  witness.  Of  itself,  it  is  destitute  of  the 
support  of  tradition ;  and  it  wants,  l>y  supposition, 
the  support  of  an  antient  and  separate  witness.  But 
the  weight  of  this  species  of  testimony  is,  in  this  case, 
on  the  side  of  that  reading  which  is  supported  by 
the  joint  evidence  of  the  Egyptian  and  Byzantine 
editions.  It  possesses  the  authority  of  tradition  ill 
the  testimony  of  the  latter  text ;  and  that  of  consent 
in  the  concurrence  of  the  former". 

2.  When  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine  texts  agree, 
their  consent  can  reckon  but  as  the  testimony  of  a 
single  witness;  as  these  texts  have  had  an  imme- 
diate influence  on  each  other.  When  opposed,  in 
consent,  to  the  Byzantine,  the  various  readings 
which  are  avouched  by  the  different  witnesses  thus 
opposed  to  each  other,  are  supported  by  equal  au- 
thority. The  testimony  of  either  the  old  Italick, 
or  Syriack  version,  if  adduced  on  the  side  of  the 
Byzantine  text,  must  of  course  turn  the  scale  in  its 
favour.  And  the  reading  which  is  supported  by  this 
weight  of  evidence,  possesses  every  thing  requisite 
to  prove  it  genuine.  It  possesses  the  authority  of 

99  On  the  testimony  of  the  Byzantine  and  Egyptian  recen- 
sions, we  may  venture  to  restore  the  following  readings  of 
the  vulgar  Greek  to  their  proper  places  in  the  sacred  text; 
having  been  removed  from  it,  in  the  Corrected  Text,  as  re- 
vised by  M.  Griesbach.  Mat.  xxvi.  60.  xj  ax  il^v»  Mar.  vi. 
34.  o  I»<r£?.  Ib.  ix.  7.  Xt'yacra*.  Jb.  xii.  33.  c  3«o?.  Luc.  vi. 
7*.  etvrov.  Ib.  xiii.  35.  «f»jfx.o;.*  Ib.  xvii.  4-.  ivi  as.  Joh.  i. 
26.  avTcs  «rtf.*  Ibid.  29.  o  'W»»»j«.*  Ib.  iii.  2.  rot  'Iv)?2v.* 
Ib.  vi.  43.  ay.*  Ib.  xvi.  3.  l^rv*  Ibid.  16.  *?"•  Those  marked 
[*]  are  supported  by  other  witnesses  than  the  Egyptian  and 
Palestine  texts :  conf.  n.  l00. 


(    359    ) 

tradition  in  the  Byzantine  text;  and  that  of  consent, 
in  those  antient  and  separate  witnesses,,  the  Italick 
and  Syriack  Versions  l°°. 

3.  When  the  old  Italick  and  Syriack  versions 
agree  with  the  Palestine  and  Egyptian  texts;  the 
concurrence  of  these  witnesses  may  be  merely  owing 

100  On  the  testimony  of  the  Greek  Vulgate,  supported  by  the 
Old  Italick  and  Syriack  versions,  we  may  venture  to  restore  the 
following  readings  to  their  proper  places  in  the  sacred  text, 
from  whence  they  Tiave  been  removed  by  M.  Giiesbach. 
Mat.  vi.  1.  iXiYtp.ocrvvw,  del.  dkx&todiW*  Ib.  xii.  35.  Trie  xap&a$4" 
Ib.  xv.  4.  o-ov.  Ib.  xix.  19.  <«?.  Ibid,  26.  lr».  Ib.  xx.  6.  «py»?. 
Ib.  xxi.  33.  T»?.  Ib.  xxiv.  36.  /*«4  Ib.  xxv.  31.  ay»o».  Ib. 
xxvii.  64.  f  »VXTO?.  Ib.  xxviii.  20.  *pw.  Mar.  i.  2. 
Ib.  V.  40.  uvaKiiptvov.  Ib.  vi.  2.  OTI.±  Ib.  vii.  2. 
Ib.  ix.  7.  A/yso-a.  Ibid.  24.  xfyu.f .  Ibid.  3$.  Iv.  Ibid.  41.  fcw.f 
Ib.  x.  40.  /x»f.  Ib.  xii.  5.  waTuv.  Luc.  ii.  33.  *I«<njp,  del. 
«  7raTr>f.  Ib.  inf.  19.  ^TTW*.  Ib.  iv.  41.  5  Xpro?.  Ib.  x.  11. 
Ip'  £/*£?.  Ib.  xi.  29.  T«  TrpopjjTaf.  Ib.  xiii.  35.  fp»?/*o?.  Ib.  xvi. 
15.  In*.  Ib.  xvii.  4.  ITTI  a-e.J  Ibid,  xviii.  3.  TK.  Ibid.  xxii.  62. 
o  llsT^oj.  Ib.  xxiv.  49.  'i£p«o-aX^.  Joh.  i.  26.  «VTO?  Irtv. 
Ibid.  29.  o  Iwaw*}?.  Ib.  vi.  43.*  45.  5r.  Ibid.  58.  TO  /^a»va. 
Ibid.  69.f  rS  $»Tof.  Ib.  vii.  26.  a^Sw?.  Ib.  viii.  53.  o-y.  xi. 
41.  »  5>.*  Ib.  xii.  26.  x}4  Ib.  xvi.  3*.  vpTv.  Ibid.  25.  «xx*. 
Ib.  xxi.  25.  a/xriv.*  In  the  following  places  5  'hjo-y?.  Matt.  viii. 
29.  xiv.  25.  Marc.  xi.  15.  Luc.  xxiv.  36.  Joh.  i.  44.f  iii. 
2.  iv.  46.  xi.  45.  In  the  following  places,  ayro?.  s.  avru.  s. 
uv™.  s.  awTGK.  Matt.  viii.  25.J  xii.  34  xvif.  8.  xix.  25.4. 
?cxv.  44.+  Mar.  ix.  26.  Luc.  vi.  7.t  viii.f  21.  xi.f  28. 
xvii.  9.  xxiii.  25.  And  in  the  following  places  *a»,  Mar.  x. 
14.  28.f  Luc.  vi.  28.  xv.+  19.  xx.  31.  Joh.  iv.  36.  xii*; 
26.  Thus  marked  [f  j  want  the  testimony  of  the  Primitive 
Italick  (Brix.}\  but  thus  [J]  supply  its  place  with  the 
revised  Italick  (  Verc.  &c.)  Thus  marked  [-|-3  want  the  testr- 
mony  of  "the  Primitive  Syriack  (Peshit.) ;  but  thus  [*]  sup- 
ply its  place  with  the  revised  Syriack  (%r.  Phikx.)  All 


(    360    ). 

to  the  influence  of  Eusebius's  edition101;  their  joint 
evidence  can  then  of  course  reckon  but  as  the  testi* 
inony  of  a  single  witness.  The  testimony  of  the 
later  Versions,  for  instance,,  the  Italick  or  Syriack, 
when  cited  on  the  side  of  the  Byzantine  text,  will 
of  course  turn  the  scale  in  favour  of  the  latter;  and 
this  weight  of  testimony  will  be  fully  adequate  to 
support  the  various  reading,  which  is  of  doubtful 
authority.  In  supposing  the  extensive  influence  of 
Eusebius's  text,  we  easily  account  for  the  dissent 
of  the  older  versions  from  the  vulgar  Greek ;  for 
this  variation  has  proceeded  from  their  being  mo- 
delled after  the  former  edition.  But  the  consent  of 
the  later  versions  with  the  vulgar  Greek,  can  be  only 
accounted  for,  by  admitting  their  agreement  with 
the  primitive  translation,  from  which  the  old  and 
later  versions  have  respectively  descended :  to  which 
also,  it  is  presumed,  they  conformed  previously  to 
the  influence  of  Eusebius's  text,  or  to  their  having 
been  re-cast  into  new  translations.  As  the  later 
versions  have  been  formed  on  the  basis  of  some  pri- 
mitive translation,  it  is  self-evident  that  many  of  the 
readings  of  the  primitive  version  must  be  preserved 
in  the  derivative.  It  is  possible  of  course,  that  the 
latter  may  preserve  the  primitive  reading,  while  the 
former  has  undergone  those  changes  by  which  it 
has  been  obliterated.  And  where  the  reading,  which 
is  thus  preserved,  agrees  with  the  original  Greek 

other  readings,  unless  contradicted  by  these  marks,  are  supposed 
to  have  the  testimony  of  both  Primitive  Italick  and  Syriack 
versions. 

i01  Vid.  supr.  p.  25.  sqq.  p.  322, 


(    361    ) 

text,  from  which  all  translations  have  been  made, 
the  very  coincidence  is  adequate  to  identify  it  as  a 
reading  of  the  primitive  version.  Though  a  later 
version  is  but  a  modern  witness,  it  may  thus  deliver 
an  antient  testimony.  Consequently  the  reading 
which  is  supported  by  this  weight  of  evidence,  pos- 
sesses every  thing  requisite  to  prove  it  authen- 
tick  lo\ 

4.  With  respect  to  the  Manuscripts  which  may 
be  cited  in  favour  of  this  system,  it  remains  to  be 
observed,  that  the  weight  of  their  testimony  does  not 
depend  on  the  age  of  the  copies,  but  on  their  num- 
ber and  coincidence,  as  witnesses,  and  the  antiquity 
of  the  text,  which  they  support  by  their  concurring 
evidence IOJ.  From  the  conspiring  testimony  of  ma- 

101  The  following  readings  of  the  Greek  Vulgate,  which  are 
rejected  by  M.  Griesbach  from  the  sacred  text,  though  not 
possessed  of  equal  authority  as  those  cited  in  the  last  note 
but  one,  may  possibly  be  genuine,  on  the  testimony  of  the 
revised  Italick  and  Syriack.  Matt.  v.  2?.f  «•««  «f%a»or?.  Ib* 
ix.  13.  SK  [AETccvQia».i  Ib.  xvi.  20.  'l»cr«?.  Ib.  xxvi.  9.4-  7°  pvgov* 
Ib.  xxiii.  8.1  o  Xptj-o?.  Luc.  iv.  8.  viraye  owiru  /*a  Saray^.f 
Jb.  xvi.  25.  <rvt  Joh.  v.  30.  7raTpo?.|  Ib.  xvi.  16.  iyu.\ 
Thus  marked  [f  ]  want  the  testimony  of  the  revised  Italick, 
though  they  possess  that  of  the  revised  Syriack.  Thus  marked 
£-(•]  want  the  testimony  of  the  revised  Syriack,  though  they 
possess  that  of  the  Italick. 

103  Griesb.  Prolegomm.  in  Nov.  Test.  Sect.  III.  p.  Ixix, 
*'  JEtas  testium  non  unice  nee  prtecipue  judicanda  est  e  membra- 
narum  vetustate;  potuit  enim  seculo  v.  c.  decimo  quarto  e 
codice  longe  antiquissimo  apographum  fieri,  quod  exemplar 
suum  exactissime  repraesentaret ;  sed  contra  etiam  quinto  jam 
seculo,  quo  e  codicibus  hodie  superstitibus  vix  unus  aut  alter 
referri  poterit,  prater  textum  genuinum  exiitit  alius,  in  quo  lee- 


(    362    ) 

nuscripts,  versions,  and  fathers,  it  appears,  that  this 
text  must  have  existed  at  least  at  the  close  of  the 
fourth  century.  But  no  manuscript  with  which  we 
are  acquainted,  possesses  internal  evidence  which 
will  warrant  our  placing  it  higher  than  this  early 
period I0*.  The  testimony  of  none  of  course  can  be 
cited,  as  disproving  the  priority  of  the  text  which 
exists  in  the  most  modern  of  those  manuscripts  that 
conform  to  the  vulgar  edition.  To  establish  the 
integrity  of  this  text,  is  the  main  object  of  our  en- 
deavours ;  and  if  it  be  not  evinced,  by  the  concur- 
rence of  those  innumerable  witnesses  who  agree  in  a 
testimony,  which  has  been  perpetuated  for  fourteen 
hundred  years105;  the  labour  must  be  unavailing, 
which  endeavours  to  prove  it,  by  the  coincidence  of  a 
few  manuscripts,  of  which  we  cannot  certainly  know 
the  origin. 

Beyond  these  considerations,  and  above  this  pe- 
riod, we  cannot  extend  our  positive  proofs,  in  favour 
of  the  integrity  of  the  Byzantine  text;  but  I  am  not 
aware,  how  they  can  be  extended  above  it,  in  favour 
of  the  Palestine  edition.  After  examining  the  tes- 

tiones  baud  paucae  jun  lores  in  primitivarum  locum  irrepserant. 
Itaque  textus  ipsius  potms  qnam  librarii  cetas  indaganda  est. 
Haec  vero  judicatur  e  crebro  consensu  cum  aliis  testibus,  (in 
primis  cum  Versionibus  et  Patribus,)  de  quorum  setate  nobis 
constat,"  &c.  Though  this  remark  is  assigned  a  very  different 
application  by  its  learned  authour,  yet,  as  expressing  a  general 
truth,  which,  I  trust,  is  fully  as  applicable  to  the  system  which 
I  labour  to  support,  as  that  to  which  it  i*»  applied,  I  here  quote 
it  as  authority. 

i04  Vid.  supr.  n.  I03.  conf.  p.  71.  p.  350. 

iC5  Vid.  supr.  pp.  114.  118.  etnn.  in  locc. 


(    363    ) 

timony  of  versions  and  manuscripts  as  far  as  it  ex- 
tends, our  only  appeal  lies  to  the  external  evidence 
of  the  fathers.  And  here,  it  must  be  confessed,  ap- 
pearances seem  to  set  strongly  in  favour  of  the  text 
of  Palestine.  The  early  wrriters  who  have  been 
cited  in  support  of  this  text,  as  having  followed  it 
in  their  quotations106,  may  be  thought  to  outweigh 
the  strongest  presumptive  evidence  which  may  be 
adduced  in  favour  of  the  Byzantine.  But  the  tes* 
timony  of  none  of  them  but  Origen  reaches  higher 
than  the  fourth  century.  After  a  little  further  in- 
sight into  the  nature  of  his  evidence,  we  may  be 
probably  led  to  admit,  that  it  is  not  so  decidedly 
against  the  vulgar  edition,  as  may  be  imagined. 

As  the  main  object  of  the  advocates  of  the  Pales- 
tine text  has  been  to  rest  the  credit  of  this  text  on  the 
authority  of  Origen107;  my  object  has  been  to  shift 
it  upon  that  of  Eusebius Io8.  Sufficient,  I  trust,  has 
been  already  advanced  to  prove,  that  the  testimony 
of  Origen  rather  identifies  it  as  the  text  of  Palestine 
than  of  Alexandria109:  and  consequently  proves  it 
the  text  of  Eusebius,  who  revised  the  Palestine  edi- 
tion T1°.  It  is  certain,  that  the  works  of  Origen,  in 
which  it  is  conceived  to  be  preserved,  were  written 
in  Palestine ;  and  that  in  the  precipitancy  with  which 
Origen  fled  from  the  enmity  of  Demetrius111,  when 

106  Vid.  supr.  p.  316. 

107  Vid.  supr.  p.  310.  n.  I0.  p.  316.  nn.  »  et  ". 

108  Vid.  supr.  p.  25.  sqq.  p.  340.  sqq. 
105  Conf.  supr.  p.  8.  sqq.  79.  sqq. 

Vid.  supr.  p.  72.  n. 37. 

Origen  alludes  to  the  enmity  of  Demetrius,  and  his  own  flight 


10? 
1X0 

111 


(    364    ) 

he  sought  refuge  in  that  country,  he  was  compelled 
to  leave  his  books  at  Alexandria  llz.  Of  the  remains 
of  his  writings,  which  have  descended  to  our  times, 
only  some  fragments  of  the  "  Principia"3/'  and  two- 
short  books  of  his  "  Commentaries/'  were  written 
in  this  city"4.  The  last  books  of  his  expositions  of 
St.  John,  and  the  whole  of  those  of  St.  Matthew115, 

from  Alexandria,  in  the  'following  terms,  in  a  work  which  he 
began  at  Alexandria,  but  finished  in  Palestine  ;  Comment,  in 
Joan.  Tom.  IV.  p.  101.  c.  ^  P^'x?'  ye  TV  toittifl*  TO/XH,  il  xj  « 
xala  TYiV  'AXs^avcJ^aav  y^eifjiuv  ayWgaThjv  I<5o*£i,  ra 
^TTnyo^st/ffa/XEV*  iTrm/xa^Tos  TO<$  avs/xo^j  %  TO^J 
«r«  I*i^"£«  *}  **  T^  ^s  I«Ws<7o»To?  Tr^osXvjXfScTfi?  i 

x.  T.  I.     Conf.  p.  102=  a.  et  infr.  n.  11 
Orig.  ibid.    p.  102.  b.    foSk  ^  OT»  «7ro 


j,  HX  otS'  OTTO;*"  ju,y(  e 
UJ  These  fragments  are  contained  in  the  Philocalia,  which 
consists  of  a  cento  of  passages  extracted  from  Origen's  works 
by  St.  Basil  and  Gregory  Nazianzen.  The  only  passages  of 
the  Commentary  on  the  New  Testament  which  it  preserves,  are 
three  fragments  ;  one  from  the  Acts,  and  two  from  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans  ;  inserted  by  the  Benedictine  fathers,  Tom.  IV. 
p.  457.  and  p.  462.  n.  J.  p.  580.  n.  f.  and  in  Dr.  Spencer's  edi- 
tion of  the  Philocalia.  at  pp.  32.  34.  90.  ed.  Cant.  1677. 

114  The  third  and  fourth  books  of  the  Commentaries  on  St. 
John,  which  were  written  by  Origen  previously  to  his  departure 
from  Alexandria,  vid.  supr.  n.  "'.  are  lost  ;  with  the  exception 
of  a  few  fragments.     Conf.  supr,  n.  1IZ.  infr.  n.  "6. 

115  The  last  books  of  the  Commentaries  on  St.  John  were 
Undertaken  by  Origen  after  his  arrival  in  Palestine  ;  vid.  supr. 
B.  *".     But  at  the  time  they  were  written,  the  Commentaries 
on  Matthew  were  not  begun,  as  Origen  shews  by  his  declara- 
tions when  engaged  in  the  former  work;  Orig.  Comment,  in 
Joan.  Tom.  IV.  p.  192,  a.  > 


(    365    ) 

together  with  his  treatise  on  Prayer116,  and  his  reply- 
to  Celsus117,  were  written  on  his  settlement  in  Pa- 
lestine. These  last  works,  however,  contain  the 
only  parts  of  his  writings  which  possess  any  Scripture 
references118,  from  which  we  can  discover  the  text 
that  he  followed  in  his  quotations ;  the  Philocalia, 
which  preserves  the  remains  of  his  "  Principles," 
Ijeing-  miscellaneous  in  its  subject,  possesses  no  re- 
ferences to  the  New  Testament,  but  those  which 
have  been  already  specified. 


•tu  MciT§otw  XE*T£OV,  T»  oX-oxXTjga  ^  TTfl^a  rxvrx 
szJxaigoregov,  orav  els1  TO  xara  Mar^aTov  y^puv  T.gygiv 

ir&  Patrr.  Benedictt.  Monit.  in  Orig.  de  Orat.  Tom.  I.  p.  196. 
f<  De  anno  quo  hie  de  Oratione  libellus  scriptus  est  —  id  unum  ex 
iis  quae  leguntur  num.  23."  [conf.  p.  235.  c.]  "discimus,scriptum 
ilium  esse,  editis  jam  in  Genesim  Tomis.  Cum  autem  octo  solum. 
pr  lores  in  Genesim  Tomi  ante  Annum  231.  quo  ex  Alexandria 
write  decessit  Origenes,  similiterque  quatuor  de  Principiis  libri 
post  primum  in  Genesim  Tomum  conscript!  sunt,  merit  o  colli- 
gimus  librum  n^i  Ey^ijj  post  Origenis  ex  Alexandria  discessum 
tlucubratum  esse,  et  quatuor  vs$  'Afxfiv  libris  esse  poste- 
riorem." 

117  The  date  of  this  work  is  determined  by  Eusebius,  who 
fixes  it  to  the  year  249,  when  Origen  had  attained  his  sixtieth, 
year,  and  was  nearly  twenty  years  settled  in  Palestine  ;  Euseb. 
Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  xxxvi.  p.  299.  1.  10.   h  raru  ^    [5 
TO.  »|^)torr«  STJJ  •ytvof/.&vo^   ra  w^oj  TOV  n 

*  'AAJJ-&3    Aoyov'   oaru    TQV 


8  All  the  Homilies  of  Origen  were  composed  in  Palestine, 
after  he  had  attained  his  sixtieth  year  ;  of  these  compositions, 
however,  those  on  Jeremiah  only  are  preserved  in  the  original  ; 
Euseb.  ibid.  p.  299.  1.  3.  TOTS  &JT*  —  Ivtf  ra  i&wra  (paalv  IT* 
fot  npytvr,v  ysvaptvov*  arct 
xtvys  i%iv,  ra;  Im  ra 

"  v  vtot  irh  raro 


(    366    ) 

The  whole  of  the  presumptive  evidence,  which 
arises  from  these  preliminaries,,  consequently  tends 
to  prove,  that  the  text  which  Origen  foHowed,  in 
his  Commentaries,  was  the  Palestine,  not  the  Alex- 
andrine. The  remark  is  of  importance,  as  in  form- 
ing a  running  exposition,  he  must  have  followed  the 
text  which  was  before  him ;  and  he  has  indeed  pre- 
fixed it  in  several  instances  to  the  comment119.  It 
is  of  importance  also  to  observe,  that  in  composing 
his  Commentaries,  he  preserved  a  peculiar  plan  in 
his  quotations,  which  he  neglected  in  delivering  his 
Homilies'10:  having  followed  the  corrected  text  of 
his  Hexapla  in  the  former,  and  that  of  the  Greek 
Vulgate  in  the  latter  compositions"1.  These  cir- 

w  Vid.  Comment,  in  Matt.  Tom.  III.  p.  44-2.  a.  sqq. 

**°  These  Compositions  are  thus  distinguished  by  St.  Jerome ; 
Hier.  Proleg.  in  Comment,  in  Ezech.  Orig.  Tom.  III.  p.  354. — 
"  scias  Origenis  opuscula  in  omnem  Scripturam  esse  triplicia. 
Primum  ejus  (opus)  Excerpta,  qua  Greece  E^oX»a  nuncupantur, 
in  quibus  ea  quae  sibi  videbantur  obscura,  atque  habere  aliquid 
difficultatis,  summatim  breviterque  perstrinxit.  Secundum  Ho- 
miliaticum  genus,  de  quo  et  praesens  interpretatio  est.  Tertium 
quod  ipse  inscripsit  To^a?,  nos  Volumina  possumus  nuncupare, 
in  quo  opere  iota  ingenii  sui  vela  spirantibus  ventis  dedit9  et 
recedens  a  terra  in  medium  pelagus  wifugit." 

111  S.  Hier.  in  Procem.  Tradd.  Hebrr.  Tom.  III.  p.  451. 
"  De  Adamantio  autem  sileo  ;  cujus  nomen,  si  parva  licet  com- 
ponere  magnis,  meo  nomine  invidiosius  est :  qui  cum  in  Homi- 
liis  suist  quas  ad  vulgum  loquitur,  Communem  Editionem  sequa- 
tur ;  in  Tomis,  id  est  in  disputatione  majori,  Hebraica  veritate 
stipatus,  et  suorum  circumdatus  agminibus,  interdum  lingua  pere~ 
grinds  qucerit  auxilia."  The  auxiliaries,  whose  assistance  Ori- 
gen thus  sought  in  his  written  compositions,  were  the  Ebionite 
bereticks,  Aquila,  Theodotion,  and  Symmachus,  who  revised 


(    367    ) 

cumstances,  being  kept  fully  in  view,  a  few  consi- 
derations will  enable  us  to  appreciate  the  weight  of 
the  testimony  which  he  has  borne  to  the  verbal  inte- 
grity of  the  inspired  writings. 

In  the  first  place,  the  Commentaries  of  Origen, 
which  are  the  main  support  of  the  Palestine  text, 
abound  in  references  to  apocryphal  works  and  here- 
tical revisals  of  Scripture1".  They  were  under- 
taken at  the  request  of  Ambrose  li?,  who  had  been 
a  convert  from  heresy124,  and  who  gave  them  to  tha 

the  Septuagint,  for  the  purpose  of  doing  away  the  strong  ten- 
dency which  that  translation  bore  to  the  tenets  of  the  Catho- 
licks.  Nor  was  Origen  ashamed  of  like  associates  in  composing 
his  Commentaries  on  the  New  Testament.  In  the  earliest  of 
these  works,  the  Tomes  on  St.  John,  he  constantly  refers  to 
Heracleon  the  Valentinian's  Commentary  on  the  same  Gospel* 
and  quotes  from  the  heretical  Scriptures  as  well  as  the  cano- 
nical :  vid.  Horn,  in  Joan.  Tom.  IV.  p.  117.  d.  conf.  infr.  n.  I2Z. 

*zl  Instances  of  this  kind  have  been  already  produced;  supr, 
p.  330.  n.  4S.  That  they  occurred  more  frequently  in  the 
original  copies  of  Origen  's  works,  than  those  from  which  our 
printed  editions  were  formed,  is  rendered  probable,  from  their 
being  sometimes  found  in  the  antient  Latin  translation,  though 
wanting  in  the  Greek  original  ;  a  long  extract  from  the  Hebrew 
Gospel,  inserted  in  the  Commentary  on  St.  Matthew,  may  be 
cited  as  an  example.  Vid.  Orig.  Tom.  III.  p.  671-  conf.  Tom. 
IV.  p.  289.  n.  b.  Pamph.  Apol.  p.  18.  a. 

113  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.    Lib.  VI.   cap.  xxiii.  p.  287.   L  4, 

i|  ix-iitx  ^e  xj  'Slfiytvtt  ruv   eJ$    T«J   ©aa;  Tpa^a?   vTropwpccTuii  tylvslt 


Conf.  Orig.  Horn,  in  Joan* 
Tom.  IV.  pp.  3.  b.  4.  a. 

124 


ra. 


4  Euseb.  ibid.  cap.  xviii.  p.  278.  1,  19.  I*  T&TU  xj  * 
ris  'OTa^sv?/yb  (pgowy  aigaaeo/f,  wpoj  T«J  lire  Qfiye 


(    36S    ) 

world  without  the  consent  of  their  authour;  who 
Jived  to  repent  of  the  errours,  which  they  contain- 
ed1*5. That  compositions  of  this  equivocal  cha- 
racter, and  which  have  been  notoriously  corrupt- 
ed'16, should  frequently  deviate  from  the  vulgar 
Greek,  seems  rather  to  convey  a  negative  proof  of 
its  integrity.  But  Origen  likewise  affords  the  same 
text  positive  support,  in  his  inconstant  readings; 
occasionally  agreeing  with  the  Byzantine  text,  while 


' 

115  Vid.  supr.  p.  10.  n.  ". 

116  Orig.  Ep.  ad  amice.  Alexandr.  Tom.  I.  p.  5.  b.     "  Sed 
nihilmirum  mihi  videtur,  si  adulteretur  doclrina  mea  abinirnids 
meis,  et  tali  adulterio  corrumpatur,  quali  adulterio  corrupta  est 
Epistola  Pauli  Apostoli. — Talia  ergo  quaedam  video  etiam  nobis 
accidere.     Nam  quidam  auctorhereseos  cum,  sub  prsesentia  mul- 
torum,  habita  inter  nos  fuisset  disputatio,  et  descriptum  accipiens 
ab  his  qui  descripserant  Codicem,  qua  voluit,  addidit,  et  quce 
noluit  abstulit,  et  quod  ei  wsum  est  permutavit,  circumferens 
tanquam  ex  nomine  nostro,  insultans  et  ostendens  ea  quae  ipse 
conscripsit.     Per  quibus  indignantes  Jratres  qui  in  Palcestina- 
sunt,  miserunt  ad  me  Athenas  hominem  qui  acciperet  a  me 
ipsum  authenticum  exemplar,  quod  ne  relectum  quidem  vel  re- 
censitum  a  me  antea  fuerat,  sed  ita  neglectum  jacebat,  ut  vix 
inveniri  potuerit.     Misi  tamen,  et  sub  Deo  teste  loquor,  quo- 
uiam  cum  convenissem  ilium  ipsum  qui  adulteraverat  librum, 
quare  hoc  fecisset,   velut  satisfaciens  mihi  respondit,  quoniam 
ynagis  ornare  volui  disputationem  illam  atque  purgare*     Videre 
quali   purgatione   disputationem  purgavit:    tali    nempe    quali 
purgatione  Marcion  Evangelia  purgavit  vel    Apostolum,   vel 
quali  successor  ejus  Apelles.     This  curious  fragment  is  pre- 
served by  Ruffinus,  De  Adult,  libror*  Orig.  Tom.  IV.  p.  51. 
a.  and  is  acknowledged  by  St.  Jerome,  Adv.  Ruffin.  Lib.  II. 
cap.  v.  Tom,  II.  p.  246. 


(    569    ) 

he  deviates  from  the  Palestine ;  nor  can  it  be  cer- 
tainly concluded  from  his  express  references,,  that 
the  text  which  he  used  did  not  conform  to  the  former 
edition  "7.  When  due  allowance  is  also  made  for 

17  Of  the  examples  already  cited,  p.  355.  ft.  93;  as  expressly 
referred  to  by  Origen,  there  are  but  three,  Mat.iii.  8.  xix.  17, 
Joh.  viii.  42.  which  are  not  found  in  the  Received  Text ;  two 
of  which,  Mat.  iii.  8.  Joh.  viii.  44.  properly  belong  to  the  Greek 
Vulgate,  as  existing  in  the  greater  number  of  MSS. :  vid. 
Griesb.  nn.  in  locc.  In  one  instance  only,  of  course,  does 
Origen  differ  in  his  express  references  from  the  Vulgar  text : 
for  in  the  remaining  examples,  he  is  obviously  misrepresented^ 
when  quoted  against  that  edition.  As  M.  Griesbach  has  been 
unable  to  find  sufficient  authority  in  the  Greek  MSS.  for  these 
passages,  to  assign  them  a  place  in  his  Corrected  Text ;  it 
would  appear,  that  Origen  in  his  express  citation  of  these  pas- 
sages, merely  meant,  to  give  emphasis  to  the  sense,  without 
thinking  of  marking  a  variation  in  the  reading.  This  is  obvi* 
ously  the  case  with  Mat.  v.  32.  xv.  34.  xix.  29.  Mar.  x.  46. 
Joh.  viii.  38.  xiii.  18.  26.  30.  1  Cor.  vii.  34.  1  Thes.  ii.  6:  as 
will  directly  appear  on  turning  to  Origen ;  Tom.  III.  pp.  647. 
509.  202.  735.  IV.  315.  425.  441.  444.  II.  644.  III.  662, 
where  those  passages  are  respectively  quoted.  In  Mar,  \L  3. 
x.  29.  Luc.  iii.  5.  Origen 's  object  is  wholly  misrepresented,  in 
conceiving  him  at  variance  with  the  Received  Text.  In  op* 
posing  Celsus,  he  declares  that  our  Lord  is  no  where  called  a 
carpenter  in  the  Gospels ;  nor  is  he  called  so  in  Mar.  vi.  3 : 
the  Evangelist  merely  stating,  that  a  question  on  this  subject 
was  proposed  by  the  multitude,  vid.  Orig.  Tom.  I.  p.  659.  d. 
In  reasoning  on  Ib.  x.  29,  30.  he  merely  observes,  that  the 
Scripture  declares,  that  those  who  "  left  houses,  brethren,  sis- 
ters, father,  mother,  wife, — should  receive  an  hundred  fold,  now 
in  this  time — houses,  brethren,  sisters,  mothers,  children  ;" 
thus  omitting  "  wife"  in  the  second  enumeration  ;  ywafy.a,  is 
accordingly  omitted  in  the  Greel^  Vulgate  ;  vid.  Orig.  Tom.  L 
p.  284.  c.  In  mentioning  it^iUf  as  the  reading  of  Luc.  iii.  4t 

sb 


(     370    ) 

.the  influence  which  his  peculiar  readings  have  had 
on  the  Palestine  text,  as  revised  by  Eusebius;  it 
seems  to  take  from  his  testimony  its  entire  weight, 
hi  deciding-  the  question  at  issue. 

When  the  testimony  of  Origen  is  set  out  of  the 
way,  no  further  obstacle  opposes  the  application  of 
the  foregoing  rules,  to  the  vindication  of  the  vulgar 
edition.  As  the  general  integrity  of  this  text  is 
attested  by  vouchers,  which  render  it  absolutely  un- 
questionable;  our  attention  is  only  called  towards 
those  passages  which  have  been  impeached  on  evi- 
dence apparently  credible.  This  evidence  has  been 

or  5.  he  refers  to  the  former  verse  instead  of  the  latter;  as  will 
be  made -apparent  from  Is.  xl.  3.  in  the  sequel ;  and  thus  clearly 
supports  the  Greek  Vulgate.  In  one  solitary  instance  of -course 
Mat.xix.  IT.Origen's  express  references  are  opposed  to  the  vulgar 
edition ;  and  this  too  is  taken  from  a  tract,  which  as  lying  under 
the  bad  repute  of  being  corrupted,  leaves  us  rather  at  a  loss  to 
determine,  what  was  really  Origen's  quotation.  Let  it  be  further 
observed,  that  in  this  express  reference,  Origen's  testimony 
is  opposed  to  that  of  the  Greek  Vulgate  on  a  point  where  this 
text  could  not  have  been  possibly  corrupted  by  the  orthodox ; 
as  the  vulgar  reading  is  manifestly  less  accommodated  to  their 
peculiar  opinions,  than  the  reading  expressly  supported  by  Ori- 
gen :  and  in  its  reading  of  this  text  the  Greek  Vulgate  is  not 
only  supported  by  the  testimony  of  those  antient  witnesses,  the 
primitive  Italick  and  Syriack  Versions,  but  the  express  allega- 
tion of  an  antient  father  who  lived  in  the  next  succession  after 
the  apostles ;  vid.  Mat.  xix.  17.  ut.  infr.  pp.  372.  381.  While  the 
express  testimonies  adduced  from  Origen,  supr.  p.  355.  n.  -3. 
contain-a  sufficient  proof  that  the  Greek  Vulgate  and  this  early 
father  have  not  been  interpolated  from  each  other ;  the  express 
testimony  of  Origen,  when  properly  understood,  contains  aa 
extraordinary  proof  of  .the  verbal  integrity  of  the  vulgar  edi- 


. 


(    371     ) 

fcollected  and  embodied  by  M.  Griesbach;  and  on 
the  strength  of  it,  he  has  rejected  several  passages 
from  the  sacred  canon,  as  spurious.  Of  these  pas- 
sages, however,  a  very  limited  number  are  of  the 
smallest  importance ;  eleven  only  affecting,  and  that 
in  a  remote  degree,  any  point  of  doctrine  or  morals. 
1  shall  lay  these,  in  the  first  place,  without  excep- 
tion, before  the  reader;  adding  the  testimony  of 
the  Western  Church  in  corroboration  of  that  of  the 
Eastern;  and  subjoining  the  express  testimony  of 
some  writer,  who,  as  living  in  the  age  which  suc- 
ceeded the  apostolical,  must  have  written  before  the 
sacred  text  could  have  been  corrupted.  In  deter-' 
mining  the  present  question,  the  testimony  of  the 
Syriack  Church  cannot  be  admitted  as  authority. 
Having  been  infected  at  an  early  period  in  the  third 
century  with  the  heresy  of  Paul  of  Samosata 1ZS,  it 


175  Liberal.  Diac.  Brevian  cap.  ii.  p.  4.  ed.  Par.  1675* 
Igitur  Nestoriani  dogmatis  author,  ut  multi  volunt,  Paulus- 
agnoscitur  Samosatenus  episcopus,  &c»  M.  Renaudot,  in  Prsef* 
Liturgg.  Orientt.  having  traced  the  Nestorian  Heresy  to  the 
person  from  whom  it  derived  its  name,  is  thus  corrected  by 
M.  Assemani,  Biblioth.  Orient.  Tom.  I.  p.  204?.  In  primis  quis 
Renodotio  dixit,  Nestorianam  Haeresim,  in  Constantinopolitana. 
Dicecesi  potius  quamin  aliis  Provinciis  incrementum  habuisse?" 
quum  et  hoc  ipsum  qualecumque  incrementum  a  Syris  eo  pro- 
fectis  Haeresis  Nestoriana  acceperit,  velut  a  fonte  rivulum* 
Hsec  enim  in  Syria  ducentis  ante  annis,  Paulo  Samosateno  Pa- 
triarcha  Antiocheno  auctore,  primum  eruperat,  vicinas  provin- 
ciis  sua  contagione  afflaverat,  ita  ut  Diodorus  Tarsensis,  et 
Theodoras  Mopsuestenus,  Pauli  gentiles,  deinde  Nestorius 
ejusdem  affinis,  antiquum  errorem  potius  quam  novum  practu- 
lisse  dicantur."  The  origin  of  Eutychianism  is  traced  to  the 
heresy  of  Apollinaris,  into  which  extreme  Eutyches  fell  in  com* 


(    372    ) 

wholly  lapsed  into  Arianism  in  the  fourth"9;  and 
was  finally  rent  in  the  fifth  into  the  different  sects  of 
Nestorians  and  Eutychians'30.  High  therefore  a& 
its  testimony  must  rank,  where  merely  the  verbal 
integrity  of  the  sacred  text  is  concerned,,  it  can  have 
little  weight  on  the  doctrinal  The  Arabick  nume- 
rals., annexed  in  the  subjoined  examples  to  the  tes- 
timony of  the  Latin  church,  indicate  the  different 
editions  of  the  Italick  version  which  support  the 
prefixed  reading1  :  the  primitive  or  Brescia  text,  the 
revised  or  Verceli,  and  the  new  or  Vulgate  of  Je- 
rome, being  numbered  in  their  order.  An  asterism 
is  added  to  the  readings  adopted  by  M.  Griesbaclv 
in  his  Corrected  Edition. 

Mat.  xix.  17. 


tiin*  ai>7ut  *  -n  /xe  Ae'y"*  Jesus  autem  dlxit  ei  quid  me 

£&t  *  ayaSoj,  tl  pi)  sis  o  dicis  bonum  ?  nemo  bonus  nisi 

;."     Byz.  Deus.     ItaL  1. 

»  pi  ifurxs  vipl  T«  oiyotSvi  quid  me  interrogas  de   bo?w? 

lr*»  o  ayoSo?.     JE.  Pal*.  unus  est  bonus.     ItaL  2,  3. 


Just.  Mart.  Apol.  Maj.  p.  63.  d.  xj  0jpo*ifc9ta»c  avru  T»»O?, 
liTropTo;  hXeiffKetfa  ayavi,  ciirtHfmro    Kiyuv  (  vhis  oiya-^t  «» 
o  0£cj'  o 


bating  the  opposite  errours  of  Nestorius ;  Liberat.  ibid.  p.  10. 
"  Quapropter  apparet  ex  omnibus  superius  dictis  atque  pro- 
latis,  a  Paulo  Nestorianos  fuisse  propagates,  et  ab  Apollinari 
tmius  naturae  praedicatorcs,  ut  sunt  Acephali  et  Eutychiam." 
Vid.  supr.  p.  344.  n.  71. 

'"  Vid.  supr.  p.  169.  n.  ns. 

133  Vid.  gupr.  p.  344-.  an. 7I  et  n. 


(    373    ) 


Mar.  xiii.  32. 

*  T^  De  die  autemilloethora  nemo 
o7*X  ££>  o»  a]yi>.o»  «i  scit  neque  angeli  in  coelo,  ne- 
*  til  5  t»V,  «  / 


•      quejilius  nisi  pater. 


1, 


desunt,  « 


S.  Iren.  adv.  Hscr.  Lib.  II.  cap.  xxviii.  p.  158.  —  Dominus, 
jpse  Filius  Dei,  ipsum  judicii  "  diem  et  horam"  concessit  scire 
solum  Patrem,  vnanifeste  dlcens  ;  "  de  die  autera  ilia  et  hora 
nemo  scit,  neque  Filius  t  nisi  pater  solus.*' 


Luc.  ii.  33. 


vrspi 


o     Trcttr,^     atr 

.  Pal*. 


Et  erat  Joseph  et  mater  ejus 
mirantes  de  his  quae  diceban- 
turdeillo.  ItaL  1,2. 

pater  ejus  et  mater.     ItaL  3. 


S.  Hier.  adv.  Helvid.  —  "  Et  erant  pater  illius  et  mater  admi- 
rantes  super  his,  quae  dicebantur  de  eo*'  —  Licet  tu  mira  impu- 
dentia  hacc  in  Graecis  codicibus  falsata  contendas,*'  &c.  vid. 
supr.  p.  169.  n.  "5. 

Ib.  xi.  13. 

If  9roM>jpo»  v7rctf%ovre<;  Si  ergo  vos  cum  sitis  mali  nos- 
tis  bona  data  dare  filiis  vestris  t 
qnanto  magis  Pater  de  coelo 
dabit  Spiritum  Sanctum  peten- 
tibus  se.  ItaL  1. 


ay«$« 

i^wp,  iroffa  jiei 
rip   e  I|  « 


«ya$o»  Jo^a.     ^^.  debit  bonum  datum.     ItaL  2. 

-Trvtvpot  dya&fa.     Pal.         dabit  Spiritum  bonum.  Jtal.  3. 

Tert.  adv.  Marc.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  xxvi.  p.  4-32.     A  quo  Spiritum 
Sanctum  postukm  ?—  agnosce  igitur  et  Patrem,  qucra  etiam  ap- 


(    374    ) 

pellas  Creatorem.  Ipse  est  qui  scit  quid  filii  postulent.  Nam 
et  panem  petentibus,  de  ccelo  dedit  manna ;  et  carnem  deside- 
rantibus,  emisit  ortygometram  ;  non  serpentem  pro  pisce,  nee 
scorpium  pro  ovo. — Itaque  et  Spiritum  Sanctum  is  dabit,  &c. 

Ib.  xxii.  43,  44. 

&$&9i  $1  avTaJ  £ly«*0?  a>7r>  «p«»3  Apparuit    autem  illi  angelus 

W<TX£UV    avTov.    ^    y$vo^ce>o$   lv  de  coelo,  confortians  eum.     Et 

tx.yun'\a.y     ixTi»^^oF     •fffoo-r.vx&ro.  factus  est  in  agonia,  et  prolix- 

iysvtlo  ^g  o  Ityvt  O.VT£  uv&i  ^o/^t.  ius  orabat :  Et  factus  est  sudor 

pot  ai/A»Tbs  wil*pa»fo»1««  ITT]  ryr  illius,    quasi  guttae  sanguinis 

yw«     Byz.  JEg**  decurrentes     super      terram. 

Ital  2.  3. 

desunt.     Pal.  desunt.     Ital.  1. 

Just,  Mart.  Dial,  cum  Tryph.  p.  331.  d.   lv  yap  TO^ 

<  «»...%&&.    .J  ^yv^lov  T0  ^olJ?ptov  7aTo.' 


Joh.  v.  3,  4. 


T»  I7«1o$  x»v»j-  —  spectantium  aquae  motum, 
ala  xotigov  xotr-  Angelus  autem  Domini  des- 
v  lv  T*J  KtXv/*j^S^»j  xj  Ira-  cendebat,  et  movebat  aquam. 
TO  v$up.  o  »f  Trp^Tof  E/UJ&BC  Et  quicumque  prior  descen- 
T»  y^aro?,  t-ytJj;  debat  in  natatoria,  sanus  fiebat 
quacumque  tenebatur  infirmi- 
tate.  /te/.  2.  3. 


desunt.     Mg.  PaL  desunt.     Ital.  1. 

Tert.  de  Baptism,  cap.  v.  p.  221.  Angelum  aquis  intervenire 
si  novum  videtur,  exemplum  futurum  praecucurrit.  Piscinam 
Bethsaidam  "  angelus  interveniens  commovebat  ;"  observabant 
qui  valetudinem  quaerebantur.  Nam  "  si  quis  praevenerat  des- 
cendere  illuc"  qua?ri  post  lavacrum  desinebat/' 


(    375    ) 


Act.  viii.  37. 
l| 


©£« 


Byz. 


desunt.     Pal.* 


Dixit  autem  ei  Philippus  :  si 
credis  ex  totoxcorde,  suscepis. 
Respondens  autem  dixit  :  ere- 
do  in  Christum  Filium  Dei. 
Ital.  2.  3. 


S.  Tren.  adv.  Haer.  Lib.  III.  cap.  xii.  p.  196.  TWTOV  J»a»  'ijjaSy 

§v  atJrw  ycttyv,  uq   avro<;  o  eyj'S^of  9T£taSg<?, 
QP  'Yton  T»  QtS  ilv 


Ib.  xv.  28. 


yap   TW 


sov  garfl»Sscr$«» 
TUV  e7rayaf«j? 


TO?, 


wv»xT8, 


$tadi)p§#t{  lat/ltff  i 

'  Bijz.  Pal* 


Placuit  enim  Sancto  Spiritui 
et  nobis,  nihil  amplius  imponi 
vobis  oneris,  quam  haec  quae 
necessaria  horum:  abstinete- 
ab  immolatis,  et  sanguine,  c^ 
sfficatis,  et  fornicatione,  a  qui- 
bus  observantes  vos  ipsos  bene 
agetis.  Valete.  Ital.  2.  3. 


f  add.. 


Tert.  de  Pudic.  cap.  xii.  p.  563.  Primam  hanc  regulam  de 
auctoritate  Spiritus  Sancti,  Apostoli  emittunt  ad  eos,  qui  jam 
ex  nationibus  allegi  cceperant.  "  Visum  est,'  inquiunt,  '  Spi-; 
ritui  Sanclo  et  nobis  nullum  amplius  vobis  adjicere  pondus, 
quam  eorum  a  quibus  necesse  est  abstineri,  a  sacrificiis,  et  a 
fornicationibus,  et  sanguine,  a  quibus  observando  recte  agitis, 
vectante  vos  Spiritu  Sancto.''  Clem.  Alex.  Paedag.  Lib.  II. 

p.  20'2. 


(    376    ) 


Gol.  i.  H. 


'Ml**9 


Byz. 


e  des. 
rS.    PaL* 


e  ha,     In    quo    habemus  e   redemp* 
uv     tionem  per   sanguinem  ejus,' 
remissiouem  peccatorum.  ItaL 
3. 


. . .  e  des.  redemptionem  per 
sanguinem  ejus.     ItaL  2. 


•  S.  Iren.  adv.  Haer.  Lib.  V.  cap.  ii.  p.  293.  Sanguis  enim  non 
est-nisi  a  venis-  et  carnibus,  et  a  reliqua  qua?  est  secundum  ho- 
minem  substantia,  qua  vere  factum  est  Verbum  Dei.  Sanguine 
suo  redemit  nos,  quemadmodum  apostolus  ejus  ait ;  "  in  quo 
habemus  redemptionera  per  sanguimm  ejus,  remissionem  pec-* 
catorura," 

• 

Ib.  ii.  2. 

~— £*?    Iviynxriv   TW  /Aur»p'»   rS  —-in     agnitionem    mysterii  * 

©i«  t  xat  UcAfos  K»\  T«  Xp.rS/'  Dei  Patris  et  Christi  Jesu,"  in, 

tf  u   Sun  ircitlts  ol  §y7u.vfcl  T^;  quo  sunt  omnes  thesauri  sapi- 

Ki  rn,-  yrjy\m  a,nozfv$si.  entiac  et  scientiae   abscohditi, 

ItaL  3. 

1 

desunt.  «a*  nalfo?   x«*    T»     f  quod  est  Christus.    ItaL  2. 


Clem.  Alex    Strom.  Lib.  V.  cap.  x.  p,  683.    *a?  va^iv  oTo 

voi;   spffivati  fv>v   yvuaw,    u$i  irus   y^a^ii*    '  vaS/IfirJi?    9r 
tv   Trcicrt    ffe<p'nxt    i'va  '  9rapar*5<r<y^ti»   itotfloc,    utSpuirov    T 


iv 


cv 


'   795 


(    377    ) 

1  Job.  iv.  3. 

il  way  smv/xa  o  /XT;  5^,oA&y«r  rcy  et   omms    spiritus  f    qul 

Xpro"  *y  erapx.t  *A?jAy.  confitetur  Jesum  Christum  in 

,"  It  T«  0tS  »«  lr».     J57/2.  carne  venisse,"  non  est  ex  Deo. 

'•     -  7^.2. 


s  des.  Xgtj-ci-  *y  c-«tgxl  lATjX^ora.      g  qui  solvit  Jesum,    //a/.  3. 
Pal* 

S.  Pblycarp.  ad.  Philipp.  cap.  vii.  p.  188.  *  ?raj  yap  *<  « 

roy  ty  aa^x*  iX^wSva**   ctvl'^ 
Kygitf  —  bros  w/wJoTOxo^  $r»  T« 


In  the  concurring  testimony  of  the  Eastern  and 
Western  Churches^  thus  adduced  in  favour  of  the 
Greek  Vulgate,  we  have  the  entire  weight  of  the 
presumptive  evidence  which  is  adducible  on  the 
present  question  ;  —  that  each  of  the  readings,  sup- 
ported by  those  early  vouchers,  existed  in  the  sacred 
text,  from  time  immemorial.  This  evidence  is, 
however,  rendered  positive  by  the  express  testi- 
mony of  the  primitive  fathers,  who  have  appealed 
to  the  texts  before  us,  in  the  age  which  succeeded 
the  apostolical.  In  the  examples  which  have  been 
adduced,  and  which  constitute  the  whole  of  those 
of  the  smallest  importance  which  have  been  im- 
peached by  M.  Gnesbach;  one  only  is  destitute  of 
the  authority  of  some  one  of  those  primitive  wit- 
nesses. And  this  example  is  so  firmly  sustained 
by  the  external  testimony  of  the  vulgar  texts  of  the 
Greek,  Latin,  and  Syriack131  churches,  and  by  the 

131  Yid,  supr.  p.  169.  n.  *5.  p. 


C  378    )> 

internal  evidence  of  the  sacred  context,  that  not  a 
doubt  can  be  entertained  of  its  being-  authentick. 
As  to  the  remaining  texts,  the  testimony  of  St.  Po~ 
lycarp,  Justin  Martyr,,  St.  Irenaeus,  and  Tertulhan, 
speak  so  plain  a  language  with  respect  to  them,  as . 
not  to  leave  room  for  a  cavil  on  their  authenticity. 
Two  testimonies  from  St.  Irenaeus  have  been  indeed 
adduced  from  a  Latin  translation ;  but  the  least  at- 
tention to  the  scope  and  context  of  this  primitive 
Writer,  must  convince  the  most  sceptical  inquirer, 
that  the  reading-  of  the  vulgar  text  must  have  been 
before  him  while  he  was  writing*.  A  little  closer 
attention  to  the  testimony  of  Clemens  Alexandrinus, 
will/  I  trust,  also  evince,  that  a  similar  conclusion 
must  be  formed  respecting  his  allegation :  and  that 
wre  must  infer  from  his  mode  of  quotation,  that  he 
read  in  his  copies,  as  we  read,  at  this  day,  in  the 
Greek  and  Latin  Vulgate13*.  I  do  not  long  delay 

131  From  what  has  been  already  adduced  from  Clement,  it 
must  appear,  that  more  existed  in  the  text,  than  that  early  fa- 
ther has  quoted.  This  is  more  fully  evinced  in  the  tenour  of 
His  subject  and  reasoning.  (1.)  After  referring  to  Eph.  iii.  3, 
4.  it  is  observable,  that  he  sets  out  with  declaring  there  is  a 
species  of  knowledge  which  is  communicated  only  to  the  ini- 
tiated ;  Clem.  ub.  s'upr.  p.  682.  1.  24.  ?ri» 
jxaS^dtf  wsft  v)q  wpoq  re?  Kohoc-a-a.f'i's  y^dtp 
JU-.T.'S.  •  (2.)  He  expressly  prefaces  the  passage  before  us,  by 
declaring  that  it  contained  knowledge  not  extended  to  every 
one ;  Id.  ibid.  p.  683.  1.  10.  intl  on  #  <K3.^1c<jv  w  yv&Gis,  $io,pfo$w 
fTr^pt*  *  ffvidSt&eurSsvTsf'  x.  r.  I.  (3.)  If  lie  does  not  here 
admit',  that  the  apostle  *  openly  sets  forth'  JWgjjJSj*  Mnpep, 
what  he?  proceeds  to  insinuate,  he  however  adds,  that  there  wer£ 
$ome  things  committed  also  to  the  Hebrews,  in  unwritten  tra- 
dition }  Id.  ibid,  1.21.  /?*•  7«£  Ttvz  ayf»$a<; 


(    379    ) 

to  anticipate  any  objections  which  may  be  made  to 
those  testimonies.,  on  the  suspicion  of  their  being 
interpolated  from  the  vulgar  edition.  As  the  pas- 
sages involve  peculiarities,  not  merely  verbal,  they 
could  not  have  been  altered  with  ease  ;  and  as  they 
tlo  not  relate  to  any  contested  point  of  doctrine,  and 
have  never  been  quoted  to  decide  any,  there  could 
be  no  object  in  such  a  sophistication.  They  are 
indeed  so  completely  interwoven  with  the  subjects 
of  the  different  writers,  in  whose  works  they  are 


TO*?  *E|3^a»or$.  (4.)  It  is  observable,  that  the  reading  ly 
is  found  in  no  manuscript  ;  and  if  this  be  considered  the  read- 
ing of  Clement's  text,  it  renders  his  quotation  wholly  nugatory, 
(5.)  The  phrase  rS  0*5,  «J  n«lpo?  *}  r5  Xptr?  is  the  reading 
of  the  Greek  and  Latin  Vulgate,  and  it  adds  the  greatest 
force  and  appositeness  to  Clement's  quotation.  As  this  phrase 
asserts  the  mystical  union  of  "  the  Father  and  Christ"  the  Soa, 
as  one  "  God/  it  is  not  only  that  species  of  knowledge,  but  the 
only  species  which  Clement's  religion  prohibited  him  from  di- 
vulging to  the  Heathen.  (6.)  While,  of  course,  he  must  havt3 
read  something  of  this  kind  in  his  text  ;  he  has  sufficiently  indi- 
cated that  it  was  the  passage  before  us,  by  alluding  to  it  under 
the  term  sv  Xpn-u.  For  this  phrase,  and  the  whole  of  this  expla- 
nation, is  thus  confirmed  by  S.  Hilary,  in  referring  to  the  pas- 
sage before  us,  de  Trinit.  Lib.  IX.  §  62.  col.  1025.—"  in 
agnitionem  sacramenti  (pv^ix)  Dei  Christi,  in  quo  sunt  omnes 
thesauri  sapientiae  et  scientise  absconsi,  [Col.  ii.  2,  3.]  Deus 
Christus  sacramentum  est,  et  omnes  thesauri  sapie-ntiae  et  scien- 
tiae  in  eo  latent.  Portioni  vero,  et  universitati  non  convenit." 
Clement,  of  course,  knowing  that  the  doctrine  was  lv  Xp;rf,  or 
/Aur^fuov  ev  X^tfoj  uTrox^vtyov,  properly  substituted  this  phrase  in 
his  works,  which  were  published  among  the  Heathen,  for  the 
true  reading  T£  0sS,  xj  n«rpoy  x)  T£  Xpij-S,  which-  his  religion 
prohibited  him  from  divulging.  Conf.  S.  Hier.  Tom.  V.  p. 
375.  g. 


(    380    ) 

found,  that  they  cannot  be  removed  without  making 
such  a  rent  in  the  context,  as  would  directly  evince 
their  removal.  Infinitely  greater,,  and  indeed  insu- 
perable, must  have  been  the  obstacles  with,  which 
any  sophisticatour  would  have  to  contend  in  insert- 
ing such  passages  in  the  writings  of  those  primitive 
fathers. 

As  the  manner  in  which  the  early  fathers  have- 
quoted  even  the  remarkable  texts  already  adduced 
renders  any  dependance  on  their  testimony  wholly 
unsafe,  where  the  verbal  integrity  merely  of  the  text 
is  concerned,  our  only  appeal  lies  in  this  case .  to 
the  testimony  of  the  primitive  versions.  The  pri- 
mitive Itajick  and  Syriack  translations  have  been 
already  pointed  out,  as  the  best  and  earliest  wit- 
nesses: to  their  decision  let  us  now  submit  the 
determination  of  the  question.  The  following  col- 
lection of  texts  constitute  the  whole  of  the  passages 
of  any  the  smallest  importance,  which  M.  Griesbach 
has  rejected  from  the  Gospels,  in  his  Corrected 
Edition. 


Mat.  vi.  13. 


J  v  ^-     quoniam  luum  est  regnum  el 

»»//,»?,  x)  r)  &|«,  ««s  T«S  aiwaf.     virtus,    ct  gloria,  in  soccula. 
«p«».   Vulg.  Jtal  I. 


£-io      quia  tuurn  cst  regnum  ct  po- 
VL^o     tentia,    et    gloria    in    saecula 
saeculorunii  $r. 


(    281    ) 

Ib.  xv.  8. 


adpropinquat  se  mihi  populut 
hie  ore  suo,  et  —  .     Ital*  1« 

.•  .  .  .  desunt,     %r.  .  .  desunt.     Syr. 

Ib.  xviii.  29. 
i»5  rtr;  7ro7<*j  *ur$.   Vulg.  ad  pedes  ejus.    Ital  1. 

^oio\v  ;  \\1.     ad  pedes  ejus.  Syr. 
--^ 

Ibid.  35. 

peccata  eorum.  /^a/.  L 


errata  ejus.    5yn 


Ib.  xix.  17. 

' 
T»  /*!  X/y*K  «ya^o»  ;  »&*{  ay^.^of,     quid  me  dicis  bonum  ?  nemo 

«;  /xJj  it?  S  -^10;.   rz.  bonus  nisi  unus  Deus.    /ifa/.  1. 


A.\  ,  |^  i^  ^uj  Ip  Jjjo     quid  vocas  me  bonum  ;  non  est 
J  \Jj  |^     bonus  nisi  unus  Deus.    Syr. 


Ib.  xx.  22,  23. 


TO  ^TflKr^a.  o  lyu  j&zTrltJo/xat,  aut  baptlsma  baptizari  quo  ego 

TrntrS^i-a*  .....  xa*  TO  @dir-  .  .  .  .  .  etbaptisma  quo  ego  bap. 

o  lya  gatKi'ifypcH,  jS«7r7»a-  tizor  baptizamini.    Ital.  1. 
««^«.   Vulg. 


oj     aut  baptipmate  quo  ego  bapti- 
:    ^of.>n\/.      zor  baptizabimini  .....  baptis* 
|>     mate  quo  ego  baptizor  bapti* 
xabimini,  Syr. 


(    382    ) 

Ib.  xxvii.  35. 

lv   t"?ro    rS      ut  impleretur  quod  dictum  est 
TO,  ipdrKx.      per  prophetam;  xiiviserunt  sibi 
v  IpMtwpb      vestimenta  mea,  et  super  yes* 
Ij^aAov  *;\>jfov.  Vulg.  tem   meam    miserunt   sortem. 

Ital.  2.     ' 

ut  impleretur  id  quod  dictum 
est  per  prophetam :  partiti 
sunt  vestimenta  mea  inter  se, 
et  super  vestem  meam  jecerunt 
sortem.  Syr. 

Mar.  iv.  24. 

a'xa-      et  adjicietur  vobis  credentibus. 
Pulg.  Ital.  1. 

VQQU^      cSLiPoZ^co     et  adjicietur  vobis  ipsis  qui  au-» 
.  ^-vv^»      ditis.    Syr. 

Ib.  vi.  11. 

Xs'yw  v[u»  a>>£XToTE/»3v   eV«t     amen  dico  vobis,   tolerabilius 
'   ypipa      erit  Sodomis,  aut  Gomoris  in 
Vulg.        die  judicii,  quam  illi  civitati. 
Ital.  1. 

joouj  ;'   Q"»-\  Jj|  •ic]      >v-)o      et  equidem  dico  vobis  tranqui- 

lioreni  fore  Sedoum  et  Omouro 
Jj*»j     |vo.«-\     in    die    judicii,    civitate    ilia. 


Ibid.  33. 

ol  oyfioi  [acai  £7r«7*6;jav]  avrov  et  cognoverunt  eos  nTulti ...«. 
,'....  xai  wfoTjX&ov  avrtss  ^  et  prsevenerunt  eos,  et  conve- 
avTov.  Vulg.  nerunt  ad  eum.  Ital.  I , 

A* jo]      [et  agniti  sunt]  illi:  et ...... 

~OTQ^or^3     coram  eo  illuc. 


((    383    ) 

J.b.  xiii.  14'. 
TG"  £*}$EH  VTTQ  Aotvwh  t&  TTjjo^Ttf.      ..... 

Vulg. 


^*oi      quod  dictum    est  per  Daniel 
prophetara.    Syr. 

Luc.  iv.  18. 
lcicrtx.c§oci  -rt??  <rjmTpi//,//,g'»ai  7*j>     sanare  contritos  corde.  Ital.  1. 

Ket^oa.     Vulg. 

]c±\  w*j^oA-li  a^-jp]v^\      ad  sanandum  contritos  corde. 

Syr. 

Ib.  ix.  55. 

o  yap   yio;   rS  ufSpuiru  BK  ?A^e      filius  enim  hominis  non  venit 
*?  a»$fU7ru»  at-iTQhtffcu,  othha.     animas  hominum  perdere,  sed 
i.    Vulg.  ^alvare.   Ital.  1. 

VI    .•   ^A-a|!    ^^    o\^      Jfilius  enim  hominis  non  venit 
gj  (AA^J  of  ^>r>v^  \      ad  perdendum  animas,  sed  ad 
servandum.    Syr. 

Ib.  x.  22. 

xj  rp?>s»?  npoq  TK?  /Afl^Tila?  tlTTs.      ,..  desunt.    Brix. 
Vulg. 


u 


jaZ.|o     et  conversus  est  ad  discipulos' 
j^ojo     suos  et  dixit  eis.    Syr. 

Ib.  xi.  2. 

Y)§vru     qui  es  in  ccelis  ....  fiat  volun* 

TC  S^jjwa  <ra,  ws  !»  ^arw  xat  l^<      tas  tua  slcut  in  ccelo,  et  in 
T?J  y^?.    F»/^.  terra,    //a/.  1. 

joau  ......  )aV>on>      qui  es  in  ccelis  ....  fiat  volun* 

tas  tua,    sicut-  in  c«lo  et  in 
terra.    Syr. 


(    38*    ) 


Ibid.  4-. 

».     sed  erue  nos  a  raalo. 


V'  —jLDo^a  \J|     sed  libera  nos  a  malo.  Syr. 

Ibid.  44. 

Scribae  et  Pharasaei  hypocritae. 


|  *  r'»ov^  )*«<j>fn     scribae  et  perischaei  hypocritae* 


Ib.  xvii.  36. 

Iv  ru  ayfw'  o  iT?  9r«p«.      duo  in  agro,  unus  adsumetur, 
nfftlon,  xotf  o   Ire^s  a^s$^.     et  alter  relinquetur.  /fa/.  1. 
.   Fulg. 

,\La»^-o  ^OOCTLJ  <--*9^     ^uo  erunt  nl  agro»  unus  ass«- 
^  r.  *-iA^j>  Jjj^jo  f^>A-3     metur    et    alter    relinquetur,* 


Syr. 


Job.  i.  27. 

qui  ante  me  faetus  est.  ltd. 

jooio     et  fuit  ante  me.   Syr. 


Ib.  v.  16. 

«9ro»a««»«i.      et  quasrebant  eum  interficere. 


0001  ^-A^JDO     et  studebant  eum  interficere* 
Syr. 

Ib.  vL  22. 

....  desunt.   ltd  1.2. 


•»  w*pi     earn  quam  conseenderant  dis- 
cipuli.   Syr. 


(    385*  ) 

Ib.  viii.  59. 

diet  picx  avrut,  *5  9r#£-     transiens  per  medium  eorum 
Vulg.  et  ibat.   ItaL  I. 

,  \\l|o  ^poiA.3,.*.o  ;.nSo     transiitque  per  medium  eorum 

et  abiit. 


In  the  whole  of  these  extracts  there  are  but  three 
passages  which  are  not  supported  by  the  concurring 
testimony  of  the  Oriental  and  Western  Churches; 
one  only  which  is  not  supported  by  the  positive  tes- 
timony of  either  of  those  antient  unimpeachable 
witnesses.  For  Mat.  xv.  8.  is  destitute  of  the  sup- 
port of  the  Syriack  version  ;  and  Luk.  x.  22.  Joh. 
vi.  22.  of  that  of  the  primitive  Italick  ;  while  Mat... 
xxvii.  35.  is  not  only  absent  from  the  latter  transla- 
tion, but  wanting  in  many  copies  of  the  former,  as? 
well  as  in  many  of  the  Greek  Vulgate133.  But  the 

133  Marg.  Vers.  Syr.  Philox.  Matt.,xxvii.  35.  Tom.  I.  p.  149- 
ed.  Oxon.  1778..  "  Partitisunt)  Haec  Periocha  Prophetae  noil 
inventa  est  in  duobus  exemplaribus  Graecis,  neque  in  illo  anti- 
quo  Syriaco."  The  learned  editour  ingeniously  observes;  in 
Praef.  Sect.  vi.  p.  xxix.  "  Ad  Matt,  xxvii.  35.  monet  criticus, 
hanc  pericopen  non  inveniri  in  duobus  exemplaribus  Graecis, 
neque  in  antiqua,  vel  Simplici,  Syriaca.  Nee  hujus  notae  auctor 
fait  Thomas  :  quia  si  hanc  pericopen  in  textu  Polycarpi  inve- 
nerit,  et  non  in  exemplaribus  suis  Graecis,  quomodo  non  obelo 
illam  damnavit.  Prof.  Adler  however  observes,  on  the  peri- 
cope  or  verse  before  us  ;  Nov.  Test.  Syriacc.  Verss.  Lib.  II. 
p.  96.  "  Desunt  revera  hsec  verba  m^  codicibus  versionls 
Syriacae  antiquioris,  et  in  prima  editione  Vienriensi,  ubi  tamen 
inter  errata  supplentur,  e  quibus  deinde  in  sequiores  editione? 
irrepserunt.  Desunt  quoque,  a  voce  x^o»  ad  XX^OK,  in  pie- 
risque  nisi  omnibus  probatis  codicibus  Graecis,  et  sine  dubio 
sunt  rejicienda. 

cc 


{    386    ) 

dissent  of  those  antient  versions  from  the  former  pas- 
sages, does  not  in  the  least  impeach  their  authenti- 
city. As  in  these  omissions  the  Syriack  and  Italick 
Versions  accord  with  the  Palestine  text,  their  nega* 
live  testimony  against  the  vulgar  Greek  must  be 
imputed  to  the  influence  of  Eusebius's  edition; 
while  their  positive  testimony  in  favour  of  the  same 
text  can  be  only  accounted  for  by  admitting  their 
coincidence  with  the  original  Greek  text,  from  which 
all  editions  have  descended134.  That  in  Mat.  xv.  8. 
the  Brescia  manuscript  possesses  the  genuine  read- 
ing, has  been  already  rendered  apparent,  from  a 
comparative  view  of  the  copies  of  the  Italick  trans- 
lationIJ5.  In  fact  the  dissent  of  the  latter  copies  of 
this  version  from  the  vulgar  Greek,  may  be  traced 
to  the  influence  of  Origen's  writings;  to  \vhich  we 
must  impute  the  deviation  of  the  Palestine  text,  in 
the  instances  before  us,  from  the  Greek  Vulgate. 
And  the  extensive  influence  of  Eusebius's  text  ren- 
ders it  difficult  to  pronounce  on  the  authenticity  of 
Mat.  xxvii.  35.  The  absence  of  this  text  from  the 
Palestine  edition  is  easily  accounted  for,  as  I  hope  iu 
the  sequel  to  prove ;  its  total  absence  from  the  pri- 
mitive Italick  version,  and  partial  absence  from  the 
Syriack,  is  of  course  accounted  for,  in  the  former 
consideration.  But  its  partial  introduction  into  the 
^Syriack,  and  general  admission  into  the  Greek, 
create  a  difficulty  which  is  not  so  easily  solved. 
Could  we  admit  the  truth  of  the  account  which  St. 


134  Vid.  supr.  p.  357.  sqq. 

135  Vid.  supr.  p,  185.  o. 


(    387    ) 

Jerome  has  given  of  Luciaiius's  text1'5;  (he  inter- 
polation of  the  original  might  })e  laid  to  his  account, 
as  it  perfectly  answers  the  description  which  he  has 
given  of  Lucianus's  alterations137,  and  as  such  is 
omitted  in  the  modern  Vulgate.  The  influence  of 
Lucianus,  whose  text  prevailed  from  Byzantium  to 
Antioch,  of  which  latter  city  he  was  a  presbyter, 
would  fully  account  for  the  admission  of  this  verse 
into  the  Syriack  translation.  But  we  have  every 
reason  to  believe  St.  Jerome  mistaken  in  his  judg- 
ment of  Lucianus's  edition  I38.  And  in  favour  of 
this  verse,  it  must  be  observed,  that  its  introduction 
into  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew  is  most  conformable 
to  the  manner  of  that  Evangelist,  who  is  always  so 
particular  in  his  quotations  from  the  prophetical 
Scriptures,  that  it  can  be  scarcely  conceived  he 
could  have  wholly  omitted  this  extraordinary  pas- 
sage. The  oblique  manner  in  which  it  is  referred 
to  by  the  other  Evangelists119,  seems  to  establish 
the  same  conclusion ;  as  its  explicit  citation  in  the 
Gospel  of  St.  Matthew  rendered  it  merely  necessary 
that  they  should  refer  to  it  obliquely. 

In  making  the  above  citations,  1  have  confined 
my  attention  to  the  passages  rejected  by  M.  Gries- 
bach  from  the  Gospels,  not  merely  from  choice,  but 
necessity.  Neither  the  primitive  Italick  nor  Syri- 
ack Version  extend  beyond  that  part  of  the  New 
Testament;  the  Acts  and  Epistles  of  the  former 

136  Via.  supr.  p.  100.  n. iao. 

137  Vid.  supr.  p.  157.  n. IOJ>. 

138  Vid.  supr.  pp.  137,  138.  conf.p.  151. 

139  Comp.  Mar.  xv.  24.  Luk.  xxiii.  34% 


(    388    } 

Version  being  wholly  lost,  and  those  of  the  latter 
having  been  considerably  altered  since  the  Gospels 
were  rendered,  if  not  wholly  translated,  at  a  sub- 
sequent period140.  But  in  this  loss  there  is  not  so 
much  to  regret^  as  may  be  at  first  imagined;  for  we 
do  not  require  the  remaining  parts  of  those  versions 
to  determine  the  matter  at  issue.  As  in  the  differ- 
ent classes  of  manuscripts,,  one  species  of  text  pre- 
vails through  every  part  of  the  text ;  those  copies 
which  are  of  the  same  class  having  the  Gospels 

140  The  partial  propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Armenia,  Persia, 
Arabia,  Ethiopia,  and  Mcesia,  in  the  fourth  century,  renders  it 
probable  that  select  parts  from  the  New  Testament  at  least,  were 
translated  for  the  use  of  the  churches  established  in  those  re- 
gions :  vid.  supr.  p.  48.  n.  7.  pp.  322.  n.  3I.  323.  n.  3\  The 
state  of  the  Gothick  and  Ethiopick  versions,  if  not  of  the  Sahi- 
dick,  and  the  history  of  the  Armenian  version,  fully  confirm  this 
supposition.  The  first  named  version  does  note  extend  beyond 
the  Gospels ;  vid.  Le  Long.  Bibl.  Sacr.  Tom.  I.  p.  371.  col.  2.  a. 
The  second  contained  several  important  omissions,  which  were 
supplied  in  the  London  Polyglot,  vid,  Le  Long.  ibid.  p.  128. 
col.  1.  e.  Great  additions  were  made  to  the  Armenian  ver- 
sion in  the  year  1333  by  the  Romish  missionaries,  who  laboured 
at  an  early  period  to  reduce  the  Armenian  church  to  a  state  of 
subjection  to  the  Roman  Pontiff:  Galan.  Hist.  Armen.  p.  4>$3. 
ed.  Colon.  1686.  In  the  thirteenth  century  it  was  revised 
and  corrected  throughout  by  the  Latin  Vulgate;  vid.  Marsh. 
Michael,  chap.  vii.  p.  103.  The  Persian  and  Arabick  have 
been  completed,  and  revised  throughout  by  the  Coptiefc 
ami  Syriack;  Marsh.  Michael.  Ibid.  pp.  77.  83.  105.  We 
may  thus  easily  account  for  peculiar  readings,  which  are  fre- 
quently retained  in  the  modern  version,  which  are  not  found  in 
the  antient ;  those  readings  existing  in  such  parts  of  the  tran- 
slation as  were  made  before  the  version  was  completed,  by  the 
last  revisal. 


(    389    ) 

agreeing  with  the  Acts  and  Epistles ;  when  we  esta- 
blish the  superiour  purity  of  any  class,,  in  the  prin- 
cipal part  of  the  text,  we  may  thence  legitimately 
infer  that  of  the  remainder.  Or  to  reduce  this  mat- 
ter to  more  certain  principles ;  when,,  by  the  assist- 
ance of  those  auxiliaries,  the  Eastern  and  Western 
versions,,  we  have  ascertained  what  manuscripts  of 
the  original  Greek  will  furnish  the  genuine  text, 
on  a  comparative  view  of  the  subject ;  we  may 
thence  relinquish  the  accessories,  and  on  the  com- 
parative testimony  of  the  principals,  determine  the 
authentick  text  of  Scripture.  In  this  undertaking 
considerable  use  may  be  likewise  made  of  the  ver- 
sions; whatever  be  the  changes  which  they  may 
have  undergone,  since  their  first  formation.  As  we 
know  the  original  text  by  which  they  have  been  re- 
touched, and  the  points  in  which  they  have  been 
affected;  thePalestine  text  being  the  model  by  which 
they  were  shaped,  and  points  of  doctrine  being  those 
in  which  they  have  been  influenced;  a  slight  cal- 
culation will  enable  us,  if  not  to  recover  the  primi- 
tive reading  of  the  translation,  yet  to  appreciate  its 
lightness  when  weighed  against  the  authority  of  the 
original.  In  fact,  a  very  small  allowance  made  for 
the  alterations  which  the  Syriack  Vulgate  may  have 
sustained,  still  leaves  the  testimony  of  that  version 
as  fully  on  the  side  of  the  vulgar  Greek,  in  the 
Epistles  and  Acts,  as  in  the  Gospels.  Taking  into 
account,  together  with  its  testimony,  the  evidence 
of  those  later  witnesses,  to  whom  an  appeal  lies  in 
the  present  subject;  we  may  thence  deduce  a  per- 
fect defence  of  the  Greek  Vulgate,  on  every  point  of 


(    390    ) 

the  smallest  importance,  in  which  its  integrity  has 
been  impeached  as  corrupted141. 

141  The  following  list  of  texts,  which  constitute  the  whole  of 
the  passages  which  are  of  any  importance,  on  account  of  their 
length,  that  M.  Griesbach  has  wholly  rejected  from  the  Acts 
and  Epistles,  may  be  restored  to  the  sacred  text  on  the  testi- 
mony of  the  annexed  authorities :  Act.  ii.  SO.  TO  notice  erapx* 

TOV   Xgirof*    Byz.  JEg.  It.  2.  3.      Ib.  IX.  6.   cnthyfov  trot 

xevlpa  Xaxft^EiJ'.      T^spa*  TE   xj    $<*/A/3wv   tint*   KvpH    i'\  pe  SfXit? 

»VTQH.  Byz.  Syr.  2.  It.  3.  JEth.  Ar. 
Ib.  X.  6.  aro{  XaXijo-i*  trot,  T»'  o-e  oV  vouiV.  Byz.  JEg*  It.  3. 
C0p£.  Ib.  XV.  18.  ir»  T«  ®tu  flravla  Ta  epya  avTa.  Byz.  JEg. 
Syr.  1.  /£.  2.  3.  Ib.  xxii.  20.  rn  *j»aigiV»  «WT».  5^.  jS^r.  1. 
Ar.  2.  Rom.  vi.  12.  ayrii  !»  r«rf  IwtSu/^iai?  avrti.  Byz.  Pal. 
Syr.  1.  2.  /£.  3.  Ibid.  viii.  1.  f*n  xala  <r«p)t«  irt^itetiw^.  Byz. 
Syr.  1.  /£.  2. 3.  Ar.  Ib.  xi.  6.  §i  $  e|  epywv,  ax/rt  s 

lr<v  Ipyof.  5y^.  5^rr.  1.  Ar*  Ib.  xv.  29.  T» 
.  1.  It.  3.  -4r.  1  Cor.  vi.  20.  xj  I»  fa  vvtv^otli 
ci  ir»  rS  0«5.  J5yz.  Syr.  1.  Ar.  Ib.  x.  28.  T«  yap  Ktpls  ^ 
S^r.  2.  «4r.  Gal.  iii.  1.  T>)  aA»j$8»a 
Byz.  Syr.  2.  y£^.  /^,  3.  Aral.  Eph.  iii.  9. 
Xp»r*».  £;y^.  *%>•.  2.  ^4ra5.  Phil.  iii.  16.  x«»ov»  TO  auTo  ^po«r». 
JB^x.  Syr.  1.  /£,  8.  -^r.  Ibid.  21.  11?  TO  ynrfo-$aw  otvro.  Byz. 
Syr.  1.  2.  Ar.  Col.  i.  2.  xj  Ku^a  'l»«r»  Xp»cra.  ,B^.  %r.  2.  /*.  3. 
^n  ^E^.  1  Thes.  iii.  2.  *J  3Uxo»o»— ^av.  %2;.  S^r.  1.  /4r.  1.2. 
Heb.  ii.  7.  xj  x«1er>i0>«s  «WTOV  ITT*  T«  tpya  T^r  ^«*pw«'  <r».  j&^f.  Syr. 
1.  2.  #.  2.  3.  Ar.JEtk.  I  Pet.  i.  23.  «?  ™  a^y*.  %z.  Syr.  1. 
/£.  2.  3.  ^4r.  1  Joh.  v.  13.  Tor?  mrtvaffiv  elf  TO  e»o/*a  T»  €Y»3  T» 
0«5,  ^y«.  Arab.  Apoc.  u  8.  «p%^  x«*  T/XO?.  J5j/z.  Syr.  2. 
It.  3.  Cojtf.  Ibid.  10.  lya  tlpi  TO  A  x«»  T$  fl,  o  wpwTO?  xa*  o 
xa<.  B^2.  Syr.  2.  Arab.  Ib.  V.  14-.  {a>vK  «»$  Taj 
uv.  Byz.  Syr.  2.  7^.  3.  Ib.  XI.  1.  xat  o  a/yeXo? 

1.  Ib.  xiv.  5.  Ivwwtov  TS  ^ova  Ta  ©sa.  5^.  Syr.  2, 
It.  3.  Ib.  xv.  2.  sx  Ta  ^«pay/A«lo?.  5^5.  Syr.  2.  .drafl.  To 
which  the  following  may  be  added  from  the  Gospels ;  Mar.  iii. 
5.  vyw  «y?  v  »M*J.  Byz.  JEg.  It.  2.  pcene.  Ib.  ix.  38.  o?  £* 
/.  2.  £r.  2.  Luc.  vii.  31.  eT?rg  0*1  o 


(    301    ) 

That  no  other  text  of  the  Greek  but  the  Pale£- 
tine  edition  has  had  any  influence  on  the  old 
Italick  and  Syriack,  or  their  descendants,  the 
versions  of  Philoxenus  and  St.  Jerome,  I  have 
already  endeavoured  to  prove I4i.  The  corrections 
•which  the  Latin  Vulgate  received,  under  the  Em- 
perour  Charlemagne,  may  be  indeed  conceived 
to  invalidate  its  testimony,  when  adduced,  as 
a  separate  witness,  with  the  Syriack,  in  favour  of 
the  original  Greek143.  But  when  we  observe  the 
distinction  which  must  be  made  between  the  Byzan- 
tine and  Palestine  texts;  no  corrections  which  the 
Latin  version  could  have  sustained  at  this  period,  or 
antecedently,  can  affect  its  testimony,  when  adduced 
on  the  side  of  the  former  edition. 

From  the  fourth  to  the  eighth  century  inclusive, 
there  were  few  persons  who  were  adequate  to  the 
task  of  revising  the  Latin  translation ;  and  from  the 
knowledge  which  we  possess  of  their  history,  it  must 
be  inferred,  that  none  but  St.  Jerome  and  St.  Euse- 
bius  engaged  in  this  undertaking.  In  the  fourth 
and  fifth  Centuries,  a  knowledge  of  Greek  was  a  rare 
attainment  among  the  Latins 144.  Many  were  cer- 
tainly able  to  read  it I45 ;  but  destitute  of  so  incon- 

K.vp»of.  Byz,    It.  1.    Ib.  vii.  44.  TW   xsQati}$.  Byz.  ft,  1.     Ifc. 
ix.  1.  [A*$vTaq  uv-ru.  Byz.  Pal.  It.  1.  2.  3. 

I4X  Vid.  supr.  p.  342.  sqq. 

143  Vid.  supr.  p.  21.  n.  36. 

I4*  Vid.  supr.  p.  57.  n.  **. 

15  Not  only  S.  Hilary,  Eusebius  Vercellensis,  and  Lucifer 
Calaritanus  possessed  so  much  knowledge  of  Greek, .  but  Phi- 
lastrius,  Ambrose,  and  his  friend  Gaudentius.  The  long  inter- 
course which  the  former  maintained  with  the  Greeks,  and  the. 


(    392    ) 

siderable  yet  necessary  assistance  as  a  Lexicon,  few 
would  undertake  to  translate  it.  St.  Jerome  and  his 
contemporary,  Ruffinus,  are  remarkable  exceptions; 

active  part  which  they  took  in  the  affairs  of  the  Eastern  church, 
contain  a  sufficient  proof  of  the  above  assertion ;  vid.  supr.  p. 
54-.  n.  I7.  Philastrius'  tract  on  Heresy  contains  much  informa- 
tion, which  could  only  be  derived  through  this  source ;  St. 
Ambrose  frequently  refers  to  the  Greek,  and  has  adopted  the 
greater  part  of  his  treatise  on  the  Holy  Spirit  from  St.  Basil's 
treatise,  on  the  same  subject ;  which  he  could  only  attain 
through  a  knowledge  of  the  language  in  which  it  was  written ; 
vid.  Patrr.  Bened.  Monit.  in  Ambros.  de  Spir.  Sanct.  Tom.  IL 
col.  596,  597.  Gaudentius,  as  appears  from  several  passages 
in  his  works,  must  have  had  some  knowledge  of  Greek ;  as  he 
sometimes  compares  the  readings  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  co- 
pies of  Scripture,  and  corrects  the  one  by  the  other:  vid. 
Orthodoxogr.  Tom.  II.  pp.  1835. 1844.  The  request  which  he 
made  to  Ruffinus  to  undertake  the  translation  of  a  work  as- 
cribed to  Clemens  Romanus,  contains  a  sufficient  proof  how- 
ever that  his  skill  in  this  language  did  not  qualify  him  for  the 
office  of  a  translator,  which  was  discharged  with  difficulty  even 
by  Ruffinus ;  Ruffin.  Peror.  in  Expl.  Orig.  sup.  Ep.  ad  Romnu 
ap.  Orig.  Tom.  IV.  p.  689.  b.  Post  hoc  sane  vocat  nos  opus 
quod  olim  quidem  injunctum  est,  sed  nunc  a  beato  Gavdentio 
episcopo  vehementius  perurgetur,  dementis  scilicet  Romani  epis- 
copi,  Apostolorum  ac  suceessoris  de  Recognitione  libri  ut  in 
Latinum  vertantur.  In  quo  opere  bene  novi,  quod  laborem 
labor  multiplicat,  si  sortem  suscipiat.  Satisfaciam  sane  in  eo 
amicis  meis,"  &c.  conf.  p.  688.  St.  Eusebius  of  Verceli,  and 
St.  Jerome,  were  probably  the  only  persons  of  the  age  compe- 
tent to  the  task  of  forming  a  literal  version  of  the  sacred  text ; 
and  both  accordingly  devoted  a  great  portion  of  their  lives  to 
tfrat  undertaking.  The  former  owed  his  knowledge  of  Greek 
to  his  having  been  banished  to  Cappadocia ;  the  latter  to  his 
long  residence  in  the  East ;  vid.  supr.  p.  237.  n.  I38.  conf.  S. 
Hier.  Cat.  Scriptt.  Eccless.  in  Euseb.  Verc.  Tom.  I.  p.  130. 


(    393    ) 

but  the  reputation  which  they  acquired/ as  transla* 
tors,  the  latter  on  very  slender  pretensions I45.,  suffi- 
ciently reveal  how  very  rare  the  endowment  was  at 
this  period.  As  we  descend  below  this  period,  in- 
stances are  still  more  rare  of  those  who  possessed 
this  qualification.  The  subjugation  of  the  Western 
Empire  by  the  Goths,  who  extended  their  arms  into 
Africa147,  rendered  this  age  particularly  unpropi- 

146  The  charge  of  unfaithfulness  in  translating  from  the 
Greek  is  brought  against  Ruffinus  by  St.  Jerome ;  S.  Hier. 
Apol.  adv.  Ruffin.  Lib.  II.  cap.  v.  Tom.  II.  p.  246.  And  some 
fragments,  which  are  preserved  of  Origen's  Commentary  on. 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  which  Ruffinus  undertook  to  trans- 
late at  the  request  of  Heraclius,  fully  justify  the  charge  of  St. 
Jerome.  The  Benedictine  editours  introduce  the  first  of  those 
fragments  to  our  notice,  with  the  following  observation  ;  Orig. 
Comment,  in  Ep.  ad  Romann.  Tom.  IV.  p.  462.  u.  m.  "  Quam 
Injida  sit  Rufini  interpretation  liquet  ex  Graecis,  qua?  Philocaliae 
cap.  xxv.  sic  repraesentantur,  &c.  Pliny  the  elder,  and  Euse- 
bius  of  Caesarea,  were  the  most  learned  men  of  the  age  in  which 
they  lived ;  yet  their  attempts  at  rendering  Greek  into  Latin, 
and  Latin  into  Greek,  exhibit  some  curious  mistakes.  The 
subjoined  passage  of  Tertullian  is  rendered  as  follows  by  Euse- 
bius;  Tert.  Apol.  cap.  v.  p.  21.  "  Consulite  Commentaries 
vestros.  Illic  reperietis  primum  Neronem  in  hanc  sectam  cum 
xnaxime  Romae  orientem  csesariano  gladio  ferocisse."  Euseb. 
Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  II.  cap.  xxv.  p.  83. 1.  22.  iM 
puffw  vpuv.  ix^r  ivtfifffii  TT^UTOV  Ntguvct  T«To  TO  ^o 
Iv  Pvpy  T'/JV  ava?oXr,V  Traaay  t>7ro]a|a?,  upo<, 

The  use  of  TO  aoy^oc,  and  ^vjxa,  for  TY,V  -aigso-iv  and  OT»,-  not  to 
speak  of  the  general  misconception  of  the  sense,  are  slight  er- 
rours,  compared  to  the  shameful  mistake  of  rendering  orientem 
by  rr,v  avdlohyv.  The  reader  who  would  see  similar  instances  of 
mistranslation  in  Pliny,  may  consult  Salmas.  Pliniann.  E. \ercitt. 
in  Solin.  Tom.  I.  p.  127.  d.  sqq. 
**7  Vicl.  supr.  p.  2S6.  n.  3°'. 


(    394    ) 

tious  to  study.  Sedulius  Hibernensis,  who  im- 
pelled by  an  insatiable  thirst  for  information,  tra- 
velled as  far  eastward  as  Asia,  whither  literature 
was  now  retiring  from  the  West148,  is  a  singular 
instance  of  a  person  acquainted  with  Greek I49  in 
an  age,  when  the  light  of  science  had  nearly  set  in 
the  western  hemisphere.  The  difficulties  with  which 
Cassiodorus  had  to  contend  in  the  next  age,  in  pro- 
curing a  competent  person  to  revise  the  Latin  tran- 
slation150, sufficiently  proclaim  how  very  unusual 

148  Sixt.  Sinens.  Biblioth.  Sanct.  Lib.  IV.  p.  219.  b.  ed.  1510. 
"  Velut  alter  Apollonius  Tyaneus,  [Sedulius]  fugientem  sapi- 
tntiam  toto  terrarum  orbe  perquirens,  Britanniam,  Hispaniam, 
Galliam,  Italiam,  Graciam,  et  Asiam,  miro  discendi  ardore  per- 
lustravit,"  &c.  Honourable  mention  is  made  of  Sedulius  by 
Cassiodorus ;  vid.  Usser.  Antiquitt.  Brit.  Eccles.  cap.  xvi,  p, 
407.  sqq. 

I4*  A  Greek  Psalter  transcribed  in  the  ninth  century  from 
an  autograph  of  Sedulius  is  still  preserved,  and  is  described  by 
the  learned  Benedictine,  B.  de  Montfaucon,  Palaeogr.  Grac. 
Lib.  III.  cap.  vii.  p.  236.  On  the  execution  of  the  work,  the 
learned  antiquary  observes ;  Ibid.  p.  236.  "  Etsi  vero  non  ita 
perite  exaratus  sit  codex,  nihil  stupendum  in  Latino  scriba : 
nam  si  Graeci  calligraphi  ejusdem  aetatis  frequenter  vocalium 
commutationes — admittunt;  quid  minim  si  Latinus  scriba, 
alnTrcu  pro  aln~r*  dicat,  ymwrau  pro  ynuo-xH  et  similia :  sed 
tamen  non  ita  frequenter  sensum  interturbat :  quo  videatur, 
Greece  non  imperitum,  ut  ilia  aetate,  Sedulium  Scotum," 

150  Of  these  difficulties,  Cassiodorus,  who  had  been  at  infinite 
pains  to  collect  not  only  books,  but  translatours  and  exposi- 
tours,  out  of  all  parts  of  the  world,  [vid.  Cassiod.  de  Instit. 
Divin.  Litter,  capp.  vfii.  ix.  p.  544?.  ed.  Rotom.  1679.]  speaks 
in  the  following  terms ;  Id.  ibid,  in  Praef.  p.  537.— gravissimo 
fateor  dolore  permotus,  quod  scripturis  divinis  magistri  publici 
deessent .  Nisus  sum  ergo  cum  beatissimo  Agapito  Papa. 


(    395    ) 

alification  was  in  the  age  when  he  flou- 

school  of  Nisibis,  situated  at  the  ex- 

>rs  of  Syria,  having  been  the  nearest 

vhence  a  person  qualified  to  discharge 

ould  be  procured.     Junilius,  a  contem- 

issiodorus,  mentions,  as  an  unusual  cir- 

;  lis  having  seen  one  person,  a  Persian, 


(    396    ) 

Greek152;  the  only  reasonable  inference  is.,  that  the 
Syriack  was  the  Philoxenian  version,  the  Greek  the 
Palestine  text,  which  were  employed  in  the  revisal. 
This  supposition  is  fully  confirmed  by  the  coinci- 
dence which  exists  between  that  text  and  version, 
and  the  affinity  which  both  possess  to  the  modern 
Vulgate 15J.  That  the  readings  of  the  latter  version 
were  more  than  collated  with  the  Greek  and  Sy- 
riack texts,  and  the  true  readings  more  than  ascer- 
tained,, from  different  copies  of  the  translation, 
which  was  originally  made  from  the  Palestine  edi- 
tion, is  rendered  wholly  improbable  by  many  consi- 
derations *54.  To  recast  the  translation  by  a  differ- 

152  Vid.  supr.  p.  21.  n. 3e. 

153  In  the  passages  quoted,  supr.  p.  380.  sqq.  from  the  antient 
Syriack,  the  Vulgate  dissents  from  that  version,  and  agrees 
with  the  Palestine  text,  omitting  all  that  the  Syriack  retains,  but 
Job.  i.  27.     In  the  printed  editions,  Matt,  xxvii.  35.  Luc.  xvii. 
3.6.  55.  which  occur  in  the  Syriack,  are  retained  also  in  the 
Vulgate;  but  in  the  Roman  Corrections  subjoined  to  the  Bible 
of  Sixtus  V.  they  are  marked  as  absent  from  some  manuscripts 
of  the  vulgar  Latin  version.     It  is  extraordinary,  that  in  the 
only  remaining  passage  of  any  length,  Luc.  vii.  31.  tint  $1  a 
Kv£ioct  in  which  the  Greek  and  Syriack  Vulgate  differ,  which 
otherwise  generally  agree ;  the  Latin  Vulgate,  differing  from 
the  latter ;  agrees  with  the  former.     As  it  is  highly  improbable 
that  the  criticks  of  Charlemagne's  days,  attended  to  minute 
verbal  differences ;  these  examples  will  abundantly  demonstrate, 
that  the  Greek  text  and  Syriack  version,  by  which  they  cor. 
rected  the  Gospels,  could  not  have  been  the  vulgar  edition. 

154  One  of  the  strongest  reasons  appears  to  be  this ;  the  read- 
ing of  the  Latin  Vulgate  might  be  thus  ascertained  with  great 
precision  and  ease ;  as  this  version,  as  well  as  the  Philoxenian 
Syriack,  was  made  from  the  Palestine  Greek.  Had  the  revi- 


(    397    ) 

ent  text,  if  practicable,  would  have  been  an  useless 
attempt,  and  inconsistent  with  the  high  veneration 
in  which  St.  Jerome's  translation  was  held155.  It 
was  this  veneration  which  must  surely  have  directed 
the  authours  of  this  revisal  to  Palestine,,  where  they 
eould  not  be  ignorant  the  Vulgate  was  framed,  in 
search  of  the  Greek.,  from  whence  that  version  was 
made  originally.  And  the  preface  prefixed  by  St. 
Jerome  to  the  Gospels,,  directed  them  not  merely  to 
the  original,  from  whence  it  was  derived,  but  to  ex- 
traneous sources,  which  were  naturally  conceived  to 
exist  in  the  Palestine  text  and  Syriack  translation is6. 
Whatever  might  have  'been  the  care  employed  in 
correcting  the  modern  Vulgate,  it  could  thus  have 
extended  to  little  more  than  restoring  its  original 
readings.  And  thus  much  is  apparent  from  the 
internal  evidence  of  the  copies  of  the  Vulgate,  which 

sers  proceeded  greater  lengths  in  restoring  the  text,  they  must 
liave  transgressed  the  intentions  of  Charlemagne:  Carol.  Magn. 
«p.  P.  Mabil.  in  Annall.  Tom.  I.  p.  25.  "  Igitur  quia  curae 
nobis  est,  ut  Ecclesiarum  nostrarum  ad  meliora  semper  profi- 
ciat  status,  obliteratam  pe&e  malorum  nostrorum  disidia  repa* 
rare,  vigilanti  studio  literarum  satagimus  officinam  ;  et  ad  per- 
noscemla  sacrorum  librorum  studia,  nostro  etiarn  quos  possumus 
iiivitamus  exemplo,  inter  quse  jampridem  universes  Veteris  ao 
Novi  Testamenti  libros,  librariorum  imperitia  depravatos,  Deo 
nos  in  omnibus  adjuvante,  ad  amussim  correximus." 

135  Vid.supr.  pp.  32,  33,  nn.  s7  et 55. 

156  Vid.  supr.  p.  100.  n. Iio.  S.  Jerome,  in  declaring,  in  that 
Preface,  "  cum  multarum  gentium  linguis  Scriptura  ante  trans* 
lata"  was  naturally  conceived  to  include  the  Syriack  version* 
Of  this  translation  it  is  certain,  his  predecessour.  Eusebius,  if 
not  Origen,  made  some  use,  in  revising  the  Old  Testament,  a* 
fill  appear  in  the  sequel. 


(    399    ) 

were  corrected  by  Alcuine,  under  Charlemagne; 
and  which  have  descended  to  our  times157;  it  dee« 
not  appear  that  these  copies  approximate  more  to 
the  vulgar  text  of  the  Syriack  and  Greek,  than  any 
other  copies  of  that  translation ^ 

Nor  is  the  integrity  of  the  Syriack  Vulgate  less 
capable  of  vindication,  from  the  charge  of  those 
who  would  insinuate,  that  it  has  been  corrupted  from 
the  Greek  Vulgate.  That  such  a  corruption  could 
not  have  taken  place,  subsequently  to  the  year  450, 
when  the  Philoxenian  version  was  formed,  has  beea 
already  evinced,  from  the  history  of  the  Syrian 
church  since  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century158. 
And  the  bare  consideration,  that  this  version  was 
framed,  at  that  period,,  by  the  Palestine  text,  ren- 
ders the  conception  absurd  in  the  extreme,  that  the 
primitive  version  could  have  previously  coincided 
with  the  same  edition :  the  eviction  of  which  agree- 

157  Such  is  the  celebrated  Vallicella  Bible,  mentioned  under 
the  following  terms  by  M.  Blanehini,  Evangeliar.  Quadrupl. 
P.  II.  f.  deiv.     Descriptio  insignis  Cod.  Vallacelani,  complec- 
tentis  Biblia  Sacra  utriusque  Testamenti,  exarata  proprio  manu, 
ab   Alchuino  Anglo,  Sancti  Bedce   discipulo."    This  MS.  is 
however  classed  by  M.  Blanehini,  among  those  which  are  de- 
scribed under  the  following  title ;  Id.  ib.  dxcix.     "  Descriptio 
aliquot  Codicum  Latinorum  Antiquae  Italae  puree  pitta  Hiero- 
nymiance"     The  subscription  of  the  MS.  Bible  of  St.  Germain 
des  Prez,  which  has  been  already  quoted,  supr.  p.  32.  n.  57. 
contains  a  stronger  confirmation  of  the  above  assumption ;  that 
the  integrity  of  the  Latin  Vulgate  was  rather  restored  than 
violated  under  the  revisal  of  Alcuine  ;  and  that  its  affinity  to 
the  Syriack  must  be  sought  in  the  Palestine  text,  which  had 
some  influence  on  this  version  and  St.  Jerome's. 

158  Vid.  supr.  p.  343.  sqq. 


(    S99    ) 

ment  is  essentially  necessary  to  the  establishment  of 
the  assumption,  that  the  latter  version  has  been  sub- 
sequently altered,  to  correspond  with  the  text  of  By- 
zantium. As  the  Peshito,  or  Syriack  Vulgate,  has 
never  sunk  in  the  esteem  of  the  Syrian  church ;  the 
formation  of  a  new  version  cannot  be  imputed  to 
the  circumstance  of  the  old  having  become  obsolete 
in  its  language,  or  fallen  in  its  reputation :  nor  to 
any  other  cause,  but  the  publication  of  a  Greek  text, 
which  attained  to  higher  repute  than  that  from  which 
the  original  version  was  formed.  Had  it  been  in 

o 

consequence  of  the  corruption  of  the  primitive  tran- 
slation, from  some  modern  Greek  text,  it  must  be 
obvious,  that  the  only  plan  left  to  those  who  would 
undertake  to  remedy  this  evil,  would  have  been  to 
restore  the  primitive  readings,  by  a  collation  of  the 
old  copies  of  the  version  with  those  of  the  original. 
But  this  is  a  supposition  which  is  not  only  refuted  by 
the  internal  evidence  of  the  version,  which  possesses 
no  such  corrections;  but  is  wholly  irreconcilable 
with  the  veneration  in  which  the  vulgar  version  is 
held  by  the  Syrians IS9.  In  fact,  the  whole  of , the 

159  Gabr.  Sionit.  Praef.  in  Psalt.  Syriac.  p.  iii.  Quamvis 
linguae  Syriacse  usus  coramunis  sit  apud  distinctas  diversarum 
religionum  nationes,  sacrorum  tamen  voluminum  integritas  summa 
semper  cum  religione  servata  est  ab  omnibus,  ita  ut  nulla  vel 
minima  discrepantia  in  eorum  lectione  deprehendatur.  Viget 
autem  ea  lingua  primo  apud  Chald&os  Mesopotamia  populos, 
H&resi  Nestoriance  misere  obligatos  ;  turn  apud  Syros  Jacobitas, 
qui  Dioscoridis,  Eutycketu,  et  Jacobi  Jalsa  dogmata  secuti, 
MonotheHtarum  nomine  dignoscuntur ;  tertio  apud  Mar onitas 
nostros,  etiam  Syros,  qui  ab  avita  fide  CathoKca  Romana  nun- 
quam  desciverunt," 


(    400    ) 

circumstances  of  the  case,  tend  as  fully  to  prove, 
that  the  text  with  which  the  primitive  version  agrees 
was  antient,  as  that  by  which  the  latter  version  was 
formed,  was  modern  I6°.  From  which  consideration 
the  priority  of  the  Byzantine  to  the  Palestine  text, 
follows  of  course;  as  it  is  with  the  former  that  the 
primitive  version  corresponds,  while  the  revised  cor- 
responds with  the  latter.  Admitting  this  to  be  the 
case,  which  it  will  not  be  found  easy  to  disprove, 
the  unsupported  assumption,  that  the  Syriack  Vul- 
gate has  been  corrected  by  the  Byzantine  Greek, 
requires  no  further  refutation.  Such  an  assumption 
can  be  only  maintained  on  the  grounds  of  the  affi- 
nity discoverable  between  the  Syriack  and  Greek ; 
which  affinity  must  be  thus  attributed  to  this  obvi- 
ous cause;  that  the  one  was  originally  made  from 
the  other. 

160  It  has  never  been  doubted,  that  the  later  version  has  been 
formed  after  the  Palestine  text,  which  was  published  by  Euse- 
bius,  and  which  accorded  in  the  Old  Testament  with  Origen's 
Hexapla*  Walt.  Prolegomm.  in  Bibll.  Polyglott.  Sect.  xiii. 
§  o.  p.  89. — versionem  habent  [Syri]  ex  Hebrseo  antiquissimam, 
quam  in  his  Bibliis  exhibemus,  et  ilia  quam  postea  hauserunt 
ex  Greece,  non  erat  ex  mixta  aliqua  editione,  sed  ex  ea  quam  in 
Origenis  Hexaplis  puram  esse  et  genuinam,  omnes  veteres,  imo 
ipse  Hieronymus,  uno  ore  affirmarunt"  This  however  is  ren- 
dered indisputable  by  the  subscription  of  the  Ambrosian  MS. 
of  the  Philoxenian  Version ;  a  specimen  of  which  has  been  pub- 
lished by  M.  De  Rossi.  Spec.  ined.  Hexaplar.  Biblior.  Vers. 
Syro-Estrang.  in  Diatrib.  §  vi.  [p.  x.]  Parm.  1778.  "  Modo 
ad  Codicem  ipsum  redeamus,  qui  hac  epigraphe  explicit; 
*•  Descriptus  est  et  effictus  ex  exemplari  Eusebii  et  Pamphili. 
.Ad  ejus  scilicet  normam,  quod  ipsi  emendarunt  <ex  UbliothecA 
QrigenisS* 


As  these  considerations  seem  adequate  to  vindi* 
cate  the  integrity  of  the  Syriack  Vulgate,-  they  in- 
volve an  equally  strong  argument  in  favour  of  the 
antiquity  of  this  translation,  Yvhich  is  universally 
admitted  to  be  the  most  antient  of  the  Oriental  ver* 
sions'6'.  That  this  version  existed  in  its  present 
mutilated  form,  previously  to  the  fourth  century, 
I  cannot  be  easily  brought  to  conceive*  The  ex- 
travagant antiquity  ascribed  to  it  by  the  native  Sy- 
rians161 and  Orientalists l6j,  is  clearly  entitled  to  no 

161  Walt,  lit  supr.  §  8*  p.  89.  "  Quod  ad  utilitatem  hujuS 
linguae  spectat — addere  licet,  quod  in  ea  extat  vetustissima  tran* 
datio,  Vet.  Test,  ex  Hebrseo,  et  Nov.  Test,  ex  Gradd,  qiltz  omnes 
post  Christum  factas  aniiquitate  superat."  Uenaudot.  ap.  Le 
Long,  fciblioth.  Sacr.  Tom.  L  p.  i.  cap.  ii.  p.  93.  "  Versio 
Syra,  qua  vulgo  Syri  omnes  uiuntur,  ex  HebraicO  facta  est 
omniumque  versionum  Orientalium  est  antiquissimct."  Conf* 
iniir.  n.  I6*. 

161  Walt.  ibid.  p»  9fr  $  15.  «*  --Sionita  in  Psalm.  Syr.  ex 
Saodedo  quodam  episcopo  Hadethiensi,  antique  apud  Syros 
scriptore.  Fatetur  tamen  ibidem  Sionita,  quorundaitt  Syrorum 
sententiam  esse,  totam  Vet.  et  Nov.  Test.  Versionem  factam 
Juisse  tempore  S.  Thaddai  (quern  Addceum  vacant)  et  regis  Ab- 
gari ;  priorem  vero  sententiam  probabiliorem  judicat,  quse  raihi 
improbabilior  Videtur." 

163  Abul-Pharai.  Hist.  Afab.  p.  184-i  a  Pocock. — "  siquidem 
exemplar— quod  Simplex  appellatur,  quia  qui  illud  elaborarunt 
de  ornatu  vefborUm  solicit!  non  fuerunt,  conVenit  Cum  exenv 
plari  Judaeorum.  At  Syri  Occidentales  duas  habent  Versiones, 
simplicem  illam  qUse  e  lingua  Hebraica  in  Syriacam  translate 
est  post  adventum  Domini  Christi  tempore  Added  Apostoli,  vel 
juxta  alios,  ante  eum  tempore  Salomonis  filii  David  et  Hirami  * 
ct  alteram  figuratam  juxta  LXX  seniofum  interpretationem 
e  lingua  Grtrca  in  Syfiacam  tradudam  IcngQ  post  Salvatoris 
incarnationem." 

Dd 


(    402    ) 

attention.  So  great  'a  work  as  the  translation  of  the 
whole  Bible  into  the  language  of  that  people,  must 
have  been  effected  by  labour  and  time.  That  part 
of  the  version  'which  contains  the  Old  Testament 
lias  been  attributed  to  the  Jews164;  and  the  mere 
circumstance  of  this  part  of  the  canon  having  been 
the  first  that  was  translated,  seems  decisive  of  the 
fact.  The  Christians  possessed  no  knowledge  of 
the  Hebrew,  from  which  this  version  was  made165, 
and  were  not  even  in  possession  of  the  original, 

until  the  publication  of  Grig-en's  Hexapla166.     In 

r  °  i 

164  Author.   Synops.  Nov.  Bibll.  Polyglott.  p.  IS.     "  Syris 
duplex  est  Bibliorum  versio,  ex  Graeco  una  facta  est—  ex  He- 
brceo  altera  —  .     Ebraica  verba  ita  presse  exprimit,  ut  a  Jndceo 
potius  quam  ab  homine  Christiano  profectam  Jidsse  crediderlm, 
Suspicor  illam  olim  in  usum  Judcconim,  qui  in  synagogis  suis 
Ebraice  et  Chaldaice  legebant,  conditam  fuisse,  et  iab  his  ob 
Chaldaicae  et  Syriacae  dialectorum  .affinitatem  ad  SyrpS  tran- 
siisse."     Ap.  Le  Long.  ibid. 

165  Vid.  supr.  p.  401.  n.  163.  &c.     It.  is  mentioned  by  Euse-> 
bius  as  a  singular  instance  of  the  indefatigable  diligence  of 
Origen,  who,  according  to  the  admission  of  the  Pagans,  was 
the  most  learned  person  of  his  times,  that  he  studied  Hebrew  ; 
vid.  supr.  p.  213.  n.  59. 

166  Eusebius  represents  the  possession  of  a  copy  of  the  He- 
brew Scriptures  as  peculiar  to  Origen  ;  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  VL 
cap.  xvi.  p.  275.  1.21.      Toc-at/nj   ol  fTpiiyalo  TV   *£lpyivii  TUY  §&iur 


j-    x     rr/v 

ray  rs  Vcc^oi  roTi1  M«£«/oir  E^ggopoevar  vrfcJlclvnu;  etvroig  'EfyatMf  . 
ro^^otf  Tpaipaf,  x7^/x,a  T^fov  TrowsaaSou.  And  St.  Jeroaje 
speaks  of  him  as  learning  Hebrew  contrary  to  the  prejudice  of 
his  country  ;  S.  Hier.  Cat.  Scriptt.  Eccl.  in  Orig.  Tom.  I.  p. 
126.  "  Et  quod  tantum  in  Scripturas  divinas  habuerit  studii, 
ut  etiam  Hebraeam  linguam  contra  atatis  gentisque  suce  naturam 
editceret." 


(    403    ) 

compiling  this  great  work,  in  the  tnird  century, 
Origen  probably  made  some  use  of  the  Syriack  ver- 
sion, having  frequently  referred  to  it  in  his  mar- 
gin I6?.  In  the  fourth  century,  it  is  noticed  by  Euse- 
bius,  Basil,  and  Ambrose I6S ;  and  is  expressly  quoted 

167  Montfauc.  Praelimm.  in  Hexapl.  Origen.  cap.  i  §  vii. 
p.  18.  "  Samaritan!  et  Syri  lectiones  in  marginibm  vetu^tissi- 
inorum  exemplar ium  qua  hexaplorum  fragmentq  exhbent,  iper- 
feaepe  observantur ;  Syri  quidem  in  plerisque  Scriptures  libris ; 
Samaritani  vero  in  Pentateucho  tantum :— Cum  autem  ill® 
Samaritani  lectiones,  non  in  vetustis  codicibus  tantum,  sed 
etiam  apud  patres  quarti,  quint  i,  et  sequentium  saeculorum 
occurrant,  probabile  sane  videtur  ipsum  Origmem  iectiones  illas 
Samaritani  in  margine  Hexaplorum  posuisse.  Idem  pvrro  dicen- 
dum  de  Syro,  cujus  interpretationes  passim  reperiuntur,  in 
Genesi  Exodo,"  &c.  Whatever  be  considered  probable  on  this 
subject,  it  must  be  inferred,  that  this  version,  which  is  quoted 
in  the  Hexapla,  was  the  Peshito,  from  its  coincidence  with  the 
Hebrew ;  vid.  infr.  n.  168. 

163  Walt.  Prolegomm.  in  Bibll.  Polygll.  p.  91.  "  Quicquid 
vero  sit  de  hoc  Hieronymi  testimonio"  (vid.  supr.  p.  397.  n. IS6.) 
certum  est  Syriacse  yersionis  apud  multos  veterum  Graecorum  et 
Latinorum  fieri  mentionem.  Basilius  Magnus  Horn.  1.  in  Hex. 

ad  Gen.  i.  2.  ex  Syro  interprete  namo  exponit, .  Atnbrosius 

Hex.  Lib.  I.  cap.  viii,  in  eundem  locum  citat  Syrum — Procopius 
in  Exod.  xxii.  memorat  Syrum  vertisse  '  excutite,  tacuifacite,' 
{rv<ry.ivu.tru\i.  Theodoretus  in  cap.  iii.  Jonas  Syros  codices  citat, 
ut  in  Ps.  civ.  cxiii.  cxvi.  Chrysostomus  in  Ps.  xciv.  et  Heb.  xL 
Syri  codicis  etiam  meminit  S.  Augustinus  De  Civitate  Dei 

Lib,  XV.  cap.  xiii.  .  Ad  haec  saepissime  t$  zfy* 

mentionem  habemus  in  antiquissimis  Scholiis  Grsecis,"  &c. 
Montfauc.  ibid.  p.  1 9.  "  Syri  porro  lectiones  adferuntur  ab  Eu~ 
sebio  Cfssariensi,  a  Diodoro  Tarsensi  frcquentius ;  ab  Eusebio 
Emiseno,  Hieronymo,  Theodoreto  et  aids.  Quodque  notandum 
est,  iidem,  maximeque  Diodorus,  Syrum  cum  Hebrceo '  jungunt 
hoc  pacto  j  o  S^of  ^  9  'E^aro?,  vel,  o  'E^f a~cf  %  «  2tpoc,  quandc 


(    40*    ) 

out  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  by  Ephrein,  the 
Syrian*69.  In  this  century^  of  course,  the  transla- 
tion must  have  been  completed.  But  the  difference 
of  style  existing  between  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts 
and  Epistles,  renders  it  not  merely  probable  that  the 
translation  was  formed  at  different  times ;  but  that 
the  Gospels,  as  might  naturally  be  conceived,  were 
formed  at  a  comparatively  early  period.  This  sup- 
position is  not  merely  confirmed  by  the  peculiar 
character  of  the  style,  which  is  more  pure  than  that  of 
the  Acts  and  Epistles,  and  bears  internal  evidence  of 
greater  antiquity  I7°;  but  by  the  absence  of  Eusebius's 
sections,  which  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  existed 
in  the  Palestine  text,  when  the  version  of  the  Gos- 

scilicet  amborum  interpretations  conveniunt,  quod  scepe  contigit." 
The  learned  autliour,  Ib.  §  ix.  p.  20.  raises  some  objections  to 
the  notion  of  a  Syriack  version,  from  the  Hebrew  having  ex- 
isted in  this  early  age;  which  he  deduces  from  the  circum- 
stance of  this  version  containing  some  Greek  terms.  But  no- 
thing can  be  concluded  from  hence  against  the  existence  of  the 
Syriack  Vulgate  at  this  period,  as  the  Syriack  language,  in 
which  it  is  written,  abounds  in  Greek  terms.  In  the  following 
observation,  he  seems  to  answer  his  own  objections  on  thig 
point :  Id.  ibid.  p.  20.  "  Verum  non  desunt  exempla  alia  qua 
huic  opinioni  adversari  videntur,  ut  est  illud  ex  Didymo,  Gen. 
viii.  7.  o  Si'go*  «%  o/xoi'wy  TYJ  'EXXymx-rr  Pu'y"  ya£,  ' 


Vid.  supr.  p.  25.  n.  43» 
170  Simon.  Hist,  des  Vers.  chap.  xv.  p.  187.  "  Au  reste. 
cette  Version  n'est  pas  tout-a-fait  si  simple  dans  les  Epitres  de 
St.  Paul,  que  dans  les  Evangiles,  Comme  le  stile,  de  ces  Epi- 
tres  est  obscur  et  embarrasse,  PInterprete  Syrien  s'y  est  donne 
plus  de  libertc,  s'eloignant  quelquefois  de  son  original.  II 
s'emancipe  des  les  premiers  mots  de  1'Epitre  aux  Romans,"  &c. 
Comp.  Marsh.  Michael.  Vol.  IJ.  chap.  vii.  §  8.  p.  40. 


(    405    ) 

pels  was  made.  All  these  considerations  taken  to- 
gether, claim  for  the  first  part  of  this  version  an 
antiquity  not  less  remote  than  the  third  century. 
And  this  assumption  is  rendered  more  probable,  Ijy 
many  corroborating  circumstances.  The  establish- 
ment of  the  Palestine  school  under  Origen  excited 
a  spirit  of  literary  exertion  among  the  Syrians  at 
this  period,  and  directed  their  attention  to  biblical 
criticism171.  With  the  declension  of  the  Greek 
power  in  the  East,  on  the  extension  of  the  Roman 
conquests  to  the  remotest  bounds  of  the  civilized 
world,  the  authority  of  the  Greek  language  simulta- 
neously declined  1?z.  The  Syrians  now  began  to  cul- 

171  Euseb.   Hist.  Eccl.   Lib.  VI.   cap.  xxx.  p.  294.  I  27. 

'nil     ?%<;    Kaic-apia?     TO,    <?vvri§v)    Vfot 
»   //.ovov    TWV   G7r%ei)ptwYt    «tAAa   xj  ayro    rri 


171  The  peculiar  attention  with  which  the  natives  of  Pales- 
tine and  Syria  cultivated  Greek,  may  be  collected  from  the 
Writings  of  Justin  Martyr,  Tatian,  Theophilus,  &c.  who  wrote 
in  that  language.  The  principal  writers  among  the  Jews  as 
well  as  Christians,  neglecting  their  vernacular  tongue,  devoted 
themselves  exclusively  to  the  cultivation  of  that  language,  as  is 
apparent  from  the  works  of  Josephus  and  Philo,  who  are  sup- 
posed, particularly  the  latter,  to  have  had  very  little  knowledge 
of  Hebrew  or  Chaldee.  Bardesanes,  in  the  second  century, 
wrote  in  Syriack  ;  but  to  obtain  his  works  a  circulation  in  Pa- 
lestine, it  was  found  necessary  by  his  disciples  to  translate  them 
in  tov  Greek  ;  Euseb.  ibid.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  xxx.  p.  194.  1.16.;  — 

run    at^'crea;*,     tiri    T»5; 
los  rt?  avrip,  EV    T£    TJI 

crvrv)<r£pevo<;,  t^    olxtip   TrapUXS   ya/T-/)    T£ 
»a    9rXi'rwv    irifuj 
»VTU  $'jve£la<i  ry 


(    406    ) 

tivate  their  native  tongue,  and  one  of  the  first  efforts 
to  give  it  a  written  existence,  was  employed  in  con* 
verting  the  best  of  books,  into  the  vernacular  lan- 
guage.    But  the  peculiar  character  of  that  part  of 
the  version  which  was  first  formed,  conveys  a  proo£ 
^vhich  is  at  once  demonstrative  of  its  antiquity,  and 
of  its  freedom  from  later  corruption ;  a  proof  which 
is  rendered  decisive,  by  the  wide  and  early  disper- 
sion of  this  translation,  which  rendered  its  general 
corruption  impossible 17J.     Prom  the  extraordinary 

TOJ*  2w§o>v  ptg7a/3sjSXrxa<Ti  Quvns»     A  like  observation  may  be 
made  on  the  works  of  Ephrem  Syrus,  who  wrote  in  the  fourth 
century ;  &.  Hier.  Cat.  Scriptt.  Eccless.  in  Ephr.  Tom.  I.  p. 
131.     "  Ephraem,  Edessenae   ecclesiae  diaconus,  mulia  Syro 
sermons  composuit  .»-^Legi  ejus   de   Spiritu   Sancto  volumen, 
quod  quidam  de  Syriaca  lingua  verterat ;   et  acumen  suMimis 
ingenii  etiam  in  transfotione  cognovi."     As  translations   are 
rarely  made  into  languages  which  are  not  more  generally  under* 
stood,  than  those  in   which  the  originals  are  written;  these 
authorities  very  sufficiently  evince  the  continuance  of  Greek 
in  Syria,  as  low  as  the  close  of  the  fourth  century.     Towards 
the  middle  of  the  next  century,  matters  assumed  a  different 
appearance ;  the  translation  of  the  works  of  Ibas,  Theodorit, 
Theodorus  Mopsuestenus,   Diodorus  Tarsensis,  &c.   into  Sy». 
riack  at  this  period,  sufficiently  declare,  that  this  language  had 
already  begun  to  supersede  the  Greek :  vid.  supr.  p.  344.  n. 7I. 
A  revisal  of  the  Syriack  Version  was  consequently  undertaken 
about  this  time  by  Polycarp,  under  the  auspices  of  Philoxenus; 
probably  with  the  view  of  extending  the  Eutychian  heresy  in 
Syria,  for  which  purpose  the  original  Version,  which  had  been 
so  long  used  by  Paulianists  and  Arians,  was  little  calculated ; 
vid.fiupr.  p.  371.  n.  ia8.  p.  346.  n.  76. 

173  Walt.  Prolegomm.  in  Bibll.  Polyglott.  Sect.  xiii.  }  3.  p. 
92.  "  Qui  vero  hac  lingua  [Syriaca]  sacra  sua  celebrant^, 
ut  a  doctiss,  Bierewood  recensentur,  sunt,  (1.)  Maronita  io 


0    407     ) 

agreement  of  the  primitive  Syriack  version  and  the 
Greek  Vulgate,  we  of  course  deduce  a  like  conclu- 

Monte  Libano.  — .  Habent  isti  Maronitae  Patriarcham,  qui 
gedeni  Patriarchalem  plerumque  habet  in  tnonte  Libano,  all* 
quando  in  Tripoli ;  Scripturas  vero  et  cultum  publicum  lingua 
Syriaca,  sive  Maronitica — lingua  scilicet  quae  olim  omnibus 
Vulgaris  et  adhuc  vicis  quibusdam  et  pagis  per  montem  Liba* 
num  manet. — (2.)  Nestoriani  a  Nestorio  Heresiarcha  olim 
dicti,- — qui  magnam  partem  Orientis — hodie  occupant:  nam 
prseter  regiones  Babylonia,  Assyria,  Mesopotamia,  Partltice  et 
Media,  in  quibus  frequentes  degunt,  etiam  longe  lateque  e 
parte  Septentrionali  ad  Cathaiam,  et  ex  Australi  Indos  versus 
propagantur.  Patriarcham  habent  in  Muzal  ad  ripas  Tigridis 
in  Mesopotamia.  (3.)  Jacobites  dicti  a  Jacobo  Syro, — cujus 
sectatores  multi  hodie  conspiciuntur  in  Syriam,  Cyprum,  Mesa- 
potamiam,  Babi/loniam,  Palcestinam  dispersi.  Patriarcham  ha- 
bent, postquam  ab  Antiochena  jurisdictione  se  subduxerunt, 
cujus  sedes  est  in  urbe  Caramit,  antiqua  Mesopotamia)  metro- 
poli,  qui  se  Patriarcham  Antiochenum  vocat. — (4.)  Copies  vel 
Cbptitae  qui  (in  religione,  Jacobitae)  per  JEgyptum  in  sacris 
linguam  Syriacam  usurpant. — (5.)  Indi  sive  S.  Thomae  Chris* 
tiani. — (6.)  Hisce  tandem  addendi  Christiani,  qui  insttlam  Zoca- 
toram  extra  sinum  Arabicum  inhabitant :  utrum  Jacobitae  sint 
an  Nestoriani  variant  autores.— — Ex  hoc  calculo  liquet  prce- 
cipuas  per  totum  Orientem  Clirhtianorum  Ecclesias^  longe  lateque 
propagatas,  Script i/ras  et  ofEcia  sacra  lingua  Syriaca  legere  et 
celebrare,"  &c.  That  a  dispersion  of  the  Syriack  Vulgate  thus 
wide  must  have  taken  place  at  an  early  period,  is  apparent  from 
the  history  of  the  Syrian  Church.  The  commercial  intercourse 
maintained  between  Arabia  and  India,  opened  a  communica^ 
tion  between  those  countries,  through  which  numberless  Chris- 
tian settlers  extended  themselves  along  the  coast  of  Malabar 
to  the  island  of  Ceylon.  The  .banishment  of  the  Nestorians, 
and  the  subversion  of  the  school  of  Edessa,  whither  the  Per* 
sians  resorted  to  study,  under  the  Emperour  Zeno,  probably 
tended  to  increase  the  number  of  emigrants,  and  to  extend  the 
Syrian  heresies  as  far  eastward  as  India:  vid,  Beth-Arsem.  Ap, 


(    408    ) 

sion  to  that  which  has  been  already  deduced  from  a 
similar  agreement  between  the  vulgar  Greek  and 
the  primitive  Latin  translation  174>.  From  hence  we 
must  infer,  that  the  original  text,  which  corresponds 
with  those  most  antient  versions,  must  be  nearly 
coincident  with  that  from  which  these  versions  were 
at  least  formed  in  part,  in  the  primitive  ages. 

Assem.  Biblioth.  Orient,  in  Tb.  §  vii.  Tom.  I.  p.  204-.  Hence 
Cosmas  Indicopleustes,  who  visited  this  country  about  the 
year  530,  speaks  of  the  Indian  coasts,  from  Malabar  to  Ceylon 
or  Sielediva,  as  possessing  Christian  churches  ;  a  bishop  at 
that  time  residing  at  Calicut,  who  acknowledged  the  Arch* 
bishop  of  Persia  as  his  Metropolitan.  Cosm.  Indicopl.  Lib.  III. 


to 


if  »>  (K«     x    xX^ixo    x   frtfoj  VK  oee     s    * 
xj   IK  tw  KfyofAttr,*  MaXi,  t»$a    To    TTETTJ^I   7.;      --»• 
JtJ    EV   T»!   KiiXjai-a   o«   Tt>   x  a  Atfw  />*•,,   x£ti    ITTJ^XOTTJC    tftf    a^o   Ilf  ^.1  » 
^ei^OTOJ'8/xsj'O?.  Ofjioluq  ttct}    tt  T>3   yijcrw  Tfl   xaXtf^ev*}  Atorxo^l^y;  xara  f* 

ayre  'ii^xov  ^fXayof.  Ap.  Montf.  Nov.  Collect.  Patrr.  Tom.  II. 
p.  179.  e.  Montfauc.  Praef.  in  Cosm.  Topograph.  cap.  iii.  p.  x. 
"  In  altera  Indiae  ora,  quam  hodie  Malabaricam  dicimus,  hae 
urbes  et  emporia  celebriora  erant,  Sindu,  Orrotha,  Calliana  : 
eadem  ut  videtur,  quam  hodie  Calicutum  vocamus  ;  Sibor  et  Male, 
quinque  ernporia  habens  -  .  Ex  Male  haud  dubie,  Malabar 
factum  est.  Nam  Male  barr  continens  Male  significat."  Id. 
ibid.  §  vi.  is  In  Male  svpra  memorato  empor  o,  aderat  Chris- 
tianorum  Ecclesia;  similiter  in  Sietediva  Insula  Ecclesia  ckrrs- 
tianorum,  cum  presbytero  et  diacono  in  Perside  ordinatis. 
Item  apud  Bactros,  Hunnos  —  ,  reliquos  Indos,  Persarmenos, 
Medos,  Elamitas,  atque  in  tot  a  Persidu  regione  Eecleshe  injinita 
erant,  Episcopi,  christianique  populi  magno  numero,  martyres 
multi,  monachi,  hesychastae.  Similiterque  in  insula  quae  Dios« 
coridis  vocabatur,  nunc  Zocotora  vitmto  nomine,  in  mari  Indico 
Bita  —  clerici  erant  ex  Perside  missi,  atque  Ecclesia 
yum,  qui  ibidem  magno  numero  versabantur." 
174  Vid.  supr.  p.  154.  &c, 


(    409    ) 

The  testimony  of  those  antient  and  separate  wit- 
nesses, the  primitive  Latin  and  Syriack  Versions, 
now  bears  down  the  scale  with  accumulated  weight 
in  favour  of  the  Greek  Vulgate,  which  is  confessedly 
cupported  by  the  uninterrupted  testimony  of  tradition, 
for  fourteen  hundred  years.  Beholding  the  age  of 
this  text  identified  with  the  fourth  century,  by  the 
concurring  testimony  of  manuscripts,  versions,  and 
fathers,  let  us,  by  a  single  glance  of  thought,  con- 
nect that  period  with  the  times  of  the  Apostles,  and 
those  in  which  we  live.  Let  us  consider  the  uni- 
formity which  pervades  the  Manuscripts  of  every 
age,  ascending  from  the  present  period  to  those 
times,  and  their  coincidence  with  the  writings  of 
those  Fathers,  who  flourished  in  the  intervening 
ages.  Having  this  positive  proof  of  the  integrity 
of  tradition,  for  the  whole  of  that  period,  in  which 
the  testimony  of  Manuscripts  can  be  ascertained; 
let  us  then  follow  up  that  of  the  authorised  Ver- 
sions of  the  oldest  Churches,  which  we  are  infallibly 
assured  were  received  in  the  age  where  the  testi- 
mony of  Manuscripts  fails.  Supported  by  these 
vouchers,  which  carry  us  up  to  a  remote  and  inde- 
finite period ;  let  us  consider  the  history  of  the  ori- 
ginal text,  for  the  period  which  remains  unto  the 
apostolical  age.  Let  us  estimate  the  possibility  of 
its  having  been  corrupted  in  the  earliest  ages;  of 
its  having  been  sophisticated  by  Lucianus,  who  pro- 
fessed merely  to  transmit  the  vulgar  text,  and  who 
possessed  no  authority  to  impose  a  sophisticated  text 
aipon  his  contemporaries.  Observing  that  St.  Jerome 
Attests  the  prevalence  of  Lucianus's  text  at  the  very 


period  to  which  our  demonstrative  proofs  of  its  in- 
tegrity extend 17S ;  let  us  then  remember  by  how  few 
links  the  chain  of  tradition  is  connected  from  the 
age  in  which  he  flourished  to  that  in  which  the 
apostles  wrote ;  that  the  intervention  of  two  persons 
connects  the  times  of  Athanasius  with  those  of  Ori- 
gen,  and  two  more  the  times  of  Origen  with  those 
of  the  Apostles.  Finally  observing,  that  amid  the 
mass  of  evidence  which  has  been  adduced  by  mor 
dern  collatours  against  the  vulgar  edition,  the  co- 
incidences with  this  text  are  unnoticed,,  while  the 
minutest  deviations  from  it  are  sedulously  noted 
down,  let  it  be  remembered,  that  every  attempt  to 
impeach  its  general  and  doctrinal  integrity,  even 
in  the  most  trivial  points,  has  totally  failed.  With- 
out taking  a  comparative  view  of  the  hollowness  of 
the  system  by  which  the  rival  text  which  is  opposed 
to  it  is  sustained,  I  conceive,  that  to  make  the  just 
inference  which  flows  from  these  premises  in  favour 
of4he  integrity  of  the  Greek  Vulgate,  requires  not 
so  much  a  sound  judgment  as  an  honest  mind. 

In  closing  the  vindication  of  the  Received  Text, 
nothing  more  remains  for  its  advocate,  than  to  reply 
briefly  to  the  charge  of  incompetency  which  has 
been  urged  against  those  by  whom  it  was  formed. 
The  pedigree  of  this  text  has  been  traced  by  a  few 
steps  to  Erasmus'76;  and  a  want  of  the  most  neces- 

175  Vid.  supr.  p.  71.  &c. 

176  Griesb.  Prolegomm.  in   Nov.  Test.  Sect.  I.   p.  xxxiii. 
•*  Liceat  jam  tribus  verbis  Recepti  Textus  genealogiam  repe- 
tere.    Editiones  recentiores  sequuntur  Elsevirianaia,  &c.   ut 
supr-  p.  1.  n.  \ 


sary  helps  to  correct  the  text,  of  which  it  is  con- 
ceived he  was  destitute,  has  been  urged  as  a  suffi- 
cient proof  of  the   inefficiency  of  his  attempt177. 
Of  Manuscripts,  it  is  said,  he  knew  little ;  having 
possessed  none  of  those  antient  copies  of  which  his 
successours  have  made  so  much  use  in  amending  the 
text'78.     Of  Versions  he  was  even  more  ignorant; 
having  been  wholly  unacquainted  with  those  of  the 
Oriental  and  Western  Church179.     And  of  Fathers 
he  made  little  use,  having  merely  followed  Athana- 
sius,  Nazianzen,  and  Theophylact,  without  being 
conscious  of  the  value  of  Clement,  Origen,  and  Cy- 
ril's testimony,  in  correcting  the  text 


180 


177  Id.  ib.  p.  xxxiv.     "  Erasmus  vero  textum,  ut  potuit,  con- 
stituite  codicibus  paucissimis  et  satis  recentibus,  omnibus  subsi- 
cliisdestitutus,  prseter  versionem  Vulgatam  interpolatam,et  scripta 
nonullorum,  sed  paucorum  nee  accurate  editorum  Patrum." 

178  Id.  ibid.  p.  viii.     "  Omnibus  paene  subsidiis  destituti  fue* 

runt,  •     Nam  primo  nullum  habuerunt  ex   vetustissimis 

illis  atque  praestantissimis  Codicibus,  quorum  excerptis  nos  jam 
gaudemus,  qui  innumeris  in  locis  genuinam  lectionem  exhibert, 
eamque  contra  recentiorum  librorum  futile  testimonium  for? 
tissime  vindicant.  '* 

179  Id  ibid.     "  Deinde  caruerunt  Versionibus  Orientalibus 
Omnibus,  Syriaca  utraque,  Persicis,  Arabicis,  Copticis,  ^Ethi- 
opica,  Armenica,  ut  Gothicam  taceam  et  Slavonicam.     Latina 
certe  usi  sunt  translatione,  fateor :  sed  partim  innumeris  gra- 
vissimisque   mendis   corrupta,    partim   recentiore    tantum   ilia 
V  ulgata,  non  vero  longe  praestantiore  Antehieronymiana,  quae 
Itald  vulgo  dicitur."  : 

130  Id.  ibid.  "  Denique  caruerunt  libris  atque  Commen- 
tariis  Patrum  Graecis  plerisque,  quorum  summa  est  in  re  cri* 
tica  utilitas.  Erasmus  in  secunda  editione,  Patrum  scripta, 
quibus  usus  est  enumerans,  Atbanasium  nominat,  Naziaqzenum 
atque  Theophylactum.  Quanti  vero  roomenti  siut  iu  crisi  sacra 


(    412    ) 

How  far  the  want  of  those  necessary  helps  to  cor* 
rect  the  Greek  text,,  have  occasioned  the  failure  of 
Erasmus,  may,  I  conceive,  be  easily  appreciated 
from  the  use  which  has  been  made  of  them  by  those 
who  have  succeeded  him  in  that  task.     The  merit 
of  the  Vulgar  edition  which  he  published,  and  of 
the  Corrected  Text,  which  M.  Griesbach  has  edited, 
must  be  decided  by  the  internal  evidence :  and  with* 
out  extending  our  attention  beyond  the  three  doc- 
trinal texts  to  which  M.  Griesbach  has  limited  the 
sum  of  his  important  improvements,  there  is  now 
little  reason  to  doubt  which  of  those  candidates  for 
praise  is  best  entitled  to  our  approbation.     Had  the 
late  editour  established  the  integrity  of  his  text,  in  all 
other  points,  in  which  he  has  disturbed  the  received 
reading;  there  can  be  no  room  to  question,  (until 
the  principles  of  common  sense  become  as  inverted 
as  the  theory  of  sacred  criticism),  that  the  advan^ 
tages  which  the  text  wrould  have  gained  from  his 
corrections,  would  be  more  than  counterbalanced 
by  the  disadvantages  which  it  has  sustained  from 
his  corruptions.     But  in  this  undertaking,  I  am  free 
to  conclude,  until  what  I  have  advanced  to  the  con- 
trary is  refuted,  he  has  totally  failed.     His  system 
appears  to  be  as  unsound  in  theory,  as  it  is  deleteri- 
ous in  practice.    Among  all  the  passages  which  have 
been  examined,  and  which   include  the  whole  of 
those  of  any  importance  in  which  he  has  violated 

Clemens  Alexandrinus,  Origenes,  Cyrillus  uterque,  aliique  per- 
multi,  vel  tironibus,  notum  est.  Quid  igitur  exspeetari  poterat 
ab  editoribus  Novi  Testament!  qui  tot  subsidiis  plane  necessa- 
riis  destituerentur?" 


the  integrity  of  the  sacred  canon,  he  has  not  ad* 
duced  a  single  witness  whose  testimony  is  admissi* 
hie,  while  he  has  set  aside  numbers,,  whose  credit, 
I  scruple  not  to  assert,  he  was  unable  to  impeach. 

Nor  let  it  be  conceived,,  in  disparagement  of  the 
great  undertaking  of  Erasmus,  that  he  was  merely 
fortuitously  right.  Had  he  barely  undertaken  to 
perpetuate  the  tradition  on  which  he  received  the 
sacred  text,  he  would  have  done  as  much  as  could 
be  required  of  him,  and  more  than  sufficient  to  put 
to  shame  the  puny  efforts  of  those  who  have  vainly 
laboured  to  improve  upon  his  design.  His  extraor- 
dinary success  in  that  immortal  work  may  be  clearly 
traced  to  the  wisdom  of  the  plan  on  which  he  pro- 
ceeded. And  little  more  is  necessary  than  to  follow 
him  in  his  defence  of  that  plan,  in  order  to  produce, 
in  his  own  words,  a  complete  refutation  of  the  ob- 
jections on  which  he  has  been  condemned;  and  a 
full  exposure  of  the  shallowness  of  those  principles, 
on  which  his  labours  would  be  now  superseded,  by 
a  different  system  of  critical  emendation. 

With  respect  to  Manuscripts,  it  is  indisputable 
that  he  was  acquainted  with  every  variety  which  is 
known  to  us;  having  distributed  them  into  two 
principal  classes,  one  of  which  corresponds  with  the 
Complutensian  edition,  the  other  with  the  Vatican 
manuscript181,  And  he  lias  specified  the  positive 

181  Erasm.  Nov.,  Test.  Praef.  [p.  xviii.j  ed.  Basil.  1546. 
*'  Hie  obiter  illud  incidit  admonendum,  esse  Graecorum  quos- 
dam  Noyi  Testament!  Codices  ad  Latinorum  exemplaria  emen- 
datos. — Et  nos  olim  in  hujusmodi  Codicem  incidimus,  et  tali$ 
adhuc  dicitur  adservari  in  bibliotheca  Pontijicia. Hoc  eo  vi- 


grounds  on  which  he  received  the  one  and  rejected 
the  other.  The  former  was  in  possession  of  the 
Greek  Church,,  the  latter  in  that  of  the  Latin ; 
judging  from  the  internal  evidence,  he  had  as  good 

sum  est  admonere,  quod  jam  nunc  quidam  jactant  se  trecenta 
loca  notasse  ex  Codice  bibliothecce  Pontifici(z9  in  quibus  ille  con^ 
sonat  cunt  nostra  Vulgata  editione  Latina,  cum  mea  dhsonat. 
Quod  si  nos  urgent  autoritate  Vaticanae  bibliotheca?,  Codex 
quern  secutus  est  in  Novo  Testamento  Franciscus  Cardinally 
quondam  Toletanus,  non  modo  fait  ejusdem  bibliotheca,  verura 
etiam  a  Leone  X  missus  est,  ut  hoc  veluti  bonse  fidei  exemplar 
imitarent.  Atque  is  pene  per  omnia  consentit  cum  mea  editione9 
dissentiens  ab  eo  quern  nunc  quidam  nobis  objiciunt  majusculis 
descriptum  literij.  Ab  illo  enim  dissentiat  oportet,  si  consentit 
cum  Vulgata  Latinorum  editione."  In  those  two  instances  we 
have  exemplars  of  the  two  principal  Classes  into  which  the 
Greek  MSS.  have  been  divided.  That  the  MS.  of  the  Pope'* 
library,  which  is  written  in  the  large  or  uncial  letter,  and 
which  agrees  with  the  Latin  Vulgate,  can  be  no  other  than  the 
celebrated  Vatican  MS.  will  not  admit  of  a  doubt,  after  turning 
to  n. 33.  supr.  p.  61.  This  MS.  was  examined  for  Erasmus  by 
Paulus  Bombasius,  and  has  accordingly  had  some  influence  on 
his  edition;  vid.  Erasm.  Apolog.  ad.  Jac.  Stunic.  Op.  Tom.  IX. 
p.  353.  a.  ed  1706.  Birch.  Prolegomra.  in  Nov.  Test.  p.  xxii. 
The  MS.  which  was  sent  by  P.  Leo  X.  to  Cardinal  Ximenes,  as 
the  exemplar  of  the  Complutensian  New  Testament,  is  conceived 
to  have  been  lost  with  the  other  MSS.  used  in  compiling  that 
edition.  The  character  of  the  text  of  this  MS.  is  not  only 
ascertainable  from  the  Complutensian  edition,  but  from  a  MS* 
preserved  in  the  Bodleian  library,  (Laud.  2.  noted  by  M. 
Griesbach,  Cod.  51.)  which  harmonizes  with  it  in  an  extraor- 
dinary manner:  vid.  Mill.  Prolegomm.  in  Nov.  Test.  nn.  1092. 
1437.  As  the  Vatican  MS.  is  of  the  Palestine  text,  and  the 
Complutensian  Codex  of  the  Byzantine ;  Erasmus  in  being  ac* 
quainted  with  those  texts  seems  to  have  possessed  ample  mate* 
rials  for  revising  the  New  Testament. 


(    415    ) 

reason  to  conclude  the  Eastern  Church  had  not  cor- 
rupted their  received  text,,  as  he  had  grounds  to  sus- 
pect the  Rhodians,  from  whom  the  Western  Church 
derived  their  manuscripts,  had  accommodated  them 
to  the  Latin  Vulgate l8a.  One  short  insinuation 
which  he  has  thrown  out,,  sufficiently  proves,  that 
his  objections  to  these  manuscripts  lay  more  deep  ; 
and  they  do  immortal  credit  to  his  sagacity.  In  the 
age  in  which  the  Vulgate  was  formed,  the  Church, 
he  was  aware,  was  infested  with  Origenists  and  Ari- 
ansl8j;  an  affinity  between  any  manuscript  and  that 
version,  consequently  conveyed  some  suspicion  that 
its  text  was  corrupted.  So  little  dependance  was 
he  inclined  to  place  upon  the  authority  of  Origen, 

"*  Id.  ibid.  [p.  xxi.]  "  Si  Grsecis  in  animo  fuisset  depra- 
vare  Codices  suos,  his  pGtisswium  locis  depravassent,  in  quibus 
Q  nobis  dissentiunt,  veluti  de  processione  Spiritus,  de  ccqualitate 
trium  Personarum,  de  Primatu  Romani  Pontificis,  de  ritu  con* 
secrandi  et  tradendi  baptisrtium  et  eucharistiam,  de  conjugio 
sacerdotum,  aut  si  quid  aliud  est  ejusmodi :  at  in  his  nobis  con- 
sentiunt.  Nee  vllus  locus  prnferri  valet,  qui  hoc  nomine  sus- 
pectus  hateri  possit.  Ego  magis  suspicor,  si  quid  mutatura 
est  in  Graecorum  libris,  id  a  Latinis  exemplaribus  fuisse  J>ro- 
fectum,  posteaquam  Romana  Ecclesia  ccepit  absorbere  Grab- 
ciam.  Nee  tota  divulsa  est  a  nobis  Graccia:  Rhodus  et  Creta 
Christum  agnoscit,  agnoscit  Romanum  Pontificem  :  cur  horuni 
libris  diffidimus.  JEt  ab  his  potissimum  nobis  veniunt  exem* 
plaria." 

183  Id.  ibid.  "  Risit  olim  Helvidium  Hieronymus,  qui  sibi 
gtultissime  persuaserat,  Gracos  codices  esse  corruptos :  ac  dic- 
tum homims  stultius  esse  putat,  quam  ut  sit  arguments  refel* 
lendum.  Et  tamen  jam  turn  Oriens  fcrme  onmis  hczresibus  fer* 
vebat  Arianorum  et  Origenistarum.  Ab  us  magis  timendum  erat 
ikus,  quam  a  schismaticis.9' 


who  is  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  Corrected 
edition. 

With  regard  to  Versions,  it  is  true  he  was  unac- 
quainted with  the  antient  Italick  and  later  Oriental 
translations.  But  were  the  history  of  those  versions 
known  to  the  objectour,  I  trust  they  would  be 
scarcely  opposed  to  the  system  of  one,  who  was 
aware  of  the  necessity  of  avoiding  the  contagion  of 
the  Arian  and  Origenian  heresies.  With  the  pri- 
mitive Italick  and  Syriack  Versions  he  was  unac- 
quainted ;  but  I  yet  remain  to  be  informed,  of  what 
other  use  they  could  have  been  made,  than  to  con- 
firm him  in  the  plan  which  he  had  judiciously  cho- 
sen. I  have  yet  to  hear  of  a  single  text  which  they 
could  have  led  him  to  adopt,  which  is  not  found  in  his 
edition.  His  whole  dependance  was  rested  on  the 
Greek  and  Latin  Vulgate ;  and  if  we  may  believe 
himself,  he  used  some  antient  copies  of  the  latter18^ 
Of  these  he  made  the  best  use :  confronting  their 
testimony,  and  estimating  the  internal  evidence  of 

184  Erasm.  ibid.  [p.  viii.]  "  Nos  in  prima  recognition^ 
quatuor  Graccis  [Codd.]  adjuti  sumus :  in  secunda  quinque; 
in  tertia  praeter  alia  accessit  editio  Asculana :  in  quarta,  praestd 
fuit  Hispaniensis.  Deinde  consultis  fum  pervetusfis  turn  emen- 
datis  aliquot  Latince  linguce  voluminibus :  nee  hoc'  cotitenti  dis* 
«^issis  et  exploratis  probatissimis  autoribus,"  &c.  The  follow- 
ing declaration,  while  it  proves  that  Erasmus  was  not  unduly 
influenced  by  the  Latin  Vulgate,  seems  to  indicate  that  he  wa& 
not  unacquainted  with  the  peculiar  readings  of  the  Old  Italick 
version;  Id.  ibid.  [p.  xi.]  "  Sunt  in  quibus  nostra  Vulgata 
rnagis  probatur  editio,  aut  Ambrosiana  lectio,  quam  Greed  Co* 
dices.  Et  tamen  consentientibus  omnibus  Grsecis  exemplari- 
bus,  quoniam  ilia  mutare  non  limit  Latino,  accomodavimus^  rie 
non  responderent,  quum  in  lioc  ipsum  adderentur.'* 


(    417    ) 

the  context  with  the  external  testimony  of  the  East- 
ern and  Western  Churches,  he  thence  ascertained 
the  authentick  text  of  Scripture185.  A  particular 
vindication  of  this  pail  of  his  plan  cannot  be  de- 
manded from  me,  who  have  advanced  so  much  to 
prove,  that  it  affords  the  only  rational  prospect  of 
ascertaining  the  primitive  or  genuine  text  of  the 
New  Testament ;  whatever  aid  may  be  derived 
from  other  versions  and  texts l86,  in  defending  con- 
tested readings. 

135  Id.  ibid.  "  Scio  res  sacras  reverenter  ac  religiose  tractan- 
das,  et  idcirco  licet  in  infima  functione  versantes,  tamen  omnI 
quia  licuit  circumspectione  sumus  usi.  Contulimus  utriusque  lin- 
guae vetustissimos  ac  probatissimos  Codices,  nee  eos  sane  paucos. 
Excusissimus  veterum  ac  recentiorum  Commentaries,  turn  Grae- 
cos  turn  Latinos.  Observavimus  quid  diversi  legant.  Pensi- 
tavimus  ipsius  loci  sententiam,  atque  ita  demum  pronunciavi- 
mus  quidem,  sed  lectorem  admonuimus,  suum  cuique  judiciuni 
liberum  relinquentes. 

186  The  want  of  the  Syriack  Version,  and  of  pure  copies  of 
the  Latin  Vulgate,  has  been  objected  as  essential  defects  to 
Erasmus,  in  revising  the  text  of  the  New  Testament.  As  both 
were  used  by  Lucas  Brugensis,  together  with  the  Greek,  in 
correcting  the  text  of  the  Latin  Version ;  and  his  corrections 
are  subjoined  to  the  Bible  of  Sixtus  V.  ed.  Antw.  1681 :  a 
comparison  of  Erasmus's  readings  with  the  Corrections  of  L. 
Brugensis,  p.  81.  will  best  illustrate  how  far  the  former  has 
failed,  from  the  want  of  those  antient  versions.  I  shall  subjoin 
a  short  specimen  of  texts  from  the  first  ten  chapters  of  St. 
Matthew,  in  which  Erasmus  and  Lucas  Brugensis  agree  with 
the  Greek  Syriack  and  old  copies  of  the  Vulgate,  against  the 
authority  of  the  modern  copies  which  contain  the  Received 
Text  of  the  Romish  Churches.  Matt.  iii.  10.  excidetur — mit- 
tetur.  Vulg.  exciditur — mittitur.  Erasm.  Brug.  Ib.  iv.  6.  man- 
Vulg.  mandabit.  Erasm.  Brug.  fyid.  16.  umbrae,  Vulg* 

E  e 


(    418    ) 

In  using  the  testimony  of  antient  Fathers,  it  ap* 
pears  never  to  have  entered  his  conception,  that  any 
utility  could  be  derived  from  collating  them  verba- 
tim with  the  text  of  Scripture.  Before  the  labours 
of  modern  cri ticks,  the  monks  of  Upper  Egypt  and 
Palestine,  who  divided  their  time  between  this  pro* 
fitable  employment,,  and  the  perusal  of  Origen's 
speculative  theology,  were  probably  the  only  per- 
sons who  ever  engaged  in  this  interesting  pastime. 
Of  the  value  of  the  works  of  those  early  writers,  in 
ascertaining  and  vindicating  the  doctrinal  integrity 
of  the  text,  no  man  was  more  conscious  than  Eras- 
mus. With  this  view  he  read  over  the  works  of 
the  principal  writers  and  commentatours187;  be- 
queathing the  task  of  collating  their  quotations  with 
the  text  of  Scripture,  to  his  more  dull  and  diligent 
successours.  With  what  effect  he  engaged  in  such 
an  office,  those  who  are  curious  to  be  informed,  will 
best  ascertain,  by  examining  the  text  which  he  lias 
published.  The  advocates  of  the  Received  Text 
have  little  to  apprehend  from  a  comparison  with  the 
Corrected  Text,  by  which  it  is  now  supposed  to  be 
wholly  superseded.  In  all  those  passages  in  which 

et  umbra.  Erasm.  Brug.  Ib.  v.  24.  reconcHiari.  Vulg.  reccm- 
ciliare.  Erasm.  Brug.  Ibid,  offeres.  Vulg.  offer.  Erasm.  Brug. 
Ib.  vi.  22.  corporis  tui — oculus  tuus.  Vulg.  corporU — oculus, 
Erasm..  Brug.  Ibid.  33.  qucerite  ergo.  Vulg.  quaerite  autem. 
Erasm.  Rrug.  Ib.  viii.  9.  constitutes.  Vulg.  deest.  Lrasm.  Brng. 
Vid.  Erasm.  nn.  in  11. 

187  Vkl  supr.  p.  417.  n.  18S.  Erasm,  ibid.  [p.  xviii.]  "  Illiul 
potius  spectandum  quid  legerint  vcteres  Graeci,  Origeaes,  Athfl* 
na'sius,.  Sasilius,  Gregorius  Nazianzenus,  Chrysostomus,  Cyril- 
lus/ac  Theophylactus,"  &c. 


(    419    ) 

the  integrity  of  the  sacred  text  has  been  defended, 
the  vindication  of  Erasmus's  text  is  inseparable  from 
that  of  the  vulgar  edition188. 

It  is  not,  however,  my  intention  to  assert,  that  I 
conceive  the  text  of  Erasmus  absolutely  faultless189 
but  with  the  exception  of  some  places,  in  wrhich  the 
reading  of  the  Greek  Vulgate  has  not  been  preserv- 
ed I9°,  I  know  not  on  what  authority  we  might  ven- 

183  In  those  passages  of  which  a  vindication  has  been  offered, 
supr.  p,  239.  sqq.  p.  251.  sqq.  p.  372.  sqq.  p.  380.  sqq.  p.  358. 
n.  ".  p.  359.  n.  I0°.  p.  361.  n. I0*.  p.  390.  n. I4f.  the  Received 
Text  follows  the  reading  of  Erasmus's  edition. 

189  As  the  MSS.  which  contain  the  Byzantine  text  are  gene- 
rally coincident  in  their  readings,  vid.  supr.  p.  118.  n.  *6.  p. 
126.  n.  **.  it  is  little  wonderful  that  Erasmus,  having  made 
choice  of  that  text,  should  have  published  an  edition,  which 
corresponds  with  the  text  which  has  been  since  discovered  to 
prevail  in  the  great  body  of  Greek  manuscripts.  But  as  every 
manuscript  has  some  peculiar  readings,  it  can  be  no  less  extra- 
ordinary, that  some  phrases  should  have  been  admitted  by  Eras- 
mus into  his  text,  though  destitute  of  the  support  of  the  gene- 
rality of  manuscripts.  These,  however,  are  so  few  and  inconside* 
rable,  as  to  be  scarcely  deserving  of  notice.  After  some  search 
after  those  which  are  retained  in  the  Received  Text,  the  fol- 
lowing are  the  only  instances  of  interpolations,  which  I  have 
been  enabled  to  discover  in  the  Gospels  j  Mat.  xii.  35.  -n?f 
Kotfitots.  Mar.  iv.  4.  T«  «£«*?.  Ib.  vi.  44.  ae*}.  Ib.  xvi.  8* 
T«%V.  Ib.  x.  20.  jwaXAoy.  Joh.  xx.  29.  &ufj<.si:  to  which  we 
may  add  the  following  instances  of  mere  expletives ;  Mat.  rV. 
18.  o  'lure?.  Ib.  viii.  5.  ru  IwS.  Ib.  xiv.  19.  xj.  Ib.  xxv.  44* 
uinu,  Luc.  iv.  8.  y«£. 

193  Several  readings  of  this  kind  have  been  admitted  by  M. 
Matthaei,  into  his  edition  of  the  New  Testament,  on  the  autho- 
rity of  the  Moscow  MSS.  They  are  generally  prevalent  in  the 
uncial  MSS.  which  contain  the  vulgar  Greek,  and  are  con- 
stantly supported  by  the  following  authorities,  Eyz.  Pal, 


(    420    ) 

ture  to  correct  it.  The  Egyptian  and  Palestine 
texts  have  been  so  often  convicted  of  crrour,  in 
points  where  the  Byzantine  text  admits  of  the  fullest 
defence,  that  their  testimony,  when  opposed  to  the 
vulgar  Greek,  cannot  be  entitled  to  the  smallest 
attention  '9I.  And  when  the  verbal  integrity  merely 

It.  I.  Syr.  I.  The  principal  Greek  MSS.  in  which  they  are 
found,  are  the  Alexandrine,  Cyprian,  Vatican,  and  Moscow, 
which  ave  designated  by  the  letters  A,  K,  S,  Mt.  V:  they  like- 
wise occur  in  the  MSS.  marked  F,  G,  H,  Mt.  B,  H.  in  those 
marked  B,  C,  D,  L.  and  may  be  generally  traced  to  the  writings 
of  St.  Chrysostome.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  those  read- 
ings possess  great  antiquity ;  but  we  must  not  necessarily  infer 
that  they  are  genuine.  It  is  not  impossible  that  they  may  have 
originated  in  the  edition  of  Eusebius  ;  that  they  may  have  been 
thence  retained  in  the  revisal  of  St.  Athanasius ;  and  have  thus 
maintained  their  place  in  the  Byzantine  text,  when  that  text 
was  restored  at  Constantinople  under  Nectarius  and  St.  Chry- 
sostome, who  succeeded  to  the  government  of  the  Byzantine 
Patriarchate,  on  the  suppression  of  the  Arian  party.  The  in- 
fluence of  St.  Athanasius  and  St.  Chrysostome  will  suffici- 
ently account  for  their  reception  in  the  Italick  and  Syriack 
translations,  on  which  it  is  certain  the  text  of  Eusebius 
had  some  influence ;  as  must  be  collected  from  the  omission 
of  some  remarkable  passages  in  those  translations  which  are 
omitted  in  the  text  revised  by  Eusebius.  Conf.  supr.  p.  98. 
h.  I03«  p.  92.  n.  101.  And  this  notion,  it  may  be  observed  by 
the  way,  is  strengthened  by  conformity  of  the  Alexandrine 
MS.  and  the  Syriack  Version.  Conf.  supr.  p.  224.  n. c-°.  p.  350* 
n.  83.  Whatever  opinion  be  formed  of  those  readings,  which 
generally  consist  in  peculiarities  which  can  be  only  expressed 
in  Greek,  they  are  scarcely  worth  contesting ;  as  they  may  be 
retained  or  rejected  from  the  Received  Text,  without  affecting 
the  Authorised  Version,  which  we  are  principally  concerned  in 
defending.  Vid.  infr.  p.  424s  n.  l97. 
.  v*  A  number  of  those  texts,  which  are  supported  almost 


of  the  sacred  text  is  concerned,  no  one,  it  is  pre- 
sumed,  will  set  the  testimony  of  Versions  and  Fa- 
thers in  competition  with  that  of  the  vulgar  edition. 
I  am  well  aware,,  that  many  manuscripts  of  reputed 
antiquity  exist,  which  contain  the  Byzantine  text, 
and  yet  differ  from  the  Received  Text  set  forth  in 
the  printed  edition  I9a ;  but  numberless  circumstances 
prohibit  our  correcting  it  on  their  authority. 

Nothing  can  be  more  fallacious  than  the  criteria 
by  which  the  age  of  Greek  manuscripts  is  in  general 
determined195.  To  be  written  in  the  large  or  un- 

exclusively  by  the  MSS.  marked  B,  C,  D,  L,  have  been  admitted 
by  M.  Griesbach  into  his  Corrected  Text;  and  they  are  among 
the  most  exceptionable  of  his  emendations. 

IS>1  Such  are  the  MSS.  marked  A,  K,  S,  Mt.  V.  &c.  enume- 
rated in  n.  19°.  which  sometimes  differ  from  the  great  body  of 
MSS.  containing  the  Greek  Vulgate,  and  at  the  same  time  co- 
incide with  those  containing  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine  edi- 
tions. In  this  case,  their  testimony,  though  supported  by  other 
uncial  MSS.  is  but  of  little  weight,  when  set  against  that  of 
the  vulgar  edition,  for  the  reasons  already  specified:  vid.  supr. 
n.  Ito. 

193  From  this  sentence,  the  Alexandrine,  Vatican,  and  Cam- 
bridge MSS.  are  of  course  excepted ;  as  possessing  claims  to 
a  remote  antiquity,  which  cannot  be  reasonably  disputed.  It 
has  been  indeed  urged,  as  an  argument  against  the  first  of 
those  MSS.  that  it  approximates  to  the  Arabick  orthography  in 
inserting  the  letter  ^  in  certain  words,  contrary  to  the  idiom 
of  the  Greek  language.  It  is  difficult  to  answer  this  objection 
until  we  are  acquainted  with  the  extent  to  which  it  may  be 
urged.  If  I  am  not  wholly  deceived,  it  is  confined  to  instances 
like  the  following,  which  are  noted  by  Dr.  Woide  in  his  various 
readings :  Mar.  xii.  40.  Luc.  xx.  47.  ^pt,4/ofla«.  Job.  v.  43. 
Kfolso-Sctt.  Ib.  xvi.  14,  15.  ^//4-tlau  Ib.  xvi.  24.  Act.  i.  8. 
ii.  38.  Kt(j^sr$*}  &c.  But  j  apprehend  we  need  not  go  beyond 


(    423    ) 

cial  character,  without  accents  or  spirits,  is  among 
the  most  decisive  marks  of  antiquity.     But  I  would 

the  Greek  radical  to  an  Arabick  root  for  a  solution  of  this  diffi- 
culty. That  f*  is  retained  in  Xr^/)a»,  ktrkitrSe,  Xq>|/o»Iai,  I  con- 
ceive is  simply  owing  to  its  being  found  in  Aapc,£«w ;  which  was 
regularly  inflected  with  the  characteristick,  ^ ;  *«/u,0aw,  x^- 
^e/xat,  A&yj/tx^a.  Whether  this  mode  of  inflexion  was  peculiar 
to  the  fourth  century,  or  to  the  city  of  Alexandria,  there  is  un- 
fortunately no  person  alive  to  inform  us.  It  is  certainly  not 
peculiar  to  the  Alexandrine  MS.  since  it  prevailed  in  the  Cot- 
ton Genesis ;  as  appears  from  the  fragments  of  that  most  an- 
cient MS.  which  yields  to  no  other  in  point  of  antiquity,  when 
those  are  excepted  which  have  been  dug  out  of  Herculaneum. 
The  fol^ying  instances  will  exemplify  the  above  assertion ; 
Gen.  xv.  24,  ^pCAj'ovlaK  Ib.  xviii.  4.  AD/X^JJT*/.  Ibid.  5.  hyfj.- 
Ib.  Xix.  17.  ffvuira^wq&K.  Ib.  xxi.  30.  37-  38.  40. 

Via.  Walt.  Bibll.  Polyglott.  Tom.  VI.  tract,  xi.  With 
respect  to  some  other  objections  which  have  been  urged  against 
the  antiquity  of  the  Alexandrine  MS.  which  are  merely  de- 
duced from  its  orthography,  they  admit  of  as  easy  an  answer. 
The  movers  of  these  objections  would  do  well  to  establish  a 
criterion,  in  the  first  place,  by  which  we  may  judge  of  the 
orthography  of  the  fourth  century;  before  they  proceed  to 
condemn  a  MS.  as  modern,  which  does  not  happen  to  accord, 
with  their  notions  respecting  it.  If  we  may  judge  of  the  Greek 
by  other  languages,  its  orthography  could  not  have  been  fixed 
until  a  late  period*  and  was  then  the  work  of  grammarians^ 
This  supposition,  is  fully  confirmed  by  the  antient  inscriptions, 
which  contain  the  only  certain  monuments  of  antient  orthogra- 
phy within  our  reach;  but  which  vary  from  themselves  in  num- 
berless instances.  Vid.  Gruter.  Thesaur.  Inscriptt.  Apend.  cap. 
xix.  ed.  1516.  Before  some  standard  of  language  is  established, 
by  the  publication  of  a  Dictionary,  it  is  vain  to  look  for  unifor- 
mity in  the  orthography  of  any  nation.  Among  the  Greeks  the 
search  must  be  preposterous,  as  the  want  of  a  knowledge  of 
printing  obliged  them  to  employ  a  number  of  young  persons  of 
both  sexes  as  copyists,  besides  scribes,  who  took  down  what 


(    423    ) 

submit  it  to  the  profound  in  antiquarian  research;, 
whether  more  can  be  safely  inferred  from  these  pe- 
culiarities, than  that  the  use  of  spectacles  was  not 
known  when  those  manuscripts  were  written  ;  a 
larger  character  being-  necessary  for  the  eye,  when 
impaired  by  age,  as  the  defect  admitted  of  no  re- 
medy from  optical  assistance.  And  what  evinces 
the  uncertainty  of  such  criteria,  is  the  certainty  of 
the  fact,  that  the  use  of  accents  was  well  known  in 
the  fourth  century,  previously  to  the  existence  of 
almost  every  manuscript  with  which  we  are  ac- 
quainted; and  the  use  of  small  connected  characters 
must  have  been  known  at  a  much  earlier  period. 
St.  Epiphanius  describes  the  different  accents  which 
occur  in  the  Greek,  as  adopted  in  copies  of  the  sa- 
cred writings,  in  the  age  when  he  flourished194. 
And  the  accounts  which  are  recorded  of  the  notaries, 
or  swift-  writers,  which  attended  Origen  *95  and  St. 

was  dictated.  Such  was  the  custom  in  Origen's  times,  of 
whom  Eusebius  declares  ;  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  xxiii.  p. 
287.  1.  9.  Ta;£t;yf?a<po»  y«£  UVTU  7rXgi«$  >j  Itfltx,  Tor  ap»$/xov  Trotfiffctv 
otq  aXXvjAsj  ci[jt.t!{3ovlnf  &@hioiygcc$oi  re 
s*  «jtxa  ^  xvpxis  sm  TO  xaXXiy^afpctv  T^x-yj/Asvair.  To  per- 
sons of  the  latter  description,  the  transcription  of  the  Alexan- 
drine has  been  absolutely  attributed  ;  Grab.  Prolegomm.  in 
Septuagint.  cap.  i.  §  5.  [p.  xxi.]  ed.  Oxon.  1707.  "  Huic 
ergo  Theclae  ejusquc  in  vita  monastica  sociis  vel  sociabits  Codi- 
«em  nostrum  attribuere  nihil  vetat,**  &c> 

'9*  S.  Epiphan.  de  Menss.  et  Pondd.  Tom.  II.  p.  158.  d. 
tetv   eri%av   ras  Faias-    x     vrt      fur 


J,    x.  T.  e. 

1  5  Vid.  supr.  n.  IJ>7.  conf.  p.  367.  n.  li3.     Origen  speaks  in 
the  following  terms  of  his  rct^f^h  for  whom  he  was  obliged 


(    424-    ) 

Chrysostome'96,  when  delivering  their  Homilies, 
sufficiently  prove,,  that  a  small  and  connected  cha- 
racter must  have  been  in  use,  when  they  lived,  simi- 
lar to  that  which  exists  in  the  most  modern  manu- 
scripts. The  little  certainty  which  can  of  course 
be  attained,  in  determining*  the  age  of  manuscripts 
by  the  form,  or  the  size  of  the  letter,  consequently 
deprives  those  which  are  written  in  the  uncial  cha- 
racter, of  any  paramount  weight  in  determining  the 
genuine  text  of  Scripture. 

For  some  slight  verbal  and  literal  errours  in  the 
vulgar  Greek,  we  must  indeed  compound,  as  the  un- 
avoidable effect  of  careless  transcription ;  but  these 
do  not  in  the  least  impeach  the  integrity  of  the  Re- 
ceived Text  or  Authorised  Version.  In  the  inves- 
tigation or  defence  of  the  truth,  they  must  be  lighter 
than  dust  in  the  balance.  As  they  rarely  if  ever 
affect  the  sense,  and  even  in  this  case  do  not  relate 
to  any  point  of  doctrine  or  morals,  they  cannot  prove 
the  source  of  errour,  or  form  the  ground  of  contro- 
versy. They  generally  relate  to  verbal  niceties, 
which  are  not  capable  of  being  expressed  in  a  tran- 
slation197; and  as  such,  cannot  be  deserving  of  the 

to  wait,  on  his  removal  from  Alexandria  to  Palestine ;  Orig* 
Comm.  in  Joan.  Tom.  IV.  p.  101.  d.  xj  ol  wvw$£is  Se  rac^uy^ot 
iw  wa^oirTsj  rS  £p££<7&at  TWV  vTiocyQ^t'jffiuv  txuhvov. 

150  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  iv.  p.  313.  1.  36.  SwoTo* 

$E  tl&iv  oi',  T£  E7:5oSev]sf  itctg  avfti  [T£  'lading  Xoyot,  x^  ol  Xc'yov7or 
CC,U]H  VTIO  TUV  o%vy(3(x.($uv  exX-fltpS'e'vVss',  oVwj  TE  Aa^Trpot  xj  TO  lira.' 
yvyov  sp^ovlej,  rt  &T  vvv  Xsyetv,  x.  T.  I. 

197  The  nature  of  these  deviations  from  the  Received  Text 
may  be  appreciated  by  the  following  examples,  taken  from  the 
first  ten  chapters  of  St.  Matthew;  Mat*  ii»  11.  svgov.  Rec*  J^W 


(    425    ) 

smallest  consideration  from  divines,  of  whatever  im- 
portance they  may  be  regarded  by  criticks  or  gram- 
marians. Whatever  may  have  been  the  original 
reading  of  the  sacred  text,  there  can  be  little  doubt, 
that  the  inspired  writers  could  find  no  difficulty  in 
sanctioning  the  authorised  reading.  This  inference 
is  clearly  deducible  from  their  practice  with  respect 
to  the  Septuagint'98:  and  indeed  the  variations  dis- 
coverable in  their  quotations  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  in  their  narratives  of  our  Lord's  dis- 
courses, must  convince  us,  that  they  considered  that 
strict  literal  accuracy  which  is  now  required  in  their 
works,  as  far  beneath  their  attention.  In  the  un- 
certainty which  must  attend  every  attempt  to  reco- 
ver their  precise  words  and  expressions,  where  the 
Greek  manuscripts  differ,  the  only  wise  plan  appears 
to  lie  in  preserving  a  settled  state  of  things,  and  in 
retaining  of  course  that  reading  which  is  most  gene- 
ral. That  reading,  however,  it  is  not  disputed,  is 
found  in  the  vulgar  text  of  our  printed  editions. 
Admitting,  that  in  choosing  a  text  among  the  manu- 
scripts which  contain  the  vulgar  Greek.,  we  have  fixed 

K.  S.  &c.  Ib.  v.  44.  raj  /u,Kr£»]a?.  Rec.  ro^  pis-2<riv.  K.  S.  &c. 
'Ib.  vii.  2.  <«Vfyij$i»<«lai.  Rec-  fwW*"^*-  &  s-  F.&c.  Ibid. 
14.  on.  Rec.  fl.  K.  S.  V.  &c.  Ib.  viii.  8.  Aoyoi/.  Rec.  *6yy. 
K.  S.  V.  &c.  Ib.  ix.  1  7.  afKpoTspa.  Rec.  a.p<porse>oi.  K.  G.  V.  &c. 
Ibid.  18.  ix$«y.  Rec.  slcrfrSuv.  K.E.  V.  &c.  Ibid.  36.  l^eAt^'wi. 
R.6C.  lo-xytyxevoi.  K.  G.  S.  Ib.  X.  8.  A£?r£tf?  xaSap^eTE,  i/sy.^y,-  tytipflf. 
»pel«,  ^swps?  xa$«pf$Ti.  K.  S.  V.  &C.  Ibid.  28. 
aj.  Rec.  l9T£KaA£crav—  oixeiax«j.  K.  S.  V.  &C.  Ibid. 

e.  Rec.  foj&fcSi.  K.  S.  V.  &c.    Ib.  xi.  16. 
ois.  K.  S.  V.  &c. 


31. 
.  Rec. 


Vid.  supr.  p.  310.  sqq. 


(    426    } 

on  the  worst,,  any  advantage  which  would  arise  from  a 
change,  \vould  be  more  than  counterbalanced  by  the 
disadvantages  of  innovation.  But  that  the  Greek 
Vulgate  merits  this  character,  is  a  point  which  will 
not  be  readily  conceded  by  its  defenders :  and  the 
advocates  for  an  improved  edition  have  infinitely 
more  to  advance  in  favour  of  their  schemes  of  emen- 
dation, than  they  have  been  hitherto  able  to  urge, 
before  we  can  assign  their  Corrected  Text  the 
smallest  authority.  It  is  sufficient  for  us,  that  all 
their  attempts  to  invalidate  the  integrity  of  the  Re- 
ceived Text,  in  any  point  of  the  smallest  importance, 
have  proved  wholly  abortive.  The  same  plea  will 
not  be  easily  established  in  favour  of  the  text  which 
they  have  undertaken  to  advocate.  If  I  am  not 
greatly  deceived,  the  corruption  of  this  text  may  be 
not  only  demonstrated,  but  traced  to  the  source  in 
which  it  has  originated.  If  this  undertaking  be 
practicable,  as  I  trust  it  is,  it  must  add  the  greatest 
weight  to  the  authority  of  the  Greek  Vulgate :  as  it 
will  annihilate  the  force  of  every  objection  which 
can  be  raised  to  the  Received  Text,  from  the  oppa- 
sition  of  a  rival  edition;  and  by  affording  an  ade- 
quate opportunity  of  vindicating  the  tradition  of  the 
Church,  from  every  suspicion  of  corruption,  add  the 
last  confirmation  to  that  system,  by  which  the  autho* 
rity  of  the  Received  Text  has  been  defended, 


SECTION  VI. 


JLIIE  plenary  concession  that  the  Byzantine  text 
has  preserved   its  integrity  for  fourteen   hundred 
years,,  leaves  the  unwarrantable  assumption,  that  it 
was  corrupted  in  the  earliest  ages,,  entitled  to  very 
little  respect1.     Were  we  destitute  of  proof  on  this 
subject,  the  bare  probabilities  of  the  case  would  be 
decisive  of  the  point  at  issue  :  the  task  of  proving 
the   corruption  of  the   Greek  Vulgate,  would  at 
least  devolve  on  those  by  whom  the  charge  was 
urged.     The  avowed  advocate  of  the  Palestine  text 
was  fully  aware,  how  necessary  it  was  to  the  esta- 
blishment of  his  theory,  that  he  should  succeed  in 
substantiating  this  charge  against  it.     Having  li- 
mited the  corruption  of  the  vulgar  text  to  a  period, 
in  which  it  is  impossible  it  could  have  remained 
undiscovered,  had  it  more  than  a  visionary  exist- 
ence *,  he  believed  the  task  was  only  to  be  attempted 

*  Comp.  p.  34-8,  n. 8l,  pp.  334,  335.  nn. 5Z  et  ". 

a  The  origin  of  the  Byzantine  recension,  which  M,  Gries- 
bach  considers  a  corruption  of  the  primitive  text,  is  referred 
by  him  to  the  close  of  the  fourth,  the  fifth,  a,nd  the  following 
century;  conf.  supr.  p.  348.  n.  8I.  p.  126.  n.  4°.  Of  the  whole 
range  of  ecclesiastical  history,  this  is  the  period  of  which  we 


(    428    ) 

in  drder  to  be  achieved.  His  promises  on  this  sub- 
ject stand  recorded  by  his  own  hand3;  what  he  has 
offered  us  in  place  of  a  performance,,  stands  attested 

possess  the  most  full  and  explicit  documents ;  Garner.  Praef.  in 
Liberat.  Diac.  }  ix.  Scio  scccula  duo,  quint  um  sextumque  fera- 
cissima  fuisse  scriptorum,  qui  res  easdem,  quas  Liberatus,  me- 
moriae mandarint. Historian!  confecerunt  prater  nomina- 

tissimos  tres,  Theodoretum  Sozomenum  et  Socratem,  Priscus 
Panites  sub  Theodosio  juniore,  Joannes  yEgeates  sub  Zenone, 
et  Candidus  Isaurus  sub  Zenone,  Eustathius  Syrus  sub  Anas- 
tasio,  Theodorus  lector  sub  Justino  seniore,  Joannes  rhetor, 
Basilius  Cilix,  et  Zacharias  rhetor  sub  Justiniano,  aliique  quo- 
rum meminerunt  Evagrius  Theophanes  et  Nicephorus  priorum 
defioratores."  That  the  writers  of  this  period  would  not  have 
been  withheld  by  tender  scruples  from  publishing  a  fact  like 
that  under  review,  if  it  had  any  existence,  must  be  evident  from 
the  statement  of  the  Palestine  monks,  who  brought  the  charge 
of  sophisticating  the  writings  of  the  fathers,  against  those  who 
engaged  in  the  controversies  of  the  Nestorians  and  Eutychians; 
vid.  supr.  p.  326.  n.  3S.  We  accordingly  find  that  Liberatus, 
whose  prejudices  certainly  lay  towards  the  party  of  Nestorius 
and  Theodorit,  [vid.  Garner,  ibid.  §  iii.]  mentions  a  report, 
which  was  propagated,  that  Macedonius  had  corrupted  the 
celebrated  text,  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  A  more  convenient  opportunity 
will  occur  hereafter,  to  examine  how  far  this  charge  is  founded 
in  truth.  As  there  is  therefore  no  dearth  of  historical  informa- 
tion at  the  period,  to  which  M.  Griesbach  has  fixed  the  cor- 
ruption of  Scripture ;  this  single  instance  will  fully  demonstrate, 
that  there  was  no  disposition  to  suppress  even  a  report  on  this 
subject,  which  had  the  smallest  foundation  4n  probability. 

3  Griesb.  Nov.  Test.  Pracf.  p.  xv.  ed.  1777.  "  Nolumus 
enim  Critices  Sacrae  theoriam  hie  delineare  id  quod  alio  loco 
commodius  fieri  poterit."  Id.  ibid.  n.  *.  "  Primas  hujus  The-' 
orice  lineas  duxi  in  '  Curis  meis  in  historian!  Textus  Epistola- 
rum  Paulinarum  Grscci'  quarum  specimen  prius  nuper  Jena) 
1777.  4.  prodiit,  poslcrius  mox  scquetur*'* 


(    429    ) 

by  the  same  voucher*  His  acknowledged  incom- 
petence to  substantiate  his  point,  consequently  ren- 
ders the  defence  of  the  Greek  Vulgate  complete ; 
since  this  text,  which  is  amply  supported  by  posi- 
tive proofs.,  is  wholly  unaffected  by  positive  excep- 
tions. 

But  the  matter  at  issue  must  not  be  suffered  to 
rest  on  these  grounds.  However  defective  the  ad- 
vocates of  the  Alexandrine  text  have  found  their 
materials,  in  proving  the  corruption  of  the  Byzan- 
tine; we  find  no  such  deficiency  in  returning  the 
compliment  on  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine.  The 
corruptions  of  these  texts,  if  I  am  not  altogether 
deceived,  may  be  clearly  demonstrated,  and  traced 
to  the  very  source  from  whence  they  have  origi- 
nated. In  prosecuting  this  object,  the  testimony  of 
Origen  may  be  wholly  disposed  of;  and  his  evi- 
dencej  which  has  been  hitherto  used  to  support  the 
Palestine  text,  may  be  effectually  employed  to  de- 
stroy its  credit.  If  this  object  be  attainable,,  as  I 
conceive  it  is,  it  will  annihilate  the  pretensions  of 
the  Palestine  text,  which.,  we  have  already  seen,  is 

4  Id.  Symbb.  Critt.  Preef.  [p.  xiv.]  "  Sed  ingenue  fateor, 
deesse  raihi  adhuc  subsidia  nonnulla,  quibus  carere  non  potest, 
qui  discrimlna  non  solum  ac  indole.m,  sed,  quod  difficilius  est, 
historian!  etiam,  origines  ac  vicissitudines  Kecensionum  vete* 
rum  omnium  ita  declarare  vult,.  ut  asserta  sua  peritis  arbitris 
probaturum  se  esse  sperare  haud  immerito  queat."  The  de- 
clining confidence  of  our  nuthour  at  length  falls  to  the  ground, 
and  in  his  last  declaration  he  states ;  "  Origp  vafiarum  textvs 
Nov.  Test,  recemionum,  deficientibus  documentis  satis  vetustis 
ac  testimoniis,  hitforice  declari  neqitftj*  &c.  ut  supr.  p,  337< 


(    430    ) 

destitute  of  positive  support  from  those  who  have 
affected  to  uphold  it. 

From  what  has  been  already  adduced  on  the  his* 
tory  of  the  inspired  text,  and  the  connected  testi- 
mony of  tradition,  it  is  apparent,,  that  the  received 
or  vulgar  text,  as  preserved  by  the  orthodox,,  could 
not  have  undergone  any  considerable  change  from 
the  apostolical  age  to  the  times  of  Origen  5.  Some 
Verbal  errours  probably  arose  in  particular  copies 
from  the  negligence  of  transcribers6;  but  the  testi- 
mony of  this  antient  father,  places  it  beyond  all 
doubt,  that  at  the  period  when  he  lived,  the  general 
integrity  of  the  text  had  remained  uncorrupted. 
His  silence  on  this  subject  might  be  construed  into 
a  proof  somewhat  stronger  than  presumptive  :  the 
nice  attention  which  he  bestowed  on  the  Septua- 
gint,  renders  it  next  to  impossible,  that  any  corrup- 
tion of  the  New  Testament  could  have  escaped  his 
observation,  if  it  really  existed.  He  speaks,  it  is 
true,  of  a  difference  existing  in  the  copies  of  his 
times7.  But  this  opinion  he  offers  merely  as  a  com 

5  Vid.  supr.  p.  123.  sqq.  p.  207.  sqq. 

6  Origen  notes  some  variations  of  this  kind;  Comment,  in 


Mat.  Tom.  III.  p.  532.  C.  d.  o  plr  av  MarSala?  irtTroivix.*  xotrci 
TO'    *   TOTJ    ^Ef^aTo'  -  Jflov   pttTQ 
xara   Mtx.T§a7ov   i%ii   TO,    *   l<fferi^ricr£v.9      Conf.   ll>. 

p.  588.  b.  p.  597.  d.  But  from  these  examples,  and  all  others 
that  I  have  observed,  I  cannot  see  how  it  can  be  concluded, 
that  Origen  found  these  variations  in  the  received  text  :  as  he 
indiscriminately  quotes,  in  his  Commentaries,  from  the  copies 
used  by  the  hereticks  as  well  as  the  orthodox  ;  vid.  supr.  p.  330. 
u.  4S.  conf,  infr.  p.  4-31.  n.  ia. 

7  Orig.  ibid.  p.  671.  c.  iv*l  &  ^/AOFOT*  rcroXXr}  yiyovw  ^  r*v 


(    431    ) 

jecture,  grounding  it  on  the  diversity  observable  in 
the  accounts  which  the  different  Evangelists  give  of 
the  same  incident8;  and  it  occurs  in  a  work  which 
is  of  very  little  authority,  as  written  while  Origen's 
opinions  were  far  from  settled,  or  deserving  of  any 
attention9.  His  opinion  must  be  taken  from  a 
different  part  of  his  writings;  and  in  his  last  and 
greatest  work  he  explicitly  states,  that  he  knew 
of  no  persons  but  the  followers  of  Marcion  and 
Valentinus,  who  had  corrupted  the  Scriptures  lo. 
As  this  is  the  latest  opinion  which  he  has  delivered 
on  this  subject,  it  must  be  taken  as  his  definitive 
sentence. 

To  some  period  subsequent  to  the  aera  of  Origen, 
we  must  consequently  fix  the  first  change  which 
took  place  in  the  received  text  of  Scripture.  And 


si 

i'rs   t     cent 
v    t 


8  Id.  ibid.  p.  670.  a.  ^9rovocTT^at  (Mva7«*,  a;  yx  iiro  ra  Swlijfof 

«?iA'    VTTO    7^0?   tvv   ur.^&t'.av   /xr?    wea-faf  tur 
TdS'ai*    cvvotyoptvfffi    $s   ry    UVVXWttl    T«    'Kpolg- 
TO*    *  aya^crnj    TOV   TzT^criov   ffa   us 
iwv   ira^a,   ru   Mapxw    x^    fa    Ayxa    s'xSttrtj,    uv    a^s 
T*K  xaTa    T&V    rovrov  ^TTO  T«    J»jcr5  TrapaAjj^iJcrat?   Ivro^aTj   x.  T«  f» 

Conf.  p.  671.  a.  b. 

9  Vid.  supr.  pp.  367,  368.  et  nn.  in  loc. 

10  Orig.  contr.  Cels.  Lib.  II.  cap.  xxvii.  Tom.  I.  p.  411.  b. 

TO  EvjtlVsX»ov  «A?vy?  wx  oio*c«,  ^  7«^  «TTO  M«|j-. 
TW>  «o  oTaXej-Tiva,  oT/x,ai  ^s  xj  7«$  a?ro  V\»xav«.  TWTO  ^$ 
tt  T«  ^o-ya  ir*v  syxAr/^a'  aXXa  TWV  ToX/y-r<aav/a;v  patSix;:-* 
yviaou  rci  euaty&ix.  Conf.  D.  Bull.  Defens.  Fid.  Nic.  Sect.  II* 
cap.  ix.  §  2.  p.  96. 


(    432    ) 

of  such  a  change  we  have  an  explicit  account.,  in 
the  statement  which  is  transmitted  of  the  editions 
published  by  Hesychius  and  Lucianus":  against 
which,  a  charge  has  been  preferred  by  St.  Jerome, 
that  they  were  interpolated,,  at  least  in  the  Gos- 
pels l\ 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  alterations  which 
Lucianus  and  Hesychius  introduced  into  the  sacred 
writings,  they  must  be  clearly  attributed  to  the  in- 
.fluence  of  Origen's  writings.  Previously  to  his 
times,  the  inspired  text  had  undergone  no  altera- 
tion ;  and  they  revised  it  not  many  years  subsequent 
to  the  publication  of  his  Hexapla.  As  he  had  la- 
boured to  supersede  the  authorised  version  of  the 
Old  Testament,  he  contributed  to  weaken  the  au- 
thority of  the  received  text  of  the  New.  In  the 
course  of  his  Commentaries,  he  cited  the  versions 
of  Aquila,  Symmachus,  and  Theodotion,  on  the 
former  part  of  the  Canon  IJ,  he  appealed  to  the  au- 
thority of  Valentmus  and  Heracleon  I4  on  the  latter. 

"  Vid.  supr.  p.  72.  n.  ^. 

11  Vid.  supr.  p.  100.  n.  Ia°. 

13  The  following  comparative   character  of  these  versions, 
and  the  vulgar  text,  is  given  by  Origen,  who  constantly  quotes 
the  former  in  his  Commentaries  ;  Comment,  in  Joan.  Tom.  IV. 
p.  1.4<  1.  b»  TO  $1  opuov  mpt 
5     TO/V  7TO(y/7<£v  g$-jy  $£iV     &> 


v<JlQ  TUV 


£onf.  infr.  n.  1S. 

14  Heracleon  followed  Valentinus  ;  and  many  of  the  errours 
of  those  writers,  whose  opinions  are  examined  by  Origen  in  his 
Commentary  on  St.  John,  were  adopted  from  Apocryphal 


(    433    ) 

While  he  thus  raised  the  credit  of  those  revisals, 
which  had  been  made  by  the  hereticks,  he  detracted 
from  the  authority  of  that  text  which  had  been  re- 
ceived by  the  orthodox.  Some  difficulties  which 
he  found  himself  unable  to  solve  in  the  Evangelists, 
he  undertook  to  remove,  by  expressing  his  doubts 
of  the  integrity  of  the  text.  In  some  instances  he 
ventured  to  impeach  the  reading  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament on  the  testimony  of  the  Old  15y  and  to  con- 
vict the  copies  of  one  Gospel  on  the  evidence  of 
another  l6  :  thus  giving  loose  to  his  fancy,  and  in- 
dulging in  many  wild  conjectures,  he  considerably 

books  :  Orig.  Comment,  in  Joan.  Tom.  IV.  p.  66.  b.    B»a»«$  & 

olfAOit  t£  xufa  lAOtflvgix  TOV  'OYaXevltJ'tf  htyopevov  tlvoti  yvapipov  'H^ax- 
tiuvoc  ^yufjievov  are'  f  gravla  &'  ainu  iystelo'  K.  r»  I.  Conf.  ibid. 
p.  117.  C.  Id.  ibid.  p.  226.  irohv  $s  irw  rtfc 
T«  rrt  awo  T£ 


dttfov  irols  yvvHrw  Ir«,  «  vo$ovt  y  jtAtxJo*'  - 
15  Id.  Comment,  in  Matt.  Tom.  III.  p.  747.  c.  /*£?«  raS 

*j1aaa;^i8ji  xj  TO*      '   flo-sivvoc.  TU  via  Aa^t^,  £yAoyi5/xs»o?  o  i 


J\t|»5*  avva   otSuvoti 


v  TOK  v 

avva 


zJ^ro  'Ex.X7iva/v  auvzyjus  7§a(po/xsva  T« 
aAgxIoy  fffyxe^vaS'ai  'Iv  rotr  xa7«  TOV 
T07TQV  et  £e   TO    <ixg»/3£5   /3aAe»   /^aSsrj*    T??  ^E|£W; 

'  'n   ^g   xypjs  <ruffoy   ^.    w   ^e    x^»e   ivuueo 
£i>°$  "  Qi>ou.ocli  xvpix. 
Id.  ibid.  p.  671.  b.  K}  £t/^Ei»  ^  xj  •m^  citouv  vrolXuv  hct 

in,  &<>e   ra   9Tav7a  rot   xa7 

^^ois-,  opto/wf  Se  ^  ra  XoiTTa  syaiysXta  xa»  «<r£|&7 
«i*at   o   ivovouv  IvIavSa.  *£ocrtipty$eu9    wx    slppsw  VVQ 


Ff 


(     434    ) 

impaired  the  credit  of  the  vulgar  or  common  edition, 
as  well  in  the  New  as  in  the  Old  Testament. 

The  object  at  which  Lucianus  and  Hesychius 
aimed,,  in  the  different  revisals  which  they  published 
of  Scripture,  was  obviously  to  remove  the  objections 
to  which  the  received  text  was  exposed  by  the  cri- 
tical labours  of  Origen.  On  this  task,  however, 
they  entered  with  very  different  views :  the  atten- 
tion of  Lucianus  having  been  principally  directed 
to  the  Old  Testament,  wrhile  that  of  Hesychius  was 
chiefly  employed  on  the  New. 

The  terms  in  which  the  text  of  Lucianus  is  men- 
tioned, as  being  identical  with  the  vulgar  edition ll, 
very  clearly  evince,  that  the  received  text  was  re- 
published  by  this  learned  father,  with  little  altera- 
tion. As  he  is  principally  mentioned  as  a  reviser 
of  the  version  of  the  Old  Testament18,  and  as  Ori- 
gen's  critical  labours  particularly  affected  that  part 
of  the  sacred  canon '9,  it  is  more  than  probable  that 
his  emendations  were  confined  to  it  alone  *°.  At 

17  Via.  supr.  p.  88.  n. 8S. 

18  Ibid. 

19  Orig.  ibid.  p.  67 1 .  c.  TW  /*£>  «>  i»  TO!? 
£ia&73xvjs-  &a(paw'av,  ©£«  ^OVTOC,  st/goptev 

j«x>»  ra*V  Xoiw«r«  ixM<rto-i»9  x.  T.  I.  This  observation  is  immedi- 
ately subjoined  to  that  quoted  supr.  n.  16.  on  the  difference  of 
the  copies  of  the  Gospels.  Origen,  in  continuation,  explains 
the  method  which  he  pursued  in  correcting  the  Septuagint. 
Conf.  supr.  p.  432.  nn.  13  et  1S. 

**  The  following  description  of  the  vulgar  edition  of  the  Sep- 
tuagint is  given  by  St.  Jerome ;  Procem.  in  Lib.  xv.  Coram.  Is. 
Tom.  IV.  p.  185.  h.  "  Denique  omnes  Graeciae  tractatores 
qui  nobis  eruditionis  suae  in  Psahnos  commentarios  reliquerun' 


(    435    ) 

the  early  period  in  which  he  wrote,  the  Septuagint 
only  lay  under  the  imputation  of  being  corrupted11; 
and  no  possible  reason  can  be  assigned  which  could 
induce  him  to  tamper  with  the  New  Testament. 
He  must  be  clearly  acquitted  of  the  charge  of  yield- 
ing undue  submission  to  the  authority  of  Origen, 
as  he  rejected  the  corrected  text  of  the  Septuagint 
inserted  in  the  Hexapla,  and  republished  the  com- 

hos  versiculos  [Rom.  iii,  13 — 18.]  veru  annotant  atque  prsete- 
reunt :  liquido  confitentes,  in  Hebraico  non  haberi,  nee  esse  in 
LXX  interpretibus,  sed  in  editions  Vulgata,  quae  Grsece  xon-r» 
dicitur,  et  in  toto  orbe  diversa  est."  It  appears  from  this  re- 
mark, that  Ps.  xiv.  4.  was  interpolated  with  Rom.  iii.  13 — 18. 
in  order  to  verify  St.  Paul's  references  in  the  latter  place  to 
the  Old  Testament;  his  quotations  having  been  not  easily  found, 
as  taken  from  the  following  places,  Ps.  v.  10.  cxl.  3.  x.  7.  Is. 
lix.  7.  Conf.  Orig.  Comm.  in  Rom.  Tom.  IV.  p.  505.  and  S. 
Hier.  ibid.  The  following  observation,  which  must  be  referred 
to  Ruffinus,  rather  than  Origen  [vid.  Ruffin.  Praef.  in  Epist.  ad 
Komm.  ap.  Orig.  Tom.  IV.  p.  458.]  warrants  us  in  believing, 
that  Lucianus's  corrections  extended  to  removing  those  mani- 
fest corruptions ;  while  his  undertaking  to  republish  the  vulgar 
text,  proves  that  they  could  have  extended  to  little  more. 
Orig.  Comm.  in  Rom.  Tom.  IV.  p.  504-.  d.  "  Illud  etiam  ne- 
cessario  ducimuS  admonendum,  quod  in  nonnullis  Latinorum  ea 
quce  subsequuntur  testimonia  in  tertio  decimo  Psalmo  conse- 
quenter  ex  integro  posita  inveniuntur :  in  Greeds  autem  pcene 
omnibus  non  amplias  in  decimo  tertio  Psalmo  quam  usque  ad 
ilium  versiculum,  ubi  scriptum  est ;  '  Non  est  qui  faciat  bonum, 
non  est  usque  ad  unum."  In  the  terms,  "  Grsecis  autem  pane 
omnibus,"  the  Greek  Vulgate  is  plainly  intimated ;  in  the  phrase 
"  inveniuntur — non  amplius,  8$c."  the  correction  of  that  edition 
is  as  plainly  implied.  As  the  Vulgate  was  the  text  which  Lu- 
cianus  revised,  we  have  here  a  plain  example  of  the  manner  ia 
which  he  formed  his  revisal. 
81  Vid.  supr.  n.  * 

rffl 


(    436    ) 

tnon  edition.  Setting  aside  the  authority  of  Origeti, 
there  seems  to  be  no  conceivable  cause  by  which 
Lucianus  could  have  been  swayed  in  corrupting-  the 
text.  Nor  can  he  be  convicted  on  this  head,  by  the 
testimony  of  St.  Jerome,  who  declares  that  his  text 
was  interpolated.  As  it  appears,,  on  the  testimony 
of  this  antient  father,  that  Lucianus's  text  prevailed 
at  Byzantium  in  the  age  when  he  wrote",  where 
it  has  demonstrably  prevailed  to  the  present  day  *3  ; 
we  have  only  to  compare  the  Byzantine  text  with  the 
Latin  version  of  St.  Jerome,  in  order  to  discover  the 
passages  **,  against  which  his  censure  is  chiefly  di- 
rected. There  is  thus  little  difficulty  in  vindicating 
Lucianus  from  the  charge  of  corrupting  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  and  little  more  in  tracing  the  errour  under 
which  St.  Jerome  laboured  to  the  source  from 
whence  it  arose.  A  slight  inspection  of  the  passages 
in  which  the  Byzantine  text  differs  from  the  Latin 
Vulgate,  will  convince  any  unprejudiced  person, 
that  they  are  such  as  the  orthodox  must  have  been 
led,  by  their  principles,  to  exclude  from  a  place  in 
the  authorised  edition,  had  they  been  corrections  of 
Lucianus.  They  include  some  passages  which 
were  favourite  texts  employed  by  the  Arians,  in 


*»  Vid.  supr.  p.  72.  n.  37. 

43  Vid.  supr.  pp.  71.  88*  sqq. 


**  Vid.  supr.  pp.  151.  160.  The  principal  passages  in  which 
the  Greek  and  Latin  Vulgate  differ,  may  be  seen  at  a  view,  on 
turning  to  the  quotations  in  pp.  374  —  377.  p-  390.  n.  UI.  and 
on  comparing  the  quotations  pp.  380  —  385.  with  the  remarks  p. 
396.  n.  153.  In  these  references  the  Greek  Vulgate  is  denoted 
by  Bi/z.  or  Vulg.  the  Latin  Vulgate  by  It.  3. 


(    437    ) 

i 

supporting  their  opinions  against  the  Catholicks XJ ; 
it  is  of  course  inconceivable,  that  in  the  age  subse- 
quent to  that  in  which  Lucianus  published  his  edi- 
tion, the  Catholicks  would  have  allowed  them  to 
retain  their  place  in  the  text,  unless  they  undoubt- 
edly believed  them  authentick.  They  include  some 
other  passages  relating  to  the  mystick  doctrines  of 
revelation,  which  the  prejudices  of  the  age  pre- 
vented the  orthodox  from  divulging  to  those  who 
were  not  regularly  initiated  in  their  sacred  myste- 
ries a6.  If  it  is  conceived,  that  such  passages  could 
have  been  invented  by  Lucianus,  which  is  a  notion 
that  is  exposed  to  many  obvious  objections*7;  con- 

15  Such  are  Mat.  xix.  17.  Mar.  xiii.  32.  Luc.xxii.  43,  44-. 
Job.  v.  3,  4.  Act.  xv.  28.  supr.  p.  372.  sqq.  besides  Mar.  xvu 
9—20.  Job.  viii.  1—11. 

46  Such  are  not  only  Act.  xx.  28.  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  1  Job.  v.  7. 
Col.  ii.  4.  supr.  pp.  253.  276.  but  Luc.  xi.  13.  xxii,  43,  44.  Job. 
v.  3,  4.  Act.  viii.  37.  supr.  p.  377.  sqq.  and  Mat.  vi.  13.  Luc.-xi. 
2,  4,  &c.  ut  supr.  p.  380.  A  more  convenient  opportunity  will 
hereafter  occur  of  speaking  at  large  on  tbis  subject. 

27  The  Arians  have  laid  claim  to  Lucianus,  as  an  advocate  of 
their  peculiar  opinions  ;  Epiph.  Haer.  LXIX.  p.  730.  d.  But  tbis 
was  merely  an  artifice,  similar  to  that  by  which  they  endea- 
voured to  prove  Origen  and  Dionysius  Alexandrinus,  of  their 
party ;  vid.  S.  A  than,  de  Sen  tent.  Dionys.  Tom.  I.  p.  243.  c. 
The  orthodoxy  of  Lucianus  has  been  fully  vindicated  by  Bp. 
Bull,  on  the  express  testimony  tff  the  ecclesiastical  historians ; 
vid.  Def.  Fid.  Nic.  Sect.  II.  cap.  xiii.  §  4.  p.  144.  sqq.  It  is 
indeed  true  that  Lucianus  agreed  with  the  Arians  in  rejecting 
or  omitting  the  term  «/*O«CT-»OF,  in  his  confession  of  faith ;  and  on 
these  grounds  the  hereticks  founded  their  claims  to  him,  as  a 
partizan  of  their  notions.  But  the  Creed  of  Lucianus,  which 
they  produced  in  defence  of  their  errours,  contains  a  full  vin- 
dication of  that  martyr,  as  it  proves,  that  however  he  rejected  the 


(    438    ) 

siderable  difficulties  must  still  attend  the  suppo- 
sition, that  they  would  be  admitted  into  the  cano- 
nical text  of  Scripture;  particularly  in  an  age, 
when  reproach  must  have  been  brought  on  the  only 
party  whom  they  could  serve,  by  adversaries  who 
were  as  able  as  they  were  willing*  to  expose  an 
attempt  of  that  nature. 

The  charge  urged  by  St.  Jerome  against  Luci- 
anus's  text  is  therefore  entitled  to  little  attention  : 
and  additional  reasons  compel  us  to  set  it  aside, 
which  result  from  the  facility  of  accounting  for  the 
errour  under  which  he  laboured.  In  fact,  the  mis- 
take of  St.  Jerome  must  be  imputed  to  that  cause 
which  has  been  already  pointed  out;  his  having 
judged  of  Lucianus's  text  by  the  standard  of  Euse- 
bius's  edition18.  His  objection  must  of  course  fall 
to  the  ground,  if  it  can  be  shewn  that  the  text  of 
Eusebius  was  defective ;  as  omitting  those  passages 
wliich  were  retained  in  Lueianus's  edition.  For 
St.  Jerome  having  been  unconscious  of  the  defici- 

terra,  he  retained  the  doctrine :  vid.  S.  Athan.  de  Synod.  Ari- 
min.  Tom.  II.  p.  693.  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  II.  cap.  x.  p. 
87.  1.  36.  Conf.  Bull.  ibid.  §  7.  p.  145.  The  fact  is,  that  the 
term  was  rejected  by  Lucianus,  merely  because  it  had  been  per- 
verted by  the  Sabellians,  to  favour  their  peculiar  doctrines; 
and  it  had  been  expressly  rejected,  in  the  sense  which  they 
affixed  to  it,  60  years  previously  to  the  Council  of  Nice,  by  the 
Synod  of  Antioch  :  vid.  Bull.  Ib.  cap.  i.  §  9.  p.  29.  sqq.  From 
these  considerations  we  may  certainly  conclude,  that  Lucianus 
was  not  likely  to  invent  any  passage,  like  those  quoted  in  n.  *6. 
6upr.  p.  437.  for  the  purpose  of  supporting  the  doctrine  of  one 
substance. 
**  Vid.  supr.  pp.  151. 160. 


(    439    ) 

ency  of  one  text,  imagined  the  integrity  of  the  other 
was  redundant. 

Under  this  view  of  the  subject,  the  various  read- 
ings of  the  sacred  text  are  ultimately  traced  to  the 
editions  of  Hesychius  and  Eusebius ;  the  one,,  ac- 
cording to  St.  Jerome's  express  declaration,  having 
interpolated  the  inspired  writings,,  the  other,  accord- 
ing to  his  implied  testimony,  having  pruned  them 
of  some  imaginary  superfluities.  To  the  influence 
of  Origen,  we  must  again  look  for  the  source  of 
these  varieties,  of  a  totally  opposite  character, 
which  were  thus  introduced  into  the  text  of  Scrip- 
ture. 

Of  Hesychius  we  know  nothing  more  than  that 
he  was  a  bishop  of  Egypt,  who  perished  in  the  per- 
secution in  which  Lucianus  was  martyred Z9.  But 
this  little  seems  to  identify  him  as  a  disciple  of  Ori- 
gen.  In  the  controversy  respecting  the  Apocalypse 
and  Millennium,  which  had  been  maintained  by 
Dionysius  and  Nepos,  who  governed  the  sees  of 
Alexandria  and  Egypt,  about  sixty  years  previously 
to  the  meeting  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  some  curio- 
sity was  excited,  respecting  the  allegorical  sense  of 
Scripture,  which  Origen  had  supported,  and  relative 
to  the  nature  of  the  body,  its  organization  and  en- 
joyments, in  that  state  which  is  to  succeed  the  resur- 

19  Walt.  Prolegomm.  Sect.  TX.  p.  63.  §  25.  "  Quarta 
£ editio  ruv  O'j  fuit  Hesychii  Episcopi  JEgyptii,  in  eadem  per- 
secutione  decima  martyrio  coronati :  de  quo  Euseb.  Hist.  Lib. 
VIII.  cap.  xiv.  Hie  veterem  translationem  recognovit :  quse, 
teste  Hieronymo,  per  Mgyptum  et  Alexandrian,  celelris  erat  • 
jsovam  non  cudit." 


(    440    ) 

rection5*.  The  peculiar  opinions  of  Origen  had 
spread  so  widely  after  this  period,,  in  Egypt,  that 
when  a  council  was  convened  at  Alexandria  by 
Theophilus,  in  which  those  opinions  were  con- 
demned  as  heretical,,  Dioscorus,  bishop  of  Hermo- 
polis,  with  the  Egyptian  monks,  were  professed 
converts  to  Origen's  notions31.  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances, the  churches  of  Egypt  were  gradually 
prepared  for  the  reception  of  a  revised  text,  accom- 
modated to  the  principles  of  Origen's  criticism  J*. 

30  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  VIL  cap.  xxiv.  p.  349.  1.  27. 

a,<n  fftev^JtZficu    ^Atovyato?   Mric-xoTroj  ruv  xar'  A 
^  wsgt  iirot^yt^uv  OVQ  cryjypa^/xara.  v)  $  i>7fo$t<n$ 


ra? 

TOJ    ayiotf    Iv    reefs   §tiot.i<;   T^xtpaTt;     tTra/yeX/*;    a7ro^& 
)  xcti  Tt»a  ^iXia^a  truv  rgvtpijs  cr^aTtxJj?  MT»  T??  %v)(ais  TOIVTVIS 

$9roTi$i'/x«of.    Conf.  S.  Epiphan.  Haer.  LXIV.  p.  527.  d« 
528.  b.  c. 

31  The  account  which  Socrates  has  given  of  this  controversy, 
Hist.  Eccl.  Lib,  VI.  cap.  vii.  p.  319.  is  confused  and  contra- 
dictory ;  it  having  been  obviously  his  desire  to  vindicate  Ori- 
gen's opinions,  of  which  he  was  undoubtedly  a  favourer  :  Huet. 
Origeniann.  Lib.  II.  cap.  iv.  sect.  ii.  §  25.  p.  278.  b.  Origenistas 
•vero  palam  se  produnt  Socrates  Scholasticus  et  Hermias  Sozo- 
jnenus  in  Historiis  suis,"  &c.  But  St.  Epiphanius,  who  was  a 
contemporary  of  Theophilus,  and  who  convened  a  synod  in 
Cyprus,  for  the  purpose  of  condemning  the  Origenists,  about 
the  same  time  that  Theophilus  convened  one  at  Alexandria  for 
the  same  purpose,  refers  the  origin  of  this  heresy  to  the  monks 
ef  Egypt  ;  S.  Epiphan.  Haer.  Origenian.  §  iv.  p.  527.  b.  *H  $1 
s|  aim?  £'n§tyei'»s3  tyvfftx,  alpjo-tj  flrgu/Iov  /xgv  ev  Tip  ruv 


TSt    VVV  Sf 


TOV  p(,ova)§7)  /3/ov  ava^£5^£(j3'«/1    Trapa    TO^  (pi/en  xala.  T« 
etvotxugSffi  T«,  x^  T«J»  axl^oavvtjy  I^O/A«»OK  *»  T.  «. 

3a  Independent  of  the  accommodation  of  the  Egyptian  text 


We  have  only  to  compare  the  account  which 
Origen  has  given,  of  the  method  in  which  he  pro- 

to  the  principles  of  Origen's  criticism,  examples  of  which  will 
be  adduced  on  a  proper  occasion  ;  instances  occur  in  which  this 
text  has  palpably  suffered  by  the  influence  of  his  peculiar  opi- 
nions.    An  example  presents  itself  in  one  of  the  first  passages 
in  which  his  critical  canons  could  be  applied.     In  the  quota- 
tion from  Deut.  viii.  3.  introduced  in  Mat.  iv.  4.  the  original 
mn>  '£>  NYID  k)  hs  W,  is   rendered  by  the  Septuagint  and  St. 
Matthew,  «AA*  ETT*   iruvrl  poj/txar*   Extfogsfo/xs-va;  ^»a  ro/«.a1of   ©it?. 
This  deviation  from  the  Hebrew  was  of  course  marked  in  Ori- 
gen's  Hexapla  ;   there  was  consequently  room  for  a  correction 
of  the  text  by  Hesychius.     Instead  however  of  removing  \^<x\^ 
which  is  superfluous,  he  erased  &a  ropetlos.     How  far  the  literal 
interpreters,  inserted  in  the  Hexapla,  might  have  expressed  >a 
by  pvpctliy  as  this  term  may  be  sometimes  rendered,  (see  Deut. 
xvii.  6.  xxxiv.  5,)  we  are  now  unable  to  discover  ;  as  a  fe*r 
words  merely  of  Deut.  viii.  3.  14.  17.  now  remain  out  of  the 
whole  of  the  chapter  from  whence  the  verse  before  us  is  taken  : 
vid.  Montfauc.  Hexapl.  Orig.  Tom.  I.  p.  180.     There  can  be 
very  little  reason  to  doubt,  that  in  suppressing  &a  roftolo?,  the 
reviser  of  the  Egyptian  text  had  respect  to  the  fundamental 
tenet  of  the  Origenists.     S.  Epiphan.   ub.  supr.  p.  527.  c. 


iQV  ptcv  QTk  o  Tto?  o  fAWoycvnt  og<x,*  TOV  Hal^oc.  a 
7o  Ilvtvpot,  tov  Y»ot»  ^|}v»3ai  Siacraa-Sat,  «TE  ^ 
'T£  c*  aj$g07roi  T«?  'A/yeXa^.  To  this  single  point  the 
difference  between  the  Monks  of  Egypt  and  the  Bishop  of 
Alexandria  has  been  reduced  by  Socrates  ;  the  former  having 
accused  the  latter  of  being  an  Anthropomorphite,  or  person  who 
ascribed  a  human  form  to  God,  because  he  denied  this  funda- 
mental tenet  of  the  Origenists;  Socrat.  ub.  supr.  p.  321,  1.  3. 
o  7«§  ©£05",  £0so<ptAo$3  (pyirlv,  JiaV  T«>  Stiav  TpotQw,  -£ 


v,  'flpyivet  axoX8^av7ef, 

W,  «T£   fc'Tflf,  8T£  OTO^ar,   8T6 


(    442    ) 

ceeded  to  correct  the  Old  Testament,  and  of  the 
fancied  corruptions  which  he  conceived  had  crept 
into  the  New,  with  the  internal  evidence  of  the 
Egyptian  text,  in  order  to  discover  that  Hesychius, 
by  whom  this  edition  was  published,  had  merely 
undertaken  to  realize  the  plan  which  had  been  sug- 
gested by  Origen  for  its  improvement.  In  cor* 
recting  the  Old  Testament,  Origen  had  compared 
the  different  copies  of  the  Greek  version,  and  had 
admitted  the  authority  of  the  versions  made  by  the 
hereticks3';  and,  in  insinuating  the  corruptions  of 
the  New,  he  corrected  the  statement  of  one  Evan- 
gelist by  the  accounts  of  the  other,  and  appealed  to 
the  testimony  of  the  Gospels  compiled  by  the  here- 
ticks  u.  We  scarcely  discover  a  peculiarity  in  the 
Egyptian  text,  which  may  not  be  directly  accounted 
for,  by  conceiving  the  reviser  actuated  by  the  ambi- 
tion of  giving  that  perfection  to  the  text  of  the  New 
Testament,  which  Origen,  following  similar  princi- 
ples, had  given  to  the  text  of  the  Old. 

With  respect  to  the  works  by  which  Hesychius 
was  assisted  in  entering  on  this  undertaking,  wre 
know  that  he  was  possessed  of  a  Harmony  and  seve- 
ral apocryphal  works,  which  had  been  used  by  Ori- 


og 


3J  Vid,  supr.  p.  432.  n.  I3.  p.  434.  n.  'V 

34  Vid,  supr.  *p.  4-33.  n.  I6.  p.  330.  n.  4S.  The  Critical  Ca- 
nons by  which  Hesychius  was  guided  in  revising  the  Egyptian 
text,  lie  in  a  short  compass  ;  being  contained  in  two  or  three 
pages  of  Origen  's  Commentary  on  St.  Mat.  Tom.  III.  pp.  670, 
671,  672. 


(    443    ) 

gen  in  compiling  his  Commentaries.  Ammonius, 
who  preceded  Origen  in  the  government  of  the 
school  of  Alexandria^  had  constructed  a  work  of  the 
former  kind,  in  which  he  disposed  the  coincident 
passages  of  the  different  Evangelists  in  parallel 
columns35;  and  it  appears^  from  the  writings  of 
Clement  and  Origen.,  that  "  the  Gospel  of  the  He- 
brews/' "  the  Acts  of  Paul/'  and  Cl  the  Preaching 
of  Peter/'  wrere  well  known  to  the  disciples  of  that 
school36.  With  respect  to  the  authority  which  was 
ascribed  to  these  works^  it  is  certain  that  Origen  did 
not  absolutely  reject  the  last37,  though  he  did  not 
receive  it  as  a  canonical  work.  A  very  slight  de- 
gree of  attention  bestowed  on  the  Egyptian  text, 
as  preserved  in  the  Cambridge  or  Verceli  manu- 
script, must  convince  any  person,  that  it  has  suf- 
fered from  the  influence  of  these  different  works* 
As  the  Gospels  of  that  edition  have  been  corrected 
by  each  other;  the  deficiencies  of  one  being  fre- 
quently supplied  from  the  fulness  of  another;  it  is 
evident  the  text  must  have  been  corrected  by  some 
reviser,  who  made  good  use  of  a  Harmony 3*.  And 

35  Though  the  remains  of  Ammonius's  Harmony,  which  are 
preserved  in  the  translation  of  Victor  Capuanus,  are  disposed 
in  the  form  of  a  Diatessaron,  it  appears  from  the  account  of 
Eusebius  and  St.  Jerome,  that  the  original  work  was  arranged 
in  the  form  of  a  Harmony:  vid.  Vales,  in  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl. 
Lib.  IV*  cap.  xxix.  p.  194.  n.  ". 

36  Vid.  Orig.  de  Principp.  Praef.  Tom.  I.  p.  49,  b.  Comment 
in  Joan.  Tom.  IV.  p.  322.  c.     Clem.  Alex.  Stromat.  Lib.  VI. 
p.  759.  1.  24.  p.  764. 1.  47.  p.  804. 1.  35.  &c. 

37  Vid.  supr.  p.  432.  n.  '3. 

38  Such  precisely  is  the  account  which  Dr,  Mills  gives  of  the 


(     444     ) 

several  extraordinary  passages  admitted  into  the 
Gospels  and  Acts,  one  of  which  we  are  enabled  to 
trace  to  "  the  Preaching  of  Peter/'  very  sufficiently 
evince,  that  the  apocryphal  writings  were  allowed 
eome  weight  in  compiling  that  edition39. 

text  of  the  Cambridge  MS.  ut  supr.  p.  160.  n.  "8.  A  similar 
observation  had  been  made  on  Hesychius's  text  by  St.  Jerome; 
that  it  had  been  interpolated  from  a  Diatessaron ;  Vid.  supr. 
p.  100.  n. I10.  p.  155.  n.  106.  I  understand  St.  Jerome  as  mean- 
ing  a  Diatessaron,  by  "  unum-e-quatuor,"  in  the  subjoined 
words,  which  are  taken  from  the  last  cited  passage :  "  Vel  dum 
eundem  sensura  alius  aliter  expressit,  ille  qui  unum~e~quatuor 
primum  legerat,  ad  ejus  exemplum  caeteros  quoque  existema- 
verit  emendandos."  The  term  £u&1e7<rcifut  is  adopted  from 
Musick,  and  signifies  the  Harmony  of  a  fourth ;  that  it  is  al- 
luded to  in  this  place  by  St.  Jerome,  is,  I  conceive,  evident 
from  his  having  adopted  a  like  term  in  rendering  this  word  in 
the  following  passage  in  Eusebius's  Epistle  to  Carpianus; 

*A^amQf  f*«»  o  'AAs|a><fyiu?,  voM,w  of  £«£0f  piXo9roi//av  K^  cnrti&tf 
llayTjo^w?,  TO  Otz  rsGGzpctiv  v)(*Tv  netret^oiTrsv  tvafysfaov :  "  Ammo* 
nius  quidem  Alexandrinus  magno  studio  atque  industria  unum 
nobis  pro  quatuor  evangeliis  dereliquit."  As  this  Harmony 
was  published  by  Ammonius  in  Egypt,  every  facility  was  thence 
afforded. Hesychius  to  revise  the  Greek  Testament. 

39  Such  are  the  passages  inserted  in  the  Cambridge  MS.  after 
Mat.  iii.  15.  xx.  28.  and  quoted  supr.  p.  127.  n.  45.  p.  177. 
n.  Is3.  the  former  of  which  is  traced  by  S.  Epiphanius  to  the 
Hebrew  Gospel,  supr.  p.  332.  n.  47.  a  work  which  is  referred  to 
frequently  by  Origen.  The  same  passage  occurred  in  "  the 
Preaching  of  Peter,"  an  Apocryphal  work,  which  was  of  equal 
authority  with  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews :  vid.  Auct.  de  Bap- 
tism, int.  opuscc.  adscript.  S.  Cyprian,  p.  30.  This  writer,  who 
quotes  from  the  Italick  version,  and  is  supposed  to  have  lived 
pear  the  times  of  St.  Cyprian,  makes  the  following  observation 
on  this  passage,  which  adds  an  additional  proof  to  those  which 
have  been  already  adduced,  that  the  Greek  text  of  the  Cam- 


(    443    ) 

Bat  the  Commentaries  of  Origen  afforded  still 
greater  assistance  to  the  editour  of  the  Egyptian 
text ;  as  in  them,  he  frequently  found  his  different 
authorities  combined  in  a  narrow  compass,,  and  a 
comment  added  by  Origen,,  whose  sentence  on  this 
subject  was  taken  as  oracular.  That  these  works 
have  had  some  influence  on  the  Egyptian  and  Pa- 
lestine texts,  is  a  point  which  appears  to  me  to  be 
capable  of  demonstration.  Of  the  passages,  con- 
sisting of  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  intro- 
duced into  the  New,  in  which  the  Greek  Vulgate 
differs  from  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine  editions, 

bridge  MS.  and  the  Latin  version  of  the  Verceli  MS.  did  not 
exist  before  the  close  of  the  third  century,  near  which  time 
they  were  formed  by  Hesychius  and  St.  Eusebius ;  Id.  ib.  p.  30. 

• **  Item  cum  baptizaretur  ignem  super  aquam  esse  visum* 

Quod  in  Evangello  nullo  est  scriptum."  Were  this  work  extant, 
or  "  the  Acts  of  Paul,"  which  are  mentioned  by  Eusebius, 
supr.  p.  206.  n.  34.  I  make  no  doubt  that  we  should  find  in  them 
the  following  passages,  and  most  of  those  of  the  same  character 
which  occur  in  the  Egyptian  text  and  revised  Italick  trans- 
lation. Act.  XI.  2.  o  pit  av  n/T£o?  ha,  ixanu  %£<>vs  YJ$S 
S^rcti  1*5  IfgocroXvpot,'  t£  frjiQfffavwr&f  Tfc?5  a&X^a?,  ^ 
ittfwv  Aoyo?  flroia^ocj  oj«  rJ*  xpfuv  ^o.<jy.(ti»  cttnin;.  05  x] 


jo?  otvrdv.     Ibid,  xviii.  27.  s»  $\  r»j  *J 

»t^  a.Kfiua.v\i^  ayr£,  £T«  FlayA*?]] 
a^Torj  115  T»JV  vrcClplSx.   at/run,  ffvyx.cclctyevo'a.vlos  $t  ctirT$y  ci  '] 

As  these  extraordinary  passages  are  found  in  the  margin  of 
the  Philoxenian  Version,  they  certainly  existed  in  the  Egyptian, 
text:  vid.  supr.  p.  77.  n.  5°:  they  furnish  a  sufficient  specimen 
from  which  we  may  form  a  judgment  of  similar  interpolations 
in  the  Egyptian  edition. 


(    446     ) 

the  most  remarkable  are  Matt.  xv.  8.  xxvii.  35. 
Luc.  iii.  5.  iv.  184° :  as  in  these  texts  the  reading  of 
the  latter  editions  is  apparently  supported  by  the 
express  testimony  of  Origin's  commentary.  But  a 
comparison  of  the  comment  with  the  documents 
which  were  before  Origen,  very  clearly  evinces, 
that  in  forming-  this  idea,  the  revisers  of  the  Egyp- 
tian and  Palestine  texts  were  deceived.  In  Matt, 
xv.  841,  an  ignorance  of  the  Hebrew  led  them  into 

40  Vid.  supr.  p.  381.  conf.  p.  185.  n.  '5*.  p.  369.  n.  127. 

41  E/V^£»   f*oi    [o   ^ao?]  £TO?  ru   revolt   avruv,   xj   TO*?  %s»X£cr»  pt 
rffjL*,  which  occurs  in  the  LXX  and  the  Hebrew  original,  in 
Is.  xxix.  13.  and  in  the  Greek  Syriack  and  Italick  Vulgate,  in 
Matt.  xv.  8.  is  omitted  in  the  latter  place,  by  the  Egyptian  and 
Palestine  editions.     That  the  genuine  reading  is  preserved  in 
the  Byzantine  text,  I  have  already  endeavoured  to  prove,  from 
the  internal  evidence  of  the  Italick  version;  vid.  supr.  p.  185. 
n.   I63 :    the   following  circumstances    will    account   for    the 
various  reading  of  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine.      (1.)    This 
passage  is  omitted  by  St.  Mark,  in  referring  to  Isaiah,  vid.  Mar. 
vii.  6  ;  and  it  was  a  canon  of  Origen's  criticism,  by  which  Hesy- 
chius  was  guided  in  revising  the  text,  that  the  Gospels  of  the 
different  Evangelists  might  be  corrected  by  each  other  ;  vid.  supr. 
p.  4:33.  n.  l6.     (2.)  It  was  equally  a  canon  of  the  same  criti- 
cism, that  the  Evangelists  had  abridged  the  quotations  of  the 
Old  Testament,  in  admitting  them  into  the  New;  vid.  infr.  p. 
449.  n.  4* :   the  sherter  quotation  was  of  course  preferred,  as 
supposed  to  contain  the  genuine  reading.     (3.)  Origen,  in  re- 
ferring to  this  canon,  had  given  rise  to  this  emendation,  by 
merely  quoting  part  of  this  verse  with  y.at  ra  ifa,  generally 
stating  that  Matthew  had  not  JolloMced  Isaiah  verbatim ;  Orig. 
Comment,  in  Matt.  Tom.  III.  p.  492.  vraf&flo  }Aov  oiito  TU  'Hraiu, 

eitc?  a.vTot't't;  hi%t(riv  areas  £%£»*  '  xa<  jtTrg  K^pto?,  IJy/^et  /LCSI  a  Aaoj  aro? 
iv  TU  ropefli  oivTu*S  x.cc\  rot,  I^r/r.  xai  TTfoe'^o^v  ye  or*  «x  ajJraiV 
XE'£[E<HV  avsy^a-^Ev  6  M^S'arw  "TO  *go^3/ixo»t  (5.)  By  this  de- 


(    447    > 

an  errour  with  respect  to  the  meaning  of  Origen  ; 
as  Origen  's  testimony,,  when  properly  understood, 
not  only  discovers  the  source  of  the  various  reading 
in  the  Egyptian  edition,,  but  confirms  the  peculiar 
reading  of  the  Byzantine.  The  same  observation 
may  be  likewise  extended  to  Luc.  iii.  5  4i.  A  repe- 

claration,  Hesychius  was  deceived;  for  in  the  application  of  this 
remark  to  the  passage  before  us,  Origen  is  entirely  misrepre- 
sented. This  passage  agrees  verbatim  with  Isaiah;  while  its 
context,  to  which  Origen  certainly  alludes,  differs  from  the  exact 
words  of  the  prophet  :  St.  Matthew  having  there  written,  lb«  9- 


but  Isaiah,  Ib.  13.  mnVo  onw»  DIVD  »n«  Dn«n»  «nm:  the 
former  of  which  is  properly  rendered  in  the  Authorised  Ver- 
sion, "  but  in  vain  they  do  worship  me  teaching  .for  doctriiie.s 
the  commandments  of  men,"  the  latter  somewhat  more  freely, 
"  and  their  fear  toward  me  is  taught  by  the  precept  of  men/* 
(6.)  What  sets  this  matter  out  of  dispute,  is,  that  Origen  pro- 
ceeds explicitly  to  cite  the  contested  passage  in  the  very  words 
of  the  vulgar  Greek  ;  Orig.  ib.  p.  4-93.  e.  TOTS  slvrsv 
TU  ra/*«1»  Il7»£sn»  ro»  Aaov*  rat  'isftuiuv,  (  TV  ®eyf 


otiro 


though  by  prefacing 
these  words  with  TOTE  iintv  o  Kvpto?,  he  was  conceived,  by  the 
revisers  of  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine  texts,  to  allude  to  Isaiah  ; 
while  it  is  evident,  from  the  context,  &a  TJJV  £*?  TQV  lyciiv  air^'la,*, 
he  must  have  referred  to  St.  Matthew.  (7.)  As  the  testimony 
of  Origen  is  thus  clearly  in  favour  of  the  Greek  Vulgate,  and 
there  can  be  consequently  no  doubt  that  it  retains  the  genuine 
reading  ;  we  have  thus  a  positive  proof  of  the  corruption  of  the 
Egyptian  and  Palestine  editions,  in  one  of  the  most  remarkable 
passages  in  which  they  differ  from  the  Greek  Vulgate. 


ocet 


K^  «r«»  TCI  fftto^a  tig  ei^eTav,  which  occurs  in  Luc.  iii.  4,  5.  is 
found  also  in  Is.  xl.  3,  4-  :  but  in  the  first  clause,  evbstas 
T«r  Tgij3«r,  is  expressed  by  n^DD  w,  i-  e.  EV^C/«V  vent 


(    448    ) 

tition  of  the  same  word  in  Or  igen's  comment  on  this 
passage,  led  to  an  ambiguity,  which  a  reference  to 


T£//3ov,  and  aura  by  uinV^^  T£  ©«5  ^to/v.  in  the  second.  In  the 
last  clause,  however,  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine  texts  read 
it  era»  T«  o•xo^^a  el*  tvSeiots  ;  directly  contrary  to  the  reading 
of  the  Byzantine  text,  x«»  eV«*  T«  crxo*»a  els-  sv&Etav,  and  the 
prophet  Isaiah,  W»V  np#n  n»m.  This  various  reading  has 
plainly  originated  from  a  misconception  of  the  following  pas- 
sage of  Origen.  Com.  in  Joan.  Tom.  I.  127.  d. 

agxw    act.}   o   Aaxa?   T£,    '  Qutn   fiouvlos  Iv    TJJ   sp^tw*. 
tv    @i@hu   hoyuv    'Herat's    rS    w^o^jjTtf  —  'E 


o  A«x«?  xat  TC6  s|?$  T»7?  Trpo^jjTeia?  —  '  xj  era*  Ta  crxoAta  stj 
[I.  *y$«i 


TO,    '  gy^gla?  irotetrs  ra?   rp^a?   r5 


ifAciJVf    a»1t    ^i    T£,   *  JtJ   era  i  TTai'vlae,   cry.oAja    EK  £!$Eta?'    [1.  EtSEiav], 


jo^sia?.*  This  last  remark,  that  St.  Luke, 
"  instead  of  the  singular  eoSeiav,  made  the  plural  *&£»{,"  appa- 
rently refers  to  the  former  £v$fia.ct  in  the  phrase  «w$eUs  «ntf  ~Tf9 
and  not  Me  /a^er  crxoA»av  E»?  it-Seiar.  (1.)  There  is  a  difference 
In  the  former  phrase  between  the  Prophet  and  Evangelist  ;  the 
latter,  as  Origen  observes,  "  instead  of  the  singular  (n^DD  w) 
having  made  the  phrase  in  the  plural  (Ev&faj  irmlTi}."  (2.) 
If  Origen  be  not  conceived  to  allude  to  the  former,  he  makes 
an  unaccountable  omission,  which  is  wholly  irreconcilable  with 
the  minuteness  of  his  criticism,  where  he  undertakes  to  point 
out  the  difference  between  Isaiah  and  St.  Matthew.  (3.)  The 
reading  of  the  LXX,  which  St.  Matthew  followed,  is  EK  *v$e'ar, 
conformably  with  the  Greek  Vulgate  ;  it  is  therefore  as  incon* 
ceivable,  that  the  Evangelist  would  have  deviated  from  the  re- 
ceived version  in  -this  place,  as  that  Origen  would  have  omitted 
to  mention  his  deviation,  from  the  original  text  in  the  former. 
(4  )  The  main  object  of  Origen  was  to  illustrate  his  favourite 
position,  that  the  Evangelists  abridged  the  words  of  the  Pro- 
phets, in  quoting  their  writings;  Id.  ib.  p.  127.  e. 
•  .  . 


{    449    ) 

the  Hebrew  would  have  directly  cleared  up;  but 
the  reviser  not  having-  possessed  even  learning  suffi- 
cient to  collate  the  Greek  with  the  original,  under- 
took to  determine  Origen's  meaning  by  his  context  ; 
in  choosing  between  the  two  words  which  were  set 
before  him,  he  unfortunately  fixed  on  the  wrong 
one,  and  has  thus  left  his  errour  subject  to  an  imme- 
diate detection,  on  confronting  the  testimony  of  the 
Greek  version  with  the  Hebrew  original.  In  omit- 
ing  Mat.  xxvii.  35.  the  reviser  of  the  Egyptian  edi- 
tion has  laid  himself  equally  open  to  detection45. 


His  allusion  to  the  former  is  therefore  made 
in  the  regular  order  ;  as  it  is  immediately  made  after  observing 
that  St.  Luke  "  having  curtailed  cv$ct«f  venire  T«?  rfi@tt<;  ra 
©ew  ^ptfc/v,  sets  down  the  phrase  without  weinct."  Hence  it 
appears,  that  some  officious  scribe,  equally  ignorant  of  Origen's 
object,  and  of  the  true  reading  of  the  prophet  Isaiah,  under* 
stood  the  concluding  remark  as  meant  of  the  last  tlq  ei>$eiav,  and 
in  order  to  point  the  observation,  consequently  corrected  this 
phrase,  in  the  context,  into  ef?  »$•»«{.  As  Origen's  testimony 
is  thus  virtually  on  the  side  of  the  Greek  Vulgate,  there  can 
be  no  doubt  of  the  genuine  reading  ;  particularly  as  it  is  con- 
firmed by  the  Hebrew  and  Septuagint,  and  by  the  concurrence 
of  all  versions,  except  the  revised  Italick  ;  which  has  no  voice 
in  the  present  case,  as  it  has  been  corrected  by  the  Egyptian 
edition.  And  it  must  be  observed  as  a  singular  confirmation 
of  the  received  reading,  that  it  is  supported  by  the  Latin  of  the 
Cambridge  MS.  against  the  testimony  of  the  Greek.  These 
circumstances  being  all  taken  into  consideration,  there  can  be 
little  reason  to  doubt,  that  the  reading  of  Origen's  text  was 
that  which  exists  in  the  vulgar  edition  ;  and  that  the  miscon- 
ception of  Origen's  comment  produced  the  reading  of  the  Egyp. 
tian  and  Palestine  editions. 
4J  The  Commentary  of  Origen  on  Matt,  xxvii.  35.  vid.  iupr* 


(    450    ) 

The  allegation  of  this  passage  from  the  Psalm!,  by 
St.  Matthew,  introduced  an  apparent  contradietkm 

p.  382.  runs  as  follows ;   Tom.  III.  p.  920.  e.     "  Postquam 
autem   crucifix erunt   eum  diviserunt  vestimenta  sortem   mit- 
tentes :  et  sedentes  servabant  eum.*     Et  sunt  usque  nunc  qui 
ipsum  non  habentes  vestimenta  autem  verba  in  scripturis  poisrta 
habent,  nee  ipsa  ad  plenum,  sed  ex  parte,  mhilominus  hoc  ipsum 
Propheta  dicente  mysterium  quod  nunc  est  impletum."     I.  It  is 
clear  that  Origen  found  some  mystery  in  this  passage,  and  that 
his  exposition  must  be  understood,  according  to  his  usual  mode 
of  interpretation,  in  an  allegorical  sense.     His  allusion  is  obvi- 
ously to  those  who  crucified  our  Lord ;  whom  he  represent* 
as  having  the  Scriptures,  in  the  letter  or  outward  part,  not  in 
the  substance,  which  was  Christ :  notwithstanding  the  clearness 
of  the  prophecy,  and  the  mystery  which  it  shadowed.     Accord- 
ing to  the  expositions  of  the  Allegorists,  who  considered  the 
garments  of  Christ  typical  of  the  unity  of  the  Church,  it  is  clear 
that  Origen  considered  the  outer  garments,  which  were  rent, 
the  Jewish  church  ;  but  the  inner  vesture,  which  was  preserved 
untorn,  the  Christian.     Such  is  obviously  Origen's  meaning, 
from  which  it  would  be  difficult  to  prove,  that  he  did  not  find 
the  disputed  passage  in  his  text :  or  that  he  meant  any  thing 
more  than  that  the  Jews  did  not  find  out  the  mystery,  which 
was  plainly  foretold  in  Ps.  xxii.  19.     On  the  contrary,  it  ap- 
pears  to  me  to  be  plainly  deducible  from  his  comment,  that  the 
disputed  passage  existed  in  his  text.     (1.)  He  alludes  to  the 
prophecy,  as  if  it  was  before  him,  without  the  smallest  refer- 
ence to  the  Psalmist;  which  he  could  not  have  done,  without 
an  express  reference,  had  it  been  deduced  by  him  in  explanation 
of  St.  Matthew.     (2.)  He  not  only  refers  to  it  under  a  titte  by 
which  it  could  not  be  even  known  to  exist  in  the  Psalms,  but 
the  extraordinary  title  by  which  it  is  quoted  in  the  disputed 
passage :  the  Psalm  being  there  referred  to,  not  under  the  title 
•4/aXf>to$  or  yp^r?,  as  we  find  in  St.  John  ;  but  under  the  unusual 
title  o  vtpqntr.c.     Of  this  most  remarkable  part  of  the  contested 
passage,  there  is  a  full  acknowledgment  in  Origen  ;  »'»«  \&*sp&l 
tTsro  TW. '.»§Q#»iTB  bchig  literally  rendered   «'  2»repAeta -<licente 


between  the  Evangelist's  text  and  quotation,  which 
was  first  pointed  out  by  Ammonius's  Harmony ;  the 

quod  est  impletum."  (3.)  As  this  is  a  phrase  that  Origcn 
could  neither  have  discovered  in  the  Psalmist  or  St.  John ;  we 
have  thus  an  express  testimony  for  part  of  the  contested  pas- 
sage in  his  words,  and  an  implied  testimony  for  the  remainder, 
in  his  exposition ;  the  prophecy  being  explained  by  him,  while 
he  is  engaged  in  expounding  Mat.  xxvii.  35.  II.  But  the  causa 
is  equally  obvious  which  induced  the  reviser  of  the  Egyptian 
text  to  adopt  the  shorter  reading;  (1.)  It  was  not  quoted  ex- 
pressly by  Origen,  in  his  Commentary.  (2.)  It  was  a  canon 
of  Origen's  criticism,  that  the  Evangelists  had  abridged  the 
quotations  which  they  adopted  from  the  Old  Testament ;  vid. 
supr.  p.  449.  n.  41.  (3.)  When  compared  with  Mar.  xv.  24. 
Joh.  xix.  23,  24.  as  set  beside  each  other  in  Ammonius's  Har- 
mony, it  introduced  an  apparent  contradiction  between  St. 
Matthew's  text  and  his  quotation;  the  one  representing  the 
garments  as  divided,  and  distributed  by  lot,  comp.  Mar.  ibid* ; 
the  other  representing  not  the  garments,  but  the  vesture,  as 
that  on  which  the  soldiers  cast  lots  ;  comp.  Joh.  ibid.  (4.)  This 
apparent  contradiction  was  avoided  by  the  omission  of  the  dis- 
puted passage ;  and  as  it  was  a  canon  of  Origen's  criticism,  that 
one  Evangelist  might  be  corrected  by  the  other ;  St.  Matthew 
was  thus  most  easily  accommodated  to  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke, 
by  expunging  what  they  had  left  out.  As  all  these  reasons 
must  have  equally  opposed  the  introduction  of  the  disputed 
passage  into  St.  Matthew,  as  have  recommended  its  removal 
from  the  text  of  that  Evangelist ;  I  trust  there  can  be  little 
hesitation  in  deciding,  that  there  is  rather  an  omission  in  the 
Egyptian  text,  than  an  interpolation  in  the  Byzantine.  It 
may  not  be  unnecessary  to  observe,  that  the  connexion  of 
"  diviserunt  vestimenta  sortem  mittentes,"  with  "  et  sedentes 
servubant  eum,"  supr.  p  450.  1.  5.  contains  no  proof  that 
the  intermediate  passage,  which  is  at  present  in  dispute, 
was  absent  from  Origen's  copies ;  for  similar  omissions  con- 
stantly occur  in  Origen's  writings,  as  the  next  quotation  ad- 
duced from  Origen  will  abundantly  testify,  vid.  infr.  u.  4+.  -ft 

eg- 2 


(    452    ) 

obliteration  of  the  disputed  passage  removed  the  c'otl- 
tradicton,  though  it  did  not  solve  the  difficulty.,  for 
which  indeed  Origen  appears  to  have  found  no  re- 
medy, as  he  passes  it  over  in  silence.  The  expe- 
dient which  answered  the  immediate  exigency  of 
the  revisers  was  consequently  adopted ;  and  the  pas- 
sage omitted  accordingly.  But  the  partial  quota- 
tion df  the  &ords  of  the  disputed  passage,,  and  the 
general  reference  to  its  sense  by  Origen,  dearly 
prove  that  it  existed  in  his  copy :  his  testimony  of 
course  as  fully  confirms  the  integrity  of  the  Byzan- 
tine text;  as  it  reveals  the  source  of  the  corruption 
of  the  Egyptian.  In  the  abridgment  of  the  pro- 
cited  in  Luc.  iv.  18  ^  we  discover  a  still 


rhay  be  boV^Ver  observed,  that  the  insertion  of  the  latter  clause 
in  its  present  place  is  probably  to  be  attributed  to  the  transla- 

.       A  *  L  .  •> 

tor;  as  ft' forms  the  text  which  Origen  has  set  at  the  head  of 
the  next  section,  arid  is  perfectly  irrelevant  in  its  present  situa- 
tion, as  not  touched  oh  iri  the  course  of  the  section  before  its : 

»  .  . 

conf.  Orfg,  ut  supr.  p.  921.  cV 

"     '          '  'i-V  y  fY  >  •    -  f  \  Ay  T    •      t1       *  •  1     f 

44  j^aujuff^on  Ttf?  <7M-TiTf »//./*£»»>  Tr,t  x.otpoiet9)  Which  IS  O*Tfiltted  in 
the  Egyptian  and  Palestine  text,  is  retained  in  the  Byzantine. 
"This  passage  was  omitted  by  Origen,  Comment,  in  Joan.  Tom. 
IV.  p.  13.  d.  Comment,  in  Luc.  Tom.  III.  p.  970.  a.  b.  But 
we  cannot  conclude  from  hence,  that  it  was  absent  from  Ori- 
gen's  copy.  In  the  former  place  he  omits  also  ctKorifaau  TE£- 

pawrtxivyf    !»  at$e&n'    x%fv%ai    tttavtor    Kfpt*  5ixTov,  connecting  x«* 

Tf^o~<  a»a/SA<-4/i»*  xj  wii/fat  TO  @i@tiov ;  in  the  latter,  the  transla- 
tion tnerely  of  his  works  agrees  with  the  received  version  of  the 
Latin  church  in  omitting  the  disputed  passage.  But,  waving 
this  consideration,  there  was  good  reason  why  Origen  should 
omit  the  disputed  clause :  according  to  Theodotion's  and  Sym- 
machus's  interpretation,  it  did  not  exactly  accord  with  the  He- 
brew. On  Is.  Ixi.  1.  nV  nattM^  ttan^,  St.  Jerome  observes 
Comment,  in  Is.  Tom,  IV.  p.  ^0^.  a.  "  Sivcjuxta  Symmachwn 


stronger  proof  of  the  corruption  of-  the  -Egyptian 
text,  and  of  the  integrity  of  the  Byzantine.  While 
the  disputed  passage  is  indispensably  necessary  to 

et  Theodotionem,  '  ad  attiganda  vulnera  peccatorum :"  we  ac- 
cordingly find,  that  while  the  Septuagint  render  t^inV  laffcto&ai, 
Symmachus  renders  ttfin*  i«rt5&r«'.  Job  v.  18.  vid.  Montfauc. 
Hexapl.  Tom.  I.  p.  402.  As  the  original  will  however  bear  the 
sense  assigned  it  in  the  Septuagint,  the  reading  of  which  is 
adopted  in  St.  Luke,  .the  difference  existing  between  the  trans- 
lation and  the  original,  independent  of  other  considerations., 
seem  decisive  of  the  true  reading.  (1.)  St.  Luke  represents 
the  whole  passage  of  Isaiah  as  read  by  our  Lord,  and  there  is 
no  doubt  that  the  disputed  clause  exists  in  Isaiah ;  it  is  there- 
fore indispensably  necessary  to  the  fidelity  of  the  Evangelist's 
narrative,  that  it  should  form  a  part  of  his  context;  as  it  is 
absurd  in  the  extreme  to  conceive  our  Lord  omitted  this  clause, 
which  appears  so  apposite  to  the  occasion.  (2.)  It  must  for 
ever  baffle  the  ingenuity  of  every  casuist  to  account  for  so  ex- 
traordinary a  fact,  as  that  the  passage  which  is  thus  omitted 
should  be  the  only  one  in  the  sentence,  in  which  the  original 
and  the  translation  are  apparently  different  (3.)  This  circum- 
stance, which  is  so  difficult  to  reconcile  with  the  notion  that 
this  passage  is  an  interpolation,  is  of  all  others  most  easily  re- 
conciled with  that  of  its  being  a  suppressed  text;  the  difference 
between  the  original  and  translation  being  considered  a  suffi- 
cient proof  that  it  was  spurious.  (4.)  The  same  circumstance 
must  be  eternally  irreconcilable  with  the  notion  that  this  pas- 
sage could  have  made  its  way  into  the  sacred  text  after  the 
publication  of  Origen's  Hexapla ;  the  difference  between  the 
Hebrew  and  Greek  version  having  been  there  fully  set  forth, 
and  its  remedy  suggested,  in  a  faithful  translation,  the  suppo- 
sition that  this  passage  could  have  been,  foisted  into  the  vulgar 
text  contrary  to  his  authority,  is  toq  absurd  to  "deserve  any 
further  consideration.  Whether  therefore  we " .regard  the  in- 
fluence of  Origen's  Hexapla  or  his  Commentaries,  we  have 
iiere  another  positive  proof  of  the  corruption  of  the  sacred 
from  the  authority  of  his  writings. 


(    45*    ) 

the  fidelity  of  the  Evangelist's  narrative;  a  slight 
verbal  difference  between  it  and  the  original  He- 
brew, which  was  first  revealed  in  the  Hexapla, 
clearly  discovers  the  grounds  of  offence  which  occa- 
sioned its  suppression  in  the  Egyptian  text,  and 
points  out  the  authority  on  which  the  Vulgar  Greek 
was  corrected.  In  Mat.  v.  4,  545.  to  which  we  may 

*>  In  the  Egyptian  text,  vers.  4,  5.  of  Mat.  v.  are  inverted  ; 
vid.  supr.  p.  63.  The  source  of  this  various  reading  clearly 
exists  in  the  following  passage  oif  Origen,  Comment,  in  Matt. 

Tom.    III.  p.    74-0.     W9tOtV   $£    T«    T018T»    ^Ot^OiVU     lie^ffOt^    TY)    TOC%tl 

?2y  Iv  TU  x«Ti  MteT^toHW  juaxapia/Aui',  iv  oT?  /Agra  TO,  '  /*axapjot 
el  trTwtgM  ru  wnvuizTi,  on  at/run  trtv  «  &ot<rti*i*  ?uv  vfuvuv,'  t%r)f 
ty&)f%aailau  70,  s  pat*a.pti  ol  &%&&  x.  T.  I.  But  into  this  opinion 
Origen  was  led  by  the  endeavour  to  find  out  an  artificial  con- 
nexion between  the  beatitudes  ;  or  a  regular  gradation,  in  the 
course  through  which  the  heirs  of  glory  pass  to  a  state  of  final 
beatitude  ;  Id.  ibid.  r4g*<  ya<>  Iv  T»TOK  art 


**%  >s"£  T°y  Kcvrtx,  auvoe,  tvcci  fr  ary?  vrotfaKhviwTti  yap 
To  *  W£7ret!/*;x£rat  xj  o^wivcti  <$Wa<o<rt;»>iK,'  f  xo^eaS^Tg? 
*  sXsyjSs'i'TSi:,'  HJ  l  Ttv  Qtov  ice^Te;'  xj  *  t-»o<  avra  X^.^ 
'  ITT*  T5jK  iSacrt^Eia/  otTroKctStraflcii  f  rav  vgccyuvS  Puerilities  such 
as  these  can  not  have  much  weight  in  determining  the  genuine 
reading.  In  another  work  of  Origen's,  we  consequently  find 
the  whole  order  and  progress  of  grace  inverted  ;  and  the  beati- 
tudes disposed  in  the  following  manner  ;  Mat.  v.  9.  8.  4.  3  : 
vid.  Horn.  xix.  in  Jer.  Tom.  III.  p.  269.  d.  A  third  attempt 
gives  us  the  reading  of  the  Vulgar  Greek  ;  for  Origen,  having 
discovered  an  analogy  between  our  pilgrimage  through  this  vale 
of  tears,  and  the  Israelites  passing  the  river  Jordan,  comes 
somewhat  nearer  to  the  sense  of  his  text,  and  thus  gives  it  in 
its  proper  order  ;  Horn.  v.  in  Jes.  Nav.  Tom.  II.  p.  407.  c. 
"  Transeunilum  nobis  est  quod  sequitur,  ut  in  hoc  mundo  luge- 
ttmus.  Cito  etiam  reliqua  transeunda  sunt,  ut  mansueti  effici- 
amur,  et  ut  pacifici  manearaus,  ut  per  hoc  filii  Dei  vocari 


(    455    ) 
add  Mat.  xxiii.  14 46.  we  plainly  discover  the  source 

possiraus.  Festinandum  quoque  nobis  est,  ut  persecutionum 
tempus  virtute  patientise  transearaus.  C unique  haec  singula 
quae  ad  virtutis  gloriam  spectant  non  segniter,  nee  remisse,  sed 
cum  omni  instantia  et  celeritate  conquisierimus,  hoc  mihi 
videtur  esse  cum  festinatione  transire  Jordanem."  Nor  can  it 
be  objected,  that  this  inconstancy  of  Origen  is  to  be  ascribed 
to  his  translatour,  for  (1.)  The  tenour  of  Origen's  reasoning 
absolutely  requires  that  the  present  order  should  be  preserved. 
(2.)  There  could  be  no  possible  object  in  changing  it,  had  it 
been  different ;  as  in  that  case  it  must  have  been  altered  con- 
trary to  the  testimony,  not  merely  of  Origen  himself,  but  of 
the  versions  which  have  prevailed  in  the  Latin  church,  since 
his  works  have  been  translated ;  vid.  supr.  p.  63.  (3.)  The 
Homilies  on  the  book  of  Joshua  were  translated  by  Ruffinus, 
as  appears  from  the  Prologue ;  Orig.  Ibid.  p.  396 ;  and  what- 
ever liberties  Ruffinus  might  have  taken  with  his  authour  in 
other  parts  of  his  works,  in  translating  this  book  he  was  con- 
fessedly accurate ;  Ruffin.  Peror.  in  Ep.  ad  Rom.  ap.  Orig. 

Tom.  IV.  p.  689.  a.     "  Ilia  quae  in  Jesu  Nave scripsimus, 

simpliciter  expressimus  ut  wvenimus,  et  non  multo  cum  labore 
transttilimus.'*  As  the  Vulgar  Text  is  thus  confirmed  by  the 
authority  of  Origen,  and  is  supported  by  all  versions  except 
the  second  and  third  edition  of  the  Latin  ;  the  former  of  which 
was  corrected  by  St.  Eusebius  from  the  Egyptian  text,  and 
has  had  a  direct  influence  on  the  latter,  as  revised  by  St.  Je- 
rome, there  can  be  as  little  reason  to  doubt  the  corruption  of 
the  Egyptian  text,  as  that  it  has  proceeded  from  the  authority 
of  Origen. 

^  In  the  Palestine,  as  well  as  the  Egyptian  text,  Mat.  xxiii. 
14'.  is  wholly  omitted.  The  source  of  this  variation  from  the 
Vulgar  Greek  must  be  sought,  not  Jess  than  the  preceding,  in 
the  writings  of  Origen.  This  fanciful  expositour  had  disco- 
vered a  natural  connexion  between  vers.  13.  15;  vers.  14.  was 
consequently  dismissed  to  effect  an  alliance  between  them; 
Orig.  Comment,  in  Matt.  Tom.  IV.  p.  839.  "  Claudentes 
autem  regnum  ccelorum  Scribae  et  Pharisee!  duo  ad  semel  de« 


(    456    ) 
of  the  various  reading-  of  the  Egyptian  text,  in  the 

"  • 

linquunt.  Unum  quidem,  quod  *  ipsi  non  ingrediuntur  in  reg- 
num  ccelorum.'  Secundum  quod  *  intrantes  introire  non  si- 
nunt/  Hcec  duo  peccata  naturaliter  inseparabilia  sunl  ab  invi- 
cem.  Qui  enim  alterum  ex  iis  peccat,  ab  altero  se  non  potest 
abstinere.  Item  e  contrario,"  &c.  It  is  little  wonderful  that 
Origen,  having  got  into  a  train  of  thinking  of  this  .kind,  which 
he  pursues  for  some  length,  should  wholly  pass  by  vers.  14?; 
which,  though  naturally  connected  with  its  context  in  our 
Lord's  discourse,  is  wholly  irrelevant  from  Origeh's  explana- 
tion. It  is  little  wonderful,  that  having  become  enamoured  of 
his  exposition,  he  should  finally  believe  the  disputed  verse  an 
interpolation ;  which  M.  Griesbach  conceive^  was  probably  his 
opinion.  It  is,  however,  obvious  from  the  various  readings  of 
this  passage,  that  his  opinion  respecting  it,  has  had  some  in- 
fluence on  such  of  the  Greek  MSS.  as  generally  correspond 
with  the  readings  of  Origen ;  whatever  be  their  varieties  with 
respect  to  this  passage,  they  are  invariable  in  their  correspond- 
ence with  his  observation.  We  consequently  find,  that  it  is 
retained  in  some  of  them,  and  is  omitted  in  others ;  but  in  the 
former  case,  it  is  prefixed  to  vers.  13 :  so  as  to  bring  vers.  13. 
and  15.  in  all  instances  together:  vid.  Griesb.  not.  in  h.  1. 
While  these  MSS.  of  course  destroy  the  testimony  of  each 
other,  such  of  them  as  retain  the  verse,  add  the  strongest  con- 
firmation to  the  reading  of  the  Greek  Vulgate^  The  very  devi- 
ation of  the  vulgar  text  from  the  authority  of  Origep,  conveys  a 
strong  presumptive  proof  of  its  integrity ;  as  it  is  impossible  to 
conceive  how  this  verse,  if  it  were  an  interpolation,  could  be 
inserted  in  the  only  place  which  was  proscribed  by  that  critick ; 
or  how  it  could  be  generally  received,  contrary  to  his  autho- 
rity, unless  under  the  conviction  that  it  was  genuine.  As  the 
vulgar  text  is  confirmed  by  the  testimony  of  all  versions,  but 
those  which  are  enumerated  in  the  last  note,  and  which  have 
no  separate  voice  on  the  present  question,  as  they  have  been 
influenced  by  the  Egyptian  text ;  there  can  be  as  little  reasoa 
to  doubt  of  the  corruption  of  this  edition,  as  that  it  has  pro 
from  the  influence  of  Origen, 


(    457    ) 

comment  of  Origen :  for  while  an  inconstancy  in 
the  testimony  of  that  early  father  fully  confirms  the 
reading  of  the  Byzantine  text  in  the  former  case,  a 
variation  in  the  Greek  manuscripts  in  the  latter, 
clearly  proves,  that  they  have  been  altered  in  accom- 
modation to  the  comment  of  Origen.  When  to 
these  considerations,  we  add  that  of  the  general 
conformity  of  the  Egyptian  text,  to  the  peculiar 
readings  of  Origen 47,  they  afford  us  ample  grounds 

47  Of  the  express  testimonies  oF  Origen,  which  have  been 
already  cited ;  supr.  p.  354.  n.  93.  the  following  are  the  only 
examples  not  found  in  the  Cambridge  MS.  sxaTovTonrAaj-iova. 
Mat.xix.29.  a  fctfrarc,  Joh.  viii.  38,  r»ra;*  Ib.  xiii.  18.  jSa^w. 
Ib.  26.  To  which  we  may  add  the  following,  mentioned  by 
M.  Griesbach,  [Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  I.  p.  cxxvi.  n.  **]  as  a 
proof  that  the  Cambridge  MS.  has  not  been  interpolated  from 
Origen ;  Mar.  i.  7.  *y\J/«?.  Ib.  vi.  3.  5  rex-rav.  Ib.  ix,  2.  IK  ra 
irpfftv'XfffSou  etvrot.  Luc.  ix.  3.  xapw«f  a£w.  When  we  consi- 
der the  insuperable  difficulties  with  which  any  scribe  of  the 
fourth  century  must  have  had  to  contend,  in  introducing  every 
peculiar  reading  of  Origen  into  his  copy,  these  exceptions  will 
be  so  far  from  weakening  the  conclusion  for  which  I  contend, 
that  they  may  be  cited  in  support  of  it.  But  of  these  few  ex- 
ceptions, the  last  four  are  not  express  testimonies;  it  is  ad- 
mitted also,  that  Origen  was  mistaken  in  Mar.  ix.  2.  vid. 
Griesb.  Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  II.  p.  346.  n. l :  and,  unless  I  am 
deceived,  he  has  been  misrepresented  in  Mar.  vi.  3,  and  in  all 
the  present  examples  but  Mar.  i.  7.  Luc.  ix.  3.  vid.  supr.  p.  369. 
It  is  likewise  possible,  that  the  interpolator  of  the  Egyptian 
text  might  have  been  of  opinion  that  Origen,  in  deviating  from 
the  received  text  in  the  above  instances,  had  merely  availed 
himself  of  the  licence  of  a  commentatour ;  and  that  he  there- 
fore departed  from  his  authority  in  these  instances,  while  he 
generally  followed  it  in  others.  I  take  not  the  least  account 
ef  the  argument  deduced  from  the  dissimilarity  between  Origen 
apd  the  Cambridge  MS,;  Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  I.  p.  cxxiii 


(    458    ) 

tor  concluding,  that  this  edition  has  been  systema- 
tically corrupted  from  his  writings  48.     So  far  is  this 

In  order  to  form  any  deduction  from  the  premisses  there  laid 
down,  we  must  assume  it  as  true,  that  the  criticks  or  grammar- 
ians of  the  fourth  century  were  equally  minute  and  patient 
with  the  Wetsteins  and  Griesbachs  of  the  eighteenth  ;  which 
is  an  assumption  that  no  person  will,  I  hope,  require  me  to 
refute.  The  following  texts,  which  are  found  in  the  short 
compass  of  ten  verses,  will  however  demonstrate  the  influence 
cf  Origen  on  the  Camh  ridge  MS.  Luc.  ix.  20.  Xpro»  t*  0££. 
Vulg.  Xpro»  flov  T£  0£«.  Cant.  Orig.  iysfiwcti.  Vulg.  Ib.  22. 
f&rttptircui  Cftltt.  Or.  avrcifnvxrcicrSu.  Vulg.  Ib.  23.  ot.%iv&o<-<&a* 
Cttnt.  Or.  Ibid,  xj  aparw  TO*  rctvfiv  atra  .....  xa$*  *j/x.«£ai/. 
Fw/g.  desunt.  Cant.  Or.  Ib.  26.  o>  ya?  tveu^v^  /«  %  r*ts 
^u«f  *oy«$.  Vulg.  oj  ya£  E7raticrp/t/t$ri  [41  *tj  T«f  l^t»?.  Cant.  Or. 
Ib,  27~  biyu  $\  vpfv  feXjj^Cf,  etai  Tn«e^  TaJv  «$£  t-'J^oro'v,  of  «  /*iip 

TYJV  /BaffiXet'av  TW  ©£B. 


o     a  /^ 

s'a;  av  tdWi  TQV  flov  TM  avSpvirt*  £%%0[ASVW  ev 
a^T».  Cyfl7?f.  Or.  Ib.  29.  TO  sTSos  r5  TrgoawTrs.  FK?^. 
srgo^w'jrt?.  C«7Z^.  Or. 

45  I  shall  mention  but  one  additional  example; 
j&ars  acr«?  «J  irag55y«r  «TO>?,  Joh.  viii.  59.  is  omitted  in  the  Egyrv 
tian  text,  though  retained  in  the  Byzantine  and  Palestine  ;  vid. 
supr.  p.  285.  conf.  Griesb.  n.  in  h.  I.  This  various  reading  may 
be  clearly  traced  to  the  extraordinary  notion  which  Origen 
entertained  of  our  Lord's  personal  appearance,  which  he  be- 
lieved was  varied  according  to  circumstances.  This  notion 
the  Origenists  found  difficult  to  reconcile  with  the  plain  state- 
ment of  the  Evangelist,  that  he  took  advantage  of  the  crowd, 
and  escaped  their  fury  merely  by  passing  through  the  midst  of 
them:  they  corrected  the  passage  accordingly.  Orig.  contr. 
Cels.  Lib.  II.  cap.  Ixiv.  Tom.  I.  p.  435.  f.  w?  «rep 


'  xaa   TO 
£  olr  s&Kito.     Conf.  Tom.  III.  p.  906.  e.  f. 


(    459    ) 

conformity  from  evincing-  the  antiquity  of  the  Egyp- 
tian text,  that  it  deprives  it,  when  considered  sepa- 
rately, or  merely  in  conjunction  with  Origen,  of  any 
the  least  authority  in  determining  the  genuine  text 
of  Scripture. 

Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  who  published  the  next 
edition  of  the  sacred  writings,  undertook  the  revisal 
of  the  Greek  text  with  different  views,  and  under 
different  auspices.  Commanding  the  same  advan- 
tages which  had  been  possessed  by  his  predecessour, 
he  was  directed  in  using  them  by  very  different  prin- 
ciples. While  he  was  no  less  biassed  in  favour  of 
Origen,  than  Hesychius,  he  possessed  greater  faci- 
lities of  consulting  his  commentaries;  a  complete 
set  of  Origen's  works  having  been  deposited  in  the 
library  of  Caesarea49.  He  possessed  also,  in  the 
edition  of  Hesychius,  a  text  in  which  many  of  the 
peculiar  readings  of  Origen,  his  master  and  pre- 
ceptor in  criticism,  had  been  adopted.  And  in  the 
Harmony  of  Ammonius,  and  the  text  of  Lucianus, 
he  possessed  a  standard  by  which  the  superfluities 
of  the  Egyptian  edition  might  be  discovered  with 
ease,  and  removed  without  labour. 

Of  these  different  helps  towards  revising  the  sacred 
text,  Eusebius  fully  availed  himself  in  publishing  the 

49  Thus  much  may  be  legitimately  collected  from  the  follow- 
ing declaration  of  Eusebius  ;  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  xxxii. 
p.  296.  1.  19.  —  rrtv  -Trap)  T«  ®it*  rtte&v  T£  nctptphti  o7roV»  TK  ycyovu 
TJJS  ffV9*xPs'°y<  avTU  T»  TS  ' 


l|    &5>    GTU    QtXov    KOLp-t-W    £CT£T^£f«Tflt    TUV    QgiyivtiS    TfQV&JV    TGL 


(    460    ) 

Palestine  text;  to  the  use  which  has  been  made  of 
them  we  may  indeed  attribute  most  of  the  peculia- 
rities discoverable  in  that  edition.  Of  the  Harmony 
of  Ammonius,  it  is  unquestionable  he  made  consU 
derable  use  s°,  in  ascertaining*  the  passages  intro- 
duced into  the  Egyptian  edition;  thus  much  may 
be  clearly  collected  from  the  testimony  of  St.  Je- 
rome51, who  proposes  the  Eusebian  canons  as  a 
standard  by  which  the  interpolations  of  Hesychius 
might  be  determined.  From  the  text  of  Hesychius, 
it  is  probable  Eusebius  derived  most  of  the  peculiar 
readings  of  Origen,  which  he  adopted  in  his  edi- 
tion 5i:  having  here  found  them  incorporated  in  the 

50  Euseb.   Epist.   ad   Carpian.  Nov.  Test,  pracf.   ed.  Mill. 

*i»    o   Atefcvtytvs    woX^v    u(    tint  0»?uj7r<may  xj   ffva^u 
TO  ha,Tio'ffot.U9  «A*i>  xaTaX&onrsv  et;a/s?aoi>.  —  \v.  ru  irovr,- 


.  T.    . 

5«  Vid.supr,  p.  172.  n.  I4S. 

**  Such  in  particular  are  Mat.  xv.  8.  xxiii.  14.  xxvii.  35* 
Luc.  iii.  5.  iv.  18.  which  have  been  already  described;  supr. 
p.  446.  n.  **.  sqq.  The  peculiar  readings  of  the  Palestine  text 
are  easily  known  by  the  coincidence  of  the  Vatican  MS.  and 
Latin  Vulgate;  and  the  evidence  of  these  witnesses  is  con- 
firmed by  the  testimony  of  Eusebius's  Canons,  in  the  only  in- 
stance in  which  their  testimony  applies  ;  Matt,  xxiii.  14.  As 
this  verse  is  omitted  in  the  Palestine  text,  it  is  omitted  also  in 
the  Eusebian  Canons:  whereas,  it  must  have  formed  a  new 
section,  and  have  been  designated  by  a  particular  number,  if 
it  had  existed  in  the  text  of  Eusebius  :  vid.  supr.  p.  161.  n.  lto. 
The  same  remark  "does  not  apply  to  Mat.  v.  4,  5.  as  has  been 
so^ftrSdjli^rlW?^ft^ft3iifi!fiB  and  Byzantine  texts  agree 
in  preserving  these  verses  in  the  proper  order,  while  the  Latin 
Vulgate  follows  the  text  of  Eusebius  Vercellensis,  in  inverting 
them;  vid.  supr.  p.  33;  The  Greek  copies  of  Eusebius's  C*« 


(    461    ) 

sacred  text,  while  the  testimony  of  Origen  became 
sufficient  authority  for  him  to  retain  them  as  ge- 
nuine. But  the  edition  published  in  Palestine  by 
the  elder  Eusebius,  had  its  peculiar  readings.  The 
ttiost  important  of  these  have  been  already  speci- 
fied ;  and  some  account  has  been  given  of  the  causes 
which  occasioned  their  suppression  in  the  Palestine 
edition 5}.  Of  these  passages,  in  which  the  Vulgar 
Greek  and  Corrected  Edition  differ,  not  a  few  are 
found  in  the  text  of  Eusebius.  A  critical  examina- 
tion into  the  source  of  these  various  readings  of  the 
Palestine  edition,  will,  I  trust,  end  in  the  further 
confirmation  of  the  same  conclusion  which  it  has 
been  hitherto  my  object  to  establish. 

The  most  remarkable  of  those  passages  in  whick 
the  Palestine  and  Byzantine  texts  differ,  are  Mat. 
xix.  17.  Luc.  xi.  2.  4.  13 J4.  It  will  not  appear  ex- 
traordinary, that  the  former  edition  should  agree  la 
these  passages  with  the  peculiar  readings  of- Ori- 
gen; when  it  is  remembered,  that  it  was  revised  by 
Eusebius,  the  admirer  and  apologist  of  the  father  of 
aacred  criticism.  But  it  is  particularly  deserving 
of  remark,  that  the  Palestine  text,  in  coinciding  in 
these  passages  with  Origen,  also  corresponds  with 

nons  agree  with  the  former  texts,  while  the  Latin  copies  have 
been  accommodated  to  the  latter. 

53  Vid.  supr.  p.  35.  sqq. 

**  Of  these  texts,  Mat.  xix.  17.  Luc.  xi.  2.  4.  IS.  have  been 
already  quoted  among  the  remarkable  passages  which  are  sup- 
ported by  the  authority  of  the  primitive  Fathers,  or  of  the 
Italick  and  Syriack  versions,  against  the  testimony  of  the  Egyp* 
tian  and  Palestine  editions;  supr.  p.  373.  383. 


(    462    } 

the  peculiar  readings  of  Valentinus  and  Marcion55., 
When  we  take  into  account  the  nature  and  tendency 
of  that  tract,  .in  which  the  extraordinary  readings  of 
those  passages  are  preserved;  that  it  inculcates  hete- 
rodox notions  5^  and  quotes  other  apocryphal  texts57; 

55  The  following  account  of  Marcion's  text  is  given  by  St. 
Irenseus,  Adv.  Haer.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xxvii.  p.  106,  "  Et  super 
haec,  id  quod  est  secundum  Lucam  Evangelium  circumcidens 
-  -semetipsum  esse  veraciorem,  quam  sunt  hi,  qui  Evange- 
lium tradiderunt  Apostoli,  suasit  discipulis  suis  ;  non  Evange* 
lium  sed  particulam  Evangelii  tradens  eis.  Similiter  et  Apos- 
toli Pauli  Epistolas  abscidit,  auferens  quaecumque  manifesto 
dicta  sunt  de  eo  Deo  qui  mundum  fecit,"  &c.  The  peculiar 
readings  of  Marcion's  Gospel  and  Apostolicum  are  preserved 
by  Tertullian  and  St.  Epiphanius  ;  vid.  Tert.  adv.  Marc.  Lib. 
IV.  cap.  i.  p.  403.  S.  Epiphan.  Hser.  xlii.  p.  310.  c.  d. 

50  The  most  exceptionable  of  Origen's  notions,  respecting 
the  inferiority  of  the  Son  to  the  Father,  and  the  impropriety  of 
addressing  our  prayers  to  Christ,  unless  as  our  Mediatour  with 
the  Father,  are  inculcated  in  this  tract  in  the  following  terms  ; 
Orig.  de  Orat.  Tom.  I.  p.  222.  b.  'Eu»  $1  uy.xvpsv  or;  KQTS  !r» 


ei  [Aovu  ?u  Qsu  ruv  oAwv  xj  n«Tp*,  a  jtj  ayToj  o  Swr^p  rtfjt.u» 


a 

*  Tloirsf  ripuvy  o  l»  ro^ 

it    yoi%   erspor,  w;   iv  a^Xoi?  ^etxyyTai,  xar*  «ff/av 
o  Yto*  TH  ria7§oj  x.  T.  I.     Conf.  Huet.  Origeniann.  Lib.  II. 
qusest.  ii.  §  1  .  sqq. 

57  One  of  the  first  quotations  in  Origen's  tract  on  Prayer,  is 

the  following,  Orig.  ibid.  §  2.  p.  197.  f.   aire?™  rot  jneyaXa,  xj  Ta' 


i*  vid.  supr.  p.  330.  n.  4-4.  This  text  is  joined,  in  the- 
same  sentence,  with  Matt.  v.  44.  ix.  38.  £c. ;  is  again  repeated 
lb.  p.  219,  d;  and  is  quoted  as  the  language  of  the  Gospel, 
Ib.  p.  221.  c.  Nay  more,  of  the  passages  which  are  now  bo 


(    463    ) 

there  will  not  be  much  reason  to  doubt,  that  the 
alteration  of  the  text  in  those  places  must  be  ulti- 
mately referred  to  those  hereticks,  whom  Grig-en, 
in  his  riper  judgment,  has  accused  of  corrupting  the 
text58. 

The  peculiar  doctrines  of  the  Marcionites  are 
summed  up  in  a  narrow  compass,,  by  St.  Ireneeus 
and  St.  Epiphanius.  They  agreed  with  the  fol- 
lowers of  Cerdo  in  acknowledging  two  princi- 
ples S9 ;  one  of  these  they  called  the  good  God,  con- 
ceiving him  to  have  his  residence  above  the  hea- 
vens; and  the  other  they  termed  the  just  God, 
considering  him  the  authour  of  the  works  of  the 
Creation.  The  former  they  considered  inscrutable, 
and  wholly  unknown,  until  the  advent  of  Christ, 
who  first  revealed  him  to  the  world ;  the  latter  they 
supposed  the  God,  who  had  revealed  himself  to  the 
Jews,  who  had  delivered  the  Law  by  Moses,  and 
iiad  spoken  by  the  Prophets60.  Between  these  per- 

fore  us,  Luc.  xi.  2.  4.  xviii.  19.  are  quoted  in  this  tract  as  they 
>vere  read  in  Marcion's  Gospel :  as  will  be  made  apparent  i» 
the  sequel.  See  also  p.  794.  f. 

53  Vid.  supr.  p.  368.  n.  IV.  p.  431.  n.  I0. 

59  S.   Iren.  adv.  Haer.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xxvii.  p.    106. 

]    TO?   VTTO  T£    vopa   xj   vrpotyviTur  xsKJjpyy/A-'yov   ®EOX, 
75  Kvfia  v^uv  IwS   Xp»r«.   TO*  p\v  ya.p  yvwpi^ecrSa 
iJ»a»*   x^  TGV  pin  o^Uajov,    Toy  ^8   <i/a$oi/  t"jrap^£t» 
£1  auToy  Mugxiuv    a   IIo>Tuo?,   y^'|«<rg   TO   hfreKrx.&.'hstQV  x.  T.  I.      Conf, 

S.  Epiphan.  Haer.  xlii.  p.  304.  a. 

*°  S.  Iren.  ibid.  p.  106.  "  Jesum  autem  [Marcion  docuit] 
ab  eo  Patre,  qui  est  super  mundi  Fabricatorem  Deum,  veni* 
entem  in  Judaeam  temporibus  Pontii  Pilati— in  hominis  forma 
manifestatum  his  qui  in.  Judsea  erant,  dissolventem  Propketas  et 


(    464    } 

sonages  they  conceived  that  there  was  some  oppo- 
sition of  will  and  nature ;  the  one  presiding  over  the 
immaterial  spiritual  world;  the  other  over  the  ma* 
terial  visible  creation.  Christ,  as  the  Son  and  legate 
of  the  good  God,  came  to  abolish  the  power  and 
dominion  of  the  Creatour61,  He  was  not  however 
made  in  the  flesh,  but  appeared  merely  in  the  like- 
ness of  man. 6i  ;  the  object  of  his  appearance  on  earth 
having  been  to  abolish  the  Law  and  the  Prophets ; 
io  save  the  souls,  not  the  bodies  of  men ;  for  the 
Marcionites  agreed  with  the  Nicolaitans  and  other 
Gnosticks  in  denying  the  resurrection  6j.  In  order 
to  justify  these  notions,  the  founder  of  the  sect  had 
framed  antitheses  between  the  Law  and  the  Gospel, 
in  which  he  endeavoured  to  show,  that  the  one  was 
contrary  to  the  other64. 

These  opinions,  which  had  been  broached  by 
Marcion,  near  the  times  of  Hyginus,  bishop  of 

Legem  et  omma  opera  ejus  Dei,  qui  mundum  fecit,  quern  et 
cosmocratorem  dicit." 

6t  S.  Epiphan.  ibid.  p.  305.  a.    Xp»ro%  &  tiy»  a»«$i»  a™  T« 

mofara  x^  axaTdOo/xarw  riarpo?  xara/Ji^jjxivat,  ITT*  ffUTyfia,  TWI  ij/f^a;*, 

«i   STT»    '^*7X?  T**    ®'**  T^y   ly^a'fc'^3   *j  No/x«,  xai   nfotptru*  jtcu  vui 

VOMM.     Conf.  S.  Iren.  ibid.  §  2.  p.  106 

6*  Vid.  S.  Epiphan.  ibid.  p.  322.  b.  conf.  339.  c.  340.  b. 

63  S.  Epiphan.  ibid.  p.  305.  c«  a»ara<7*v  ^>  «?  ctvoy,  «TO?  x/yn 
i^i  cupa-wi  oAAa  -^v^uv.  xaj  cruTn^att  r&vratf  op»"^Ta»,  «^»  TO^ 
c^acrj.  Conf.  supr.  nn. eo  et  6|. 

w  Tert.  adv.  Marc.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xix.  p.  359.  "  Separatio 
Legis  et  Evangelii  proprium  et  principale  opus  est  Marcionis. 
— Nam  life  sunt  Antitheseis  Marcionis,  idest  centraria?  opposi- 
tiones  quae  conantur  discordiam  Evangelii  cum  Lege  commit- 
tere,  ut  ex  diversitate  sententiarum  utriusque  Instrument!  diver* 
sitatem  quoque  arguraent^ntur  Deorunu" 


(    465    ) 

Rome6*,  until  those  of  Pope  Damasus;  had 
maintained  their  ground  against  the  opposition  of 
Justin  Martyr,  Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  Rhodon,  Ori- 
gen,  and  Epiphanius  66  ;  and  had  produced  the  dif- 
ferent sects  of  Lucianists,  Tatianists,  and  Apel- 
leians67.  The  Valentinians  were  a  kindred  sect 
which  sprang  from  that  common  source  of  heresy, 
the  school  of  Simon  Magus  6g;  agreeing  in  their 
fundamental  tenets  with  the  Marcionites,  though 
they  differed  essentially  from  them  in  their  notions 
of  celibacy,  which  they  held  in  no  high  estima- 
tion69. Of  the  important  light  in  which  they  were 

65  S.  Epiphan.  Haer.  XLII.  p.  302.  d.  a 


"Yy<Vov    Toy    iTrlffnvirov    PUJVHI;.      Conf.  S.  Iren. 


adv.  Haer.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xxvii.  pp.  105,  106.    Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl. 
Lib.  IV.  capp.  x.  xi.  p.  154. 

66  Conf.  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  xi.  p.  157.  1.  5. 
Just.  Mart.  Apol,  maj.  p.  70.  a.  92.  a.    Euseb.  ibid.  p.  155. 

I.  12.     S.  Iren.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xxvii.  p.  106.     Tert.  adv.  Marc. 
p.  403.  sqq.     Euseb.  ib.  Lib.  V.  cap.  xiii.  p.  225.  L  12.     Pamph. 
Apol.  pro  Orig.  cap.  i.  p.  20.  d.  sqq,     Orig.de  Principp.  Lib. 

II.  capp.  iv.  v.  Tom.  L  p.  84.  sqq.     S.  Epiphan.  Haer.  XLII. 
p.  302.  sqq. 

67  Vid.  infr.  n.  68.     Conf.  S.  Iren.  ut  supr.  pp.  106,  1O7. 
S.  Epiphan.   Hasr.  XLHI.  p.  378.  b.     Haer.  XLIV.  p.  380.  c. 
Haer.  XL  vi.  391.  d. 

68  Vid.  supr.  p.  267.  n*  *". 

69  S.  Iren.  adv.  Haer.  Lib.  I.  cap;  vi;  p.  30s  oi 


xoti  et  /*£»  aiiTuv  XaS§a  x&s  •  '^'eeffxOfjt.4!v»s  '  vli  -'avruv  - 
ravrnv  '/vvafixaa  hecq&ei%wfvt  v.  r.  *t  '  It  must  be  however  ob- 
served, daat-  this  difference  between  the  Valentinians  and:  Mar-' 
cionites  was  founded  on  a  distinction  of  the  former,  tfh  a 

Hh 


(    466    ) 

held,,  we  raay  form  some  idea  from  the  Rule  of 
Faith,  and  the  description  of  heresy,  which  are  given 
by  Origen;  both  of  which  are  framed  expressly 
with  a  view  to  the  Valentinian  and  Marcionite  no* 
tions70. 

One  great  object  of  that  indefatigable  writer  was 
to  oppose  the  growth  of  these  heresies,  and  we 
clearly  discover  the  source  of  that  unfortunate  bias 
which  his  theological  opinions  took,  in  the  influence 

conceived  their  elect  or  spiritual  persons  as  privileged  to  in- 
dulge in  these  shameless  excesses :  conf.  S.  Iren.  ibid.  Orig. 
Comment,  in  Joan.  Tom.  IV.  p.  235.  a.  b.  S.  Epiphan.  Haer. 
jcxxi.  p.  189.  c.  Merely  animal  persons,  of  which  order  they 
considered  all  those  who  were  not  initiated  in  their  mysteries, 
were  required  to  perform  good  works  as  necessary  to  salvation ; 
among  which  they  numbered  continence;  S.  Iren.  ibid.  p.  31. 
vpoiq  xaAa?  •vpi/x.ixa*  Svo/u,a£«<7j,  xj  ex  xocrww  tlnon  hiyvn,  xj  avay- 
xafav  wfAiv  TTJV  6/x^arejav  K)  afaS^  cpaf  tf  x.  r.  e.  Conf.  ibid.  p. 
29.  S.  Epiphan.  ib.  p.  189.  a. 

70  Vid.  Pamph.  Apol.  pro  Orig.  cap.  i.  p.  20.  sqq.  Orig, 
Comment,  in  Epist.  ad  Tit.  Tom.  IV.  p.  695.  d.  «  Quid  vero 
sit  haereticus  homo,  pro  viribus  nostris,  secundum  quod  sentire 
possumus,  describamus.  Omnis  qui  se  Christo  credere  confi- 
tetur,  et  tamen  alium  Deum  Legis  et  Prophetarum,  alium  Evan- 
geliorum  Deum  dicit  et  Patrem  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi 
non  *um  dicit  esse  qui  a  Lege  et  Prophetis  prtzdicatur,  sed  alium 
nescw  quern  ignotum  omnibus  atque  dmnibus  inauditum,  hujus- 
modi  homines  hcft-eticos  designamus,  quamlibet  variis  ac  diversis 
et  fabulosis  concinnent  ista  figmentis,  sicut  sectatores  Marcio- 
nis  et  Valentini,  et  Basilidis,  et  hi  qui  Tethianos  appellant. 
Sed  et  Apelles  licet  non  omnibus  modis  Dei  esse  deneget  Le- 
gem  vel  Prophetas,  tamen  et  ipsc  h&reticus  designatur,  quoniam 
Dominum  hunc  qui  mundum  edidit,  ad  gloriam  alterius  mgeniti 
ft  boni  Dei  eum  ccnstruxisse  pronunciat/'  &c.  Conf.  supr.  p. 
=  n.  w. 


(    467    ) 

which  this  controversy  had  upon  his  mind*  *  As  the 
hereticks  had  depressed  the  Cr*atour,  representing 
him  as  inferiour  to  Christ,  he  was  driven  into  the 
opposite  extreme,  and  in  asserting  the  transcendant 
glory  of  God,  too  incautiously  depreciated  the  Son's 
co-equality  with  the  Father7*.  Though  he  very 
successfully  combated  the  fundamental  errours  of 
his  opponents7*;  their  reasonings,  particularly  when 
seconded  by  the  speculations  of  Plato  73,  seem  ,  to 

71  We  consequently  find  that  these  subjects  are  generally 
combined  in  the  comments  of  Origen  ;  in  touching  on  the  Com- 
ment. in  Joan.  Tom.  IV.  p.  139.  b.  o^ra»  ya%  [o  'HzcutKeuv'] 
TOV  Arj/xtegyev  T«  xoff/xg  IXarVova  ov7a  T«  Xgts"5,-  oVeg  if* 
ira»Twv  «<r£/3£raTo**  o  ya^  iri^ctq  avrov  n«T>2p,  o  rut  l^uvruv 
(<yj  ttiiros  'i»j<rt??  ^af>Tt>£«r)  —  5  5ta  TSTO  KtJ^io?  r£  «pava  K^  T? 
cVt  iretroiyxsv  aura,  Sror  j^  pcovor  ayaS'os',  >o  /xe/^v  rS  7re/x^-i> 
$gY?or.  Cohf*  infr.  n.  72. 

7*  One  of  the  most  pernicious  opinions  of  the  Valentinians 
respected  the  doctrine  of  one  substance  ;  by  which  they  consi- 
dered their  elect  or  spiritual  persons,  as  participating  the  divine 
nature,  incapable  of  contracting  pollution  from  sin.  Conf.  S. 
Iren.  ibid.  p.  29.  The  blasphemous  tendency  of  this  doctrine 
is  set  in  the  strongest  light  by  Origen,  by  contrasting  it  with 
the  conduct  of  Christ,  who,  though  infinitely  exalted  above  all 
created  beings,  asserted  his  inferiority  to  the  Father;  Orig. 
ibid,  p*  235.  a.  e?  $i  t&t-otro  TO  iroftwo-a-t  v)  wvef/xartxi  <pi«ri; 
CtOS  Sao.  TT)  dyswnreil  atao-tot  K)  aSex  xj  acre/SJj  «JtoAa$£*"  fa 
tu  HOLT  avTtiq  wffl  0s5.  B^E  <ptx,vrot,ffiu§vivM  uxtvbui/QV  lr» 
$r£»Sof«»ei  TU  ZwT»5fi  XsyovTi*  '  o  Tlctrvip  o  wsjtAiJ/a?  /xe  pt^uit 


cei 


ttvTyv  ev^ctprvs  TV 
£t>  TO*   Tio*  x.  T.  I* 

73  Huet.  Origeniann.  Lib.  II.  cap.  i.  J  4.  p.  105.     "  Unura 
autem  prae  reliquis  [Origenes]  Platonem  admiratas  est  ;  sic  ut 


(    468    ) 

have  had  so  far  an  influence  upon  his  sentiment* 
as  to  induce  him  tW  embrace  some  very  extraordi- 
nary notions  relative  to  the  constitution  of  Christ's 
body74,,  and  that  of  the  human  frame,  after  the  re«> 
surrectibn  75.  Some  of  these  notions  he  adopted  from 
Tatian76,  by  whose  peculiar  opinions  he  confesses 
himself  to  have  been  once  influenced77;  and  from 
whom  he  obviously  imbibed  that  extraordinary  at- 
tachment to  a  state  of  celibacy,  which  he  professed 
in  numberless  places78. 

As  the  founders  of  those  different  sects  had  tam- 
pered with  the  text  of  Scripture79,,  and  the  Mar- 


dogmata  ad  Platonics  doctrine?  leges,  non  ipsam  Pla- 
tonis  doctrinam  ad  Christi  effdta  accommodaret."  Conf.  cap.  ii. 
quaest.  ix.  §  9.  p.  213. 

74  Vid.  supr.  p.  458.  n.  4S. 

75  Vid.  Huet.  Origeniann.  Lib.  II.  cap.  ii.  quaest.  ix.  p.  209. 

76  S.  Iren.  adv.  Hser.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xxviii.  p.  107.  a»#»a?  T»a« 
aopara?j   OJKOI&;;  To*V   awo  'OYafomys,  £Ta-na»o$]|   /xuSofoysjaa?,  TO* 
•ytipov  TE  Jtai  (pSoc&v  xa»   wopiiav  wapaTrXr/^a??  Matpitiuvi  xat  Sarop- 

vhw,  avayo^iiJcraj.     Conf.  S.  Epiphan.  Haer.  XLVI.  §  ii.  p.  391. 
d.  sqq. 

77  Orig.  de  Orat.  §  24.  Tom.  I.  p.  238.  c.   a 


7»  Vid.  Orig.  Comment,  in  Mat.  Tom.  III.  p.  649.  sqq. 
Conf.  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  viii.  p.  264.  1.  20. 

79  The  testimony  of  Origen  has  been  already  produced 
against  the  followers  of  Marcion,  Lucianus,  and  Valentinus, 
vid.  supr.  p.  431.  n.  ts.  A  like  charge  has  been  urged  against 
Tatlanj  who  appears  from  the  following  account  to  hare  pub- 
lished an  Apostolicum,  as  well  as  a  Gospel  or  Diatessaron: 
Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  xxix.  p.  193.  1.  20  —  5  Tcm- 

rut 


cionite  heresy  had  extended  itself  through  the  Egyp- 
tian,, Palestine,  and  Italick  dioqeses80,  it  cannot  be 
deemed  extraordinary  that  the  particular  texts  which 
prevailed  in  those  regions  should  have  insensibly 
undergone  some  changes,,  from  the  influence  of  the 
editions  revised  by  the  hereticks.  In  some  instances 
the  genuine  text  had  been  wholly  superseded  by  the 
spurious  editions.  In  one  diocese  of  the  Oriental 
Church,,  the  Diatessaron  of  Tatian  had  been  gene- 
rally received  to  the  exclusion  of  the  vulgar  edi- 
tion81. As  it  had  been  customary  with  the  dispu- 
tants., who  were  engaged  in  defending  the  orthodox 
and  the  heretical  side  of  the  question,  to  reason 
from  the  concessions,  and  to  quote  from  the  Scrip- 
tures acknowledged  by  their  adversaries8*,,  the  dis- 
tinctions between  the  pure  text  and  the  corrupted 

TO  Ata  rtffffdfuv  rSro  irfoffuvopciffst,  2  xa.\  irapci  tiffin  tiffin  tvv  (ptg 


ffvtra%iv. 

80  S.  Epiphan.  Haer.  xlii.  p.  302.  a.  y  $\  al'ftffiq  [T£ 

en  ^  vvv  lv  Tr,  Papy,  xa*  tv  TtT  'IraXi^B,  ^ 
TE  ȣ  Iv  riaXa<s-/vr],  It  'Afcc&ia.  re  xa<  It  rj?  Ev^a,  iv  Kvvfu  re  xxl 
©7jj3a$t,  «  pw  aXXa  xai  l»  T>)  Tlef7$i9  xai  tv  aXXoi?  TOTT&'I?  £^idxe7ai. 
•St.  Epiphanius  declares,  that  he  had  some  conferences  with 
those  hereticks  ;  conf.  ib.  p.  343. 

81  Theod.  User.  Fab.  xx.  Op.  Tom.  IV.  .p..  208.  c.  Par.  1642. 

ol  v.uyu  frX/mq  v)  ^axocria?  &i@hx<;  Toiavrcct;,  [ra  T«  TaTtava  hoc 


}   Ta   jav   ftpleigwt   E 

8*  This  was  confessedly  the  practice  with.the  orthodox;  vid. 
supfr.  p.  331.  n.  4°.  The  same  conclusion  may  .be  formed  with 
respect  to  the  heterodox.  Conf.  Orig.  de  Principp.  Lib.  U. 
cap.  v.  §  4.  Tom.  I.  p.  68.  d.  Ten.  adv.  Mar.  Lib,  I.  ^ap, 
ii.  p.  351. 


(    470    ) 

revisal,  were  at  length  wholly  confounded  in  their 
\vritings.  In  a  country  where  there  was  little  sta- 
bility of  religious  opinion8*,  and  where  great  liber- 
ties had  been  taken  with  the  sacred  text84,,  little 
confidence  could  be  reposed  in  any  edition.  The 
works  of  approved  writers  furnished  the  only  stand- 
'ard  by  which  they  could  be  tried;  but  they  now 
afforded  but  a  fallacious  criterion,,  as  containing  quo- 
tations which  were  drawn  from  various  equivocal 
sources  85.  A  difference  between  these  quotations 
and  the  sacred  text  become  a  sufficient  evidence  of 
the  corruption  of  the  latter  ;  and  the  next  object 
was  to  amend  the  text  by  accommodating  it  to  the 
quotation. 

On  the  most  cursory  view  of  those  passages  in 
which  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine  texts  differ  from 
the  Greek  Vulgate,,  it  must  be  evident  that  the  Mar- 
cionite  and  Valentinian  controversies  must  have  had 
considerable  influence  on  the  former  editions.  Hav- 
ing already  laid  those  passages  before  the  reader86, 

83  Vid.  supr.  pp.  371,  372.  et  n.  l23.  p.  3*44.  et  n,  ".  conf. 
supr.  n.  7°. 

**  A  distinction  is  thus  made  respecting  the  true  and  genuine 
copies  by  St.  Epiphanius  ;  Haer.  XLII.  p.  373.  d.  warn*  <&  rx 
dvliyzzQa,  ra  auat,  xj  aX-wS'ri,  TW  ir^s  Pupctias  e%w»  wpTjjy. 
In  reasoning  against  Apelles,  who  was  accused  of  corrupting 
the  Scriptures,  vid.  supr.  p.  330.  n.  «.  St.  Epiphanius  expressly 
.appeals  to  St.  Mark's  Gpspel,  as  containing  vers.  19.  of  cap. 
xvi.  which  was  omitted  in  Eusebius's  edition,  vid.  supr.  p.  35. 
n.  63.  Id.  Haer.  XLIV.  p.  386.  C.  aw  ft  avro  TO  ay*o»  (rupee,  <rvv 


1C  TO  T« 

«5  Vid.  supr.  p.  330.  p.  4$.  p.  367.  n 
16  Vid.  supr.  p.  372.  sc^q.  p.  380.  sq 


I  shall  now  proceed  to  point  out  the  particular 
manner  in  which  the  peculiar  readings  of  the  fore*- 
mentioned  texts  have  apparently  originated. 

At  the  head  of  those  passages  stands  Mat.  xix.  17. 
with  which  we  may  join  Luc.  xviii.  1987.  which 


87  In  the  Vulgar  Greek,  we  read  Mat.  xix.  17. 
•lya&fa  £&»$  afa$or,  it  /*»>  tt?  o  0iof.  But  this  text  was  little 
suited  to  the  Valentinians,  who  admitted  not  only  angels  but 
men  into  their  notion  of  God,  as  being  of  one  substance  with 
the  Father  ;  vid.  supr.  p.  467.  n.  7*.  The  term  ©sor  was  of 
course  expunged  as  limiting  the  attribute  of  goodness  to  the 
Supreme  God.  Clem.  Alex.  Strom.  Lib.  II.  p.  409.  J. 
ctXAa  xai  'OTaAsiT*Vo?,  irpoj  "mas  iTriftt^uv  ayra*?  hsi-icri  yfdqtu  irifl 
TU>  Tr^ocrapT^aTwr  '  els'  $e  efiv  dyot&os'  x.  T.  I.  We  have  here 
evidently  the  source  of  the  reading  of  the  Egyptian  and  Pa- 
lestine texts;  Tt./xe  sqcJIgis  9regi  ra  «7»9»,  tlf  syiv  o  a/etS'o*, 
vid.  supr.  p.  372.  The  Marcionites,  on  the  other  hand,  find- 
ing the  term  @io?  too  indefinite,  as  app  lying  to  the  Creatour  as 
well  as  the  Father  of  Christ;  vid.  supr.  p.  468.  n,  5ft,  limited 
the  term  to  the  latter,  by  the  addition  of  I  n«T*g  ;  S.  Epiphan. 
Haer.  xui.  p.  339.  d.^-«  «.  ^E  pi  p*  ^*ys  «r«So>-  £i?  ir»»  ayaSo'c 
5  ©to?.'  Tr^ocreSiTo  iKtTvof  [Mapxiwv^  '  o  Ila7^§.'  Both  readings 
are  found  in  Origen;  the  former  in  Comment,  in  Mat.  Torn* 
III.  p.  664>  C«  a  MjUMrcQk  «v  /*«^«(rSat  TO 
TO'  '  Ti  /AS  Ggulz.S'  ^s§t  «y«$5  ;  sir  c^iv  6 
TOV  iri$ofji.tvov  t^  i»7TO>T»  *  &&»<rxaAe  ri  ayavov  woi^crtf  ;  the  latter 
in  Comment,  in  Joh.  Tom.  IV.  p.  41.  d^—  -7rp«5  TO»  /Ao>oyu'5j 
ao-xa^s  aya^s4'  [o  Xwr^j  ^u^i>  '  '  Tt  f*«  Asyn?  a/«^o'r  } 
o?  11  ^  «Tc,  5  ©«oj  6  IIa</r^*>  Conf.  Tom.  I.  p.  279.  a. 
But  we  cannot  hence  conclude  that  Origen  found  either  of 
these  readings  in  his  copies.  (1.)  He  quotes,  in  his  text  th* 
first  part  merely  of  the  verse  with  *}  ra.  i&t  ;  Ib,  p.  664.  afc 

4  £  J^tf  ii;  T^o<r£ASwv  tiirtv  otvTa  ^^acrxaXs  ri  ay«So»  wo^ff*;,  iv« 
<^%w  ?*"»»  otluviov*  xj  T«  E|^.  —  (2.)  The  whole  ©f  his  comment 
containing  the  reading  of  the  Palestine  text,  is  not  only  want-> 
jpg  in  the  old  Latin  translation  of  Origen  ;  but  the  reading  of 


C 

constituted  a  principal  text  of  tire  Marcionites  ;  as 
relating  to  their  fundamental  tenet  respecting  the 

the  Byzantine  text  is  set,  in  place  of  it,  at  the  head  of  the  sec- 
tion; Ibid.  p.  664.  d.  "  Interrogavit  Jesum  unus  de  turba 
dicens,  *  Magister  bone,  quid  boni  faciam  ut  habeam  vitam 
aeternam  ?  Qui  dicit  ei  :  Quid  me  dicis  bonum  :  Nemo  bonus 
nisi  unus  Deus."  And  an  indisputable  interpolation  of  the 
Greek  of  Origen  occurs  in  the  Comment  on  the  part  of  Scrip- 
ture  before  us  :  vid.  p.  670.  c.  et  Huet.  not.  y.  (3.)  It  is 
merely  to  ri  ayaSov  it*wi<ruy  which  is  found  in  the  Vulgar  Greek, 
that  Origen  refers,  in  expressly  referring  to  St.  Matthew  ;  Ibid. 
p.  664%  C.  o  pin  »»  MarSaibf  ,  uy  irtgi  aya$S  tpya  ig«TO$«rof  TW 
EV  ToJ'—  *  ri  aya&ov  **4UdW  ;'  avsyp*^*"*  « 


Et  py  EK  o  ©so,-.'  In  fact,  the  reply  of  our  Lord  was  dictated 
In  St.  Matthew,  by  the  question  ri  ayo&ov  wowta,  which  is  want- 
ing St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke  ;  but  was  dictated,  in  the  last-named 
Evangelists,  by  the  epithet  ^a<7*aXs  aya^s;  conf.  Mat.  xix, 
16.  Mar.  x.  17.  Luc.  xviii.  18.  thus  viewed  the  disputed  passage 
is  not  ascribed  by  Origen  to  St.  Matthew.  (4.)  The  first  ex- 
plicit acknowledgment,  which  he  makes  of  it,  is  in  a  subsequent 
place,  where  it  is  considered,  as  if  it  was  stated  by  an  objec- 
tour  ;  Id.  ibid.  p.  666.  a.  Xs'yoiTO  §'  &v  vvo  nvos  at  cipcc,  y\vu<rwv 
o  SwT^p  TW  TH  9rf»Sa»>o/xsv8  e'|ny  tlirtv  avru  w^avo^iu*  '  ?( 
uyaSov  •aoweuf9  TO*  *  ri  [AS  zittQcJIc/is  7re§!  T«  ayaS'w.'  As  this 
passage  is  acknowledged  by  the  old  Latin  version  of  Origen, 
it  fully  vindicates  the  translatour  from  any  suspicion  of  accom- 
modating his  authour's  text  to  any  particular  version.  The 
whole  of  the  circumstances  of  the  case  compel  u?  to  conclude, 
that  the  disputed  passage  is  a  text  which  Origen  merely  quotes 
in  the  manner  in  which  it  had  been  corrupted  by  the  hereticks. 
(1.)  It  is  his  constant  practice  to  quote  texts,  on  similar  autho- 
rity; as  we  have  just  seen  in  the  case  of  the  Marcionites  :  conf.  p. 
330.  n.  45.  (2.)  He  has  admitted,  that  these  hereticks  and  the 
Valentinians  corrupted  the  sacred  text  ;  vid.  supr.  p.  431.  n.  I0. 
and  this  is  a  passage,  which,  as  relating  to  their  fundamental 
doctrine  respecting  the  attribute  of  their  Good  God,  they  were 


(    473    ) 

nature  of  the  Deity.  An  examination  into  the  pe- 
culiar opinions  of  those  hereticks,  leaves  us  very 

least  likely  to  leave  unaltered;  vid.  supr.  p.  463.  n.  59.  (3.) 
We  consequently  find  that  the  Marcionites  are  positively  ac- 
cused of  sophisticating  this  text  by  St.  Epiphanius,  vid.  supr. 
p.  4-71.  and  a  similar  charge  is  brought  against  the  Marco- 
sians,  who  were  of  the  Valentinian  school,  by  S.  Irenaeus; 
adv.  Haer.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xx.  p.  92. 

XEi/xEwy    tl{   T&TOV  rov  xapoty.Typoc,  [o» 
u$    ra 


Here,  by  the  addition  of  lv  TC??  «p«>or?,  in  the  sense  of 
~iv  ro~$  aluo-t,  the  hereticks  took  in  the  whole  of  those  beings 
whom  they  included  in  their  notion  of  the  Divine  Nature  ;  vid. 
S.  Iren.  ibid.  cap.  xi.  p.  77.  sive,  S.  Epiphan.  Haer.  xxxiv.  p. 
243.  d.  conf.  supr.  p.  270.  n,  ai4.  (4.)  The  passage  before-  us* 
when  compared  with  the  vulgar  reading,  has  all  the  character- 
istick  marks  of  an  heretical  corruption.  The  question  proposed 
in  the  Corrected  Text,  T»  ^  tfurait  iregi  &ya$S,  or  rS  aya$5, 
and  the  answer,  sT?  In*  «y«$os,  favours  the  common  notion  of 
the  hereticks,  that  Christ  came  to  reveal  a  good  God,  who  was 
previously  unknown;  vid.  supr.  p.  463.  n.  S9.  (5.)  As  far  as 
we  have  any  accounts  of  the  hereticks'  opinions,  it  is  expressed 
in  the  very  language  used  by  them  ;  «?  In*  ayaSo$,  which  i* 
substituted  for  «^K  «ya$o?  tl  p?  «'?,  being  the  phrase  which 
both  Valentinians  and  Marcosians  use,  in  describing  their  doc- 
trine ;  vid.  supr.  And  it  is  clear  to  me,  that  the  phrase  which 
is  found  in  Origen,  *-jroWo»  ayoSov,'  supr.  p.  471.  1.  24.  was  sub- 
stituted, by  the  same  hands,  for  •nyvow  ra<;  MTOTU*?,  which 
occurs  in  St.  Matthew  :  as  the  hereticks,  who  absolved  their 
spiritualized  followers  from  the  necessity  of  observing  the  Law, 
required  the  practice  of  good  from  merely  animal  persons,  such 
as  the  rich  man  who  addressed  our  Saviour  ;  vid.  supr.  p  465. 
n.  cp.  (6.)  It  introduces  an  antithesis,  or  a  contradiction  between 
the  Late  given  by  Moses,  and  that  revealed  by  Christ;  as  the 
person  who  is  represented  as  "having  kept  all  the  commandments* 


(    474    ) 

little  room  to  doubt  that  the  various  reading-  of  the 
texts  before,  us  originated  with  them,  and  that  they 

from  his  youth  is  addressed,  as  if  he  were  ignorant  either  of 
the  nature  of  good,  or  of  the  one  good  God,  whom  Christ  first 
revealed;  vid.  supr.  p.  464-.  n.  6\  Of  this  distinction,  the 
Marcionites  were  fully  sensible  ;  and  in  order  to  point  it  more 
forcibly,  they  made  another  alteration  ;  S.  Epiphan.  ib.  p.  339. 

d.  *  u?  «r»v  «y*&of,  o  ©se$/  vgocr&tro  ex£?Vo?  [o  Mapxw^*  '  * 
IlaT^p.*  xj  «»T»  T£*  *  Tar?  ifrokotq  dioaf,'  A/yei,  '  raj  IiToXa*  ol?a.' 
(7.)  Origen  not  only  cites  it  as  he  does  other  heretical  texts  ; 
conf.  supr.  p.  330.  n.  45.  but  with  a  direct  reference  to  the  here- 
ticks,  (who  accused  God  of  severity,  as  the  authour  of  the  Law) 
which  is  perfectly  beside  the  purpose,  unless  we  conceive  the 
disputed  passage  brought  this  subject  before  him  ;  Orig.  ibid. 
p.  666.  C.  (miiti  &  irut  vfaS&nirW  avrS  vtu  xj  ra  p* 


avlS,  *•  r.  I.  In  which  sentence  Origen  offers  a  suffi- 
cient apology,  for  appealing  to  the  testimony  of  the  passage 
before,  us.  In  fine,  as  the  received  reading,  which  has  the 
whole  of  the  internal  evidence  in  its  favour,  is  thus  not  in  the 
least  affected  by  the  testimony  of  Origen  ;  while  it  is  amply 
supported  by  the  most  unimpeachable  evidence,  vid.  supr.  p. 
570.  n.  **7:  the  whole  weight  of  evidence  which  is  cited  against 
it  must  fall  with  the  testimony  of  Origen.  The  writings  of 
this  father  have  unquestionably  had  considerable  influence  on 
the  Egyptian  and  Palestine  editions  ;  and  by  these  texts  the 
Sahidick  and  revised  Italick,  the  Coptick  and  later  Syriack 
have  been  obviously  corrected  :  none  of  these  witnesses  can  of 
course  have  the  smallest  weight  in  supporting  the  contested 
passage,  against  the  single  testimony  of  Justin  Martyr;  vid. 
supr.  p,  372.  And  let  it  be  observed,  that  the  evidence  of  this 
primitive  father  derives  additional  weight  from  the  explanatory 
gloss  with  which  he  closes  his  testimony,  £jfcif  dya&ot9  *i  ^ 
pivot  o  ©so?  '  o  «roir}<jar  irdvlz.  This  clause  being  undoubtedly 
added  as  a  corrective  to  the  glosses  of  the  hereticks,  whose 
object  was  to  exclude  the  Creatour  from  the  character  of  good* 
ness,  clearly  proves  that  the  passage  before  us  had  been,  tarn-* 


(    475    ) 

acquired  that  authority  in  Origen's  works,  which 
obtained  them  a  place  in  the  Egyptian  and  Pales- 
tine edition.  The  same  observation  nearly  may  be 
extended  to  Luc.  ii.  38 88.  the  peculiar  reading  of 

pered  with  in  Justin's  age,  and  is  a  sufficient  guarantee  that 
Justin's  testimony  has  not  been  accommodated  to  the  Greek 
Vulgate.  As  in  this  view  of  the  subject,  every  variation  of  the 
passage  before  us  is  adequately  accounted  for,  on  considering 
the  Byzantine  text  retains  the  genuine  reading ;  while  it  seems 
impossible  to  account  for  the  corruption  of  the  vulgar  Greek, 
not  to  mention  that  of  antient  Italick  and  vulgar  8yriack,  on 
conceiving  the  Palestine  text  preserves  the  authentick  reading: 
I  conceive  we  may  as  confidently  pronounce  on  the  purity  of 
the  former  text  as  on  the  corruption  of  the  latter. 

88  In  place  of  the  vulgar  reading,  Luc.  ii.  38.  'lvffy<p  xj  jj 
fxw-njp  avrSf  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine  texts  read,  5  -rarip  *vrx 
xj  ri  pfiTvip ;  vid.  supr.  p.  373.  The  authority  for  this  various 
reading  is  contained  in  the  following  observation  of  Origen, 
Horn.  xvii.  in  Luc.  Tom.  III.  p.  951.  c.  t(  Lucas — qui  mani- 
feste  nobis  tradidit  quoniam  virginis  films  Jesus  est,  nee  de 
humano  conceptus  est  semine,  iste  patrem  ejus  Joseph  testatu* 
est  dicens ;  *  Erant  pater  illius  et  mater  admirantes  super  hi« 
quae  dicebantur  de  eo.'  Qua3  igitur  causa  extitit,  ut  eum  qui 
pater  non  fuit,  patrem  esse  memoraret  ?  Qui  simplici  expo- 
sitione  contentus  est,  dicit :  Honoravit  eum  Spiritus  Sanctus 
patris  vocabulo,  qui  nutrierat  Salvatorena.  Qui  autem  altius 
aliquid  inquirit,  potest  dicere,  quia  generationis  ordo  a  David 
usque  ad  Joseph  deducitur,  «t  ne  videretur  frustra  Joseph  no- 
minari,  qui  pater  non  fuerat  Salvatoris,  ut  generationis  ordo 
haberet  locum  pater  appellatvs  est  Domini."  There  are  few, 
I  trust,  who  will  be  of  Origen's  opinion,  that  the  various  read- 
ing of  the  Palestine  text  removes  any  difficulty  which  may  be 
found  in  the  genealogy,  or  has  any  other  effect,  than  to  create 
a  greater  difficulty  with  respect  to  the  immaculate  conception. 
The  reading  of  the  vulgar  Greek  has  been  already  vindicated, 
from  the  internal  evidence,  and  from  the  unvarying  testimony 


C    476    ) 

this  text  having  originated  with  the  Origenigts,  who 
endeavoured  to  strengthen  the  argument,  deduce^ 

of  the  old  Italick  version,  to  which  we  may  add  that  of  the 
antient  Syriack ;  vid.  supr.  p.  169.  n.  *35.  conf.  p.  359.  n.  w. 
And  Origen,  shortly  after  making  the  above  observation,  lets 
us  into  the  secret  of  the  various  reading  of  the  Palestine  text ; 
plainly  intimating,  that  it  arose  from  the  Marcionite  contro- 
versy ;  having  been  opposed  to  the  errours  of  those  heretickg, 
who  rejected  the  genealogy,  because  they  objected  to  the  in- 
carnation ;  vid.  S.  Iren.  ub.  supr.  p.  462.  n. 5S.  Orig.  ib.  p.  952.  d. 
"  Virgo  mater  est,  signurn  est  cui  contradicitur.  Marcitmitce 
contradicunt  huic  signo,  et  aiunt  penitus  eum  de  muliere  non 

esse  generatum. Alii  enim  dictint  eum  venisse  de  ccetis:  ah'i 

tale  quale  nos  corpus  habuisse,"  &c.  As  either  the  reading  of 
the  Palestine  or  Byzantine  text  must  be  false,  there  can  be 
very  little  reason  to  doubt,  that  it  is  the  former  which  has  been 
corrupted.  That  the  reading  of  both  editions  is  of  great  anti- 
equity,  must  be  inferred  from  the  testimony  of  Origen,  and  the 
pld  Italick  translation.  And  this  consideration  seems  decisive 
of  the  fact,  that  the  vulgar  Greek  retains  the  genuine  reading. 
The  evidence  which  supports  this  text  is  not  only  more  antient 
than  that  which  supports  the  Palestine ;  but  at  the  time  when 
the  Italick  version  was  formed,  as  strong  reasons  opposed  the 
introduction  of  the  Byzantine  reading  as  favoured  that  of  thp 
Palestine ;  the  Marcionite  controversy,  on  which  this  text  bore, 
having  been  then  at  the  summit.  While  it  becomes  therefore 
impossible  to  account  for  the  general  corruption  of  the  vulgar 
Greek,  Latin,  and  Syriack  -texts,  that  of  the  Egyptian  and  Pa- 
lestine, of  the  Latin  Vulgate,  ?the  Sahidick  and  Goptick  ,ver* 
sions,  &c.  admits  of  the  same  explanation  as  in  the  last  exam- 
ple ;  supr.  p.  474-.  n. 87 :  and  as  to  the  testimony  of  Cyril,  it 
must  follow  the  fate  of  the  Palestine  text,  as  that  of  St.  Jerome 
and  St.  Augustine  follows  the  fate  of  the  Latin  Vulgate.  While 
of  course  the  Greek  Vulgate  is  supported  by  the  testimony  of 
the  most  competent  witnesses,  that  of  the  Palestine  text  is  .sus- 
tained by  no  adequate  evidence.  The  inference  may  be 
left  to  the  reader. 


(    477    ) 

from  the  genealogy  in  favour  of  our  Lord's  incar- 
nation, by  deducing  the  line  of  descent  at  least  no- 
minally through  Joseph.  Nor  is  the  case  materi- 
ally different  with  respect  to  Luc.  xL  13  89.  relative 


89  The  Byzantine  text  reads,  Luc.  xi.  13.  tl  a 


xgavx  $<arti  tfvet'/'.xfc  o£yiov  TC*J  alrSeiv  avrov,  but  the  Palestine 
text  substitutes  icnv^oe,  ttya§ci9  and  the  Egyptian  ayo$o»  &//,*, 
for  KHVU.O.  &y\w\  vid.  supr.  p.  373.  These  various  readings  must 
be  plainly  referred  to  Marcion,  who  stands  at  the  head  of  those 
who  had  corrupted  the  Scriptures  in  the  age  of  Origen.  His 
reading  of  this  verse  is  preserved  by  S.  Epiphanius,  Haer. 

XLII.  p.  313.  C.  EI  «v  £/*£•?   woi^ot  ovre?,  of^aT€  ^owATa  dyzSa.  TTOPU 

^aX^oi*  S  Ustrvf  :  the  final  clause  being  expunged  according  to 
Marcion's  practice,  vid.  supr.  p.  462.  n*  5S.  As  Origen  pos- 
sessed an  early  bias  to  the  opinions  of  the  Encratite*,  [vid. 
*upr.  p.  468.  n.  7<5.  conf.  n.  78.j  the  first  founder  of  which 
sect  was  Marcion  [vid.  S.  Iren.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xxviii.  p.  107.] 
he  has  interpreted  this  text  according  to  their  notions  ;  Orig. 
Comment,  in  Mat.  Tom.  III.  p.  650.  d.  xj  TO,  *  -n?  $  l|  fy*£» 

To*  vrarEfa  r*e<j  ai7»s<7E»  ^Xj^vv,  f*rj  a»T*  J^tJo?  o£i>  tTriSvffu  oti/TcfS 
t£  TO,  E|??.  $uff&\  av  TO  ctyotS'OV  ^Ojtxa,  TW  7lr»»T^>?  y.ct.§a.wyii  et 
ayve/a  o  ©toe,  TO*?  l|  o^>j?  ^t)^<,  xdi  ps-ra.  niftus,  *at 
V  ir^ffiv^A^  alruffw  avrtv.  Another  attempt  at  ex- 
planation by  our  critick  gives  us  a  little  more  of  the  reading 
which  exists  in  the  Greek  Vulgate  ;  Orig.  de  Orat.  Tom.  I. 
p.  213.  C.  ITTEJ  &  %(^ro?  nft-T^p  TOW  ^UI/TO.  atprw  -  £i<5W»  Tor?  (  TQ 
'fervEt'/^a  T^?  yto^£<7»aij*  tt^'/j^co-ty  aVe  T^  FlaTpo?"  xat  ^nJ'iwcrjv  o  ria^> 
TO  ayaSov  J'oj^a  v«u>  E|  w^at'S  TO^  «»tS<r«y  avroF.  The  cause  of  till? 

inconstancy  in  Origen's  reading  is  fully  explained  -  by  himself 
in  the  tract  which  contains  the  last  extract;  in  the  .course  of 
it  he  signs  a  recantation  of  his  former  opinions,  and  abandons 
Tatian  and  the  Encratites;  vid.  supr  .p.  468.  n.  '7.  His  differ- 
ent expositions  ate  consequently  perfect  contrasts  to  each 
other  ;  "  the  good  gift"  in  the  one  being  "  perfect  purity,  in 
celibacy  and  chusiity"  for  which  Marcion  contended  ;  but  in 


(    478     ) 

to  the  gift  of  the  Spirit ;  Origen  having  originally 
adopted  this  text,  as  it  was  understood  by  the  Mar- 
cionites,  furnished,  by  his  different  explanations  of 
it,  the  various  readings  of  the  Egyptian  and  Pales- 
tine editions.  In  Luc.  xxii.  43,  44 9°.  we  discover 

the  other,  "  those  temporal  blessings  which  God  grants  as  the 
rain  from  heaven"  which  Marcion  abjured,  as  denying  the 
goodness  and  providence  of  the  Creatoar,  vid*  supr.  p.  463» 
n.  *9.    Thus  far  a  plain  account  is  given  of  the  various  read- 
ings of  Marcion  and  Origen.     And  in  the  testimony  of  the 
latter  we  have  as  satisfactory  an  account  of  the  various  reading* 
of  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine  texts  ;  the  reviser  of  the  former 
,    ,  having  followed   Origen's   earlier   notion  in  adopting  aya$o» 
&V*»  and  the  reviser  of  the  Palestine  having  followed  his  later 
opinion  in  adopting  wvevpa,  *ya$ov.    Nor  was  their  respective 
choice  the  effect  of  accident.     The  Egyptian  monks  naturally 
gave  the  preference  to  the  reading  which  favoured  their  habit 
of  life;  and  the  bishop  of  Caesarea  as  naturally  gave  a  prefer- 
ence to   that  which  agreed  with  Origen's  amended  opinion. 
Both  likewise  had  their  reasons  for  preferring  Origen's  reading 
to  that  of  the  vulgar  Greek ;  Eusebius  having  been  addicted  to 
the  Arian  heresy  [vid.  supr.  p.  39.  n.  6S.]  and  Hesychius  to  the 
Origenian  [vid.  supr.  p.  4-39.  n.  a9.]   whose  opinions  were  at 
variance  with  the  doctrine  inculcated  in  the  received  reading  : 
vid.  S.  Hieron.  Pam.  et  Ocean.  Ep.  LXV.  cap.  i.  Tom.  L  p.  229. 
Without  insisting  on   the  authority  of  the  antient  witnesses 
which  support  the  reading  of  the  vulgar  Greek,  and  the  diffi- 
culty of  shewing  how  they  could  have  been  corrupted ;  these 
considerations  seem  fully  adequate  to  vindicate  the  integrity  of 
this  edition. 

*°  The  agony  in  the  garden,  described  in  these  verses,  it  is 
next  to  certain,  was  first  suppressed  in  the  Gospel  of  Marcion : 
and  was  thence  omitted  in  some  copies  of  the  Palestine  text, 
and  on  the  authority  of  it,  in  some  copies  of  the  Philoxenian 
find  Armenian  versions ;  vid.  Griesb.  n.  in  Luc.  xxii.  43.  y. 
The  following  reasons  seem  adequate  to  establish  the  antece- 


(    479    ) 

the  influence  of  the  same  hereticks'  notions;  and 
with  this  text  we  may  join  Col.  i.  149*.  as  relating 

dent  assertion.  (1.)  This  passage  occurs  in  St.  Luke,  which 
of  all  the  Gospels  was  alone  acknowledged  by  Marcion,  and 
which  was  mutilated  of  all  those  passages,  by  him,  which  con- 
tradicted his  peculiar  opinions ;  vid.  supr.  p.  462.  n. ss.  (2.) 
The  disputed  passage,  as  proving  our  Lord's  advent  in  the  flesh, 
was  opposed  to  the  peculiar  tenet  of  Marcion,  who  denied  the 
incarnation  and  passion  of  our  Saviour,  conceiving  his  body 
merely  a  phantasm;  Tert.  de  Anim.  cap.  xvii.  p.  271.  "  Sic 
enim  et  Marcion  phantasma  eum  rnaluit  credere,  totius  carports 
in  illo  dedignatus  veritatem."  (3.)  St.  Epiphanius  was  well 
acquainted  with  this  passage,  vid.  supr.  p.  93.  n.  1G3.  and  he 
expressly  opposed  Marcion's  opinions,  on  the  testimony  of  his 
mutilated  Gospel;  appealing  to  several  passages  which  were 
infinitely  less  strong  than  that  before  us,  as  Luc.  ix.  22.  vid. 
S.  Epiphan.  Hser.  XLII.  p.  327.  d.  conf.  p.  34-7.  b.  But  he  has 
deduced  no  argument  from  the  passage  before  us ;  we  must 
therefore  conclude,  that  it  was  wanting  in  Marcion's  copy. 
On  the  omission  of  this  text  in  some  copies  of  the  orthodox, 
I  shall  have  occasion  to  speak  hereafter;  this  circumstance, 
with  which  St.  Epiphanius  was  well  acquainted,  prevented  him 
from  upbraiding  Marcion  with  the  suppression  of  this  passage. 
As  all  versions  retain  this  text,  which  is  quoted  by  Justin 
Martyr,  Hippolytus,  and  other  antient  fathers,  but  those  al- 
ready specified,  little  more  remains  to  be  added  respecting  it. 
There  can  be  as  little  reason  to  doubt  the  integrity  of  the 
Vulgar  Greek,  as  that  the  various  reading  of  the  Palestine  text 
has  proceeded  from  the  corruption  of  Marcion. 

91  The  observations  made  on  Luc.  xxii.  4-3,  44.  in  the  last 
note,  may  be  applied  to  this  passage,  which  asserts  our  redemp- 
tion "  by  the  blood"  of  Christ.  (1.)  The  Epistle  to  the  Co- 
lossians  was  equally  corrupted  by  Marcion  with  the  Gospel 
according  to  St.  Luke ;  this  Epistle  having  been  partly  re- 
ceived by  him,  and  that  to  Philemon  alone  having  escaped  the 
defalcation  of  the  heretick;  conf.  Epiphan.  Ha*.  XLII.  p.  373, 
a,  b.  Tert.  adv.  Marc.  Lib.  V,  cap,  xxi.  p.  479.  (2.)  The 


(    480    ) 

to  the  same  subject:  in  these  examples  a  degree  of 
coincidence  between  the  Marcionite  and  Origenian 

passage  before  us  is  more  decidedly  opposed  to  Marcion's 
errours,  than  any  which  exists  in  the  text  of  the  vulgar  edi- 
tion, and  as  such  was  peculiarly  obnoxious  to  him ;  Tert.  de 
Cam.  Christ,  cap.  ii.  p.  298.  "  His  opinor  consiliis,  tot  or/- 
ginalia  instrument  a  Christi  delere  Marcion  ausus  es;  ne  caro 
ejus  probaretur.  (3.)  St.  Epiphanius  reasons  from  Marcion's 
concessions  in  this  chapter ;  Ibid.  p.  373.  b.  He  was  well 
acquainted  with  the  disputed  passage  as  it  is  expressly  opposed 
to  the  Marcionites  by  St.  Irenseus,  adv.  Haer.'  Lib.  V.  cap.  ii. 
§  2.  p.  293.  with  whose  works  St.  Epiphanius  was  thoroughly 
acquainted,  vid.  S.  Epiphan.  Hser.  xxxi.  p.  173.  a.  But  he 
has  deduced  no  argument  from  this  passage ;  it  must  have  been 
consequently  obliterated  in  Marcion's  Apostolicum.  Admit- 
ing  that  this  passage  was  wanting  in  Marcion's  text,  it  becomes 
little  wonderful  that  it  was  omitted  in  the  Egyptian  text,  and 
on  the  authority  of  it,  in  the  Palestine  edition.  The  notions 
of  the  Origenists  relative  to  the  body  of  Christ,  differed  but  a 
shade  from  those  of  the  followers  of  Valentinus  and  Apelles. 
They  considered  our  Lord's  body  a  kind  of  spiritualized  sub- 
fctance,  which  was  capable  of  different  appearances  or  meta- 
morphoses ;  vid.  supr.  p.  452.  n.  4*.  conf.  infr.  p.  482.  n.  9z. 
The  following  testimony  of  Origen,  in  which  the  orthodox  no- 
tion of  the  incarnation  is  tacitly  censured,  furnished  sufficient 
authority  for  the  adoption  of  Marcion's  reading;  Orig.  Horn, 
in  Luc.  Tom.  III.  p.  952.  d.  "  Habuit  corpus  humanum,  et 
hoc  signum  est  cui  contradicitur.  Alii  enim  dicunt  eum  ve- 
nisse  de  coelis ;  alii  tale  quote  nos  corpus  habidsse,  ut  per  simili- 
tudinem  corporis  etiam  nostra  corporis  '  redimeret  a  peccatis, 
et  daret  nobis  spem  resurrectionis.*  And  in  explaining  1  Cor. 
vii.  23.  he  expressly  denies  that  either  the  body  or  the  soul  of 
our  Lord  was  offered  as  the  price  of  our  redemption ;  vid. 
Comm.  in  Mat.  Tom.  III.  p.  726.  c.  In  exact  conformity  with 
the  former  reference,  "  redimeret  a  peccatis,"  is  the  reading 
of  the  Egyptian  text  and  revised  Italick  version,  as  preserved 
in  the  Cambridge,  Clermont,  and  St.  Germain  MSS. ;  which 


(    481    ) 

tenets,  led  to  the  adoption  of  the  various  reading 
of  the  texts  of  Egypt  and  Palestine.  The  causes 
were  of  an  opposite  character,  which  produced  the 
various  reading  of  1  Joh.  iv.  392.  Origeri's  endea- 

differ  from  the  Palestine  text  in  omitting  TW  apc<nr,  as  well  as 
j»ct  T«  etl'iAotrot;  otvrS ;  vid.  supr.  p.  376.  conf.  Griesb.  n.  in  h.  1, 
The  cause  of  this  difference  is,  however,  easily  discovered  in. 
the  peculiar  opinions  of  the  different  revisers  of  those  editions* 
Hesychius  imbibed  a  deep  tincture  of  Origen's  notions ;  he 
consequently  admitted  no  more  of  the  disputed  text,  as  genuine, 

than  the  following  words ;   iv  a   £%O^EV  -njir   ciir^vr^uc^   TUV  etfj(,ot^ 

TKBV;  agreeably  to  Origen's  representation.  The  Arian  ten* 
dency  of  Eusebius  did  not  lead  him  quite  so  far  as  Hesychius ; 
he  consequently  adopted  a  little  more  of  the  genuine  reading, 
and  wrote,  iv  a  i^ousv  TW  aTroXyrpwa-H',  rriv  afysatv  ruv  ccu.ctflwv  : 
admitting  the  remission  of  sin,  though  he  suppressed  the  meri* 
torious  price  of  it.  But  St.  Irenaeus,  who  preceded  both,  and 
whose  opinions  had  no  such  tendency,  has  expressly  quoted 
the  disputed  verse  as  it  occurs  in  the  Greek  Vulgate,  laying 
peculiar  emphasis  on  &a  TS  al'pxioq  ai/ru.  vid.  supr.  pp.  376* 
378.  With  the  testimony  of  the  Egyptian  text,  that  of  the 
Sahidick  version  falls  of  course ;  as  the  testimony  of  the  Sy* 
riack,  Coptick,  Ethiopick,  revised  Arabick  and  Latin  Vulgate, 
falls  with  the  Palestine :  and  the  testimony  of  the  Greek  and 
Latin  fathers,  who  have  cited  the  disputed  text,  must  follow 
the  fate  of  the  last  mentioned  texts,  as  they  confessedly  re- 
ceived the  revised  editions  of  Eusebius  and  St.  Jerome.  Under 
this  view  of  the  subject,  every  various  reading  'of  the  disputed 
passage  is  satisfactorily  accounted  for.  As  the  reading  of  the 
Greek  Vulgate  is  supported  by  the  testimony  of  antient  and 
separate  witnesses,  in  the  old  Italick  and  Arabick  versions,  we 
must  conclude,  that  they  retain  the  genuine  text :  until  at  least 
some  plausible  account  be  given  of  the  manner  in  which  they 
could  have  been  corrupted. 

54  The  various  readings  of  this  passage  have  been  already 
pointed  out  supr.  p.  377.  p.  303.  n. 3I*:  and  have  obvicmsly  ovi* 

i  i 


(    4S2    ) 

vour  to  avoid  the  peculiar  errours  of  the  Valenti- 
nians  respecting  the  person  of  Christ,  having  pro* 

ginated,  not  less  than  the  preceding,  from  the  influence  of  the 
Marcionite  and  Valentinian  heresies.  The  Valentinians  be- 
lieved in  the  existence  of  two  Christs,  who  were  mystically 
united;  S.  Iren.  adv.  Haer.  Lib.  III.  cap.  xvi.  p.  204.  "  Sal" 
•valorem  quidem  qui  desuper  descendisset,  quern  et  ipsum  reccp- 
iaculum  Christi,  et  universes  Plenitudinis  esse  [Valentiniani3 
tlicunt,  linguae  quidem  unum  Christum  Jesum  cunfitentes,  divisi 
vero  sententia  :  etenim  haec  est  ipsorum  regula,  quemadmodum 
praediximus,  ut  tilterum  quidem  Christum  fume  dicant,  qui  ab 
Unigenito  ad  correctionem  Plenitudinis  praemissus  est;  alterum 
vero  Salvatorem  esse  in  glorificationem  Patris  missum."  Mar- 
cion  agreed  with  Valentinus  in  this  notion,  which  was  adopted 
from  the  Gnosticks  ;  Tert.  adv.  Marc.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xv.  p.  357. 
*'  Atque  ita  tres  mihi  deos  numera  Marcionis—  —  .  His  quum 
accedunt  et  sui  Christi,  alter  qui  Tipparuit  sub  Tiberio;  alter 
qui  a  Creatore  promittitur,'*  &c.  conf.  supr.  p.  266.  There 
\vas  'nothing  in  these  notions  which  accorded  with  the  doctrine 
of  the  Origenists  ;  on  the  contrary,  the  founder  of  this  sect 
Strenuously  opposed  those  opinions.  In  the  following  passage 
we  consequently  discover  the  true  source  of  the  various  read- 
ings of  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine  editions  ;  Orig.  Comm.  in 
Mat.  Tom.  III.  p.  727.  b.  —  o^/^o*  8  Xi/w  TOV  'IrxrSv  a^ro  T» 

TOV  X^ifov,    xj  rr,» 


etvra,  w?  vhieV)  tl  &-J  vrus  ovo^ia-on,  s»va»  tv  oXov  T«TO, 
*  o  Ko^u^voq  ru  Kvgiu  $v  ffvevfjox,  efiv.'  The  studied  purpose  of 
Origen  to  avoid  the  errour  of  the  Valentinians,  drove  him  into 
the  opposite  extreme;  and  led  him  to  adopt  this  notion  re- 
specting our  Lord's  body,  which  was  afterwards  improved  upon 
by  the  Eutychians.  At  how  early  a  period  the  reading  of 
Origen  was  adopted  in  some  MSS.  of  the  Egyptian  text,  must 
be  apparent  from  the  testimony  of  Socrates,  vid.  supr.  p.  303. 
n.  317<;  the  weight  of  his  evidence  in  its  favour  is  however  an- 
nulled by  the  consideration  of  his  having  been  addicted  to  the 
heresy  of  the  Origenists,  vid.  supr.  p.  440.  n.  3*  ;  as  might  be 


(    483    ) 

iuced  that  exposition  from  whence  his  followers  have 
corrupted  the  reading  of  the  vulgar  edition. 

Collected  from  the  forecited  reference  to  the  disputed  verse, 
which  was  apparently  written  by  Socrates  with  a  view  to  the 
passage  of  Origen  now  before  us,  as  well  as  to  the  reading  of 
the  Italick  translation,  vid.  supr.  p.  303.  The  Various  readings 
of  this  passage  may  be  now  easily  traced.  The  first  lineaments 
ef  the  reading  before  us  occur  in  Ireneeus ;  after  referring  to 
Joh.  xx.  31.  he  observes,  Id.  adv.  Haer.  Lib.  III.  cap.  xvi.  §  5* 
p.  206. — "  Joannes  Domini  discipulus  confirmat— prsevidens 
has  blasphemas  regulas,  quse  dividunt  Dominum,  quantum  e< 
ipsis  attinet,  ex  altem  et  altera  substantia  dicentes  eum  factum  t 

propter  quod  et  in  Epistola  sua  sic  testificatus  est  nobis 

*  Quis  est  mendax  nisi  qui  negat  quoniam  Jesus  non  est  Christus? 
hie  est  Antichristus.1  This  sentiment  was  adopted  by  Origen 
vid.  supr.  and  Tertullian;  adv.  Marc.  Lib.  V.  cap.  xvi.  p.  4*73. 
But  the  particular  reference  of  S.  Irenseus  to  1  Joh.  ii.  22.  in 
this  place,  as  the  chief  text  opposed  to  the  Valentinian  and  Mar- 
cionite  heresies,  and  of  Tertullian  to  the  vulgar  reading  of  the 
disputed  text,  clearly  evince  that  they  were  unacquainted  with 
the  reading  of  Socrates.  Tert.  de  Cam.  Christ,  cap.  xxiv.  p* 
311.  "  Certe  *  qui  negat  Christum  in  carne  venisse,  hie  Anti- 
christus  est :'  nudam  et  absolutam,  et  simplici  nomine  natime 
suae,  pronuncians  *  carnemf  omnes  disceptatores  ejus  ferit* 
Sicut  et  definians  ipsum  quoque  <  Christum*  unum  multiformis 
Christi  argumentatores  quatit,  qui  alium  faciunt  Christum* 
alium  Jesum.'  As  this  direct  reference  to  1  Joh.  iv.  3.  proves 
that  Tertullian  found  in  his  copies  all  that  is  retained  in  the 
vulgar  Greek ;  the  inference  from  it  proves,  that  he  did  not  find 
the  various  reading  of  Socrates ;  as  it  is  perfectly  nugatory,  if 
Tertullian  read  "  qui  solvit  Jesum,"  either  separately  or  con- 
jointly with  "  negat  in  carne  venisse."  From  Tertullian  the 
former  reading  descended  to  Cyprian,  Ambrose,  and  Augus* 
tine,  and  made  its  way  into  the  Latin  version,  merely  as  a  gloss 
on  the  received  reading :  and  was  finally  admitted,  in  a  long 
quotation  from  this  version,  into  the  translation  of  St.  Irenaeus; 
Ib.  ,eap.  xvi.  p,  207.  What  adds  the  strongest  coa&rmaticn  ty 


(    484    ) 

The  various  readings  of  Luc.  xi.  2.  491.  are  of 
the  same  character,,  as  relating  to  the  fundamental 

this  assertion,  is,  that  St.  Irenaeus's  work  was  translated  in  the 
times  of  P.  Leo  the  great,  when  the  Roman  Church  took  an 
active  part  against  the  Nestorian  heresy,  which  was  fundamen- 
tally overthrown  by  this  text  as  quoted  by  Sodrates,  vid.  supr. 
p.  303.  n.  3I2»  It  Could  not  have  been  therefore  safe  for  the 
authour  of  this  translation,  which  was  most  probably  made  with 
a  view  to  oppose  the  rising  heresies  of  Nestorius  and  Eutyches, 
to  depart  in  this  instance  from  the  authorised  Latin  version. 
Of  the  integrity  of  the  received  reading,  there  cannot  be  there- 
fore the  smallest  reason  to  doubt;  as  it  is  supported  by  the 
most  unquestionable  authority,  and  nothing  weakened  by  the 
testimony  of  dissenting  witnesses.  (1.)  It  is  confirmed  by  the 
internal  evidence ;  as  corresponding  with  St.  John's  manner, 
who  commonly  makes  similar  antitheses,  opposing  an  affirma- 
tive and  negative  proposition;  comp.  Joh.  i.  3.  1  Joh,  v.  10. 
12.  vid.  Erasm.  n.  in  1.  (2.)  It  is  confirmed  by  the  external 
evidence,  as  it  is  acknowledged,  not  only  by  St.  Polycarp  in 
the  Eastern  Church,  and  Tertullian  in  the  Western,  within  a 
short  period  of  the  death  of  St.  John,  but  by  the  invariable 
consent  of  the  Greek  Fathers  and  Manuscripts,  and  of  the 
Oriental  Versions. 

93  The  extraordinary  emission  of  the  following  clauses  of  the 
Lord's  prayer,  in  St.  Luke,  have  been  already  specified  ;  supr. 

p.  383.  ypvv  o  tv  TO<?  Kgotvotq  *  .  ,  .  .  yzv^r,Tu  TO  SeAi^a  rtf,  u<;  Iv 
tig etvu  it,  l<rr^  TVJ?  y>j?  . « • «  aAAa  pvffcti  7i[/.siq  «TTO  TK  wovj^e.  It  is  not 
to  be  denied,  that  Origen,  in  composing  his  tract  "  On  Prayer," 
believed  these  passages  not  written  by  St.  Luke,  as  he  ex- 
pressly states  that  they  did  not  belong  to  the  Evangelist's  text; 
Orig.  de  Orat.  Tom.  I.  p.  232.  a.  240.  c.  256.  c.  But  it  does 
not  follow,  that  they  did  not  exist  in  Origen's  copies,  much 
less  in  the  received  text  of  the  orthodox.  On  the  contrary  it 
appears,  even  on  his  own  testimony,  that  those  passages  ex- 
isted in  the  copies  which  were  be/ore, him;  and  that  in  assert- 
ing that  they  formed  no  part  of  St.  Luke's  text,  he  was  misled 
by  copies  of  the  most  equivocal  character.  (1.)  Where  he 


(    485    ) 

tenets  of  Marcion,  relative  to  the  abode  of  his  Good 
God  above  the  heavens,  and  to  his  special  provi- 

professes  to  detail  "  the  entire  context  and  series  of  St.  Luke's 
words,"  the  Lord's  prayer  is  wholly  omitted,  a  blank  space  ex- 
isting in  the  MS.  where  it  should  have  been  inserted  :  Orig.  Ib. 
p.  200.  a.  oXos  £e  6  sfig(AOS  T»"  ^13  STW?  ^»"  '  x«*  lyivtlt  iv  ra 
liven  avTov  7r(>o<r£vxio(jt.eH>*t  *.  r.  1.  Luc.  xi.  1.  Having  merely 
completed  the  first  verse,  to  the  beginning  of  the  Prayer,  the 
context  is-  broken  off  ;  on  which  the  Benedictine  editours  ob- 
serve, Ib.  p.  200.  n.  V  "  In  Codice  ms.  hoc  loco  est  hiatus,  ad 
spatium  trium  circiter  linearum,  licet  nihil  ad  sensum  deside- 
rari  videatur  !"  (2.)  As  it  is  indisputable  that  this  blank  was 
intended  for  the  Prayer,  nothing  being  wanting  to  complete 
the  sense  of  Origen's  context,  it  seems  impossible  to  assign  any 
reason  for  its  omission,  but  that  it  differed  in  this  place  from 
Origen's  subsequent  statement,  and  consequently  contained  the 
disputed  passages.  (3.)  In  referring  to  the  prayer  as  previ- 
ously quoted,  Origen  having  cited  part  of  Luc.  ibid.  1.  adds  the 
beginning  of  the  Prayer  as  contained  in  that  Evangelist,  and 
includes  a  part  of  the  disputed  reading,  with  *)  tai  i|5fc.  I  have 
already  cited  the  passage  of  Origen  at  length  gupr.  p.  462. 
n.  56  :  and  it  not  only  positively  contradicts  the  assertion,  that 
the  first  clause  *?jt/wV,  5  lv  reft  a^avoif  was  wanting  in  St.  Luke's 
text  ;  but  implicitly  declares,  that  the  whole  of  the  prayer  ex- 
isted in  that  Evangelist,  as  it  was  generally  repeated:  Orig. 
ibid.  p.  222.  »  ^«a>m  avru  irpxrevxccrSoti,  aAA*  TU  Uul^  XEyov7af* 
*  Tldrsg  -w/xo/v,  o  £V  rots1  agccvotV,'  t£  ra  e|??.  (4.)  Origen  ex- 
pressly admits,  that  most  people  supposed  the  same  form  of  prayer 
had  been  delivered  by  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke  ;  although 
he  proceeds  to  offer  three  reasons  which  induced  him  to  be  of 
a  different  opinion  ;  Id.  ibid.  p.  226.  e.  xj  wgo  voivluv  ye  wapa- 
if  on  o  MalSaiOf  o  Aaxas"  ^O^atsv  ^v  roTs1  9JoXXoTf  TTJV 


In  the  passage  which  follows  this  declaration, 
Origen's  text  is  palpably  interpolated,  as  must  be  apparent  to 
any  person  of  moderate  penetration  ;  the  whole  texture  of  hfo 
subject  being  disjointed  by  'the  insertion  -of  -the  Lord's  prayer^ 


dence,  as  extending  to  the  affairs  of  this  lower  world. 
The  reading  of  the  heretick's  Gospel  having  been 

as  conceived  to  be  read  in  St.  Luke,  which  was  plainly  omitted 
in  this  place,  as  the  following  circumstances  sufficiently  demon- 
strate.  (1.)  It  was  certainly  inserted  previously,  in  Origen's 
autograph,  as  appears  from  the  blank  already  specified.  (2.) 
Its  insertion  in  this  place,  together  with  the  two  sentences 
which  are  used  to  qualify  its  introduction;  (Ib.  p,  226.  f. 
$1  al  ht%ti<;  .....  tov  rpowov  oti/rov,  Ib,  p.  227.  b  iv  yȤ  Ty 
,  .  .  .  aiaye-xpa/^EKD  svficrxtlou')  so  completely  disjoint  the 
contexture  and  suspend  the  sense  of  Origen's  text,  as  to  leave 
him  scarcely  intelligible.  (3.)  The  introduction  of  these  pas- 
sages reduces  the  context  of  Origen  to  perfect  nonsense  ;  as 
he  declares  it  to  be  his  intention  to  search  and  point  out  the 
places  in  which  the  words  of  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke  seemed 
to  differ,  (as  he  accordingly  does,  pp.  251.  e.  f.  252.  a.  &c.) 
but  which  are  here  forcibly  pointed  out  by  contrasting  the 
different  statements  of  the  Evangelists;  Id.  ibid.  p.  227.  b. 
fa  fapalcc.  si  xj  ytdnuvrat,  Tiva  £%£»  aXXJ?Xo»$,  aXXa  x)  Iv  aXXotf 
€>ioKp£g£JV  (paiverai*  us  egsfvafvTgj  CLVTQC,  TTagas'TJffo/xev,  On  dis- 
carding those  ridiculous  passages  which  have  been  foisted  into 
the  text,  Origen's  context  may  be  thus  connected;  Ibid.  p. 
226.  6.  xj  Trgo  iravluv  Tra^oJyjp^l/ov  ert  o  MalSaio?  xj  o  Asxa;  ^o|a»£» 
cc.v  ToTf  weXXor?  r^f  auT^K  axaysy^a^syat  viro\([virupivw  irfp$  TO  &?» 
lira?  iegoffivxs<7$on  wgofftvxpv'  [  ~]  f  Hctrtg  Jipuv.'  (xat  Ta  l|?f 


t.%11  aXX^XoK,    aXXa  KJ   ev  »AXoi£    ^at^J^ny   tyntlvsloti,  u 
avrot,  iragaryao.^'   frfvrtfw  ^e  on  »;£  olov  re  lr»  T^V  ayryjv 


'  t^wv  r«  , 

a»oi|«j    TO 


'    |[  ]]   xj  it   tu   tlvon   ctinoy  l»  rowa 


»  x.  T.  I.  The  places  of  the  interjected  passages 
are  here  marked  by  brackets.  That  they  are  interpolations 
must  be  apparent  from  the  connecting  particles,  by  which  the 
sentence  is  held  together  ;  *fa  TO  &r»  arwf  wfwe^er&w,  being 


(    487    ) 

Admitted  into  the  Commentary  of  Origeo,  thence 
made  its  way  into  the  Palestine  text;  the  opinion  of 


inseparably  connected  with  Using  ypwv  y..  r.  I  :  irpoq  T«> 
iw&^a^^ay&^a?  being  as  inseparately  connected  with  its  antece- 
dent  &!«•£»  «»  TO*?  TroAXor?:  and  -^  i»  ry  ogc»  being  as  insepa- 
rately connected  with  ^  £>  «rw  i»W»  lv  Ton-of  Tm.  Thus  far,  of 
course,  Origen  affords  us  no  countenance  in  believing  that 
the  contested  passages  were  wanting  in  the  text  of  St.  Luke, 
as  read  in  his  copies.  And  whatever  be  thought  of  the  above 
emendation,  no  more  is  fairly  deducible  from  his  concluding 
remark  ;  as  he  there  submits  it  to  his  readers,  "  icfather  it  were 
not  better  to  consider  the  prayers  different  which  had  some 
common  parts  ;"  Ibid.  p.  227.  d.  ^mre  St  /SeXriov  y  Siapo^ar 
vopifaSaii  raj  «r§o<7§y^aj  xotva  T»»«  lp£«0-a$  p/pi?.  This  Concluding 

remark,  added  to  his  first  observation  on  the  subject,  that 
"  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke  appeared  to  many  to  have  deli- 
vered the  same  form  of  prayer,"  o  Mo!$«rof  $  5  At?xa?  ^ai£v 
iv  roT-i  TroXXors"  rriv  ayrviv  ava/jy^aipg'vaj  j5<7ror£rt/?ra//X£vw  TTPOCT- 
sz/xr'v»  prove  to  my  entire  satisfaction,  that  the  generality  of 
copies  retained  the  disputed  passages,  as  they  exist  in  the  Vul- 
gar Greek.  II.  Our  next  object  is  to  enquire,  where  Origen 
had  the  first  intimation,  that  the  disputed  passages  were  not  a 
part  of  St.  Luke's  text.  And  this,  I  am  of  opinion,  he  pro- 
ceeds directly  to  specify  in  the  following  words,  Id.  ibid.  p. 
227.  d.  {uWajfles  &  xj  vetfot  tu  Ma^xa, 


The  absurdity  of  this  assertion  affords 
a  sufficient  proof  that  the  passage  is  corrupt  :  for  how  is  it  pos- 
sible that  Origen  should  deem  it  necessary  "  to  search"  in  St. 
Mark  for  the  Lord's  Prayer,  and  believe,  that  when  he  com- 
pleted his  search,  "  no  trace  of  such  a  prayer  as  he  required 
could  have  escaped  him:"  particularly  when  Ammonius's 
Harmony  had  been  some  time  in  use,  and  Marcion  had  pub- 
lished the  Gospel  of  St.  Luke,  containing  the  very  object  of 
Origen's  search  ?  For  ir^oi  ra  m&f*#t  I  must  therefore  sub- 
stitute iratp*  ra  Mapx,»W,  and  understand  Origen  as  meaning, 
that  "  having  searched  in  Marcion'-s  edition  of  St.  Luke  for  a 


(    488    ) 

that  early  critick  having  been  clearly  in  favour  of 
the  notion ,  that  the  vulgar  text  of  St.  Luke  was  in- 

prayer  agreeing  with  that  contained  in  St.  Matthew,  that  he 
might  leave  no  source  untried  in  which  he  might  be  likely  to 
meet  it,  he  found  no  trace  of  it;"  such  indeed  must  have  been 
the  result  of  his  search,  as  Marcion's  prayer  differs  in  every 
petition  from  St.  Matthew's.     The  emendation  however  which 
is  thus  corriirmed  (1.)  by  the  internal  evidence  of  Origen's 
text,  and  (2.)   by  the  circumstances  of  the  case  before  us,  is 
finally   established  by  these   additional   considerations.     (3.) 
Origen,  in  the  course  of  the  tract  before  us,  quotes  one  of 
the  principal  texts  of  Marcion,  as  read  in  that  heretick's  Gos- 
pel: vid.  supr.  p.  471.  n.  87.     (4.-.)  What  lays  the  question  at 
rest,  he  quotes  the  Lord's  prayer  itself  in  the  very  form  in 
.which  it  was  used  by  Marcion.     This  is  apparent  from  the 
testimony  of  Tertullian,  who  gives  us  the  Lord's  prayer,  with- 
put  the  disputed  passages,  in  the  very  form  in  which  it  appear- 
e4  in  that  part  of  Qrigen,  where  St.  Luke  and  St.  Matthew's 
texts  are  contrasted ;  vid.  Tert,  adv.  Marc.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  xxvi. 
p.  432.     Nor  can  there  be  a  doubt,  that  Tertullian  quotes  in 
the  place  referred  to,  from  Martian's  Gospel.     (1.)  Such  was 
his  professed  object,  in  opposing  that  heretick ;   Tert.  ibid, 
cap.  i.  p.  403.     "  — Ad  ipsum  jam  Evangelium  ejus  [Marci- 
pnis]  prQvocqmus,  quod  interpolando   suum  fecit."     Id.  ibid, 
cap.  vi.  p.  407.     "  Sed  alium  jam  hinc  inimus  gradum,  ipsum, 
ut  prqfessi  sumus,   Evangeliuw   Marcionis  provocantes,"   &c. 
(2.)  Unless  the  Lord's  prayer  was  found  in  Marcion's  Gospel, 
any  inference  made  from  it,  by  Tertullian,  on  any  other  ground 
than  that  of  its  having  been  obliterated  by  that  heretick,  was 
not  only  beside  that  writer's  purpose,  but  wholly  nugatory. 
In  Marcion,  pf  course,  Origen  had  the  first  intimation,  that  the 
prayer  of  St.  Luke  differed  altogether  from  that  of  St.  Mat- 
thew.    The  reasons  which  inclined  him  to  be  rather  of  this 
ppmkaa,  than  that  of  the  generality  of  persons,  who  considered 
that  the  Evangelists  had  written  the  same  form,  are  specified 
by  him,  at  large,  Ib.  p.  227.  a.  sqq.     (1.)  The  prayers  contained 
pome  dissimilarity  in  the  language,  even  admitting  them  to  lie 


!{    489    ) 

terpolated  in  those  places  in  which  it  differed  from 
Marcion's  Gospel,  and  agreed  with  the  text  of  St. 

equally  full  in  the  expression,  and  adequate  in  the  sense,  Ibid. 
b.  (2.)  They  were  delivered  at  different  places,  and  to  differ- 
ent persons,  Ibid.  c.  (3.)  Though  Origen  saw  that  this  state- 
ment was  liable  to  some  objection,  Ibid,  d :  yet  be  saw  some 
propriety  (which  I  trust  no  other  person  will  be  likely  to  dis- 
cover) in  our  Lord's  delivering  himself  more  fully  to  the  mul- 
titude, than  to  his  disciple,  who  asked  him  apart,  Ib.  p.  365.  a, 
And  as  these  differences  more  fully  evinced  that  St.  Matthew 
•and  St.  Luke  alluded  to  totally  different  incidents,  which  was 
the  main  object  that  Origen  undertook  to  establish,  he  rea- 
dily acquiesced  in  the  latter  conclusion;  having  had  some 
strange  notions  relative  of  the  interpolation  of  the  Evangelists 
from  each  other,  when  he  was  unable  to  reconcile  their  differ- 
ent statements,  vid.  supr.  p.  433.  n.  I6.  III.  The  testimony  of 
Origen  being  disposed  of,  there  will  be  now  little  difficulty  in 
evincing  the  corruption  of  the  Palestine  text;  and  in  ascer- 
taining the  genuine  reading  of  the  passages  before  us.  In  order 
to  accomplish  this  object,  it  may  be  observed;  (1.)  There 
seems  to  be  no  possible  cause,  that  can  be  suggested,  which 
will  be  adequate  to  account  for  our  Lord's  varying  at  one  time 
from  his  practice  at  -another,  while  he  had  the  same  object  in 
view ;  as  we  must  conclude  to  have  been  the  case,  as  the  sub- 
ject, order,  and  expression  of  the  different  prayers  which  he 
dictated,  are  nearly  the  same.  (2.)  Admitting  that  he  deli- 
vered the  same  form  of  prayer,  it  is  wholly  inconceivable  that 
St.  Luke  Could  have  mutilated  it  in  the  manner  in  which  it 
occurs  in  the  Palestine  text ;  not  only  omitting  some  of  the 
solemn  forms  of  supplication  which  had  been  long  consecrated 
by  the  observance  of  the  Jews,  but  reducing  the  prayer  to  the 
compass  of  an  ejaculation.  (3.)  It  is  infinitely  more  difficult  to 
assign  any  plausible  reason  for  the  fact ;  that  our  Lord  should 
omit,  or  the  Evangelist  overlook,  just  as  much  of  the  form  of 
prayer  which  was  delivered  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  as 
adapted  it 'to  the  peculiar  opinions  of  the  heretick  Marcion. 
This  consideration  alone  seems  to  set  the  question  at  rest,  and 


N 


(    490    ) 

Matthew.  Together  with  the  above  passages,  which 
relate  to  the  Lord's  Prayer,  we  may  join  that  con- 
to  identify  the  true  autliour  of  the  corruption  of  the  text  in 
question.  That  the  Lord's  prayer,  as  read  in  the  Palestine 
text,  was  accommodated  to  Marcion's  opinions,  is  apparent 
from  more  than  the  testimony  of  Tertullian,  who  declares  that 
it  was  admitted  into  Marcion's  Gospel  in  that  mutilated  form 
in  which  it  appears  in  the  Palestine  edition.  It  is  rendered 
evident  by  the  fact,  that  the  suppressed  passages  were  irre- 
concilable with  Marcion's  peculiar  tenets.  (1.)  The  "  Fa- 
ther,'* who  is  supplicated  in  this  prayer,  was  addressed  as 
*,'  in  heaven  ;''  the  Father  whom  Marcion  assigned  to  Christ, 
had  his  abode  above  the  heavens ;  vpuv,  o  b  rut  £pavo»c  was  con- 
sequently discarded,  as  designating  the  Creatour  whom  Mar- 
cion did  not  acknowledge  as  the  Father  of  Christ;  vid.  S. 
Epiphan.  Haer.  xlii.  p.  328.  c.  S.  Iren.  adv.  User.  Lib.  IV. 
cap.  iii.  §  1.  p.  230.  (2.)  The  Father  of  Christ  was  also  iden- 
tified in  the  description  of  the  God  who  resided  "  in  heaven, 
and  whose  will  was  done  on  earth  ;'*  for,  under  this  character, 
the  Creatour  was  likewise  designated ;  ytv^ru  to  &A»fAa  <w, 
£{  i»  vfava  xj  ETH  T>35  7??,  was  consequently  rejected  as  incon- 
sistent with  the  notion  of  Christ's  mission,  who  came  to  abolish 
the  power  and  dominion  of  the  Creatour ;  vid.  Tert.  adv.  Marc. 
Lib.  I.  cap.  xvi.  p.  357.  conf.  supr.  p.  433.  n. 60.  (3.)  The 
attribute  of  severity  belonged  to  the  latter  deity,  that  of  good- 
ness having  exclusively  belonged  to  the  higher  principle  in 
Marcion's  system,  who  did  not  interpose  in  earthly  concerns ; 
«A*<x  pDaat  r,p&t  WXQ  TB  •ffwr.pS  was  consequently  omitted  in 
Maroon's  prayer,  as  unsuitable  to  the  God  whom  that  here- 
tick  exclusively  acknowledged  as  the  object  of  worship,  vid. 
Tert.  ibid.  Epiphan.  ibid.  p.  329.  b.  It  is,  1  trust,  unnecessary 
to  offer  another  remark  on  this  subject.  There  can  be  now 
little  reason  to  doubt  that  the  various  readings  before  us  must 
be  ultimately  referred  to  the  heretick  Marcion  ;  that  they  were 
prepared  for  admission  into  the  sacred  text  in  the  writings  of 
Origen ;  and  were  transferred  from  his  writings  into  the  Pales- 
tiuc  text,  in  the  library  of  Caesarea.  Here  they  were  found  by 


(    491    ) 

taining  the  doxology,  Mat.  vi.  IS9*,  as  connected 
with  the  same  subject.  The  Marcionites,  however, 

St.  Jerome,  and  adopted  in  the  Latin  Vulgate ;  and  thus  came 
to  the  knowledge  of  St.  Augustine:  such  being  the  only  vouchers 
by  whom  they  are  attested.  That  the  Byzantine  text  possesses 
the  genuine  reading,  is  not  merely  evinced  by  this  negative 
argument  arising  from  the  palpable  corruption  of  the  Pales- 
tine. The  reading  of  the  former  text  is  not  only  supported  by 
all  versions,  the  modern  Vulgate  excepted ;  but  by  the  implicit 
testimony  of  Origen  in  the  Eastern  church,  and  of  Tertullian 
in  the  Western:  vid.  Tert.  de  Orat.  cap.  vi.  p.  121. 

9*  This  verse,  containing  the  doxology  of  the  Lord's  prayer, 
in  St.  Matthew,  is  found  in  the  Greek  Vulgate,  and  the  old 
Italick  and  Syriack  Versions,  besides  the  Sahidick,  Ethiopick, 
Arabick,  Persick,  and  some  copies  of  the  Coptick,  but  is  omit- 
ed  in  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine  texts,  and  consequently  in 
the  second  and  third  edition  of  the  Italick  version:  vid.  supr. 
p.  380.  conf.  Griesb.  n.  in  h.  1.  In  Origen's  tract  on  Prayer, 
we  discover  the  source  of  this  defalcation ;  the  text  before  us 
not  having  been  included  expressly  in  his  exposition:  vid* 
Griesb.  ibid.  But  we  cannot  thence  conclude  that  it  was 
wanting  in  Origen's  copies ;  on  the  contrary,  we  must  rather 
conclude  from  his  testimony,  that  he  was  aware  of  its  exist- 
ence in  the  sacred  text.  (1.)  That  he  omits  it  in  his  exposi- 
tion, concludes  nothing;  as  it  really  forms  no  part  of  the  prayer, 
and  consequently  it  did  not  come  within  the  compass  of  Ori- 
gen's design  to  expound  it :  after  having  dispatched  the  last 
petition ,  he  observes ;  Orig.  de  Orat.  Tom.  I.  p.  271.  a.  Sow 
$e  /xo»  ET*  TUV  TOTTWV  Tris  zuyyrtf  ^WXa/3oi/1a,  HTO>  xai<x(ffavaixi  rov 
Xoyov.  (2.)  He  plainly  intimates,  that  something  more  not 
only  existed  in  his  text,  but  that  some  doxology  was  to  close 
the  prayer  which  he  expounded.  Id.  ibid.  d.  ^  ITT*  vrSLcn,  rr,v 
4y^»j»  £J£  £o£oXoy/av  ©eS,  ^»a  Xpj-£  |»  o.y'iu  Utitvpew,  xa^TTai/yc'ov. 
(3.)  He  proceeds  if  not  to  expound  yet  to  illustrate  the  doxo- 
logy, by  a  reference  to  the  Psalms,  which  is  wholly  irrelevant, 
if  we  do  not  consider  the  common  doxology  before  him ;  Id. 
ibid.  d.  wrej  £e  ta?  foTTtf?.  <v? 


(    492    ) 

Jiave  nothing  to  answer  for,  on  the  score  of  can* 
celling  this  verse,  as  they  rejected  the  entire  Gospel 


ev  rat    yoa.ex.is'  TO»  pv  rris  cooyas1  o»a  rvruv    »    xojfu  rptrw 
o  ©so?  u 


STT»  T»}>»  afiraXeiav  aur?,  »   xTuisast  e*  TO?  atova  T« 


As  these  considerations  render  Origen's  testimony  at  least 
neuter  ;  the  following  circumstances  are  fully  adequate  to  esta- 
blish the  authenticity  of  the  disputed  passage.  (1.)  Had  the 
doxology  been  interpolated  in  St.  Matthew,  there  can  be  no 
reason  apparently  assigned,  why  it  should  not  have  been  also 
inset-ted  in  St.  Luke.  (2.)  Its  uniform  omission  in  St.  Luke 
involves  as  strong  an  argument,  evincing  the  probability  of  its 
partial  suppression  in  St.  Matthew,  as  disproving  the  probability 
of  its  partial  interpolation  in  the  text  of  that  Evangelist  :  as 
the  former  correction  might  have  been  made  on  the  autho- 
rity of  St.  Luke,  the  latter  must  have  been  made  against  it. 
(3.)  The  introduction  of  this  passage  in  St.  Matthew,  and  its 
omission  in  Su  Luke,  involves  the  strongest  presumptive  proof, 
that  it  was  dictated  by  our  Saviour.  As  the  forms  of  prayer 
contained  in  the  different  Evangelists  were  given  previously  to 
the  abrogation  of  the  Mosaick  Law,  they  were  accommodated 
to  the  Jewish  Liturgy.  And  in  strict  consonance  with  the  for- 
mularies of  that  Church,  a  doxology  was  subjoined  by  our  Lord 
to  the  publick  form  of  prayer  given  by  him  to  "  the  multitude/9 
-but  omitted  in  that  which  was  delivered  to  "  the  disciple"  who 
asked  him  apart,  and  which  was  to  be  used  in  private;  vid. 
Lighlf.  Hor..Hebr.  in  Mat.  vi.  13.  Tom.  II,  p.  303.  ed»  Amst.— 
"  hoc  potius  in  causa  fuisse,  cur  secunda  formulam  orationis  fla- 
gitarent,  nempe  quod  primam  istam  ipro.publica  reputarent,  cum 
et  ex  adjectiane  Coranidis  Antiphono  publico-  in-  Tenaplo  adee 
simiiis,  prsesertim  vero  ex  adjectlone  Amen  non  nisi  in  crctibus 
usitati,  hoc  facile  argueretur;  oratur  ergo  iterum,  ut  privatim  eos 
.crave  doceat  ;  et  ille  eandem  repetit  formulam  omi&sis  vero  Coro* 
nide  etAmen,  quae  publicum  usuni  sapuerunt."  (4.  )  .  The  subject 
matter  of  the  doxology  is  decisive  of  the  point  at,  issue  ;  as  it  U 
literally  adopted  from  the  Jewish  ritual,  with  the  entire  sub* 


(    493    ) 

in  which  it  occurs.  The  deviation  of  the  Palestine 
text  from  the  Byzantine.,  is  however  easily  account- 
ed for ;  having  originated  from  a  misconception  of 
Grig-en's  testimony,  which  was  conceived  to  nega- 
tive a  passage  which  it  merely  passed  over. 

Of  the  texts  next  in  importance  to  those  which 

stance  of  the  Prayer  before  us;  Lightf.  ib.  p.  303.  How  it  could 
have  made  its  way  into  the  sacred  text,  and  have  been  append- 
ed to  the  form  of  Prayer,  which,  as  delivered  by  Christ  himself, 
must  have  been  deemed  absolutely  perfect,  must  for  ever  baffle 
the  ingenuity  of  criticks  or  casuists,  to  discover.  (5.)  In  four- 
fold  difficulty  must  such  a  supposition  be  embarrassed,  when  it 
is  remembered,  that  all  the  doxologies,  used  by  the  primitive 
Church,  were  Trinitarian.  We  have  short  forms  of  this  kind, 
which  were  used  in  the  age  of  S.  Ignatius,  Justin  Martyr,  Ori- 
gen,  Dionysius  Alexandrinus,  St.  Athanasius,  St.  Basil,  &c. ; 
but  they  are  all  addressed  to  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost. 
That  at  the  early  period,  when  the  doxology  was  incorporated 
'in  the  text,  a  doxology  could  have  been  adopted  from  the 
avowed  enemies  of  the  Church,  and  one  \  hich  favoured  their 
Anti-trinitarian  prejudices  against  Christianity,  is  a  supposition 
which  I  shall  not  waste  a  word  in  refuting.  That  it  was  superseded 
by  a  Trinitarian  doxology  in  the  next  age  to  that  which  suc- 
ceeded the  apostolical,  is  evident  from  the  testimony  of  Lucian, 
who  alludes  to  such  a  doxology  in  the  following  terms ;  Lucian. 
Philopatr.Tom.il.  p.  1011.  e.  ed.  1619.  sWov  TBTOK  TW  tt/xyv  ano 

n«7§OS-  Oflfa/Bejof  x}  TTjV  TTOXUUVVWV  &$7JV  tlf  7^0?  IflflSlic.       In  this 

consideration  alone  I  find  a  sufficient  answer  to  the  negative  ar- 
gument, against  its  authenticity,  which  has  been  deduced  from 
the  silence  of  the  early  fathers.  As  it  occurs  in  the  Aposto- 
lical Constitutions,  and  is  acknowledged,  if  not  implicitly  by 
Origen,  yet  expressly  by  St.  Chrysostome,  we  have,  in  those 
witnesses,  sufficient  vouchers  for  its  authenticity.  The  autho- 
rity of  St.  Luke,  aided  by  that  of  Origen,  afforded  Eusebius. 
sufficient  grounds  to  omit  it  in  his  text ;  and  on  the  authority 
of  his  text,  it  has  been  suppressed  in  the  versions  which  have 
descended  from  the  Palestine  edition. 


(    49*    ) 

have  been  specified,  Joh.  i.  27  95.  relates  to  the  pre- 

DS  This  passage  has  been  already  exhibited,  supi.  p.  384-. 
Origen  having  occasionally  omitted  it  in  quoting  the  context, 
seems  to  have  afforded  Eusebius  sufficient  grounds  for  suppress- 
ing it  ;  the  Arian  tendency  of  his  opinions,  or  more  probably 
the  desire  of  discountenancing  the  notion  of  Origen  respecting 
the  pre-existence  of  the  soul,  having  induced  him  to  cancel  it 
in  his  edition.  But  Eusebius  is  here  wholly  deserted  by  the 
authority  of  his  master;  as  Origen  has  not  only  repeatedly 
quoted  this  passage,  but  has  expressly  insisted  on  it,  in  proving 
the  divinity  of  our  Lord  ;  Orig.  Comm.  in  Joh.  Tom.  IV.  p. 

107.  3.  -  ffU&S    TO     T» 


B«9rJir»JS  itws  *  epoTT^OffSsv  avrfi  ygyovev*  'IvcrSs    vu  n^uros  avru, 
iirsi  '  WfUTQTowS  iratfM  Kltffivs*  eTiai,  2»«  T£,  ort  '  Ix  T» 


ort  wpwras  /IX8  »Jv.  Conf.  p.  80.  a.  89.  b.  c.  106.  d. 
109.  d.  After  this  express  allegation  of  the  passage  before  us 
by  Origen,  it  seems  unnecessary  to  bestow  any  attention  on  the 
negative  argument  deduced  against  it,  from  the  silence  of 
Cyril,  Nonnus,  or  Chrysostome.  A  difficulty  in  reconciling 
•ylyom,  in  vera.  3.  and  27.  afforded  sufficient  grounds  for  its' 
omission  by  those  antient  fathers  ;  since,  if  taken  in  the  same 
sense  in  both  places,  vers.  3.  either  reduced  Christ  into  the 
rank  of  a  mere  creature,  or  vers.  27.  was  incompatible  with  his 
glory  as  the  authour  of  the  creation.  The  cause  of  its  omission 
in  the  Verona  MS.  may  be  at  once  seen  on  turning  to  n.  86. 
supr.  p.  146  :  and  as  to  its  suppression  in  the  Coptick  and  Ethi- 
opick  versions,  it  is  sufficiently  accounted  for  in  the  circum- 
stance of  its  being  omitted  in  the  Palestine  text,  from  whence 
those  versions  descended.  The  negative  argument  against  it 
is  consequently  without  any  force  ;  while  the  positive  testimony 
in  its  favour  seems  more  than  adequate  to  its  vindication  ;  not 
only  the  Byzantine  and  Egyptian  texts,  but  the  Italick  and 
Syriack  versions,  with  their  derivatives,  attest  its  authenticity  : 
until  therefore  it  can  be  shown,  how  those  texts  have  been  cor- 
rupted, we  must  necessarily  conclude  the  contested  passage  is 
genuine. 


(    495    ) 

existence  of  Christ,,  and  Luc.  ix.  55 9<5.  to  the  cause 
of  his  advent.  The  Arian  tendency  of  the  reviser 
of  the  Palestine  text,,  and  the  Origenian  tendency 
of  the  reviser  of  the  Egyptian,  respectively  occa- 
sioned the  suppression  of  both  passages.  To  some 
vague  notions,,  which  the  hereticks  held  respecting 
the  object  of  our  Lord's  descent  into  hell,  we  pro- 
bably owe  the  suppression  of  Mar.  vi.  II97.  which 

**  This  passage  has  been  given  at  length,  supr.  p.  383.  As 
it  represents  the  salvation  of  the  soul  as  having  been  the  object 
of  our  Lord's  advent,  without  any  mention  of  the  body,  it  ap- 
parently favoured  the  notion  of  the  Marcionites,  who  main- 
tained this  doctrine  exclusively :  vid.  supr.  p.  4-64%  n. 63.  As 
the  contrary  notion  was  held  by  the  Origenists,  who  believed 
in  the  resurrection,  it  was  first  cancelled  by  them  in  the  Egyp- 
tian text,  and  thence  suppressed  in  the  Palestine :  and  as  Euse- 
bius,  Basil,  Cyril,  and  Gaudentius  followed  the  latter  text,  it 
is  consequently  omitted  in  their  writings.  From  the  opposition 
of  those  witnesses,  the  passage  before  us  of  course  remains  un- 
affected ;  while  it  is  abundantly  supported  by  the  internal  evi- 
dence, and  the  testimony  of  the  best  and  earliest  witnesses. 
(1.)  It  is  inconceivable  that  this  passage  could  have  been  in- 
serted in  the  text  of  the  orthodox,  during  the  prevalence  of  the 
Marciom'te  heresy,  which  continued  till  the  close  of  the  fourth 
century,  vid.  supr.  p.  4?69.  n.  s°.  But  as  it  exists  in  the  old 
Italick  and  Syriack  versions,  it  must  have  been  then  intro- 
duced into  the  sacred  text,  or  have  existed  in  it  from  the 
beginning.  (2.)  As  it  occurs  in  all  versions,  it  is  so  far  sup- 
ported by  the  testimony  of  the  best  and  most  unimpeachable 
evidence ;  and  the  general  falsification  of  so  many  witnesses 
being  wholly  inexplicable,  we  must  receive  it  as  genuine.  (3,} 
As  it  is  acknowledged  by  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Dionysius 
the  Areopagite,  and  Theophanes  of  the  Eastern  Church,  and 
by  Cyprian,  Ambrose,  Augustine,  &c.  of  the  Western,  it  seems 
idle  in  the  extreme  to  question  its  authenticity. 

*7  This  passage  has  been  already  given  at  large  supr.  p.  382. 


(    496    ) 

may  be  joined  with  the  preceding  texts,  as  not  un- 
connected with  them  in  subject. 

Of  the  remaining*  passages  in  which  the  Greek 
-Vulg-ate  differs  from  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine 
texts,  Job.  v.  3, 49S.  refers  to  the  angelical  hierar- 

An  adequate  cause  for  its  suppression  in  the  Egyptian  text  may 
be  suggested  in  the  apprehensions  indulged  by  the  Origenists, 
that  it  might  be  employed  by  the  hereticks,  to  support  their 
notion  relative  to  the  salvation  of  the  Sodomites ;  S.  Iren.  adv. 
Heer.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xxvii.  §  3.  p.  106. — "  Sodomitas  et  JEgyptios 
[Marcion  docuit],  et  omncs  omnino  gentes,  quse  in  omni  per- 
mixtione  malignitatis  ambulaverunt,  salvatas  essc  a  Domino, 
cum  desccndisset  ad  infer  os^'  &c.  It  is  certain,  that  some  of 
the  hereticks,  who  rivalled  those  nations  in  their  diabolical 
excesses,  rejected  all  the  Evangelists  but  St.  Mark ;  and  that 
the  Catholicks  had  formed  some  hope  that  they  might  be  led 
out  of  their  errours  by  reading  the  Gospel  of  that  Evangelist, 
which  was  better  calculated  to  answer  this  end,  when  the  dis- 
puted passage  was  cancelled ;  Id.  ibid.  Lib.  III.  cap.  xi.  §  7.. 
p.  190.  "  Qui  autem  Jesum  separant  a  Christo,  et  impassibi-. 
lein  perseverasse  Christum,  passum  vero  Jesum  dicunt,  id  quod 
secundum  Marcum  est  prccjcrentes  Evangclium  ;  cum  amore 
yeritatis  legentes  ittud  corrigi  possunt."  As  these  considera- 
tions account  for  the  negative  testimony  of  the  Egyptian  text, 
and  its  derivatives ;  they  add  the  strongest  confirmation  to  the 
reading  of  the  Byzantine,  which  is  supported  by  the  primitive 
Italick  and  Syriack  versions;  since  the  same  circumstances 
must  have  created  equal  obstacles  to  prevent  the  interpolation 
of  the  latter  edition,  as  to  induce  the  mutilation  of  the  former. 
And  it  must  be  observed,  in  confirmation  of  the  received  text, 
that  it  is  supported  by  the  Verceli  iMS.  against  the  Egyptian 
edition.  The  weight  of  testimony  adduced  on  the  present 
question,  thus  clearly  lies  on  the  side  of  the  Greek  Vulgate. 

98  This  passage,  relative  to  the  descent  of  the  angel  in  the 
pool  of  Bethesda,  has  been  already  laid  before  the  reader,  supr. 
p.  374.  Sufficient  grounds  for  its  suppression  in, the  Egyptian 


(    497    ) 

chy;  These  verses  were  probably  omitted  on  this 
account,  by  the  Origenists,  who  were  professed 
enemies  of  the  Valentinians  ;  as  these  hereticks  per- 

text,  existed  in  the  tenets  of  the  Marcosians.  These  hereticks, 
representing  Jesus  as  a  separate  person  from  Christ  ;  conceiv- 
ing the  latter  the  Spirit  who  descended  on  Jesus  in  the  shape 
of  a  dove,  distinguished  between  baptism  for  the  remission  of 
sins,  and  redemption  to  perfection,  and  ascribed  the  former  to 
the  visible  Jesus,  but  the  latter  to  the  invisible  Christ;  S.  Iren. 
adv.  Heer.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xxi.  §  2.  p.  94.  TO  /*§>  $1  /3t*7r7i<7pc,a  T» 


,  el$  Tf*sWt».     The  latter  they  termed  not  only 

e»$    T&tiajiv,    but    hvTpuffl$    'A/ysXtx*?,    "  the    angelick 

redemption  ;"  .  supposing  that  the  persons  who  received  it$ 
were  made  partakers  of  the  Divine  nature,  like  the  angelical 
hierarchy  ;  conf.  Iren.  ibid.  §  3.  p.  95.  As  the  Catholicks  con- 
sidered the  Angel  descending  in  the  pool  of  Bethesda,  a  type 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  descending  on  the  laver  of  regeneration  ; 
vid.  Tert.  ut  supr.  p.  874'.;  the  Marcosians  confounded  the 
Angel  Gabriel  with  the  Divine  Logos  mentioned  by  St.  John, 
vid.  S.  Iren.  ibid.  cap.  xv.  §  3.  p.  77.  As  the  passage  be- 
fore us  might  have  been,  perverted,  or  was  really  quoted  by  the 
hereticks,  to  favour  their  superstitious  practices  ;  it  is  highly 
probable,  that  the  reviser  of  the  Egyptian  text,  who  certainly 
cancelled  Mat.  xx.  20.  on  similar  grounds,  also  obliterated  Job. 
v.  3,  4.  vid.  infr.  n.  ".  As  these  considerations  seem  ade- 
quate to  account  for  the  variation  of  the  Egyptian  edition,  and 
its  derivatives,  from  the  Byzantine  ;  and  as  the  latter  is  sup- 
ported by  the  testimony  of  all  Versions,  but  a  few  copies  of  the 
Italick  and  Armenian,  and  is  confirmed  by  Tertullian,  Chrysos- 
lome,  Cyril,  &c.  there  can  be  no  reason  to  doubt,  that  it  re- 
tains the  genuine  reading.  The  very  varieties  in  the  text  which 
omit  the  disputed  passage,  indirectly  confirm  the  Greek  Vul- 
gate ;  as  they  omit  different  portions  of  it,  they  destroy  thei^ 
common  testimony  by  vaiying  from  each  other;  and  as  they 
thus  partially  agree  with  the  received  reading,  they  confirm  ii 
by  their  separate  testimony.- 


(    498    ) 

verted  the  doctrine  relative  to  that  order  of  beings, 
to  many  superstitious  purposes.     The  causes  which 

occasioned  the  suppression  of  Mat.  xx.  23",  arc 

. 

99  Those  passages,  which  have  been  already  quoted,  supr. 
p.  381.  evidently  owe  their  suppression  in  the  Egyptian  and 
Palestine  texts,  to  the  influence  of  the  Marcionite  and  Marcosian 
heresies,  seconded  by  the  authority  of  Origen.  The  founder  of 
those  heresies  having  maintained  the  efficacy  of  a  second  and  third 
baptism,  in  washing  away  the  sins  contracted  after  the  first 
ablution;  those  passages  apparently  afforded  some  countenance 
to  their  notions.  In  this  sense  they  Wrested  the  parallel  pas- 
sage, in  Luc.  xii.  50.  which  occurred  in  the  only  Gospel  which 
they  acknowledged;  vid.  S.  Epiphan.  User.  XLII.  p.  304.  c. 
The  Marcosians,  who  distinguished  between  baptism  for  re- 
mission,  and  redemption  to  perfection,  improved  on  this  doc- 
trine ;  vid.  supr.  p.  497.  n.  98 :  and  as  they  acknowledged  the 
authority  of  St.  Matthew,  as  well  as  St.  Luke,  they  appealed 
particularly  to  the  former,  in  confirmation  of  their  opinions, 
citing  the  disputed  passage,  S.  Iren.  adv.  Haer.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xxi. 
§  2.  p.  94/xJ  TO  /xgv  /3a*7«rpca  vvo  'lucivta  *ahfy&&»  IK  f*sJ«- 

»o»ax,  TflV  0£  aTToXl/rgwffiv  viro  'Ii)fffi  xExo/gu<7§ai  IK  T£Xettf^»».  xj  T£T* 

.*  \r./  «      \    w , 

ftvat    9Tsg*   a    htytf    '  x,   a/ 

of  tit      '   "    '^  ' 


TO  xaio-ai  avru<;     K,    twv  x    aptrt^y   ^ET    avrii,  tls  T*}> 
TTJV 


As  this  quotation  cannot  be  referred  to  St.  Mark,  the  latter 
Evangelist  not  mentioning  "  the  mother  of  Zebedee's  children,'* 
£comp.  Mat.  xx.  20.  Mar.  x.  3/3.]  we  have  here  an  express  tes- 
timony from  St.  Irenseus  and  the  Marcosians  in  favour  of  the 
disputed  passage  ;  and  the  true  source  pointed  out  which  occa- 
sioned its  removal  from  the  Egyptian  edition.  Origen,  in  ex- 
pounding the  passage  before  us,  was  thoroughly  aware  of  the 
use  to  which  it  had  been  applied  by  the  hereticks  ;  he  conse- 
quently obviates  the  conclusion  which  might  be  deduced  from 
it,  by  expounding  it  so  as  to  shut  out  the  notion  of  a  second 
baptism.  In  one  of  the  two  places  where  he  has  referred  to  it, 


(    499    ) 

itiuch  more  apparent  ;  the  influence  of  the  Marci- 
onite  tenets  on  Origin's  Commentaries,  having  ob* 


he  supplies  the  present  w»x«,  for  the  future  y.l\\u  wfmt,  contrary 
to  the  text  of  St.  Matthew  ;  Orig.  Exhort,  ad  Martyr.  Tom.  I. 

p.  291.  b.  WKO.  ya%  /Kf»fo»flj  wflyoyl*  T»/*?f$  o»  &\o»l£j  la  &i>iuv  xj  I| 
TU  'lijcrS  if  TIJ  #«ir*?vi»a  avrv,  p»j<y»  TT^O?  avrtif 
9m*V  TO  wol^to*  o  syu  fln'vw  ;'  woT^pw  fc/yw»  «rS 
St.  Matthew  however  reads  ^»«o-Se  mtu  TO  vol^iof 
•  iyw  /xe^Xft;  TrieTv.  In  the  other,  he  corrects  himself,  fully 
acknowledging  the  vulgar  reading  to  be  genuine,  while  he  qua- 
lifies it  by  referring  to  St.  Mark,  who  had  written  «•»»«  for 
Tv;  Id.  Comm.  in  Mat.  Tom.  III.  p.  717.  c. 

n-   TO 


The  dif- 

ference between  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark  consequently  lay, 
not  in  the  one  having  omitted,  and  the  other  retained,  TO 
/JawlKT/A*  5  \yu  ^awKJo//,**  (3«7rI*7S5}»«»  ;  but  in  the  one  having 
read  Jyw  w/Vw,  the  other  lyu  pbAu  irteTv.  But  this  distinction 
having  been  overlooked  by  the  reviser  of  the  Egyptian  text, 
the  former  notion  was  adopted,  and  the  passage  accordingly 
cancelled,  apparently  with  Origen's  sanction,  who  was  thud 
completely  misrepresented.  That  the  Greek  Vulgate  retains 
the  genuine  reading,  cannot  admit  of  a  doubt.  (1.)  It  is  sup- 
ported by  the  evidence  of  the  best  and  oldest  witnesses  ;  the 
primitive  Italick  and  the  Vulgar  Syriack.  (2.)  As  it  conse- 
quently existed  in  the  sacred  text  at  an  early  period  ;  if  it  id 
an  interpolation,  it  must  have  been  a  direct  concession  to  the 
Marcosians,  which  will  be  scarcely  deemed  probable.  (3.)  It 
must  have  made  its  way  into  the  text  in  opposition  to  the  testi- 
mony of  Origen,  which  supposition  must  be  deemed  fully  as 
improbable  as  the  last  ;  as  there  could  be  no  possible  object  in 
making  such  a  correction.  Assuming  it  therefore  as  obvious, 
that  the  vulgar  reading  is  genuine,  every  deviation  from  it  is 
easily  accounted  for.  Having  been  suppressed  in  the  Egyp- 
tian text  on  Origen's  authority  misunderstood,  it  was  conse- 
quently omitted,  on  the  strength  of  the  same  authority  in  the 


(     500    ) 

viously  furnished  the  revisers  of  the  Egyptian  and 
Palestine  texts  with  sufficient  authority  for  omitting 
this  remarkable  passage. 

In  a  word,  there  exists  not  a  peculiarity  in  the 
tenets  of  those  hereticks,  or  in  the  texts  which  they 
followed,  which  has  not  left  some  deep  mark  imj 
pressed  on  the  editions  of  the  sacred  text  which 
were  published  in  Egypt  and  Palestine.  To  form 
antitheses  between  the  Law  and  the  Gospel,  had 
been  a  leading  object  with  Marcion,  in  order  to 
illustrate  the  beneficent  character  of  the  first  prin- 
ciple, and  the  severe  character  of  the  second,  in 
his  religious  system  I0°,  Many  of  the  corrections 
of  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine  texts  have  conse- 
quently originated  in  attempts  to  destroy  the  force 
of  those  antitheses  in  the  sacred  text,  which  had 
been  pointed  by  Marcion101.  Some  have  arisen  in 

Palestine  edition.  After  the  example  of  the  former  text,  it  was 
omitted  of  course  in  the  Sahidick  and  revised  Italick  versions; 
and  after  that  of  the  latter,  in  the  Latin  Vulgate,  Coptick, 
Ethiopick,  and  Persick.  And  as  St.  Epiphanius  and  Jerome 
followed  the  Palestine  text,  and  St.  Hilary,  Ambrose,  and 
Juvencus,  used  the ,  revised  Italick  translation,  it  is  of  course 
omitted  in  their  writings.  The  negative  testimony  of  these 
writers  can  therefore  have  no  weight  when  set  against  the  con- 
curring testimony  of  the  primitive  Italick  and  Syriack,  aided 
-  i  by  the  internal  evidence,  and  the  testimony  of  Irenaeus. 

JCO  Vid.  supr.  p.  464.  n.  *\ 

101  Immediately  preceding  the  long  passage  suppressed  in 
Luc.  ix>  56.  vid.  supr.  p.  383.  in  consequence  of  its  connexion 
with  the  Mar,cionite  notions,  vid.  supr.  p.  495.  n.  9°.  the  follow- 
ing antithesis  occurs  in  the  Vulgar  Greek;  Ibid.  54.  55. 

' 


(    501     ) 
endeavours  to.  amend  his  gross  perversions  IOVor 


£«?  os  tTnri^ricsy  at/To?;,  xj  HTT£»*  Ovx  otoant 
Irs  £/",£*?•  5  y<*£  n'o$  K.  T.  I*  The  opposition  in  this  passage 
between  the  mild  spirit  of  the  New  Covenant  and  the  severe 
character  of  the  Old,  is  forcibly  pointed  ;  the  passage  was  con- 
sequently taken  by  Marcion  as  an  example  of  his  antithesis  : 
Tert.  adv.  Marc.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  xxiii.  p.  429.  Repraesentat 
Creator  ignium  plagam,  Helia  postulante,  in  illo  pseudopro- 
pheta.  Agnosce  Judicis  severitatem  :  e  contrario  Christi  leni- 
tatem  increpantis  eandem  animadversionem,"  &c.  By  the  sup- 
pression of  us  %  HA/«?  ITT>W&,  the  antithesis,  if  not  destroyed, 
was  at  least  kept  out  of  view  ;  this  phrase,  though  found  in  the 
Byzantine  and  Egyptian  texts,  and  in  the  old  Jtalick  and  Sy- 
riack  versions,  is  however  suppressed  in  the  Palestine  text,  m 
the  Latin  Vulgate,  and  in  the  Coptick  and  Armenian  versions. 
This  various  reading  has  obviously  originated  in  the  desire  to 
destroy  the  antithesis,  of  Mareion, 

I0*  St.  Paul,  referring  to  Deut.  xxv.  4.  expresses  himself  aa 
follows  ;  1  Cor.  ix.  8,  9.  %  toy)  *}  °  vo/^os-  ratvroc,  J\e'y«  ;  "  ya^ 
tu  Mo?<7£&>?  WfAU  yiyya.'rria.i*  Qv  (pipucrm;  @£v  otfauvrot.  ^  tuv  @ouv 
fiE^ci  TU  Stu.  But  Marcion,  not  admitting  the  authority  of  tha 
Law,  corrected  the  passage  as  follows  ;  S.  Epiphan.  Haer.  xlii*. 
p.-  355.  d.  /AtTojXay^s^?  am  yot^  T«  l»  ru  [1 


&eyn  &  ir£>  THTS,  *  c'i  xj  o  vo/xoy  ra&ra  8  XeV^t*'  thus  destroying 
the  appeal  to  the  Law,  and  its  testimony  as  cited  in  favour  of 
the  Apostle.  The  various  reading  of  the  Egyptian  text  has 
originated  in  a  correction  made  with  a  view  to  the  primitive 
reading,  and  the  alteration  of  Marcion.  In  the  Augean  and 
Bcenerian  MSS.  we  find,  %  el  K«.\  o  »opof  ruvra.  Xsye'  :  the  tes- 
timony of  the  Law  is  here  admitted,  in  opposition  to  Marcion'  's 
correction  ;  but  the  appeal  to  it  is  less  forcibly  put  than  in  St. 
Paul.  The  truth  is,  that  the  antecedent  passage  in  the  Apos- 
tle's text  looks  so  like  a  quotation  from  the  Old  Testament, 
though  it  is  nothing  of  the  kind,  that  the  reviser  of  the  Egyp- 
dan  text,  who  had  no  means  of  verifying  the  fact,  was  afraid 
of  the  phrase  o  vo'/xoj  rxvra  A«'y*»,  and  introduces  the  following 


C    503    ) 
his  foul  aspersions  of  the  LawfoJ:  and  some  in 

quotation,  not  by  appealing  to  its  testimony,  but  by  proposing 
-ifcas  a  doubt;  «  c!  ^  5  vo^s  tout-ra,  AjV5*-  The  tame  difficulty 
eeems  to  have  struck  Origen,  but  he  disposes  of  it  in  a  different 
way.  Adhering  more  closely  to  the  original,  he  preserves  the 
hole  of  the  words ;  but  he  alters  the  position  of  the  particle 
w,  after  the  example  of  Marcion,  and  thus  leaves  the  point 
ambiguous,  of  which  he  was  doubtful ;  Orig.  contr,  Cels.  Lib. 
II.  cap.  iii.  p.  388.  e.  n  x*t  o  >o/uo?  T*£T«  «  Asytt ;  iv  yap  ry 
M«<rE«?  >o/xw  y/ypwla*.  This  reading  has  been  adopted  in  the 
Palestine  text,  and  of  consequence  in  the  Latin  Vulgate,  and 
the  Coptick  and  Armenian  versions.  As  there  can  be  no  rea- 
son to  doubt,  from  the  direct  object  and  decisive  language  of 
St.  Paul,  that  the  Greek  Vulgate  preserves  the  genuine  read* 
Ing,  particularly  as  it  is  confirmed  by  the  testimony  of  the  old 
Italick  and  Syriack  versions;  there  can  be  little  reason  to 
question  that  the  various  readings  of  the  passage  before  us 
have  originated  from  the  first  disturbance  of  the  sacred  text  by 
Marcion. 

103  A  remarkable  reading,  in  which  the  Byzantine  and  Pa- 
lestine texts  differ,  occurs  1  Cor.  x,  19.  T*'  «»  ?»*** ;  or*  rf 
ti  «r»» ;  v  fa  Ui&yXoSvrov  *'»  sf»> :  *Xx'  «•»  a.  Svit  ret 

*  W  S«i  x«t  «  ©«« .  JB^r.  thus  corrected  by  Marcion,  accord* 
ing  to  St.  Epiphanius,  Ib.  p.  320.  d.  ri  «v 

T'  Sri" ;  ^  CT»  ig§6S«/TOV  o-i  lr» ;  a^X*  w  a  Svw* 
The  cause  of  this  disturbance  of  the  received  reading  is  speci- 
fied by  St.  Epiphanius,  Ib.  p.  359.  b.  cu  ^e  J  Magxivv,  irfo<rg» 
Sr?xa?  TO*  ' 

*  fipS*  T£  KO 

TO  T»J« 
ffav?«v  fV 
^fy^vlofuy^y   xai   ^w/xerjiyoi-lwv    [1. 

^^us  w^0'  wae  superseded  by  » 
Jn  order  to  bring  disrepute  on  the  Jewish  Law,  which  Marcion 
held  in  no  estimation;  r*  t'S^j  having  been  consequently  sup- 
pressed, as  inconsistent  with  tliis  application  of  the  passage. 
The  reviser  of  the  Egyptian  edition  having  made  use  of  .here- 


(    503    ) 

attempts  to  correct  his  false  notions  relative  to  the 
nature  and  attributes  of  God I04,  the  person  of  Chris  t, 

tical  texts  in  compiling  that  edition,  very  closely  follows  the 
reading  of  Marcion.  Deviating  however  from  the  principal 
emendation,  he  read,  «%  OT»  Ei$aXov  sr»  T',  instead  of  %  it* 
«6gd$i/7ov  T»  lr»:  and  thus  removed  the  heretical  tendency  of 
the  text,  while  he  obviated  the  inference  which  might  be  drawn 
from  the  true  reading  on  sVJwXov  T«  Ir»* ;  as  implying  that  ido- 
latry was  an  indifferent  matter.  The  reviser  of  the  Palestine  text 
having  thus  a  choice  between  the  Byzantine  and  Egyptian  edi- 
tions, adopted  a  reading  which  partly  agreed  with  both  in  the 
first  ckuse;  following  the  order  of  the  latter  text,  but  retaining 
the  terms  of  the  former.  But  in  the  second  clause,  he  agreed 
with  the  Egyptian  text,  in  following  the  reading  of  Marcion  : 
he  consequently  read  T»'  3»  $»»n*»;  ««  •ftifcMMti  T*  *ri»;  3  «« 
eVSwXov  -n  *>*;  &x**  or*  a  Sfaffi  &*»/*<>»*»?  S&ffi  «  ©i«.  Some 
copies  however  of  the  Palestine  text  omit  «T»  iJ&XoStflw  T»  lr»» ; 
and  others,  $  &V»  t»wto»  »»  lr» ;  some  superfluity  having  been 
conceived  to  exist  in  this  text,  which  was  interpolated  by  Mar- 
cion, it  was  consequently  removed  by  each  reviser,  according  to 
the  bias  of  his  judgment  or  principles.  Thus  admitting  the 
Vulgar  Greek  to  retain  the  genuine  reading,  every  corruption 
of  the  text  may  be  traced  from  the  first  correction  of  Mar- 
cion ;  the  various  readings  obviously  destroying  the  credit  of 
one  another,  while  they  add  some  confirmation  to  the  received 
reading :  of  its  authenticity  there  cannot  of  course  be  any  rea- 
son to  doubt. 

104  In  the  Byzantine  and  Palestine  texts  we  read,  Mat.  xxv. 

41.  7rogE^E<7$£  UK    ^y.5  01  KO\-fi^a.pivoi    tit  TO  TTV£  TO  olvHQ*  TO  r/TOJpLStff. 

fxsvov  TV  hocBfaa*  but  in  the  Egyptian  text,  TO  foot  par  pi  to*  is 
superseded  by  o  'wroiiuunt  5  TTat7^§  /M.«.  Both  readings  are 
found  in  Origen ;  the  former  in  Coram.  in  Horn.  Tom.  IV. 
p.  463.  d :  the  latter  in  Comm.  in  Mat.  Tom.  III.  p.  885.  e. 
There  can  be  little  doubt  however,  that  the  latter  reading  is 
merely  a  gloss  on  the  former ;  the  phrase  having  been  changed 
as  a  corrective  to  the  notion  of  the  Marcionites,  who  asserted 
the  existence  of  a  second  God,  besides  the  Father  of  Christ, 


(    504    ) 
and  the  character  of  the  legal  dispensation Ios.     In 

to  whom  they  ascribed  the  attributes  of  justice  and  severity ; 
^vid.  supr.  p.  463.  n.  59.  This  reading  may  be  probably  referred 
to  Justin  Martyr,  who  maintained  a  controversy  against  Marr 
cion,  and  who  has  given  to  similar  texts  a  like  tendency ;  vid. 
supr.  Just.  Mart.  supr.  p.  465.  n.  66.  p.  474.  n. 87.  conf.  Dial,  cum 
Tryph.  p.  301.  d.  From  Justin  Martyr,  it  descended  to  Ire- 
naeus,  Tertullian,  Origen,  &c.  and  thus  made  its  way  into  the 
Egyptian  edition;  from  whence  it  regularly  passed  into  the 
revised  Italick  version ;  but  under  circumstances,  which  dis? 
close  that  it  was  adopted  in  this  text  by  an  unskilful  correcr 
tion;  vid.  supr.  p.  383.  n.  I?0.  As  the  reading  of  the  Greek  Vul? 
gate  is  not  only  corroborated  by  the  testimony  of  the  primitive 
Italick  and  Syriack,  but  by  all  known  versions  but  the  revised 
Latin,  which  is  entitled  to  no  voice,  as  it  was  corrected  by  the 
Egyptian  edition ;  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  retains  the 
genuine  reading ;  particularly  as  it  is  supported  by  the  testi- 
mony of  Origen  in  the  Eastern  Church,  and  of  Tertullian  in 
the  Western ;  vid.  Orig.  ub?  supr.  ccjif.  Tert.  de  Carn* 
Christ,  cap.  xiv.  p.  306. 

105  The  following  examples  may  be  offered  in  support  of  the 
aboye  assertion.  In  the  Egyptian  text,  the  following  interpo- 
lation occurs,  Luc.  VI.  5.  ry  a.vtn  ypiea,  StcureciAivos  rtvsc. 
ftivov  fa  <7a#/3a]a;,  slvtv  etvru'  avS^sp,  a  f*Ev  oliiets  ri 
frzxcipwi;  11*  tl  <5e  pi)  ot^atf,  fTix.»lotpotlof  xa;t  wapa/Sofa?  ti  r 

And  the  following  occurs  in  the  Palestine,  IVIat.  xxvii.  49, 

h&fiuv  hoyxyft  £tv%ev  ctvrii  ryv  7r^£ygav,  not]  l|^A$«v   vbug  next 

The  latter  passage  is  plainly  taken  from  Joh.  xix.  34. 
and  is  here  probably  opposed  to  the  Marcionites,  or  other, 
Docetae,  who  denied  the  Incarnation,  and  rejected  the  testi- 
mony of  Stf  John ;  or  possibly  omitted  this  passage  in  their 
copies  of  the  Evangelists ;  vid.  supr.  p.  464.  n.  f*.  From  what- 
ever source  the  antecedent  passage  is  adopted,  it  obviously  fur- 
nishes an  authority  against  those  ^ereticks,  who  blasphemed 
the  Jewish  Law,  and  conceived  that  Christ  came  to  destroy  1% 
vid.  supr.  p.  463.  n.  6o. 

,106  The  reading  of  the  Byzantine  text  in  Luc.  xii,  38,  has 


(    505    ) 

this  manner  it  is  not  uncommon  to  find  the  peculiar 
phrases  of  Marcion's  text106,  and  the  very  order  of 

been  already  stated  supr.  p.  185.  n.  I51.  The  source  of  the 
various  readings  of  this  passage  is  revealed  in  the  following  de- 
scription of  the  correction  of  Marcion ;  S,  Epiphan.  Haer.  XLII, 

p.    314.    b.    ai-li    rS1     f   Ssvl^ot    v)     Tftry    tyv"ha.v.rt?    £'{%£>    f    SfTrsfivw 

ipvteKw.9  The  grounds  of  this  correction  are  thus  suggested 
by  St.  Epiphanius;  Ibid.  p.  335.  i^*W^  o  xl-w^s  /*t!arfs'4<"*? 
7-yj  Sims  Aoyfc?£  avovruf  if^os  TTJV  soivlu  VTTQVOIX.V.  u  yap  ^uzpyai 
ylvovloti  (pvhottal,  «A*a  vvx]t^voiit  aTTO  sffTiE^af  eif  TOJV  w^wrriv 
tyv\a.WV)  npos-MTrriv  T^J  iTretlcccrtdx;  £^«ra*,  JG  »t  aTTO  TV)$  sw  ali' 
rr,v  sam'gav,  w?  «TO?  ^i^x.Elat  pa^acy^fa?.  The  received  readr 
ing  having  been  thus  disturbed,  the  various  reading  of  the 
corrected  texts  are  formed  with  a  view  to  the  errours  of  Mar-f 
cion.  While  they  admit  his  correction  into  the  text,  they  give 
the  context  such  a  turn  as  to  subvert  his  notion  that  the  watcfr 
ended  with  evening.  The  Egyptian  text  consequently  reads  ; 
Luc.  ib.  38.  y.oii  iu.v  .il&y  (r^  icrssgjyy}  fyuXaxri,  v.cu 
WOWGSl'  x-oii  lav]  tv  Ty  $iv)ip&.  Kctl  Ty  TpT>5,  />tax-a^oi  Hi 

and  some  copies  of  the  Palestine;  x*;  Jov   iA$3j  (rr>  e 
evpy  x-cuc,   7?oixiilx.s  ^,y,y.y.o(^i  s'iffiv'  OTI  av 
a^TOfV*    ?iavj  IK  TVJ   ^-Jls^x.  xat  Iv  TV)  T^TYI   tyvXaxr,  lASsj; 

x.ot.i  iu%r,  WTW;  //,ax«f*o»  ticrn»  sxer>ot.  fhe  parentheses  in  these 
examples  clearly  mark  fhe  interpolation;  «rwf  irwo-u  in  th^ 
Egyptian  text,  being  drawn  out  in  the  Palestine  into  £TU$ 
w-0»2>l*?  potKoipioi  £*<«»•  or*  «.  r  I.  which  is  repeated  from  vers.  37. 
In  fact,  the  revisers  of  both  texts  being  here  deserted,  both  by 
the  received  text  and  the  text  of  IVlarcion,  found  thernselyes 
at  liberty  to  pursue  their  own  course  in  incorporating  his  read- 
ing in  their  revisajs.  Consequently,  while  these  texts  destroy 
Jjie  testimony  of  each  qther,  they  ad^  the  strongest;  confirma- 
tion to  the  reading  of  the  Greek  Vulgate.  They  mutually 
retain  all  that  could  be  borrowed  from  it,  o*  <&AO*  excepted, 
which  was  obviously  omitted  to  abridge  a  sentence  that  was 
embarrassed  by  a  long  interpolation  ;  they  respectively  contra- 
dict each  other  in  adopting  more  than  it  contains,  and  thus 


(    506    ) 

iiis  language  l°7',  retained  in  the  Egyptian  and  Pa- 
lestine texts,  though  the  passages  adopted  from  his 
Gospel  and  Apostolicum  are  given  a  totally  different 
application  from  that  which  they  possess  in  his 
writings..  Through  various  channels  those  read- 
ings might  have  crept  into  the  edition  of  Eusebius. 
The  scripture-text  of  Tatian,  which  most  probably 
conformed  in  many  respects  to  the  Gospel  and 
Apostolicum  of  Marcion  lo8;  the  text  of  Hesychius, 

leave  their  joint  or  separate  authority,  when  differing  from  the 
received  text,  deserving  of  no  consideration. 

107  One  of  the  longest  extracts  from  Marcion's  Apostolicum 
is  taken  from  1  Cor.  x.  1 — 9.  11.  transcribed  by  St.  Epipha- 
nius,  HaT.  XLII.  p.  320.  c.  and  repeated,  Ib.  p.  357.  b.  With 
reference  to  the  Marcionite  notions,  it  omits  the  following  pas- 
sages; Ibid.  1.  x«f  wavlsf  ft;  lov  Muryv  s/3awliaa»1o,  lv  ty  vs<p&* 

KOU     It    T*)     •3M\GLffff1fl*        iblu.    8.     Lt,V,o£    VFOPVlVUtAtVy     XfifcvWJ     TJV£?     CtVTUV 

tTTotvtvff'atf  xsti  cTrcaoy  \v  ^u«    yp,ipac.  fixoa/)^£ij  ^tXta^s?.      It  deviates 

however  in  the  following  passages,  from  the  Greek  Vulgate ; 
in  which  it  is  followed  by  the  Palestine  edition,  as  collated 
by  Euthalius,  and  found  in  the  Alexandrine  and  Vatican  MSS. 
Jbid.  1.  S/Xw  £E.  Vulg.  S/x^  70?^.  Marc.  Pal.  Ibid.  @fupa, 

ftttlMov   i'tyuyov.    Vulg.   vrvwfjicLlLxov   tQayov  $£upa.  Marc.  PdL 
irvtvpxlulv  £7riov.   Vulg.  9mt/Yxohxo»  iif^v  9ro/xa.  Marc.  Pal. 

.  I08  Tatian  was  a  follower  of  Marcion,  having  adopted  from 
him  the  fundamental  tenets  of  the  Encratites,  whom  he  formed 
into  a  sect;  vid.  S.  Iren.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xxviii.  p.  107.  To  the 
opinions  which  he  borrowed  from  Marcion,  he  added  many  of 
the  peculiar  tenets  of  Valentinus,  Iren.  ibid.  S.  Epiphan.  Haer. 
x$.v.  p.  391.  c.  As  he  thus  required  the  authority  of  St.  John 
to  support  his  opinions ;  Marciou  having  merely  adopted  the 
Gospel  of  St.  Luke,  vid.  supr.  p.  462.  n.  5S.  he  consequently 
disposed  the  four  Gospels  in  the  form  of  a  Diatessaron,  omit- 
ing  every  thing  which  militated  against  his  peculiar  notions ; 
Theodor,  H»r.  Fab.  xx.  p.  303.  ero?  aa)  [o  T*U*os]  A»«- 


(    507    ) 

which  was  compiled  from  various  apocryphal  works1*9; 
and  the  Commentaries  of  Origen,  which  abounded 
in  quotations  drawn  from  heretical  revisals  of  Scrip- 
ture110, opened  a  prolifick  source  from  which  they 
directly  passed  into  the  Palestine  edition.  The 
facilities  of  correcting  this  text  from  Origen's  writ- 
ings, and  the  blind  reverence  in  which  that  antient 
father  was  held  in  the  school  of  Cassarea111,  seeru 


x«Xa/x£w  cvfl&smtv   tvotfj&wv,  roif  re 

xovas",  xat  TO,  otfaoc  'iff  a.  ir.  fftri^ot\o<^  Aa$*^  xola  ffaifttci 
pew  ro»  Kvpov  hixwcw.  In  this  undertaking  he  merely  fol- 
lowed his  master  Marcion  ;  S.  Iren.  ibid.  p.  106  —  "  id  quod 
est  sectmdum  Lucam  Evangelium  circumcidens,  et  omnia  quiz 
sunt  de  generatione  Domini  conscripta  miferens"  &c.  As  the 
Epistles,  not  less  than  the  Gospels,  were  unsuitable  to  the  pur- 
poses of  Tatian,  until  they  were  pruned  of  some  obnoxious 
passages;  it  is  probable  he  followed  Marcion  in  mutilating 
them  also  ;  or,  as  1  am  rather  inclined  to  think,  adopted  the 
Apostolicum  of  his  master,  with  some  additions  taken  from  the 
canonical  text.  It  is  apparent  from  the  testimony  of  Eusebius, 
that  he  nsed  an  Apostolicum;  and  that  it  differed  from  the 
received  text,  in  improving  the  language  of  the  Apostles,  by 
altering  the  order  of  their  words  :  vid.  supr.  p.  468.  n.  1:'~ 
but  in  this  respect  it  agreed  with  the  Apostolicum  of  Marcioqf 
as  is  evident  from  the  last  note  ;  vid.  supr.  n.  l07, 

109  Vid.  supr.  p.  444.  sqq.  et  nn. 

»°  Vid.  supr.  p.  330.  n.  +s. 

111  The  following  vindication  of  Pamphilus  and  Eusebius,  in 
evincing  that  such  a  charge  was  urged,  furnishes  us  with  grounds 
for  concluding,  that  it  was  not  urged  without  foundation;  Pamphil. 
Apol.  pro  Orig.  Praef.  p.  18.  d.  *'  Cum  ergo  haec  eum  [sc, 
Origmem]  de  se  dicere  audiamus,  et  hujusmodi  mente  ac  voto 
quae  dicit  asserere,  miramur  in  tantum  temeritatis  aliquos  esse 
profectos,  ut  qui  se  ita  humilitate  judicat,  adstruant  quod  ab 
aliis  dicta  ejus  vel  libri  pro  sermonibw  Apostolicis  vel  dictis  Pro- 


(    508    ) 

to  have  rendered  the  corruption  of  this  text  un- 
avoidable. Short  annotations  or  scholia  had  been 
inserted  by  Grig-en  in  the  margin  of  his  copies  of 
Scripture;  and  the  number  of  these  had  been  con- 
siderably augmented  by  Eusebius11^  most  probably 
by  extracts  taken  from  Grig-en's  Commentaries.  A 
comparison  between  the  text  and  comment  con- 
stantly pointed  out  variations  in  the  reading  ;  and 
Grigen's  authority  having  been  definitive.,  on  sub- 
jects of  sacred  criticism,,  the  inspired  text  was  amend- 
ed by  the  comment.  Had  we  no  other  proof  of  this 
assertion,  than  the  feasibility  of  the  matter,  and  the 
internal  evidence  of  the  Greek  manuscripts11^  we 
might  thence  assume  the  truth  of  the  fact,,  without 
much  danger  of  erring.  But  this  point  is  placed 
beyond  conjecture,,  by  the  most  unquestionable 
documents,  lu  some  manuscripts  containing  the 
Palestine  text,  it  is  recorded,  that  they  were  tran- 
scribed from  copies,,  the  originals  of  which  had  beea 
*c  corrected  by  EusebiusJIV  In  the  celebrated 

phetlcis  habeantitr,  aut  quod  ill'e  ipse  vel  Prophetis  vel  Apostolts 
comparetur. 

Ila  This  is  apparent  from  the  following  note,  transcribed  from 
a  copy  of  Eusebius's  edition  of  the  Prophet  Ezekiel,  contained 
in  the  Codex  Marchalianus  ;  vid.  Montfaucon,  Palaeogr.  Graec. 
p.  226:  Praelimm.  in  Hexapl.  p.  15.  /uil<xJ;$$D  ^  wo 

Iv 


OIVTH  Ttlga-svN.wy,   a 
o  EjJae'/Sioy  lyu 

av7o/     Conf.  supr.  p.  366.  n.  l30. 
113  Vid.  supr.  pp.  318.  n.  '°.  321.  n.  »7,  ^^322.  n.  z3.  458.  n.  *\ 
"*  Vid.  supr.  n.  iri, 


Codex  Marchalianus,  the  whole  process  observed  in 
correcting  the  text  is  openly  avowed,  The  reviser 
there  candidly  states,  that3  <f  having  procured  the 
explanatory  Tomes  of  Origen,  he  accurately  inves- 
tigated the  sense  in  which  he  explained  every  word, 
as  far  as  was  possible;  and  corrected  every  thing 
ambiguous,  according  to  his  notion115."  After  this 
explicit  acknowledgment,  it  seems  unnecessary  any 
further  to  prolong  this  discussion.  A  text  which 
bears  internal  marks  of  having  passed  through  this 
process116;  which  has  been  convicted,  on  the  clear- 
est evidence,  of  having  been  corrected  from  Origen. 
cannot  be  entitled  to  the  smallest  attention.  And 
as  it  has  been  thus  corrupted  from  the  same  source 
with  the  Egyptian  text,  the  joint  testimony  of  such 
witnesses  cannot  be  entitled  to  the  smallest  respect, 
when  opposed  in  consent  to  the  Byzantine  edition. 

When  the  testimony  of  the  Egyptian  and  Pales- 
tine texts  is  set  aside,  the  number  of  various  read- 
ings, which  exist  in  these  editions,  or  their  descend- 
ants, necessarily  lose  their  weight  when  cited  against 
the  Greek  Vulgate.  In  the  declining  credit  of  these 
editions  of  the  original,  that  of  the  Versions  and 
Fathers  which  accord  with  them  must  be  necessa- 

115  Not.  Cod.  Marchal.  ub.  supr.  efarognaonlss  ruv  p--xpi  r&y; 
vgs  Topuvv   E^Tjyr^txo/v   «K    TO*  (  Hcraiotv  * 


T*J     ti/oa   xa      r,» 
w?  oTov  7£  w,  x^  frav  a/Aif>//3oXov  xala   TW  ettenu  evvotav 


evvoiav    raa^efj  TTQQS  avrriv 

20 


Vid.  supr.  p.  334.  n.  sx.  p.  313.  n.  20.  conf.  p.  458.  n.  4?. 


(    510    ) 

rily  implicated117.  We  thus  no  longer  require  a 
clue  to  guide  us  through  the  labyrinth  of  those  read- 
ings,  however  various  or  numerous.  The  testimony 
of  the  derivative  witnesses,  whether  existing  in  quo- 
tation or  translation,  directly  resolves  itself  into  that 
of  the  principals,  which  contain  the  different  editions 
of  the  original  Greek,  published  in  Egypt  and  Pa- 
lestine. That  the  different  versions  which  are 
quoted  against  the  Received  Text,  agree  with  those 
editions,  rather  than  the  Greek  Vulgate,  is  merely 
owing  to  the  circumstance  of  their  having  been 
made  in  the  countries  where  those  editions  were 
received.  And  that  certain  of  the  Christian  Fathers 
conspire  in  testimony  with  those  Versions,  is  merely 
owing  to  the  circumstance  of  their  having  written 
at  a  time  when  those  editions  were  authorised.  The 
matter  before  us  thus  reverts  into  the  original  chan- 
nel ;  and  the  credit  of  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine 
texts  being  undermined,  the  only  various  readings 
for  which  it  is  necessary  to  render  an  account,  are 
those  of  the  Byzantine  edition.  But  from  the  alle- 
gation of  friends118,  not  less  than  the  concession  of 
enemies  II9>  it  appears,  that  they  are  neither  impor- 
tant nor  numerous;  falling  infinitely  short  of  what 
might  be  expected,  when  due  allowances  are  made, 
for  the  errours  which  are  inseparable  from  the  task 
of  transcription,  for  the  immense  period  during 
which  the  sacred  text  has  been  transmitted,  and  the 
multitude  of  manuscripts  which  have  been  col- 


117  Vid.  supr.  p.  316.  n. 
111  Vid.  supr.  p.  107.  n. 
119  Vid.  supr.  p.  126,  u. 


I37.p,  118.n. 


lated    with    the    most   minute  and  scrupulous  in- 
dustry, 

Here, consequently, this  discussion  might  he  brought 
to  a  close,  were  it  not  expedient  to  anticipate  some 
objections  which  may  be  urged  against  the  conclu- 
sion, which  it  has  been  hitherto  my  object  to  esta- 
blish. Of  the  texts  of  the  Greek  Vulgate,  which 
have  been  vindicated  as  genuine,  Act.  xx.  28.  1  Tim. 
iii.  16.  1  Joh.  v.  7.  have  been  exposed  to  formidable 
objections.  The  Palestine  edition  in  its  reading  of 
those  passages,  has  obtained  a  strenuous  advocate 
in  M.  Griesbach.  Having  already  laid  the  various 
readings. of  that  edition  before  the  reader130,,  and 
specified  some  objections,  deduced  from  the  internal 
evidence,  which  preclude  our  considering  them  ge- 
nuine ;  I  shall  now  proceed,  in  the  first  place,  to 
state  the  testimony  on  which  their  authenticity  is 
supported,  and  then  to  offer  some  of  the  objections 
by  which  it  appears  to  be  invalidated. 

1.  Of  Manuscripts,  ten 1A1  only  are  cited  in  favour 

™  Vid.  supr.  p.  254,  &c. 

111  Prof.  Birch  having  inserted  T«  9*2  among  the  readings 
of  the  Vatican  MS.  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  in  an  after 
thought,  expressed  in  his  Preface  to  the  various  readings  of  the 
Apocalypse,  adds  the  following  remark;  Praef.  ad  Apoc.  p. 
xxxix.  "  Cum  schedas  meas  collationem  hujus  codiois  com- 
plectentes,  iterum  intente  examinarem,  nihil  de  lectione 
!xxA»j<na>  T«  &«,  nee  alia  lectione  hoc  loco  adnotatum  invenio9 
ita  ut  pro  certo  pronunciare  non  ausim,  quid  in  codice  nostro 
gcriptum  reperiatur.  Vix  tandern  dubitare  licet,  si  hie  in  codice 
nostro  obtinuisset  varictas  lectionis,  hanc  intentionem  meam 
fugisse,  cum  locum  hunc  notabilem  in  omnibus  codd.  qui  mihi 
obvenerint,  prae  cseteris  examinandum  sumserim."  Had  we 
been  deficient  in  other  evidence,  we  might  construe  this  omis- 


( ;  are-  ) 

in  Act.  XX,  .-28;  not  half  <  that  number12*  iit 

sion  into  a  proof,  somewhat  stronger  than  presumptive,  that 
the  true  reading  -of  the  manuscript 'was  QsS.  As' this  was  the 
reading  of  the  copy  which  the  Professor  collated,  and  no  various 
reading  has  been  marked,  such  must  have  been  the  reading  of 
the  manuscript.  But  this  matter  has  bee'n  already  put  "but  of 
dispute:  vid.  supr.  p.  283.  n.  i4Z. 

***  Vid.  Griesb.  n.  in  h.  1.  The  testimony  of  thfe  Atexan-  ' 
drine  MS.  has  been  challenged,  in  favour- of  the  Palestine  text, 
by  M.  Wetstein ;  I  have- already  opposed  to  his  testimony  the 
charge  brought  against  it  by  Dr.  Berrkna? ;  who  openly  ac- 
cused him  of  having  admitted  to  a  common  Mend,  that  he  saw 
the  Byzantine  reading  in  this  MS.  viet  snpr.  p.  28&  n.  a46.  • 
To  this  charge  M.  Wetstein  thought  prudent  to  repty,  by  ex- 
plaining away  his  concession  of  the  point,  and  stating,  that  in 
admitting  the  fact,  he  was  deceived  by  the  transverse  line  of  an 
E  on  the  back  of  the  page,  which  appeared  through  the  vellum. 
This  prevarication  requires  no  refutation  but  what  the  MS.  itself, 
on  ;  the  most  careless  inspection,  will  furnish ;  the  transverse  • 
lines  are  so  fine  as  to  be  frequently  not  discernible  on  the  right 
side  of  the  vellum ;  and  the  E  on  the  back  of  the  page,  to  which 
M.  Wetstein  appeals,  as  lying  out  of  the  line  of  the  0,  could 
neVer  have  produced  the  appearance  which  he  asserted.  We 
must  therefore  acquiesce"  in  the  conclusion  of  Dr.  Woide,  ?raef. 
Coll.  Alex.  §  vii.  p.  xxxi.  *«  Nolens  igitur  Wetstenius  veri- 
tatern  hujus  Mneolae  diametralis  a  Millio  assertse  confirmat,  nee 
facile  e  coiifessione  eorum  quae  viderat,  poterit  elabi.  Quae  cum 
impossibilis  sit,  credendum  erit  testimonio  eorumr  quorum 
aucForitatera  sequi  unice  nunc  licet,  Junii,  Fell*,  Waltoni, 
Grajbrn,  Millii,  Berrimani,  et  aliorum."  M.  Griesbnch  however 
undertakes  the  defence  of  OS,  as  the  genuine  reading,  which 
he  opens  with  the  following  curious  concession ;  Griesb. 
Symbol.  Critt.  Tora.  I.  p,  ix.  "  Disputatum  etiam  fu-it,  utrum 
AleX^  Cod.  h.- 1.  ©E«S  legat  an  o,-;  id  (quod  cum  librum  hunc 
versarcmus)  aclrriodum  doluimus,  manibus  hominum  inepte  curi- 
osbrum  eii  folH  pars-. qua3  dictum  controversum  contiwet,  adeo 
mortaliftm  hodie  certi  quidquam  discernere 'J 


possit.    Conf.  p.  xiii.     **  Respondeo  evanescere  tenuissima  linea. 


(    513    } 
favour  of  $t  in  1  Tim.  iii.  16 :  all  that  are  extant 

pirsesertim  in  codice  tarn  vetustb  eodemque  rescripto,  omnino 
potuit  ut  similis  lineola  in  voce  proxime  sequente  E<J>ANEPI2QPl 
(E<J>ANEP£20H)  aliisqne  in  locis  non  panels  evanuit.9'  He  still 
however  supports  his  opinion,  and  with  sufficient  confidence,  on 
the  following  considerations.  Id.  ib.  p;  x.  "  At  nihilo  tamen 
minus  confidenter  equidem  pronuntiare  audeo,  ve'ra  esse,  quae  i£ 
tradiderunt,  qui  o?  in  codice  hoc  a  prima  manu  extitisse  affir- 
ttiarunt.  Nam  non  solum  Alexandrinus  et  Regius  ille  rescrip- 
tus,  qui  in  Epistolis  eartdem  prorsus  recensionem  exhibent,  sese 
mutuo  confirmant :  verura  etiam  quod  niajus  est,  et  omnem  de. 
utriusque  lectione  dubitandi  locum  pi&cludit,  »q  certissime  fuit 
Alexandrinae  recensionis,  quae  in  duobus  istis  Cddicibus  extat 
lectio.  Patet  ex  conseiisu  Cod.  17,  versionuiii  Coptae,  ^Sthi- 
opicae,  Armenicse,  et  Syriaca?  posterioris,  atqiie  Cyrilli  Alex- 
andrini :  immo  e  silentio  (jmnittm  Alexandrinorum  scriptorum, 
qui  ad  locum  hunc  nunquam  proVdcarunt  in  litibus  de  Christ! 
divinitate  agitatis."  This  however,  with  the  sophist's  leave,  is 
not  to  tell  us  what  the  MS.  reads,  nor  even  what  it  ought  to 
read,  but  simply  what  he  thinks  it  should  have  read.  It  would 
be  sufficient  to  state,  in  answer  to  this  silly  and  groundless  con- 
fidence, that  these  examples  are  wholly  beside  the  purpose  of 
the  present  dispute ;  as  the  Codex  Alexandrinus  is  a  MS.  sui 
generis,  having  a  mixed  text,  the  Gospels  following  a  different 
recension  from  the  Epistles;  It  becomes  of  course  idle  in  the 
extreme  to  judge  of  it  by  any  other  MS.  or  Version ;  as  M. 
Griesbach  could  have  been  scarcely  unconscious  ;  in  admitting 
Ibid.  p.  cxxxviii.«— "  Codici  A.  admistas  esse  lectiones  hand 
paucas  non  Alexandrinas."  And  it  is  curious  to  observe, 
among  the  readings  of  this  kind,  which  exist  in  tne  Alexandrine 
MS.  we  have  positive  authority  for  concluding,  that  0«&s  1  Tim. 
Iii.  16.  was  included.  The  readings  of  Euthalius,  it  is  notorious, 
Correspond  with  this  MS.  vid.  supr.  p;  87,  n.  84 :  but  EuthaJius 
certainly  read  0«oS  tywe^Sr,,  if  any  respect  be  due  to  the  testi- 
mony of  his  editour ;  vid.  Zaccagn.  ub.  supr.  p.  290.  n.  176« 
who  collated  his  work  with  the  readings  of  the  Alexandrine 
MS.  eonf.  p.  86.  a. 8T. 


, 

and  known,  with  the  exception  of  two "',  in  fa- 
vour of  the  reading  of  M.  Griesbach's  corrected 
edition. 

2.  Of  Versions,  the  Sahidick,  Coptick,  Armenian, 
and  mai'gin  of  the  later  Syriack,  support  Kv^og  in 
Act.  xx.  28;  the  same  versions,  with  the  Ethiopick 
and  Erpenian  Arabick,  support  3$  in  1  Tim.  iii.  16: 
and  all  that  are  extant,  except  the  Latin  Vulgate 
and  Armenian,  the  corrected  reading  of  1  Joh, 
v.  7  Ii4. 

3.  Of  the  Fathers  who  have  been  cited  in  favour 
of  the  Palestine  text,  the  following  is  a  brief  state- 
ment.    (1.)  On  Act.  xx.  28.  St.  Ignatius,  St  Irenaeus, 
Eusebius,  Didymus,  S.  Chrysostome,  and  Theophy- 
lact;  S.  Jerome,  Lucifer,  and  Augustine;  Theo- 
dorus  Studites,  Maximus,  Antonius,  Ibas,  Sedulius, 
and   Alcimus;    the  Apostolical   Constitutions,   the 
Council  of  Nice,  and  the  second  Council  of  Car- 
thage ;  a  catena  quoting  Ammonius,  and  a  manu- 
script containing  the  Epistles  of  S.  Athanasius lz>. 
(2.)  On  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  Cyril  Alexandrinus,  S.Je- 
rome, Theodorus  Mopsuestenns,  Epiphanius,  Gela- 
sius  Cyzicenus,  and,  on  his  authority,  Macarius  of 
Jerusalem146.     (3.)  On  1  Joh.  v.  7.  it  has  been 
deemed   sufficient   to   state,   that   the  fathers   are 
wholly  silent  respecting  it  in  the  Trinitarian  contro- 
versy; w'hile  some  of  them  even  quote  the  subjoined 
verse,  and  strain  that  doctrine  from  it  by  an  allege- 

113  Vid.  Grlesb.  n.  in  h.  1. 

114  Vid.  Griesb.  n.  in  h.  1. 

Jas  Vid.  Bengel.  et  Griesb.  not.  in  loc% 
116  Vid,  Griesb.  not.  in  loc. 


(    515    ) 

rical  interpretation,  which  is  plainly  asserted  in  the 
contested  passage  "7. 

Such  is  the  external  testimony  which  is  offered  in 
favour  of  those  verses ;  as  they  are  inserted  in  the 
Corrected  Text.  And  yet,  however  formidable  it 
may  appear,  it  seems  exposed  to  no  less  formidable 
objections. 

In  reply  to  the  testimony  of  Manuscripts  quoted 
on  this  subject,  it  seems  sufficient  to  state,  that  they 
are  collectively  descended  from  the  edition  of  Euse- 
bius  u8,  and  are  consequently  disqualified  from  ap* 
pearing  in  evidence,  on  account  of  his  peculiar  opi- 
nions. With  respect  to  the  few  manuscripts  which 
support  the  reading  of  Acts  xx.  28.  I  Tim.  iii.  16. 
they  particularly  approximate  to  his  edition,  as  con- 
taining the  Palestine  text119,  and  are  consequently 
on  that  account,  not  entitled  to  the  least  degree  of 
credit. 

The  same  observation  may  be  made  in  reply  to 
the  testimony  of  Versions  which  has  been  adduced 
in  evidence  on  this  subject.  None  of  them  can  .Jay 
claim  to  a  degree  of  antiquity  prior  to  the  fourth 
century.  In  that  age  the  principal  of  the  antient 
,  versions  were  made;  chiefly  under  the  auspices  of 

"7  Vid.  Person  Let.  to  Travis,  p.  373. 

•     *as  As  the  Gospels  were  divided  by  Eusebius,  the  Catholick 

i.  Epistles  were  divided  by  Euthalius,  vid,  conf.  p.  34.  ru 60*  p*  86. 

r  .n.  80.     The  latter  were  however  corrected  by  Eusebius's  texr> 

vid.  supr.  p.  86.  n.  8I :   hence,  as  the  Euthalian  sections  are 

generally  prevalent  in  the  Greek  MSS.  they  sufficiently  prove 

the  descent  of  those  MSS.  from  Eusebius's  edition,  vid.  supr, 

p.  130.  n.53. 

"p  Vid.  Griesb.  not,  in  loc. 

1.12 


(    316    ) 

Constantino  the  Great,  who  employed  Eusebitis  ta 
revise  the  text  of  Scripture130.  The  only  proba- 
bility consequently  is,  that  they  were  accommodated 
to  the  Palestine  edition  ;  and  the  principal  versions 
cited  on  the  present  question  bear  internal  evidence 
of  the  fact,  as  they  coincide  with  the  Palestine 
text,  and  are  divided  by  Eusebius's  sections.  Such 
is  particularly  the  case  with  the  Sahidick  and  Cop- 
tick,  the  later  Syriack  and  Latin  translations  *Jt. 
They  cannot,  of  course,  be  allowed  any  separate 
voice  from  the  Palestine  text,  in  deciding  the  matter 
at  issue. 

This  consideration  seems  to  leave  very  little 
weight  to  the  authority  of  the  Fathers,  who  arc 
adduced  in  evidence  on  this  subject.  With  a  few 
exceptions,  which  are  of  no  account,  they  also  suc- 
ceeded the  age  of  Eusebius ;  in  referring  cursorily 
t<t  those  verses,  they  may  be  conceived  to  have 
quoted  from  his  edition,  as  containing  the  received 
text-  of,  the  age  in.  which,  they  flourished.  I  here 
except>  as  preceding  his  time,  S.  Ignatius,  S.  Ire- 
riseus,  and  the  compilers  of  the  Apostolical  Consti- 
tutions, who  have  been  quoted  in  support  of  Act. 
gtx.  £§.  but  their  testimony  is  not  entitled  to  the 
smallest  respect,  as  derived  to  us  through  the  most 
suspicious  channels.  The  first  and  last  of  these 
witnesses  are  quoted  from  editions  which  have  been 
notoriously  corrupted13*,  as  it  is  conceived,  by  the 

1:0  Vid.  supr.  p.  26.  n.  4*. 

IJI  Vid.  supr.  p.  322.  r,.-30.  conf.  p.  81.  n.  *\  p,  316.  n.  '*. 
131  Usser.  Dissert,  de  Ignat.  Epist.  cap.  vi.  ap.  Patn  ApostoT. 
p".  21 1 ,  Eft,  Cleric.  Rot!  1 724.     "  -Quantum  igitur  ex  hisce  pog- 


Arians;  and  we  consequently  find^  that  the  genuine 
works  of  Ignatius,  read  with  the  Byzantine  Text 
instead  of  the  Palestine IJJ.  And  with  regard  to  St. 
Irenaeus's  evidence,  it  is  quoted  merely  from  a  tran- 
slation which  has  been  made  by  some  barbarous 
writer,  who,  in  rendering  the  scriptural  quotations 
of  his  original1'4,  has  followed  the  Latin  version, 
which  agrees  with  St.  Irenaeus  in  possessing  the 
Palestine  reading135. 

sum  colligere,  sexto  post  Christum  seculo  prodiit  amplior  Jiac 
quce  in  nostris  codicibus  hodie  fertur,  Ignatianarum  Epistolarum 
Sylloge :  et  quidem  (nisi  me  fallo)  ex  eadem  officina,  unde 
Apostolorum  qui  dicuntur  Canones,  novorum  capitulorum  xxxv. 
adjeetione  habemus  auctos,  et  Constitutiones  ita  immutatas,  ut 
pristinam  quam  obtinuerant  speciem,  non  (ut  Epistola*  nostrae) 
nmiserint  modo,  sed  plane  perdiderint,  Conf.  Pears.  Vind.  Ignat. 
Procem.  cap.  vi.  p.  273.  Bevereg.  Cod.  Can.  Eccl.  Prim.  Illus- 
trat.  P.  L  cap.  iii.  §•  1.  p.  12.  cap.  xvii.  §  4.  p.,  73. 

*33  Vid.  supr.  p.  275.  n.  ^\ 

M*  Mill.  Proleg.  in  Nov.  Test.  n.  368.  «  Sed  cum  drseca 
(S.  Irenaei)  maxima  ex  parte  interciderint,  turn  et  in  his  qufe 
supersunt,  Epiphanius  aliique  quibus  ea  debemus,  haud  semper 
citarint  loca  N.  T.  ad  textum  Irenaeanum,  sed  nonnunquam  ad 
codices  suos  posteriores,  seu  etiam  ex  memoria.  In  La^inis 
autem,  Interpreti  id  unum  cur  a  erat,  ut  Scripture  testimonia, 
qua;  in  hoc  opere  occurrent,  exprimerentur  verbis  Interpretation^ 
qua  Celtis  suis,  totique  Occident /,  jam  in.vsu  erat,  Italicte,  sivc 
vulgatte."  Conf.  Sabatien  Prsef.  in  Bibli  Ital.  Tom.  I.  p.  xl. 

15  As  so  much  pains  have  been  used  to  shew  that  Cyril 
Alexandiinus  read  with  the  Palestine  text  in  1  Tim.  iii.  16. 
vid.  infr.  p.  521.  n.  I38.  I  may  be  pardoned  in  offering  a  few- 
words  to  prove  that  S.  Irenaeus  read  with  the  Byzantine  in  Act. 
xx.  28.  ( 1 .)  St.  Irenaeus  is  expressly  engaged  on  the  subject 
of  the  traditionary  mysteries  of  the  Church ;  Iren.  adv.  Haer. 
Lib.  III.  cap.  xiv.  p.  201.  ad  init.  '  Si  quae  occultiora  mysteria 
pr*e  aliis  scivisset  Paulus,  ea  Lucas  assiduus  illius  comes,  labo- 


(    618    ) 

We  might  give  up  the  remaining  authorities  with- 
out any  detriment  to  our  cause.  With  respect  to 
the  evidence  of  St.  Athanasius1**,  St.  Chrysos- 

rumque  censors  ac  particeps ;  ignorare  non  potuisset,  &c.  conf. 
ibid,  §  1.  sub.  fin.  (2.)  The  contested  passage  is  quoted  with 
a  view  to  prove,  that  St.  Paul  explicitly  taught  all  mysteries  to 
the  Church ;  Id.  ibid.  §.  2.  **  Quoniam  autem  Paulus  simpli- 
citer  quae  sciebat,  haec  et  dvcuit,  non  solum  eos  qui  cum  eo 
erant,  verum  omnes  audientes  se,  ipse  Jacit  man>festum*  In 
Mileto  enim,  convocatis  Episcopis  et  Presbyteris,  qui  erant  ab 
Epheso— •>•  multa  testificans  eis — adjecit :  *  Scio  quoniam  jam  non 
videbitis  faciem  meam — tnundus  sum  a  sanguine  omnium,  Non 
enim  subtraxi,  uti  non  annuntiarem  vobis  omnem  sententiam 
Dei,  Attendite  igitur  vobis — regere  Ecclesiam  Domini  [f.  Dei] 
.quara  sibi  constituit  per  sanguinem  suum.* — — Sic  Apostoli 
simpliciter,  et  nemini  invidentes,  quae  didicerant  ipsi  a  Domino, 
fac  omnibus  tradelant"  &c.  Now,  as  there  was  no  mystery  in 
our  Lord's  purchasing  the  Church  with  his  blood,  but  a  great 
mystery  in  *  God's  purchasing  it  with  his  mow  blood,'  St.  Ire» 
nseus's  allegation  of  this  passage  appears  to  me  to  be  perfectly 
-irrelevant,  unless  that  primitive  father  read,  with  St.  Ignatius 
'und  the  Vulgar  Greek,  ?*,»  !xx?wo-/a,y  T«  0s5,  »jv  weptTro^cr^o 
&»  T»  tiia  aipeflos.  Nor  is  this  supposition  invalidated  by  the 
consideration,  that  "  Ecclesiam  Domini,'*  is  the  reading  found 
in  the  old  translation  of  St*  Irenaeus.  (L)  This  is  the  reading 
of  the  old  Italick  version,  which  the  translatour  hasjbllotved  iv 
quoting  the  disputed  passage  with  its  context ;  vid.  supr.  n.  134. 
(3.)  The  work  of  St.  Irenseus  was  translated  when  the  Nesto- 
rian 'controversy  was  agitated  by  the  Western  Church;  in  fa- 
vour of  which,  the  vulgar  reading  might  be  adduced,  to  prove 
that  0eof  was  used  catachretically  by  the  inspired  writers,  as 
*  the  very  blood  of  God'  was  a  phrase,  which  could  not  be  ap- 
plied in  any  other  manner ;  vid.  Sabat.  ib. 

'?6  It  has  been  objected  to  the  passages  quoted  from'St, 
"Athanasius,  supr.  p.  286.  n.  i5i.  p.  289.  n.  ^\  that  the  former, 
instead  of  0e5,  reads  Kvpu  in  one  MS.  and  Xpr«  in  others ; 
and  that  the  latter  passage  is  'wanting  in  some  M&S.  and  merely 


(    519  ,) 

supplied  in  the  margin  of  others ;  vid.  Griesb.  im.  in  Act.  xx. 
28.  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  conf.  A  than.  Tom,  II.  p.  653.  n.  m.  p.  706. 
n.  d.  As  these  passages  follow  the  same  class  of  text,  the 
defence  of  one  will  cover  the  other.  There  can  be  however 
very  little  doubt,  that  the  latter  passage  was  written  by  St. 
Athanasius.  (1.)  It  relates  to  a  subject  which,  until  the  age 
of  St.  Chrysostome,  was  preserved  undivulged,  by  those  who 
were  initiated  in  the  Christian  mysteries.  As  strong  reasons, 
of  course,  must  have  operated  to  cause  its  suppression  in  some 
MSS.  as  to  prevent  its  interpolation  in  any.  St.  Chrysostome 
having  cited  the  verse  before  us,  observes;  Conim.  in  1  Tim. 
Tom.  XL  p.  606.  a.  pvr^w  roiwf  In.  ftri  roivvv  ex9ro/^flr£zJ&;pcev 
TO  pvrvpw,  t*w  •TronfloL'Xp  O.UTQ  7r^o!^cufjt.sv.  (2.)  No  conceivable 
end  could  have  been  attained  by  inserting  it  in  St.  Athana- 
eius's  context.  It  could  not  have  been  intended  to  furnish  an 
authority  for  the  contested  reading  in  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  as  it  is 
literally  offered  as  a  palliation  for  the  sin  of  those  who  denied 
the  doctrine  which  that  reading  tends  to  establish.  (3.)  .In 
tliis  view  it  is  identified,  as  a  part  of  that  antient  father's  text, 
by  his  context.  St.  Athanasius  is  expressly  engaged  in  palli- 
ating the  guilt  of  those  who  denied  the  Divinity  of  Christ;  in 
order  to  induce  them  to  repent  of  their  errours.  His  apology 
consists  of  two  parts  ;  he  pleads  on  the  one  side  their  weakness, 
txpfUq  7rpo;pa;7n>  TTJ*  T£  ffvpxlos  aaSemav :  on  the  other  the. depth 
of  the  mystery,  ep^acn  yap  xj  TO»  aTroro^of  <7V/y»w(ur;»  avroTi; 

— o'-n    x}   piya,    Ir*    TO    rri?   ei>ari@sf*s  p,frip»o»,  0eo$ 

rxpy.t.  The  latter  part  of  the  argument,  which  is  found  in  the 
contested  passage,  is  not  only  necessary  to  complete  St.  Atha- 
nasius's  reasoning,  but  the  reading  0«ls  necessary  to  justify  the 
appeal  to  St.  Paul's  authority.  (4.)  As  an  interpolation  of 
this  kind  must  have  been  far  above  the  skill  of  any  sophistica- 
tour,  it  possesses  a  turn  of  phrase,  which,  to  an  accurate  ob- 
server, must  be  definitive  in  evincing,  that  the  same  hand  which 
indited  the  context  must  have  produced  the  contested  passage. 
St.  Athanasius  having  observed  respecting  our  Lord  in  the 
former  place ;  Ib.  p.  706.  a,  T^»  $1  t£&govfcMi  £x7si'vcyv  X5*fat 
iy«tpa  r>jf  vivStfcti  ris-Tpa ;  he  carries  on  the  phrase  in  the  latter, 
and  applies  the  same  terhis  nearly  to  the  Apostle;  Jbi4«  c. 

•  -  .  .  ..•, 


(    520    ) 
tome"7,  Theophylact,  and  Cyril  of  Alexandria*", 


x    rov  atTrorotov          oto»et   %£?§«  avTQis  Iv  ra 

It  will  not  be  surely  deemed  possible  that  s» 
4hany  internal  marks  of  authenticity  could  he  discoverable  in 
any  passage  which  was  merely  an  interpolation. 
j,  £  J37  It  has  been  objected  that  St.  Chrysostome  reads  K^fe,  Act. 
xx.  28.  in  his  commentary  on  £ph.  iv.  12  :  and  therefore,  that  twe 
should  read  Kypia  in  his  comment  on  Act.  xx.  28.  as  cited  supr.  p, 
287.  n.  *56.  But  we  can  account  for  this  variety  in  his  testimony 
without  weakening  its  conclusiveness,  or  having  recourse  to  a 
conjectural  emendation.  As  Ktps  is  the  reading  of  the  Palestine 
text,  and  0sS  of  the  Byzantine  ;  St,  Chrysostorne  adopts  the  for- 
mer in  a  Homily  delivered  while  he  was  a  Presbyter  in  Syria. 
S.  Chrys.  Op.  Tom.  XI.  Praef.  p.  i.  "  Jam  quaeritur  pro  more 
Antiochiae-ne  an  Constantinopoli  habitae  fuerint  Condones  ad 
Ephesios.  Optimum  CJ.  V.  Tillemontius  profert  argumentum  ad 
.  frobandum  kascs  Homilias  Antiocbi&  dictas  fuissq  ;  quia  nempe 
tn  Homilia  undecima  acerrime  invehitur  in  eos,  qui  ecclesiam 
in  qua  ille  tune  concionabatur  scindebant.  —  —  Aliud  etiam  nee. 
leve  indicium  est  quo  probetur  Antiochice  habitas  Homiliasjuis&e^ 
quod  videlicet  monachos  in  montibus  asperam  sanctamque  vi- 
tam  agentes  passim  laudet,"  &c.  He  uses  the  latter,  while 
he  was  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  Id.  Op.  Tom.  IX.  Pra?f. 
p.  v.  «'  Nihilomi.nus  stat  illud,  quod  supra  dictum  est,  Cow- 
ciones  nempe  in  Acta,  quae  Constantinopoli  dicta  fuere,  inter 
Jejuniores  humilioresque  quoad  magnam  sui  partem  compu- 
tandas  esse,"  d'C.  As  this  is  a  coincidence  which  cannot  be 
considered  accidental,  the  variety  in  St.  Chrysostpme's  testi- 
inony  consequently  proves,  that  in  his  age  Kt>/»«  was  the  read- 
ing of  the  Palestine  text,  and  0t«  of  the  Byzantine  ;  not  that 
Ris  text  is  corrupt  in  one  place,  and  that  we  sjhould  read  Kvf'm 
in  the  passages  before  us,  Under  this  view  the  testimony  of 
St.  Chrysostome,  as  far  as  respects  the  Byzantine  text,  is  wholly 
Unaffected  by  the  objections  pf  M.  Griesfrach  ;  as  it  proves  all 
Ikat  iV  is  cited  to  prove  —  that  in  the  age  of  that  Father,  0i* 
was  Tfhe  reading  pf  the  Greek  Vulgate.  It  must  be  however 
observed  in  support  of  the  Vulgate,  that  it  wag  restored  at  By- 


(    521    } 

His.  most  unfairly  wrested  in  support  of  the  Cor- 
rected Text,  as  it  is  decidedly  in  favour  of  the  Re- 

.         * 

eantkim  not  long  previously  to  the  elevation  of  St.  Chrysos- 
tome  to  the  .see  of  Constantinople;  vid.  supr.  p.  152.  n.  I0a* 
and  that  its  peculiar  readings  are  generally  adopted  by  this 
learned  antient,  in  opposition  to  those  of  the  Palestine  edition; 
vid,  Griesb.  Nov.  Test.  Mat.  vi.  14.  n.  e.  Joh.  vii.  39.  n*  *> 
Act.  viii.  1.  n.  P.  Ib.  xi.  6.  n. J.  Rom.  vi.  12.  n.  y.  Ib.  xv.  2& 
^.  9.  1  Cor.  vi.  20.  n.  h.  Ib.  x.  28.  n.  to.  Eph.  iii.  9.  n.  *V 
.  I?8  The  testimony  of  this  Father,  as  cited  supr.  p.  290.  n.  *7*» 
has  been  opposed  by  M.  Griesbach,  who  contends  that  it  is  mis- 
printed ;  St.  Cyril  having  read  in  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  o<,  instead  of 
©EC?.  Symbb.  Critt.  Tom.  I.  p.  Hi.  But  when  the  true  object 
of  dispute  in  the  Nestorian  controvery  is  known,  his  objections 
will  come  to  nothing.  Liberat.  Brevlar.  cap.  ii.  p.  5.- — "  Nes- 
torius  conjitens  existentiam  JDivinitatis  Filii  Dei  Christum  purum 
hominem  credidit  conceptum  atque  formatum,  et  postea  in  Deum 
provectum,  hoc  est,  hominem  deificaturn,  et  iwn  VEHBUM-cqrnem 
factum,  et  habitasse  in  nobis,  quod  praedicat  Evangelium-,  et 
Catholica  confitetur  Ecclesia."  A.&  the  Divinity  of  Christ -was 
thus  admitted  by  the  disputants,  who  merely  divided  ort  th$ 
question,  whether  he  pre-existed,  and  was  born  God;  or  wa^ 
born  Man  and  made  God  ;  ©go*  in  1  Tim.  Hi.  16.  has  no  we4ght 
in  the  question:  and  the  verse  before  us  cannot -be  brought  even 
to  bear  upon  it,  unless  by  interpretation  ;  as  both  orthodox  and 
heterodox  admitted  that  Christ  was  "  Go^manifested-jn  the 
flesh."  On  turning  to  Cyril's  testimony,  supr.  p.r29p..in.  *  ** 
the  futility  of  M.  Griesbach's  objections  may  be  now  easily  id^-r 
monstrated,  (1.)  .He  objects,  that  Cyril,  after  reler,rmg  to 
1  Tim.  iii.  16.  omits  the  term  QBOC^  putting  tWs^.^^stion^ 
Griesb.  ib.  "  ris  5  lv  a-oi^.l  <puvtp&ti<;*.absqu9 :&&$*".  which,  m 
his  opinion,  must  have  been  nugatoiy,- if  Gyril- reac|,;  ©4* 
t Qavtfu&a, . but  most  pertinent-  if.  he  ,Tea^,  ejtidffaflpe^li  "But 
this  objepition  is  made,  without  any  IvnowJ^dge-iof  the  'Nestorian. 
controversy.  The  Cathol jjoks,7}ia<l  positive  objections  to  ,  using 
puch  a  phrase  as  rk  0i^,  as 'it  pointed  the  objection  of  the 
respondent,  wha  declared  tliat.it.  supposed  a  plurality  in  Uie  di» 


(    522   0 

.-ccived  Text,  where  it  is  fully  and  explicitly  deli- 
vered. As  to  that  of  Eusebius,  a  word  need  not  be 

• 

vine  nature;  Facund.  Defens.  Tri.  Capitt.  Lib.  I.  cap.  iii.  p.  6. 
d.  "  Si  enim  dicamus,  inquit,  *  unum  de  Trinitate  pro  norjjs 
crucifixum,'  si  quis  interrogat,  quid  unum  dicamus,  non  possu- 
m,us  respondere  Deum,  aut  Filium  ;  quia  non  tres  sunt  in  Trini- 
tate Diit  vel  Filii,  &c.  (2.)  He  objects,  that  Cyril's  proof  is 
not  deduced  from  the  term  ©;<>?,  but  /At/rvpiov  sr»  f*«Va  i  which 
is  equally  inexplicable,  if  he  read  otherwise  than  o;  tya»ip&-$ij  ; 

.  Griesb.  ibid.  "  Non  e  vocabulo  ©icr,  sed  per  consequentiam 
e  verbis  ^.yr^pto*  /wey*  duotam  probat  rav  <pa,vt{ti$iy\a,iv  erotfx.1  esse 

:.vov  Aoyov.  Si  legisset  ©to;  plane  non  dubitasset,  TOV  ^av;pwS£»1a 
esse  rev  l>t  T5  ©£«  Aoyov,  supersedisset  ista  argumentatione,  quae 

.  tantum  non  inepta  est,  si  lectio  ©toy  ponatur."     But  this  ob- 

.  jection  is  wholly  beside  the  question.  The  meaning  of  the 
phrase  Q;o?  E£<*«PVJJ  lv  cuf*i  was  contested;  the  manner  of 
Christ's  manifestation  as  God,  being  disputed.  An  argument 
drawn  from  ©EOC,  must  have  been  therefore  not  merely  "  tan- 
tum non  inepta,"  but  "  omnino  inepta/'.  On  the  other  hand, 
an  argument  drawn  from  p(y<x.  tr»  pvrfyiov,  came  home  to  the 
question,  as  referring  to  the  Incarnation  ;  which  was  the  point 
at  issue  between  the  Catholicks  and  Nestorians.  In  the  phrase, 
"great  is  the  mystery,"  something  more  was  obviously  inti- 
mated, than  a  mere  human  birth,  which  Nestorius  asserted  ;  a 
mystick  union  of  the  Divine  and  Human  nature  was  obviously 
.  intimated,  as  Cyril  endeavours  to  show,  by  insisting  on  this  part 
of  the  sentence.  And  thus  Cyril  explains  himself  in  referring 
to  the  disputed  verse,  on  a  different  occasion;  evincing  such  to 
have  been  his  notion  of  "  the  Mystery  of  Godliness  ;"  Cyril. 
ub.  SUpr.  p.  153.  tl  *  @EO$J  uv  o  Aoyoc,  tvavS^WTT/iJat  A/yotro,  ^ 
TO  f'ucu  ©£oj*  a?vX'  iv  -oi;  wy  oc.e.1  Siccpii/u 


xojva;   o   Xpro?^    us   v.ciiu.  povriv   T«»  IcoTriTct. 


«•«;  «»9p«9ro«  w  cr^K,  TS  «•{ ;  x.  T.  I.     Tl)e- object  of  tmVde- 
is,cQUsequently  miscaxiceived  altogether  by  M.  Giiei* 


(    -523    ) 

advanced  to  'invalidate  its  credit.  With  respect  to 
Didymus.,  Jerome.,  Lucifer,  Augustine,,  and  Sedu- 
lius,  it  was  as  natural  that  they  should  quote  the 
.received  text  of  their  times,  or  follow  the  original 
Greek,  as  that  we  should  follow  our  authorised  ver- 
sion in  preference  to  the  Greek  of  Erasmus,  or  any 
of  the  translations  of  the  early  reformers139.  A  few 

bach,  who  thence  deduces  that  Cyril  could  not  have  found 
©EO?  in  the  disputed  passage ;  ibid.  pp.  xlviii.  xlix.  The  intention 
of  Cyril  could  not  have  been  to  prove  either  the  Divinity  or 
humanity  of  Christ,  which  was  not  disputed;  but  to  prove  from- 
a  just  appreciation  of  "  the  Great  Mystery  of  Godliness,"  that 
"  the  Manifestation  which  was  said  to  be  in  the  flesh, v  indicated 
more  than  the  appearance  of  "  a  common  man,  united  with  God 
in  equality  of  glory  and  power;"  xomos  a»$;»wroc — x«l«  poiw  T»I» 

*<roTyjT«  T»J?  «!*«£,  riyw  oc.v^tvliac<i  ©sw  avvr^^v^ ;  as  it  implied  the 
incarnation  of  the  Divine  Logos,  who  was  "  God  and  with  God 
in  the  beginning,"  il  0*o?  a»  o  Aoyo?  x.  T.  I.  ut  supr.  The  ob- 
jections of  M.  Griesbach  being  now  set  out  of  the  question ; 
the  following  observations  are  sufficient  to  establish  the  received 
reading  of  Cyril's  printed  text.  (1.)  ©eo?  tyafsguSy  was  cer- 
tainly the  reading  of  the  editour's  MSS.  as  he  has  adopted  it 
in  opposition  to  that  of  the  Latin  Vulgate,  which  he  follows  in 
his  translation:  in  the  passage  before  us,  Oaos-  lp«»£p<vS»j,  is  ren- 
dered "  quod  manifestatum  est."  Cyr.  ib.  p.  124.  c.  (2.)  This 
reading  is  supported  by  the  external  testimony  of  Ey thymjus, 
who  quotes  Cyril  Alexandrinus  against  the  Nestorians ;  Matth* 
Pracf.  in  Epistt.  Paulinn.  Tom.  XI.  p.  xli.  "  His  addo  Euthy* 
mium  Zigabenum  in  Panoplia,  Tit.  xv.  contra  Nestorianos,  qui 
fol.  fx.>  pag.  2.  col.  1.  hunc  locum  ex  Cyrillo  hoc  modo  repetiit ; 
i?  (ttya  lr»  TO  T^?  tvcrt&tiocs  pvrvpW  ©sor  Ifpavepw^ 
-.  T.  I. 

1X9  This  appears  from  the  following  sentiment  of  St.  Augus- 
tine, De  Doctr.  Christ.  Lib.  II.  cap.  xiv.  Tom.  III.  p,  27.  f. 
"  Nam  Codicibus  emendandis  primitus  debet  invigilare  solertia 
"  eorum,  qui  Scripturas  Divinas,  nosse  desiderant,  ut  emendatis 


(    521    ) 

words  would  serve  in  reply  to  the  authority  of  the 
Councils  cited  on  this  subject;  that  of  Nice  hag 
been  however  most  falsely  and  imperfectly  report- 
ed140, and  that  of  Carthage,,  as  reported  in  Greek, 
supports  the  received  text,  while  in  Latin  it  sup- 
ports the  corrected141.  If,  after  these  observations, 
the  testimony  of  the  remaining  writers  cited  on  this 
subject  be  all  edged141,,  throwing  Ammonius  and 
Macarius  into  the  same  scale,  as  entitled  to  equal 
'  respect,  from  the  questionable  shape  in  which  they 
approach  us 143,  we  think  the  advocates  of  the  Cor- 

non  emendati  cedant,  ex  uno  dumtaxat  interpretationis  genere 
Yemenites. — Libris  autem  Novi  Testament!,  si  quod  in  Latinis 
•varietatibus  titubat,  Greeds  cedere  oportere  non  dubium  est,'1 
Conf.  S.  Ambros.  Tom.  II.  p.  722.  §  82. 
*  -  -1*0 •  Vid.  Lab,  et  Cossart.  Concil.  Tom.  II.  col.  103.  d.    Ber- 

•  rim.  Dissert,  ut  supr.  p.  173,  &c. 

•rw..1*1  Vid.  Griesb.  not.  in  Act.  xx.  28. 

141  The  testimony  of  Ibas  and  Theodorus  Mopsuestenus  is 
wholly  inadmissible,  as  they  were  the  avowed  partizans  of  Nes- 
torianism,  which  they  contributed  to  propagate  in  the  East ; 
vid.  supr.  p.  344.  n.  7I.  conf.  Liberat.  Breviar.  cap.  x.  pp.  48. 
50.  Evagr.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  xxxviii.  p.  418.  1.  22.  p, 
419.L12.sqq. 

143  Ammonius,  of  whom  we  know  nothing  more  than  his 

.  name,  is  quoted  from  a  catena,  in  a  MS.  preserved  at  New  Col. 
Oxf.vid.  Bengel.  et  Mill.  not.  in  Act.  xx.  28.  Macarius,  from 
Gelasius  Cyzicenus,  on  whom  see  n.  14°.  and  Berrim.  ut  supr. 
-p.  178,  ISO.  On  the  dependance  which  may  be  placed  on 
these  quotations  at  second  hand,  see  S.  Epiphanius  and  S.  Ire- 
naDus,  ut  supr.  p.  517.  n.  l34.  The  following  example,  taken 
from. the  reading  of  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  as  preserved  in  the  genuine 

.  and  interpolated  Epistles,  and  in  the  antient  version  of  St.  Igna- 
tius, will  demonstrate  the  instability  of  their  ground  who  build, 
jr*  verbal  quotations,  either  upon  original  or  secondary  autbo- 


(    525    ) 

rected  Text,  who  must  receive  thi&  testimony  mrtr- 
ject  to  the  mistakes  of  the  original  authoufs;  arid 
the  errours  of  subsequent  transcribers,,  fully  'entitled 
to  the  benefit  of  their  authority.  We  h'ave  thus 
only  to  deplore  the  peculiar  state  of  those  who  are 
reduced  to  the  desperate  situation  of  sustaining^  a 
cause  which  rests  on  so  unsolid  a  foundation.  •: 

In  reply  to  the  argument  which  is  deduced  in  fa^- 
vour  of  the  corrected  reading  of  1  John  v.  ?.  from 
the  silence  of  the  fathers,  who  have  neglected  to 
appeal  to  this  text  in  the  Trinitarian  controversy, 
it  may  be.,  in  the  first  place,  observed,  that  no  suck 
controversy  existed. 

In  the  first  age  of  the  Church,  the  subjects  de- 
bated by  the  catholicks  and  hereticks  turned  upon 
the  divinity  and  the  humanity  of  Christ;  on  the 


rity.     S.  Ignat.  ad  Ephes.  cap.  i.  Ed.  Genuin.  a 

sv  aTptaTi  ©c£,  TO  ffvfatHto*  l^yc*  TtAiiwj  umfr'urecrs  :  Ed.  Interpoi. 

•  fivst^uTrv  pJ7cravT£f    Iv    aiiAaTl   X^lffTfcf,   TO    cry/ysmov,    x.  T.  I.     .Ver8» 

Antiq.  reaccendentes  in  sanguine  Christi  Dei,  cognatura  .  opus 
integre  perfecistis.  In  Act.  xx.  28.  St.  Athanasius  is  quoted 
as  reading  ©«£,  Xp  »r»,  et  Kvfa.  Vid.  Bengel.  .not  in  loc^J  Ori- 
gen,  Theodoret,  and  Fulgentius  read  Xpr£,  in  opposition  to  all 
known  manuscripts  ;  and  T  heophyhict  agrees  with  many  in 
reading  Kvfia  x«»x  @i£f.  Griesb.  ibid.  In  1  Tim»  uu  16.  S.  Hi- 
lary, S.  Augustine,  S.  Hilary  the  Deacon,  Pelagius,  Julian  3?e- 
lag.  Fulgentius,  Idacius,  Leo  Magn.  Victorinus,  Cassianusr 
Gregorius  Magn.  Vigilius  Taps.  Bede,  Martin  I.  are  quoted  as 
having  read,  in  opposition  to  every  known  MS.  but  the  Clef- 
mont,  S,  for  05  or  0eo?;  Vid.  Sabatier.  et  Griesb.  'not.  in  loc, 
And  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  in  opposition  to  ail  known  manu- 
scripts,  thus  refers  to  this  yerse,  i*v?rypK>i>  psS'  y^u*  iT^fer  i» 
ftyytfot  rov  X§«j7ov.  Vid.  Griesb.  not.  in  loc.  Origen  reads  I^jtr§}- 
Tom.  I,  p.  4-67r  Barnab.  jells  ®£».  cap.  v.  p*  16. 


(    526.) 

doctrine  of  the  Trinity  there  was  no  room  for  main* 
taining1  a  contest'44.  Not  only  the  hereticks,  but 
the  sects  from  which  they  sprang,  would  to  a  man 
have  subscribed  to  the  letter  of  this  text  ;  as  they 
admitted  the  existence  of  "  three"  powers,  or  prin- 
ciples, in  the  "  one"  Divinity.  Such  was  the  doc- 
trine of  the  two  great  sects  into  which  they  may  be 
divided,  consisting-  ofGnosticks  and  Ebionites  ;  for 
such  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Jews  and  Magians, 
from  whom  those  sects  respectively  descended  UJ: 
and  such,  consequently,  is  the  doctrine  which  is  ex- 
pressly ascribed  to  Simon  Magus  I4<5,,  Cerinthus  I47, 

144  As  the  winding  up  of  this  controversy  is  to  be  found  in 
the  full  and  final  definition  of  the  Council  of  Constantinople, 
held  on  the  restoration  of  orthodoxy  under  Theodosius  ;  from 
the  following  list  of  the  heresies  opposed  in  that  Council,  we 
may  collect  what  were  the  controversies  in  which  the  disputed 
text  was  most  likely  to  be  quoted.  Theodorit.  Hist.  Eccl. 
Lib.  V.  cap.  ix.  p.  207.  1.  25.  Tayra  X«!«T«  T>J?  'Agt'm  y.acl  'Aslix 
xa* 


TS     T 

1    xai    T^K    '  AirohusL^x    y.cciroiopiav 
*   xat    Toy    T??    lya»S^7T^<T£w;   Tt?,   Kyptf    Aoyov 

ru&ptv,'  x.  *.  1.  Conf.  n.  «5J.  infr.  p.  528.  et  Epist.  Damas. 
ftjj.  Theodorit.  ut  supr.  cap.  xi.  p.  209.  1.  17.  seq.  Aetius  and 
Eunomius  followed  Arius,  and  adopted  his  errours;  Socrat. 
Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  II.  cap.  xxxv.  p.  133.  L  1.  p.  134.  1.  2. 
Both  the  Apollinaris*  were  orthodox  on  the  subject  of  the 
Trinity;  Id.ib.  cap.  xlvi.  p.  164.  1.  14—17.  Marcellus,  Pho- 
tinus>  and  Paul  of  Samosata,  followed  Sabellius,  vid.  infr.  p. 
$2%  n.  1SI. 

"».*  Vid.  supr.  p.  268.  n.  ***. 

'"  Vid.  ibid. 

147  The  following  testimony  will  sufficiently  prove,  that  Ce- 
rinthus acknowledged  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity^  which  was 


(    527    ) 

Ebion14*,  Valentinus  I49,  Marcionls%  and  their  fol- 
lowers. 

To  the  Gnosticks  the  Sabellians  succeeded,  whose 
opinions  had  been  previously  held  by  Noettis,,  and 
subsequently  maintained  by  Paul  of  Samosata1*1. 

not  denied  by  Simon  Magus,  vid.  supr.  p.  268.  n.  la*.  S.  Epiw 
phan.  Haer.  xxviii.  p.  110.  d.  arcs  [o  K^pSo?]  tuvftrliv  —  otwStf 
5*  IK  TV  GLVU  0.c3  (titct  TO  afyvvSvvcu  TQV  Irjfffiv,  Tov  Ix.  frirsflAVtoj 
luarty  KJ  Mctfi&q  yiyevvyifAzvoVf  xaTsAnAt/^sKxt  TO>»  Xgir&i'  £t«  at'Toy^ 
TtfT/r»  TO  rTvcV/xsc  TO  ayiov  £>  «ost  9repr£f^s  s»»  TW  'Xop^<%y>i» 

H*  Conf.  supr.  p.  272.  nn.  "6  et  "7. 

149  Though  the  Valentinians  multiplied  their  first  principle^ 
they  acknowledged  a  Trinity  a^  paramount  to  the  subordinate 
beings  whom  they  admitted  into  their  notion  oi'  the  divine  na- 
ture ;  S.  Iren.  adv.  User.  Lib.  I.  cap.  ii.  §  6.  p.  12.  £«*»?  //.»£  x^ 
TO  iru.ii  Et>$ftffl4i  ruv  Alutuv,  ffVfto&xitits  T«  X^iffi,  xj  T» 
rS 


TOV  IrxjSvj  ov  x^  Sarrri^a  Trpcaayopsv^'/jfat,  x^  Xprov,  x^  Aoyov,  x.  T.  *• 
Vid.  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  xi.  p.  156.  1.  15.  conf, 
supr.  p.  272.  n.  "7. 

150  The  affinity  between  the  Catholick  and  Marcionite  no- 
tions is  admitted  by  St.  Cyprian,  Ep.  Ixxiii.  ad  Jubaian.  p.  200. 
"  At  ne  longum  sit  per  haereses   universas  decurrere  -  d« 
Marcione  solo-  -  examinemus,  an  possit  baptismatis  ejus  ratio 
const  are.     Dominus  enim  post  resurrectionem^  discipulos  suos 

'  mittens,  quemadmodum  baptizare  duberent,  instituit  et  docult 
dicens  —  *  <locete  gentes  omnes,  baptizantes  eos  in  nomine  ,Pa« 
tris  et  Filii  et  Spiritiis  sancti.'     Insinuat  Trinit.atem  -  ,     Nun- 
quid  /mwc^Trinitatem  Marcion  tenet  ?     Nunquid  euridem-. 
jguem-et  nos  Pa'tr&n  creatorem  ?    Nunquid  e  undent  unum 
Christum,  de  Maria  virgine  natum;  qui  Sermo  caro  factus  e§t, 
&c.     Conf.  S.  Athan.  contr.  Apolin.  Lib.  I.  §  12.  p.  932.  a.  c. 

151  S.  Epiphan.  Haer.  LXV.  p.  608.  a.     <J>acrxa  ^  «TO? 

tv  G>sy  as*  oxra  tov  at/TV  Aoyov,  xcu  TO 


(    528'   > 

But  I  yet  remain  to  be  informed:  how  this  text  could 
have  been  opposed  to  the  errours  of  those  hereticks. 
As  they  followed  the  Ebionites151,  and  1  Joh.  v.  7. 
had  been  quoted  by  the  Evangelist  as  a  concession 
of  those  hereticks,  this  text,  in  the  strictness  of  the 
letter,  decided  rather  in  their  favour,  than  in  that 
of  the  orthodox. 

Marcellusof  Ancyra,  and  Photinus  his  disciple15*, 
are  referred  to  the  Sabellian  school  '5*.  The  con- 
tests maintained  with  them  seem  to  lie  most  within 
the  range  of  the  disputed  text,  and  to  have  assumed 
most  the  appearance  of  a  Trinitarian  controversy. 
But  a  very  slight  acquaintance  with  the  subject  of 
this  controversy  will  clearly  evince,  that  this  text 
was  wholly  unsuitable  to  the  purpose  of  those  who 


aXA*  Iv   otvry   Qcu.    ao-irsf    apefal  xa*   £«j3/X/Uofj  xai   a 
aroc,  Kott  o  NOV/TOL;,  xa<  aA?,oi.    x.  T.  I. 

IS*  Euseb.  de  Eccl.  Theol.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xiv.  p.  75.    * 

«£  TaS 


o 

i«?  ww/xa^ov,  Ej5paVxjj  ^w^j;,  WTCI;%«^.  Conf.  Lib.  II.  contK 
Marcel,  cap.  ii.  p.  42.  b.  c.  cap.  iv.  p.  62.  d.  S.  Epiphan.  Haer. 
I.xv.  p.  609.  b. 

153  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  It.  cap.  xviii.  p.  93.    *A^«^* 
ila.%v  run  Svluuv  rs  xat  atvoilofaKuv 
«U'T>J  TC^V  T^Aypifc/v,  aipsais  er/^a, 
IxsT  exx^yjcrtwv  wpoEr<w?,  ye/o?  T??  jt*txp«? 
TE  T«  K«&r^7>/>cgv«  /xa&^Vr.r,  axoX«$£v  TO; 
gro*,  rov  "Tiov  'i^oy^aT»cri.     Id.  ib.  cap.  XIX.  p.  100.  1.  29. 
IK    i»Vi»    ol   «7f9    Ma§xs'XX«   xat    <J>w7E*v», 

61    TJJW    VQOtWViQV   VTlCtfov  T£   X«*    ©EOT7]7a    TW 


iv 


Yid.  supr.  n. 


'1"52 


4     (    529    ) 

were  engaged  in  sustaining  it.  Eusebius  and  Mat- 
cellus,  by  whom  it  was  carried  on,  were  professedly 
agreed  on  the  existence  of  "  three"  persons  or  sub- 
sistences in  the  Divine  Nature155;  one  of  which 
they  likewise  believed  to  be  ce  the  Word,"  or  Lo- 
gos156, and  asserted  to  be  <e  one"  with  God157:  it  is 
consequently  inconceivable  that  the  text  should  be 
quoted  to  settle  any  point  which  was  contested  be- 
tween them.  The  whole  stress  of  the  controversy 
rested  on  the  force  of  the  term  Son,  as  opposed  to 
the  term  "  Word/'  or  Logos  is8  ;  for  the  latter  be- 
ing equivocal,  afforded  the  hereticks  an  opportunity 


JSS  Euseb.  de  Eccl.  Theol.  Lib.  III.  cap.  vi.  p.  175.  b.     Id.  > 
contr.  Marcel.  Lib.  I.  cap.  ii.  p.  37.  d. 

156  Euseb.  contr.  Marcel.  Lib.  I.  cap.  i.  p.  4.  c.  Lib.  II.  cap. 
ii,  p.  36.  c.  &c* 

157  Euseb.  ibid.  cap.  iv.  p.  54.  a.    Id.  de  Eccl.  Theolog*  Lib;  ' 
I.  cap.  i.  p.  61.  a.  b.  cap.  xvii.  p.  79.  c.  d.  con£  Lib.  II.  cap.  iv. 
p.  107-  a.  cap.  xi.  p.  119.  a. 

**8  The  oriental  bishops,  expressly  anathematizing  the  errours  * 
of  Mdrcettus  and  Photinus,  deliver  themselves  in  the  following' 
terms;  Spcrat.  ibid.  p.  100.  1.  17.     B$s*.vcrff6pi§oc.  Si  irfa  THTOK 
ttcu    a»a$*//,aTi{«Y/.!y,   x.at    TW?   Xoyov  ptev  /u-ovov   ocvrot    [TOV   XpirojQ 
7  3  0fi3,  -4/iX.ov  xat  dvi/ftccpKrov  e7r»7rXaj-w$  KO^VTOH;  iv  trt^u  TO  m<M.  _ 


\ivv  (AIV,  as  TOV  TTpo^op/xov  fayopevof  VTTO  THMV'  vvv  at  u'$  TOV 
Ccfnf.  Euseb.  contr.  Marcel.  Lib.  I.  cap.  i.  p.  4.  d. 
Lib.  II.  cap.  ii.  p.  36.  c.  Eccl.'  Theol.  Lib.  I.  cap.  i.  p.  6J.  p 
a.  b.  On  Photinus's  opinion,  vid.  Epiphan.  adv.  Hasr.  n.  LXXI. 
p.  830.  c.  831*  d.  &c.  One  sentence  on  this  subject  will  illus- 
trate the  state  of  the  controversy  between  Easebius  and  Mar- 
cellus.  Euseb.  de  Eecl.  Theol.  Lib.  I.  cap.  xvi.  p.  78.  b. 
*O  $1  [[Mapxg'AAflj]  TOV  'OfiOV  slviTv  vrctpourr,ffoi(Atiio$9  arai  xdru  TOV 

\        ~/\"  \  \  •*  \        *          \  / 

Aoyov  ^pyAAst,   xai ;  2fl^«XXi»  p-v  x«Tryo^£*,  rot  T*o»  aps^ceya*  T«UTC» 
*i.  T^  HWT    avrS  ha.&&ri  rrir  trie  wrxo^;- 


M  m 


(    530    ) 

of  explaining  away  its  force,  so  as  to  confound  the 
persons,  after  the  errour  of  Sabellius159,  while  tire 
former,  as  implying  its  correlative  Father,  effectu- 
ally refuted  this  errour,  by  establishing  a  personal 
diversity  between  the  subsistences  ;  since  it  involved 
an  absurdity  to  consider  a  Father  the  same  as  his 
Son,  or  represent  him  as  begetting  himself166.  As 
the  text  before  us  uses  the  term  "  Word"  instead  of 
Son161,  it  must  be  directly  apparent  that  it  waa 
wholly  unqualified  to  settle  the  point  at  issue:  it 
can  be  therefore  no  matter  of  surprise  that  no  ap- 
peal is  made  to  it  in  the  whole  of  the  controversy* 
Eusebius  and  Marcellus  had,  however,  other  reasons 
for  declining  to  cite  its  authority.  As  the  ardour  of 
controversy  drove  them  into  extremes,  the  one  lean- 
ing towards  the  errour  of  Arius16*,  and  the  other 
towards  that  of  Sabellius161,  the  text  in  dispute,  as 
containing  the  orthodox  doctrine,  must  have  been  as 
unsuitable  to  the  purpose  of  the  one  as  of  the  other  : 
the  term  sv  making  as  much  against  Eusebius164, 

859  Euseb.  de  Eccl.  Theolog.  Lib,  II.  cap.  ix.  p.  115.  d.  116. 
a.  cap.  xiii.  p.  120.  b. 

160  Euseb.  ibid.  cap.  xii,  p.  119/d. 

161  Vid.  supr.   p,  292.  n.  a89.   conf,     Barret,  Collat.  CocK; 
Hontfort.  p.  28.  Cod.  Rescript  Dublin,  subnex.    Porson,  Let. 
XII.  p,  377* 

101  S.  Epiphan.  Hoer.  LXVIII.  p*  723.  d. 
'Evcrepiav  "TO*    Kaurapeiar,  v.«<- 


Vid.  supr.  p.  39.  n.  *».     Conf.  Montfauc.  Nov.  Coliec.  Scriptt, 
Tom.  II.  PraeL  p.  xxviii. 
:kl63  Vid.  supr.  p.  528.  n.  X53. 

.  'contr;  Ariann,    * 

^  ^.:  x 


r   531   ) 

who  divided  the  substance,  as  the  term  T^MT  against 
Mareellus*65,  who  confounded  the  persons.  From 
this  circumstance  we  are  consequently  enabled  to 
account  for  more  than  their  silence:  for  thus  we 
clearly  discover  the  cause  which  induced  the  one  to 
expunge  this  text  from  his  edition,  and  the  other  to 
acquiesce  in  its  suppression. 

We  may  pass  over  the  opinions  of  Theodotus 
and  Artemon,  as  well  as  over  those  of  Montanus 
and  the  Encratites.  The  controversies  with  the 
former  never  extended  to  the  consideration  of  the 
Trinity166,  or  w'ere  conducted  on  the  same  princi- 
ples as  against  the  Sabellians  l6?  :  the  notions  of  the 
latter  on  the  subject  of  that  doctrine  were  perfectly 
orthodox  l68.  In  these  contests,  of  course,  we  must 
look  in  vain  for  a  Trinitarian  controversy,  or  for  a 
Suitable  occasion  to  cite  the  verse  in  question. 

To  the  Sabellians  the  Arians  may  be  opposed,  as 
falling  into  the  opposite  extreme  ;  the  former  con- 


avTov   [NapcjWo>],    si  fiWeg  'Efffe'/Sior  o   rw   IlaXatS"/vy/r, 

yat   £>Wr,  Srv   xa*   «J]oj,  Atyor     "Eyvuv   etvror,   uiro   ruv 
yi>oi<pevlav9    TgEiV    elvxi   TTifsvsiv   &ciatff  aTrox^ro^eysy.      Ap.    Euseb* 

contr.  Marcel.  Lib.  I,  cap.  iv.  p.  25.  c.  conf.  Lib.  III.  cap.  iv. 
p.  169.  d. 

ICS  Euseb.  contr.  Marcel,  de  Eccl.  Theol.  Lib.  II.  cap.  ir. 
p.  107.     E»   Si  ay  tv  xat  TOLVTOV  w  o  ©eoy  xat  6  gv  avry  X.oyor> 


ctvrof   yv  o   iir\  voitTUV  0«c?»      Conf.  Mont 

fauc.  ib.  Tom.  II.  Proel.  p.  Iv.  §  vi. 
165  Vid.  supr.  p.  ^09.  n.  47. 
167  Vid.  supr.  p'.  527.  n.  X5'. 
161  S.  Epiphan.  Haer.  XLVIII.  p»  402.  d*  itt 

ri    uy\<x. 


(    533    } 

founding  the  Persons,  as  the  latter  divided  the 
stance.--  But  the  contests  maintained  with  these 
hereticks;  as  not  extended  beyond  the  consideration 
of  the  'second  Person  l69,  did  not  assume  the  form 
of  :av'  Trinitarian  controversy.  The  whole  of  the 
matter  in  debate  the  catholicks  conceived  capable 
of  being  decided  by  a  few  texts,,  some  of  which  had 
the  high  authority  of  our  Lord;  and  on  such  they 
rested  the  whole  weight  of  the  contest170.  As  they 
were  accused^  by  their  opponents,  of  falling  into  the 

If9  Socrat.  Eccl.   Hist.    Lib.  III.   cap.  vii.    p.  179.   1.  8. 

ToTt  /xiv   y    iv   Nwtasa  t7riy£VQ(/.iiiy  ffvvooo$   TTJ^*  TJJV  TtfTtf  [TO  wept 
y.oti   virorccfftus~]    tyrvinv   ttoi  Aoyou   y^iutni.   STTit  Si  ^ilcclatvTat 
9r«£*    TST«    Ifso^eXsZV   »j$EXo»,   &aT«To   Ix    rctvry   T*J  (rvvofy    [i» 
v^pEia]]    iri^i    aaia?    re   xa*    vvoo-roiiffcuq   ra^g    otVi^vivottro.      S. 

Hieron.  Pamach.  et  Ocean.  Ep.  LXV.  cap.  i.  Tom.  I.  p.  229. 

Quidam   constant!  us,  *  Quomodo,'   inquit,  *  damnabimus  quos 

Synodus  Nicena  non  tetigit  ?'  —  Et  idcirco  Spiritus  Sancti  ne- 

ganda  majestas  est,  quia  in  ilia  synodo  super  substantia  ejus 

silentium  JuitS    De  Ario  tune,  non  de  Origene  qusestio  fuit; 

de  Filioy  non  de  Spiritu  Sancto.     Vid.  Socrat.  ib.  Lib.  I.  cap. 

ix.  p.  9.  1.  1—5.     Sozom.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  xxii.  p.  245.  1.  10—15. 

26—31.     Co«f.  Theodorit.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  I.  cap.  iv.  p.  12. 

t»l;,seq-     Lab.  et  Cossart..Concil.  Tom.  II.  col.  103.  e. 

170  S.  Atban.  de  Synodd.  Tom.  II.  p.  759.  d.—  ?%0>r«?  £  $ 

tot  T&V  weft  Aiovyff-jov  9r»pat)eiyp!.aTa,   T*JV  Trr/fy/v  x^  TW  vtgi  TV 

'y  TT^o  $£  -r&TUV  TOV  T»  SwT'^^oy  evoeiS'/i  (pwv^v*    '  iyu 


Fhoerbad.  contr.  Ariann.  p.  302.  f.  —  "  Patrem  Deum,  et  Filium 
Deum  dicimus  :  iHud  ante  omnia  sciatiir,  nee  unum  nos  cum 
praejudicio,  nee  duos  dicere,  quia  unum  dicimus  in  duobus, 
ipso  Domino  sv.ggerente  :  *  Ego  et  Pater  unum  sumus,"  &c. 
conf.  Alex.  Alexandrin.  ap.  Theodorit.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  I.  cap. 
it.:p..i6.1.  16.  p.  .18.  1.  26. 


(    533    ) 

opposite  extreme  of  the  Sabellians  I7V  the  contested 
passage  must  have  been"  wholly  unsuitable  to  their 
purpose  ;  as  embarrassing  the  question  with  greater 
difficulties  than  those  which  they  undertook  to  re- 
move. It  is  therefore  little  wonderful  that  they  did 
not  appeal  to  it  in  their  contests  with  these  here- 
ticks. 

The  same  reasons  which  prevented  the  orthodox 
from  citing  this  passage  in.  their  contests  with  the 
Arians,  prevented  them  from  citing  it  in  their  dis- 
putes with  the  Macedonians.  In  the  latter  case 
there  was  no  question  agitated  respecting  the  second 
Person  of  the  Trinity  ;  as  in  the  former  no  questioa 
respecting  the  third  I7V  In  neither,,  of  course,  did 
the  contests  maintained  with  those  hereticks  assume 
the  form  of  a  Trinitarian  controversy,  or  admit  of 
support  from  the  contested  passage. 

We  may  subjoin  the  followers  of  Nestorius  and 
Eutyches,  to  those  of  Macedonius.  But  neither 
of  the  former  sects  denied  the  doctrine  of  the  Tri- 
nity ;  their  disputes  with  the  catholicks  being  pro- 
perly confined  to  the  question,  whether  the  Son 
possessed  one  subsistence  or  two  persons,  instead  of 

171  Via.  supr.  p.  40.  n.  7I. 

m  Phot  ad.  Mich.  Bulg.  Ep.  i.  p.  6.     'H*  ya§  "Agetof  xar* 
Maxs^ovto.;      xara 


xct     vTryfras    TV*   «wHroT»x»!»    xau 
.      Kat  TO*  P«o»  ^x,  aifwip  i(3t;^iTo, 
^X>y,  .  crvyogav,    OTJ  .  xaSaTrs^  ol  TOV  'Yiov  gli"  x7/(T/xa  Tar^ovVer, 
ru    Hatlft9  '«TW   x«*    ol   ro   wa^a^io* 


xa 

/av  «^iaffi  xar'  «yr5.     Conf,  Secret.  Hist.  Eccl^  Lib^ 
IJ,  cap.  xlv, 


(    534    ) 

two  subsistences  and  one  person  >7}.  In  these  con* 
troversies,  of  coarse,,  there  was  no  greater  neces- 
sity17* for  an  appeal  to  the  disputed  passage,,  than 
in  any  of  the  preceding. 

After  the  period  which  produced  these  controver- 
sies, all  enquiry  must  be  fruitless  which  is  directed 
in  search  of  a  Trinitarian  controversy.  That  with 
the  Pelagians  engaged  the  attention  of  the  Church 
for  a  long  time  subsequent  to  this  period,  and  agi- 
tated the  eastern  and  western  world175.  But  it  was 
of  a  different  character  from  those  which  preceded, 
The  disputants,,  having  at  length  agreed  on  the  ex^ 
istence  of  the  third  person17*,  now  began  to  dispute 

173  The  doctrine  of  Neetorius  has  been  already  described, 
supr.  p.  521.  n.  I3*.  that  of  Eutyches  ran  into  the  opposite  ex- 
treme ;  and  as  the  former  divided  the  person,  the  latter  con- 
founded the  natures ;  Facund.  Defens,  Trium.  Capitt.  Lib.  I, 
cap.  v.  p.  10.  e.  "  Et  ideo  jam  illud — Eutychianis  contrarium 
jectmaesse  monstremus,  quod  Dominum  nostrum  Jesum  Chris- 
tum confiternur  in  duabis  naturis,  id  est  in  Divinitate  atque 
humanitate  perfectum, — Nee  dici  patimur  vnam  ejus  ex  DiVi* 
fcitate  et  humanitate  compositam  naturam,  ne  Patri,  cujus  sim. 
plex  natura  est,  consubstantialis  non  sit,"  &c. 
-,  m  The  Eutychians,  it  is  evident,  could  not  object  to  the 
doctrine  inculcated  in  1  Joh.  v.  7 :  however  they  might  have 
Claimed  that  verse,  as  on  their  side  of  the  question.  Nor  was 
the  case  materially  different  with  the  Nestorians ;  Garner,  not. 
in  Liberat.  Brev.  £ap.  x.  p.  55.— "  neque  enim  Nestorius  ipse 
negavit  unquam,  Verbum,  aut  esse  unam  de  tribus  Perswtis 
Divims,  aut  esse  incarnatum ;  neque  vero  fuit  unquam  agitata 
quaestio  an-  una  de  tribus  Personis  sit  incarnata ;  sed  an  tmus 
de  Trinitate  sit  passus,  ac  crucifixus,"  &c. 
S^iW  Vid.  Usser.  Aniiq.  Brit,  Eccles.  cap.ix.  p.  112.seq. 

176  St.  Jerome,  who  was  alive  at  the  close  of  the  Arian,  con» 
4#ovjersy,, makes  .the  following  boast;  S.  Hier.  adv.  Rufim.  Lib. 


on  his  mode  of  operation  ;  a  discussion  which,,  con- 
sequently, admitted  of  no  appeal  to  the  text  of  the 
heavenly  witnesses. 

It  will,  however,  be  doubtless  objected,  that  al- 
though the  controversies  maintained  by  the  Church, 
as  not  embracing  the  docirine  of  the  Trinity,  did 
not  admit  of  reference  to  I  John  v.  7.  yet,  as  turn- 
ing* on  the  divinity  and  the  humanity  of  Christ,  they 
necessarily  suggested  the  expediency  of  an  appeal 
to  Acts  xx.  28.  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  But  this  objection 
will  have  little  force,  when  it  is  remembered  that 
the  passage  was  not  considered  decisive,  a$  not  using 
the  term  Christ;  and  that  the  hereticks,  who  ex- 
•cepted  against  the  doctrine  inculcated  in  those  texts, 
rejected  also  that  part  of  the  canon  in  which  they 
are  contained.  Of  the  hereticks  who  took  the  lead 
in  this  controversy,  the  Ebionites  wholly  renounced 
the  authority  of  St.  Paul'77;  and  the  Gnosticks, 
Marcionites,  Valentinians178,  and  their  followers, 

II.  cap.  i.  Tom.  II.  p.  241,  "  Nolo  cures  quae  sana  sunt  vul- 
nera  medicare.  Trinitatem  dicis  esse  unius  Deitatis.  Hoc  toto 
C-redente  jam  mundo,  puto  quod  et  dccmones  conpteantur^  Filium 
Dei  natum  de  Maria  Virgine,  et  camera  naturse  humanse  atque 
aninoam  suscepisse," 


Orig.  contr,  Cels.  Lib.  V.  cap.  Ixv.  p,  628.  c.   t.V* 


177 

tuits 

x    o    HO^atffo*        >taT»Ta*  «x  ay  av  o» 


ru>  a^royoXw  us  ptaxa§/a;  nvi'  x.  T.  I.  Conf.  Euseb. 
Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  III.  cap.  xxvii.  p.  121.  1.  37.  S.  Hieroiu 
Prooem.  in  Ep.  ad  Tit.  Tom.  VI.  p.  196.  d. 

178  Vid.  supr.  p.  431.  n.  10,  462.  n.  55.  S.  Hier.  ibid.  p.  196.  b. 
<4  Licet  non  sint  digni  fide,  qui  fidem  primam  irritam  feceruflt, 
Marcionem  loquor  et  Basilidem,  et  omnes  haereticos,  qui  Vetus 
laniaut  Testamentum,  &c.-^^~  Ut  enim  de  cceteris  Epi$tolis 


(    536    ) 

corrupted  or  rejected  the  Acts  and  Epistles  to 
mothy.  The  orthodox  were  consequently  reduced 
to  the  necessity  of  deducing-  their  scriptural  proofs 
from  that  part  of  the  canon,  on  the  authority  of 
which  they  and  their  adversaries  were  -mutually 
agreed179,,  and  were  thus  prevented  from  making 
those  frequent  appeals  to  the  verses  in  dispute, 
which  the  controversy  may  be  conceived  to  have 
suggested. 

^It  is  thus  apparent  from  the  state  of  the  early 
controversies  maintained  by  the  catholicks,  that 
there  was  no  point  contested  which  rendered  an 
appeal  to  the  text  of  the  heavenly  witnesses  abso- 
lutely necessary.  It  may  be  now  shewn,  from  the 
'distinctions  introduced  in  those  controversies,  that 
the  orthodox  were  so  far  from  having  any  induce- 
ment to  appeal  to  this  text,  that  they  had  every 
reason  to  avoid  an  allusion  to  it,  as  it  apparently 
favoured  the  tenets  of  their  opponents. 

From  the  brief  sketch  which  has  been  given  of 
the  progress  of  controversy  in  the  primitive  church, 
it  must  be  apparent,  that  the  Sabellian  controversy 
presented  the  most  suitable  occasion  for  an  .appeaj 
to  the  contested  passage.  The  peculiar  tenets'*of 
the  different  sects  which  may  be  classed  uridef'tftiS 
tiame,  had  originated  with  the  Jews180/  and  Ka5 
been  adopted  from  them  in  the  Egyptian^ 


,  de  quzbus  quicquid  contrariwn  suo  dogmati- 
traserunt  :  ..  nonmjllas    integras   repudiandas    credi^ga^Uft^  -jf.4 
'fimoiheum  videlicet  utramque,"  &c. 


,  "»vid.supr.p.33i.n.4«. 

•  ;.»  Vid,,  siipr.  p.  528.  nn.  "*  et  "', 


.  ... 

^  .  .          ,  0, 


{    537    ) 

pel181,  from  whence  they  descended  to  Noetns, 
Praxeas,  Sabellius18*,  and  their  followers.  Under 
Paul  of  Samosata,  they  attained  that  influence  ia 
the  Syriack  Church,  which  occasioned  the  meeting 
of  the  Council  of  Antioch  18?.  In  the  following^  cen- 
tury, they  were  revived  by  Marcellus,  Photinus,  and 
Apollinarius  I84-  ;  and  were  expressly  condemned  by 
the  Council  of  Sirmium,  which  was  convened  against 
the  Photinians185. 

Of  the  tenets  of  these  different  sects/  we  have  an 
explicit  account  not  only  in  the  writings  of  those 
polemicks,  who  opposed  their  erroursl8a;  but  in 

.   UI  S.  Epiphan.  Haer.  LXIJ.  p.  514.  a.   ™  ^i'.wao-*»  avruf 

arXfcv*?!',  xj   T«V  Tris   irhouK    O,VTUV  Wotpu    [ot  Ea/Sf^avor]    S^VO-H  •£ 
ATroxvQuv  twuvy    pa.\i<ra.   uvo    T»    xa^«^£itf    AIyf7<rI*a  EiJaJytXiV, 


I8Z  Conf.  S.  Epiphan.  ibid.  p.  513.  a.     Tert.  adv.  Frax. 

183  Euseb.  Hist.   Eccl.  Lib,  VII.  eap.  xxjx.  p.  358.  1.  27* 

^'     or    r&tvlaiaf    ffvyy.pols§fi(rir)f    irfaif  a*  •  offuv    line  wit  uv  '.  . 


Ig4  Conf.  S.  Epiphan.  Hser.  LXXI.  p.  828.  d.  Haer.  LXXII. 
p.  834.  a.  Haer.  LXXVII.  p.  998.  b.  c. 

115  Socrat.  Hist.   Eccl.  Lib.   II.   cap.  xxix.  p.   123i  .1.  ^5. 

Wi  $J  xj  Qoltivos   o   T>5$   txsT  [!>  TW  2»^iy]    ixxXWatf  wgojpjxwf,  TO 

l^&fvXhu.    ho   retpot^r,t   U 
trvvohv    ITFMOKUV   iv  tu 
x.  T.  I. 

186  The  clearest  description  of  the  tenets  of  those  sects  which 
followed  the  errours  of  Sabeilius,  are  given  in  the  account  of 
thaUheretick,  and  of  the  most  celebrated  of  hi%  followers,  Paul  pif 
Samosata.  The  tenets  of  the  former  are  thus  described  by^  St. 
£piphanius,  Haer.  LXII.  p.  513.  b. 


(    538    ) 

ih«  confessions  of  faith  which  were  drawn  up  by  the 
councils,  that  were  summoned  against  them1*7. 
But  in  whatever  form  Sabellianism  presents  itself, 
we  are  compelled  to  acknowledge,,  that  it  absolutely 
'derives  support  from  the  text  of  the  heavenly  wit- 
nesses. These  hereticks,  adhering  to  the  very 
letter  of  the  text,  asserted  that  the  "Word"  and 
"  Spirit"  \vere  in  God,  as  the  reason  and  soul  are 
in  man188;  a  stronger  testimony  in  their  favour 


is   fv    avSpavry  capety  ^  ^X^i)  *J  wtvpa.    x^   tlvon  p\v   TO 

TOV  Hctlsfotf  "fyvxyv  $1   41?   elvtw  TOV  'Ytoy,   TO  9rjij£/z<x  5e 
j   TO   fltytoy   Ilvsy/xa    Iv    T»J    ©tor^t.    ^    us    ioig 


x.  T.  e, 

The  tenets  of  Paul  of  Samosata  have  been  already  described 
supr.  p.  527.  n.  X51. 

157  The  account  which  Eusebius  gives  of  the  Synod  of  An- 
Hoch,  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  VII.  capp.  xxvii.  xxix.  is  defective  and 
unsatisfactory:  the  Epistle  of  the  Synod  being  garbelled  in  his 
History  ;  conf.  Ib.  cap.  xxx.  p.  359.  1.  17.  p.  362.  1.  9—15.  p. 
363.  1.  13  —  20.  The  deficiencies  of  his  account  may  be  how- 
ever supplied  in  some  measure  from  St.  Athanasius,  Epist.  de 
Synodd.  §  4-5.  &c.  Tom.  II.  p.  759.  sqq.  A  fuller  account  of 
the  Council  of  Sirmium,  is  given  by  Socrates,  Hist,  Eccl.  Lib, 
ft.  cap.  xxix.  &c.  p.  123.  sqq.  whose  account  may  be  compare^ 
with  Athan.  ibid.  §  27.  p.  741.  e,  S.  Hilar.  de  Synodd.  §  CSI+ 
col.  1174.  d. 

»»  S.  Epiphan.   Haer.  LXV.  p.  608.  a.   pi  ,TW  ^  TQV 

Iv 


tj  o  ©so?,   xai  tt^t  Ifcdiy  o  Ylolvp,  v.o.1  'Yto?   o  fYlorr«<w  «* 
TCI  *7«ov  IIvst'Ata*  aXXa  gly  ©^W  o  Ila?^, 
f  AOroi:  o  av^^Trw,     Conf.  p.  609.  b, 


(    539    ) 

than  that  of  the  heavenly  witnesses,  could  not  be 
easily  fabricated189.     It  seems  to  be  therefore  just 

189  As  the  Sabellians  held  that  the  Father,  Word,  and  Holy 
Spirit  were  three  energies  in  the  Divinity,  rgeJV  wpysw  b  rjj 
eioTjflt,  vid.  supr.  p,  538.  n.  13<5:  they  held  that  these  three 
energies  were  one  Person;  S.  Epiphan.  ibid.  p.  609.  b.  $u* 

ttsro  Wpoffwirov  $V  TO*  ©f«»  a/x,»  T&>  Aoyw  Qourlv,  «y  avSquirov  etci  HOC* 
rov  avTti  hoyov.  ts^tv  «r?uov  TUV  'ix^otiuv,  uq  ktyw  3o|«fo>Tt$.  TfieSC 
distinctions  were  precisely  reversed  in  the  description  which 
the  Catholicks  gave  of  their  doctrine;  who  held  that  there 
were  three  Persons,  who  were  one,  not  merely  in  energy,  but 
in  substance ;  S.  Athan.  de  Synodd.  §  48.  p.  762.  d.  o  }«  T*o* 
Ix  rriS  ufflas  uv  yiwip.*,  haip  ev  gj-iv  OLVTOS  ^  o  y«»wa?  ayT 
Let  us  now  apply  these  distinctions  to  1  Job.  v.  7.  and  we 
acknowledge,  that  whether  the  ellipsis  was  supplied  or  not,  th# 
passage  was  decidedly  in  favour  of  the  hereticks.  In  the  former 

Case,  •epsis  *»$•*'  o»  pttplvsttjltt;,  o  Ilal^,  y.sc.1  6  Aoyor,  xa>  T9  oyt&» 
fl^vpa,  xat  ot  rgeiV  sv  «*«,  fully  explained  their  doctrine;  as  in 
this  phrase  the  term  Aoyo?  was  supplied  for  'Y«?,  and  the  personal 
diversity  consequently  unmarked,  if  not  subverted,  in  the  sen- 
tence. In  the  latter  case,  the  terms  which  the  hereticks  used, 
to  distinguish  their  peculiar  notions,  admitted  of  a  direct  asso* 
elation  with  the  disputed  passage;  on  inserting  them  in  the 
context,  their  tenets  were  thus  fully  and  accurately  described, 
£mgyc/0u  tiyi*  iv  TJ»  QeoTjjU]  o  tbivfi  aal  o  Aoyos,  xeu  rl 
Ilvey//a,  xa*  al  rfeif  it  [npoautrov']  eiVi*  In  fact,  as  Eus»- 
bius  and  St.  Epiphanius  were  partly  aware  this  seemingly  ex* 
traordinary  circumstance  was  the  necessary  result  of  St.  Johu 
having  adopted  the  disputed  passage  from  the  Jews;  from 
whom  the  Sabellians  also  borrowed  their  notions  on  the  subject 
bf  the  Trinity.  Of  consequence,  the  passage  before  us,  how- 
ever reconcilable  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Catholicks,  was  wholly 
unfit  to  oppose  to  the  errours  of  their  opponents.  Had  they 
quoted  it  without  supplying  the  ellipsis,  it  expressed  m  a  manner 
even  worse  than  inadequate  the  difference  between  their  tenets 
and  those  of  the  hereticks ;  as  in  using  Aoyo?  for  'YIO* ,  their 
distinctions  were  wholly  overlooked,  while  those,  of  the ir  oppo- 


(    540    ) 

as  reasonable  to  expect,  that  the  catholicks  would 
appeal  to  this  text,  in  vindicating  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  against  those  hereticks,  as  that  they 
would  cite  the  Shema  of  the  Jews,  for  the  same 
purpose  ;  "  Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord  our  God  is 
'one  Lord"  This  is  so  palpably  the  case,  that  in 
the  council  of  Antioch  the  word  -opog'cno*  was  wholly 
rejected,  though  in  this  term  the  whole  strength  of 
the  catholicks'  cause  was  rested  T9°  ;  and  in  that  of 
Sirmium  it  was  passed  over  in  silence  I91  :  the  here- 
• 

nents  were  forcibly  marked.  Had  they  filled  up  the  ellipsis  by 
inserting  the  peculiar  terms,  by  which  they  expressed  their 
own  meaning,  every  word  in  the  sentence  but  two  must  have 
been  altered,  and  the  whole  contexture  of  the  passage  destroy- 
ed ;  TU.  T?i<*  ^jnfautroC^  i?i  fee.  lAXpivfvAct,  o  FIoUjp  xeil  5  'Y»ef  xecl  rl 
£yie»  llyivp.ec,,  xai  roc,  rftet  /AM*  [«<n<x]  IF*.  Will  the  impugners 
of  1  Joh.  v.  7.  now  persist  in  requiring  an  express  appeal  to  this 
text  in  the  Trinitarian  controversy  ? 

190  S.  Athan.  de  Synodd.  §  45.  p.  759,  b.  ol  ^  y*f  T 


TOV  X^s-ov  o/xo8(Ttoy.  Conf.  S.  Hilar.  de  Sy- 
nodd. §  86.  coL  1200.  b.  The  peculiar  force  of  the  term 
of*68<r»«v  is  asserted  in  the  following  terms  by  St.  Athanasius, 
Ibid,  p-  760.  b. 


•  lftl  The  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Council"  of  Sirmium,  i& 
given  in  Socrates,  Hist.  Ecel.  Lib.  II.  cap,  Xxx.  p.  124-.  S*, 
Athan.  de  Synodd.  §  27.  p.  74-2.  a.  S.  Hilar.  de  Synoddv.f  38, 
col.  1174.  e:  but  the  term  Ipovcw  does  not  occur  .in  :it."  In  a 
Council  held  at  Sirmium,  within  six  years  of  the  preceding,  the 


(     541     ) 

tkks  having  carried  their  notions  of  the  doctrine  of 
one  substance,  which  is  asserted  in  the  disputed 
verse,  to  such  an  extent,  that  they  confounded  the 
persons,  in  establishing*  their  favourite  tenet. 

It  may  be  however  objected,  that  as  this  text  must 
have  been  challenged  by  the  hereticks,  some  refer- 
ence must  have  been  made  to  it  by  the  orthodox,  irt 
replying  to  the  arguments  of  their  opponents.  It 
is  much  to  be  regretted,  that  we  retain  no  more  of 
the  controversies  of  those  hereticks,  than  their  or- 
thodox adversaries  were  able  to  refute :  yet  scanty 
as  the  accounts  of  those  controversies  are'91,,  we 
discover  sufficient  in  the  remains  of  them  to  warrant 
us  in  asserting,  that  the  disputed  text  was  claimed 
by  the  hereticks.  The  controversy  maintained  by 
Tertullian  against  Praxeas,  and  by  Epiphanius 
against  the  Sabellians,  supply  the  only  places  in 
which  we  might  expect  that  some  allusion  would  be 
made  to  the  disputed  passage ;  for  the  reply  of  Eu- 
sebius  to  Marcellus,  must  be  set  out  of  the  question, 
for  reasons  which  were  formerly  specified  *9?.  In 

term  is  wholly  proscribed;  S.  Hilar.  ib.  §  11.  col.  1157.  b. 
"  Quod  vero  quosdam  aut  multos  movebat  de  sulstantia,  qua? 
Graece  usia  [a<r»a]  appcliatur,  id  est  ut  expresgius  intelligatur? 
homousion  [fyoac-wv],  aut  quod  dicitur  homceusion  [fyw»«<r»o*]t 
nullam  omnino fieri  oportere  mentionem,  ncc  qiiemqucim pt&dicare, 
ea  de  causa  et  ratione,  quod  nee  in  divinis  Scripturis  continea- 
tur,  &c.  ConF.  S.  Athan.  ib.  §  28.  p.  744.  f. 

>:197'  Eusebius  dismisses  the  subject  of  the  Sabellian  heresy 
with  scarcely  an  observation,  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  VII.  cap.  vi. 
p.  326.1.  3. 

i  »9«  Vid.  supr.  p.  5SO,  - 


(    542    ) 

the  works  of  Tertullian  '94  and  Epiphanius  «>*,  we 

***  Vid.  supr.  p.  299*  n. 

1$*  St*  Epiphanius,  in  asserting  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
against  the  Sabellians,  cites  Joh.  x.  30.  iyu  xj  «  n»1^  o  footer  : 
a'nd  quotes  with  this  text  the  following  passage,  which  does 
riot  at  present  exist  in  Scripture,  xj  0»  Mo  s»  la/xi>i  subjoining 
the  form  of  baptism,  Matt  xxviii.  19:  Hser.  LXII.  p«  515.  c* 

X^    -TO    HvtVp.SC,  -  TflrOV    TT)    OVo/XOf<7KZ,     i^OV    Tfl    0<0tq}»,     W 


0  yap  Y»o?  ^i}a»»*   '  Iyu  xa»  »  IIa]»?p 

*  iyu   xat    6   nalr>f>*    <?-)j^at»£»  iwirorotlot   tav   Tlctlepx,   xal 
TOV  "Y»ar.     Ka<  '  oi  ^t/o'  stsrs,  xa*  ax  ilw£>  o  sTi"  x<x» 

*  ev  .  exr/AEV*  x«*  ex   JTrjv  sis1  el/^i.  J 

IK  TO  ovo/^ca  T2  naljjof,  xai   T«  'Tt5,  xai  Ttl  iyttt  nrcv/tAalo;/  fti0-«»  ^6 
fuv    ap^pwv  TJJJ  cryX^a^    *  Ttf,  T«/    x«»   *  TK.9   xat 
Mal^aroj   rot  ffvtcthiQviv  iragtirtpepovla*  osrtf  yap  xj 

u\r$u<;  Tletlifet,   aXJjSwj  Tiov,  aX»$a;?   ayto*  Ilveu/xa.      Not  long  pre* 

TIOUS  to  this  passage,  he  connects  the  same  phrase  with  Joh. 
X.  38.  Id.  ibid.  p.  514.  a.  '  lyw  iv  ry  n«I?*,  xa»  o  n<*I>j?  iv  l/xoi,* 
«J,  *  ol  ^iia  ev  eff/xev.'  Now  whether  we  must  attribute  t*he 
alteration  of  this  text  to  St.  Epiphanius,  or  his  transcriber,  it 
is  fully  evident,  that  this  phrase  has  been  fabricated  out  of 

1  Joh.  v.  7-  o*  fftT<;  tv  i»cr».     (1.)  The  phrase  quoted  by  St 
Epiphanius,  o»   Mo  tv  lyptv,  is  neither  Scripture  nor  Greek: 
of  &VQ  requires  the  3.  pers.  plur.  sun,  or  the  3.  pers.  dual.  £re»  : 
and,  contrawise,  Icr^iv  requires  the  pronoun  in  the  first  pers* 
»i/*i<V  or  \ya  x«».     (2.)  St.  Epiphanius  quotes  two  passages  from 
Scripture,  and  makes  an  effort  at  quoting  a  third.     There  are 
precisely  three  passages  in  Scripture,  in  which  the  diversity  of 
th^f*  Persons,  and  the  unity  of  the  substance  of  the  Trinity,  are 
plainly  asserted;  Mat.  xxviit.  19.  Joh.  x.  30.  1  Joh.  v.  7.     The 
first  two  are  correctly  quoted  by  St.  Epiphanius:  and  the  re- 
mains of  the  third,  ol  r^  'iv  uV»,  clearly  exist  in  the  cor- 
rupted passage  before  us,   o»  Mo  'iv  tin.     (3.)  This  passage  is 
cited  by  St.  Epiphanius  as  Scripture,  and  is  quoted  in  reasoning 
against  the-  Sabellians;  but  St.  Cyprian  informs  us,  that  the 
phrase'4  trc&  unum  sunt,'  is  Scripture,  vid.  supr.  p.  300.  n.  3°7: 


(    543    ) 

consequently  find  manifest  traces  of  the  disputed 
text,  which  very  sufficiently  declare,  that  it  was  not 
only  appealed  to  in  the  controversy,  but  challenged 
em  the  side  of  the  hereticks. 

If  we  now  consider  the  period  during  which  the 
Sabellian"  controversy  prevailed,  we  shall  easily  per- 
ceive that  the  negative  argument  adduced  against 
1  Joh.  v.  7.  derives  its  entire  strength  from  an  in- 
attention to  the  true  state  of  that  controversy,  and 
the  period  for  Which  it  prevailed.  The  first  effec- 
tual opposition  which  was  made  against  that  heresy 
was  in  the  council  qf  Antioch,  about  sixty  years  pre- 

and  Tertullian  shows  us,  that  this  phrase  was  cited  with  Joh. 
x.  30.  in  the  SabelUan  controversy,  vid.  ibid.  p.  299.  n.  3°7. 
I  therefore  conclude,  that  e»  Mo  it  icu.tv,  or  i»  «»Vi,  stood  in 
St.  Epiphanius's  authority,  with  the  alteration  of  a  single  word, 
d  TQfif  'iv  tin.  But  this  antient  Father  not  finding  this  phras* 
In  his  copy  of  the  Greek  Testament,  nor  inclined  to  believe  it 
genuine,  if  he  found  it  in  any  other  person's,  as  must  be  appa- 
rent from  his  remark  on  the  article  rS9  prefixed  to  Uefivf  and 
'Tier,  hirMat.  xxyiii.  19.  as  signifying  ci^a?  no]}?,  and  ec.Xr&Zf 
'Yiosy  vid,  supr. :  yet  having  found  it  in  some  authour's  wri-s 
tings,  whom  he  was  engaged  in  refuting,  he  very  easily  ima- 
gined it  a  part  of  Joh.  x.  38.  with  which  passage  it  was  pro* 
bably  connected  in  the  work  before  him,  as  it  is  now  evidently 
connected  in  his  own  text,  p.  5 14-.  a.  ut  supr.  Having  thus- 
united  it  with  lya  xow  o  TletTvp  in  Joh.  x.  30.  the  change  from 
Tf£K  to  &»,  was  not  so  much  the  result  of  caprice  as  necessity, 
in  order  to  connect  it  with  the  context  of  St.  John.  Though 
I  cannot. offer  this,  remark  as  any  evidence  that  1-Joh.  v.  7* 
was  known  to  St.  Epiphanius ;  yet,  until-  a  better  account  is 
given  of  the  extraordinary  text  in  his  writings,;  of  $fa  »  lo-fw, 
I  feel  warranted  in  offering  it  as  a  proof,  that  this  text  ». 
X,  Joh.  v.  7.  o»'  Tpwf.e*  tlc-i,  corrupted;  and  that  St. -Epiphar 
fiius  found  it  .quoted  as,  Scripture  in  some-Sab.elljtn 


Viously  to  tlie  council  of  Nice196.  Prom  this  period 
it  silently  gathered  strength  from  the  opposition  of 
Arianism,  until  it  was  formally  condemned  in  the 
middle  of  the  fourth  century,  by  the  council  of  Sir- 
mium *97.  The  last  effectual  blow  was  struck  against 
those  rival  sects  in  the  second  general  council,  con- 
vened at  the  close  of  the  same  age  in  Constantino- 
ple *98.  But  for  a  long  period  after  this  time,  they 
continued  to  infest  the  Oriental  Church,  until  they 
broke  out  in  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century,  in  the 
heresies  of  Nestorius  and  Eutyches  I99< 

Let  us  therefore  advert  to  the  history  of  the  sa- 
cred text  for  the  whole  of  this  period,  and  view  it 
comparatively  with  the  state  of  religious  contro- 
versy. Let  us  remember,  that  in  the  earlier  part 
of  the  term  the  canon  was  revised  by  Eusebius,  the 
avowed  adversary  of  the  Sabellians,  with  the  most 
unlimited  powers  to  render  it  conducive  to  the  pro- 
motion of  what  he  believed  the  ecclesiastical  doc- 
trinezeo.  Let  us  recollect,  that  at  the  latter  part  of 
the  term,  the  Vulgar  Text  was  again  restored  by 
the  Catholicks,  whose  prejudices  were  not  less  vio- 
lently opposed  to  the  Sabellian  errours,  than  their 
avowed  enemies,  the  Arians ;  and  that  the  disputed 
text  was  still  conceived  to  be  on  the  side  of  the  he- 
terodox *01.  Let  us  hence  consider  the  peculiar  ten- 

196  A.D.  269.     Vid.  Pag.  in  Ann.  Baron.     Sace.  in.  p.  285* 

197  A.D.  351.    VW.  Pag.  ibid.     Ssec.  iv.  p,  475. 
I9S  A.  D.  381.    Vid.  Pag.  ibid.  p.  557. 

199  Vid.  supr.  p.  344.  nn. 7I  et  7\  p.  371.  n.  llS. 

*"°  Vid.  supr.  p.  26.  n.  **.  Conf.  p.  27.  n.  ^. 

isl  Vid.  supr.  p.  539.  n.  '3 .  conf.  p.  298.  n.  3C>7« 


(    545    ) 

dency  of  Eusebius's  religious  opinions,  and  the  ver- 
satility of  principle  which  he  exhibited  in  the  Coun- 
cil of  Nice/  oh  the  subject  of  the  doctrine  incul- 
cated in  the  disputed  passage*0*.  Let  us  keep  in 
view  the  confession  of  St.  Epiphanius,  who  flou- 
rished when  the  Greek  Vulgate  was  restored;  that 
in  the  sacred  text,  as  revised  by  the  orthodox,  some 
remarkable  passages  were  omitted^  of  which  the 
orthodox  were  apprehensive  *°3.  Let  us  further  con- 
sider, that  this  charge  is  brought  home  to  the  Epis- 
tle which  contains  the  disputed  verse,  if  not  to  the 
passage  in  question,  by  Socrates,  who  declares  that 
the  former  was  mutilated  by  those  who  wished  to 
sever  the  humanity  of  Christ  from  his  Divinity*0*. 
Let  us  next  remember  the  confession  of  St.  Chry- 
sostome,  under  whom  the  vulgar  Greek,  which  had 
been  restored  under  Nectarius,  was  fully  reinstated 
at  Constantinople,  That  the  disputed  text  was 
most  likely  to  be  included  among  the  omitted  pas- 
sages*0*. Let  us  finally  call  to  mind  how  closely 
the  Nestorian  and  the  Eutychian  heresy  followed 
after  those  times*06;  and  that  the  former  was  not 

101  Vid.  supr.  p.  39.  nn*  68.  sqq. 

*03  Vid.  supr.  p.  93.  n.  I0*. 

*°*  Vid.  supr.  p.  303.  n.  3Ii. 

405  S.  Chrysost.  Horn,  in  1  Cor.  xv.  19.  torn.  X.  p.  370/a. 

yap   ra  aAXa  wavla  TtfTo  TTftcfliSiptv  o  tvv    o    n«tfto{   heyei. 


\ 


j@tfXo//.ai  p.lv  c-ctfpas  ctvro  Ei7re?v,  8  ToX/xa?  $e  'Jia  r^f  4/x^^ryj* 
Cyril.  Hieros.  Cateches.  vr.  §  xv.  p.  97.  1.  17.  ed.  OXOD.  1703, 
TcivTct,  (Avrv^ct  vvv  v>  iKKfaffia,  Swycfrctt  ru  I«  xcclrf^a^uv  p{\a~ 
/3o?^o/*era»'  «x  If*v  £$o?  iSnxoK  fapy&g&cu.  8  y^^-lS'VtXW  ''*r£  9I£g£ 
ria7oo$-  ^  eT<8  ^  ay/8  Ilvey/xa7of  $wyujj.s§oL'JAU<rnpt*x. 
406  Vid,  supr.  p.  343.  sqq. 


(    546    ) 

affected  by  the  disputed  passage107,  while  the  latter 
was  to  all  appearances  established  by  its  authority io8. 
When  we  consider  all  these  circumstances,  which 
limst  have  severally  contributed  to  render  the  ortho- 
dox cautious  in  making  the  most  remote  allusion  to 
a  text>  which  militated  against  them,  and  which  was 
at  best  of  suspicious  authority,  as  removed  from  the 
authorised  edition ;  so  far  shall  we  be  from  requir- 
ing express  allegations  of  it  in  every  controversy  io» 

407  Vid.supr.p.  534.  n. '7*. 

408  Vid.  supr.  p.  539.  n.  l89.  conf.  infr.  p.  552.  n. "'. 

*°9  The  question  has  been  carried  by  this  most  unfounded 
assumption ;  on  which,  as  an  indisputable  principle,  the  rea- 
sonings of  its  impugners  are  founded,  Pors.  Lett,  to  Trav* 
Lett.  xii.  p.  402.  "  But  from  the  facts  stated  in  this  historical 
deduction,  z?  is  evident,  that  if  the  text  of  the  heavenly  witnesses 
had  been  known  from  the  beginning  of  Christianity,  the  an- 
tients  would  have  eagerly  seized  it,  inserted  it  in  their  creeds, 
quoted  it  expresdy  against  the  hereticks,  and  have  selected  it 
for  the  brightest  ornament  of  every  book  that  they  wrote  upon 
the  subject  of  the  Trinity."  That  the  critick,  who  brought  his 
discussion  on  1  John  ~V.  7.  to  a  close,  having  this  view  of  his 
subject,  should  rise  with  the  conviction  that  the  passage  was 
spurious,  and  that  those  who  doubted  it  were  equally  stupid 
and  obstinate,  can  excite  very  little  surprize.  Of  "  every 
book"  that  the  antients  wrote  on  "  the  subject  of  the  Tri- 
nity" for  the  first  four  centuries,  when  that  subject  was  dis- 
cussed, the  following  may  be  taken  as  a  full  and  faithful  ac- 
count, at  least  as  far  as  my  reading  extends :  *  Novatranus  de 
Trinitate,'  «  Hilarius  de  Trinitate.*  I  am  however  inclined  to 
believe 'that  both  these  titles  are  erroneous ;  the  latter  is  unques- 
tionably so.  S.  Hilary's  work  is  entitled  in  some  MSS.  '*  De 
Fide  coritra  Arianos  ;"  this  is  the  title  under  which  the  authour 
alludes  to  his  own  work  ;  S.  Hilar.  Ibid.  col.  785.  c.  and  that 
under  which  it  is  mentioned  by  the  aritients  ;  vid.  S.  Hier.  Cat. 


(    347    ) 

tvbich  was  agitated  during  the  period  of  nearly  two 
centuries,  in  which  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was 
canvassed,  and  which  was  gradually  settled  by  the 
first  four  general  councils,  that  we  shall  be  at  a  loss 
to  discover  in  wrhat  shape  it  could  have  been  pro- 
duced by  the  catholicks,  had  it  even  retained  its  place 
in  the  authorised  edition,  from  which  it  was  removed 
in  the  earlier  part  of  the  term. 

When  these  considerations  are  duly  estimated, 
the  declining  strength  of  the  negative  argument 
against  1  Joh.  v.  7.  may  be  easily  disposed  of.  It 
has  been  often  objected,  that  the  context  of  the 
Evangelist,  both  preceding  and  following  the  dis- 

Scrip tt.  Eccless.  Tom.  I.  p.  130.  conf.  Patrr.  Benedd.  Praef.  in 
Lib.  de  Trin.  §  ii.  p.  753.  And  so  little  dependance  can  be 
placed  on  the  title  of  Novatian's  work,  that  it  is  generally  as- 
cribed to  Tertullian ;  merely  in  consequence  of  a  declaration 
of  Ruffinus,  Apol.  pro  Orig.  p.  53.  a.  and  that  it  takes  the  title 
u  de  Trinitate"  from  a  declaration  of  St.  Jerome,  Ibid.  p.  128. 
<«  Scripsit  [Novatianus]  de  Trinitate  grande  volumen,  quasi 
Iwtloiwv  operis  Tertulliani  faciens."  It  is  however  observable, 
that  no  work  under  this  title  occurs  in  the  catalogue  of  Tertul- 
Jian's  writings ;  and  that  St.  Hilary's  work,  "  De  Fide,"  is  en* 
titled  in  some  MSS.  a  De  Fide  contra  omnes  H<zresssy'9  which 
comes  nearer  to  the  title  of  some  of  Tertullian 's  works ;  vid* 
Patrr.  Benedd.  Pr&f.  Ibid.  §  v.  p.  754.  But  waving  this  objec*- 
tion  to  the  title  of  those  works,  the  subject  of  them  precludes 
our  considering  them  treatises  on  the  Trinity.  Conformably  to 
the  state  of  controversy  in  the  age  when  they  were  written^ 
they  are  principally  dedicated  to  the  consideration  of  the  Father 
and  the  Son ;  the  Holy  Ghost  not  being  considered  in  either 
treatise,  according  to  the  rank  which  he  occupies  as  a  Person 
of  the  Trinity:  vid.  Novat.  ibid*  cap.  xxiv.  p.  640.  S.  Hilar, 
Lib.  II.  §  1.  col.  788.  a.  Conf.  Rigalt*  Argum.  in  Nov*t.  p. 
"05.  Patrr.  Benedd*  Prajf.  in  Hilar.  $  xii.  xiv.  p.  756, 


(    548    ) 

puled  verse,  lias  been  quoted,  while  the  disputed 
verse  is  wholly  omitted*10;  and  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  has  been  proved  by  an  allegorical  in- 
terpretation of  vers.  8. 'which  is  expressly  asserted 
in  vers.  7*".  The  former  assertion  is  principally 
founded  on  the  testimony  of  an  anonymous  writer 
in  St.  Cyprian*12  and  P.  Leo  the  great"3;  the  latter 

110  Pors.  ibid.  p.  378.     "  But  the  strongest  proof  that  this 
verse  is  spurious,  may  be  drawn  from  the  Epistle  of  Leo  the 
Great  to  Flavianus,  upon  the  Incarnation.     This  epistle   has 
been  translated  into  Greek,  read  in  churches,  sent  round  to 
the  Councils  both  in  the  East  and  West,  defended  by  several 
authours  in   set  treatises,    and  consequently  more  generally 
known  than  most  of  the  writings  of  the  Fathers.    In  this  epis- 
tle, he  quotes  part  of  thejifth  chapter,  from  the  fourth  to  the 
eighth  verse,  and  omits  the  three  heavenly  witnesses." 

111  This  is  one  of  those  bold  and  unfounded  assumptions  by 
which  the  question  has  been  carried,  against  the  plain  state- 
ments of  the  fathers  of  the  first  four  centuries,  who  engaged  in 
the  Sabeliian  controversy;  Pors.  ibid.  Let.  si.  p.  311. — "  I  do 
re-assert,  that  720  writer  in  his  perfect  mind  could  possibly  adopt 
this  allegorical  exposition  of  the  eighth  verse,  if  the  seventh 
were  extant  in  his  copy.     Even  a  madman  would  have  method 
in  his  madness. — I  appeal  to  any  orthodox  reader,  whether  he 
would  force  an  indirect  confession  of  his  favourite  doctrine, 
from  one  text  by  torture,  when  he  might  have  a  clear, full,  and 
voluntary  evidence  from  its  next  neighbour." 

art  Auct.  de  Baptism,  p.  21.  "  Ait  enim  Joannes  de  Do- 
mino nostro  in  Epistola  nos  docens ;  '  Hie  est  qui  venit  per 
aquam  et  sanguinera,  Jesus  Christus.  Non  in  aqua  tantum, 
sed  in  aqua  et  sanguine.  Et  spiritus  est  qui  testimonium  per- 
hibet,  quia  spiritus  est  veritas.  Quia  tres  testimonium  perhibent, 
spiritus,  et  aqua,  et  sanguis.  Et  isti  tres  in  unum  sunt.'  Ut 
ex  illis  Colligamus,  et  '  aquam'  prsestare  solitum,  et  *  sangui- 
nem*  proprium  praestare  solitum,  et  ipsum  quoque  '  spiritual' 


(    549    ) 

on  the  testimony  of  St.  Augustine214  and  Facundus 
Hermionensis*15.  But  these  objections  admit  of  a 
very  simple  solution. 

However  paradoxical  the  assertion  may  in  the 
,first  instance  appear,  it  is  notwithstanding  the  fact, 
that  a  stronger  argument  was  deducible  from  the 
testimony  of  the  earthly  witnesses  in  favour  of  the 
catholick  doctrine,  than  from  that  of  the  heavenly 

praestare  spiritum  solitum."  Int.  opuscc.  S.  Cypr.  adscriptt. 
p.  21. 

*'3  Leo  Magn.  Epist.  ad  Flavian.  "  Et  spiritus  est  qui  tes- 
tificatur  quoniam  spiritus  est  veritas.  '  Quoniam  ires  sunt  qui 
testimonium  dant ;  spiritus  aqua  et  sanguis :  et  hi  tres  unum 
sunt;9  'spiritus1  utique  sanctificationis,  et  '  sanguis' redemp- 
tionis,  et  *  aqua*  baptismatis,  quse  tria  unum  sunt,  et  individua 
manent,  nihilque  eorura  a  sui  connexione  segungitur."  Ap. 
Auctar.  Bibl.  Patrr.  Tom.  I.  p.  492.  a.  Par.  1624-. 

114  S.  August,  contr.  Maxim,  cap.  xxii.  Tom.  VIII.  col.  726.  b. 
"  Si  ea  quae  his  [Spiritu,  aqua,  et  sanguine]  significata  sunt, 
velimus  inquirere,  non  absurde  occurret  ipsa  Trinitas,  quae  unus 
— Deus  est,  Pater,  et  Filius,  et  Spiritus  sanctus,  de  quibus  veris- 
sime  did  potuit :  *  tres  sunt  testes,  et  tres  unum  sunt:'  ut 
nomine  '  Spiritus'  accipiamus  Patrem,  nomine  autem  *  sangui- 
mV  Filium,  et  nomine  *  aquas'  Spiritum." 

215  Facund.  Defens.  Tri.  Capitt.  Lib.  I.  cap.  iii.  p.  6.  g. 
"  Aut  si  forsitan  ii  qui  de  verbo  contendunt,  in  eo  quod  dixit ; 
'  Tres  sunt  qui  testificantur  in  terra,  spiritus,  aqua,  et  sanguis, 
et  hi  tres  unum  sunt,1  Trinitatem  qua?  unus  Deus  est,  nolunt 
intelligi,  secundum  ipsa  verba  quae  posuit,  pro  Apostolo  Joanne 
respondeant.  Numquid  '  hi  tres'  qui  '  in  terra  testificari*  et 
qui  '  unum  esse'  dicuntur,  possunt  spiritus,  aut  aquae,  aut  san- 
guines did?  Quod  tamen  Joannis  Apostoli  testimonium  B. 
Cyprianus  Carthaginiensis,  antistes  et  martyr,  in  Epistola  sive 
Libro,  quern  de  Trinitate  scripsit,  de  Patre  et  Filio  et  Spiritu 
sancto  dictum  intelligit.  Ait  -eniro,  '  Dicit  Domirius,"  &c. 
Ut.  supr.  p.  291.  n,  *8*, 


(    550    ) 

Witftfcsfces.  The  point  oh  which  the  orthodox  and 
heterodox  divided,  was  the  diversity  of  the  Persons  ; 
on  the  unity  of  the  substance  there  was  no  differ* 
ence  of  opinion  between  the  Catholieks  On  the  one 
side,  and  the  Sabellians,  the  Apollinarists,  and  the 
Eutychians,  on  the  other t16.  The  whole  Of  the 
distinctions  on  which  the  orthodox  founded  their 
proofs  of  the  former  point,  were  wanting  in  the  dis- 
puted verse:  but  those  on  which  the  heterodox 
founded  their  proofs  of  the  latter,  were  forcibly 
marked  in  the  same  passage,  The  Sabellians  con- 
tended, that  the  Father,  and  his  Word,  and  Spirit, 
were  one  Person,  while  the  Catholicks  maintained 
that  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  must  be  three 
Persons117.  And  the  Apollinarists  and  Eutychians 
held,  that  cc  the  three  which  bore  record  in  heaven 
were  one"  substance,  the  humanity  of  Christ  being 
absorbed  in  his  Divinity"8;  while  the  Catholicks, 
asserting'  the  existence  of  two  natures  in  the  same 
Divine  Person,  believed  that  Christ  was  of  one  sub-* 
stance  with  God  in  the  former,  but  of  a  like  sub-* 
stance  with  Man  in  the  latter.  We  thus  easily 
discover  the  causes  which  induced  the  orthodox  to 
refct  their  cause  on  the  testimony  of  the  earthly  wit- 

i16  Vid.  supr.  p.  534.  n.  I73.  infr.  n. ll3. 
.     ai7  Vid.  supr.  p.  538.  n.  I83. 

ais  On  the  Eutychian  notions,  vi,d«  supr.  p.  534.  n.  t7\  The 
Apollinarian  tenets  may  be  briefly  described  in  the  words  of 
S.  Athanasius ;  Cqntr,  Apolin.  Lib,  I,  §  12.  Tom.  II.  p.  932.  a, 

-— T»   £Tt   fljUa?  /SC£/X,<p£JX7{,   *f$   TtlpaOCt  Utll   T^iaoo?,   >tj    ll>KQV\t$  OfMhoySyie?) 

'%.tyovvl6$,..QtMv<ni!Z}i  S.IYKI  TJJ  Tgiatfy  T/JV  o<*pK%»     Conf.  Ib.  p« 
932.  3, 


(    551    ) 

nesses  instead  of  the  heavenly.  The  specifick  men- 
ion  of  (f  the  blood"  in  vers.  8.  not  only  designated 
Christ  as  a  separate  Person  from  the  Father, 
against  the  Sabellians;  but  as  a  Person,  in  whom 
the  human  nature  was  united  with  the  divine,  with* 
out  any  confusion  of  substance,  against  the  Euty* 
ehians*19.  Under  this  view,  the  preference  shewi* 
by  the  orthodox  to  the  text  of  the  earthly  witnesses, 
over  that  of  the  heavenly,  needs  no  palliation  from 
the  circumstance  of  the  one  text  being  unquestioned, 
and  the  other  of  doubtful  authority,  in  the  age  when 
those  points  were  debated. 

From  the  negative  testimony  of  Pseudo-Cyprian, 
St.  Augustine,  P.  Leo,  and  Facundus  Hermionensis, 
we  can  consequently  deduce  nothing  more,  than 
that  the  text  of  the  heavenly  witnesses  was  absent 
from  the  current  copies  of  the  Vulgate  of  St.  Je- 
rome, which  was  in  general  use  when  they  wrote ; 
and  that  it  best  answered  the  purpose  of  those 
writers  to  pass  it  over  in  silence.  St.  Augustine's 
testimony  is  thus  easily  disposed  of:  he  wrote  while 
the  heresy  of  Apollinarius  prevailed,  and  with  a 

al9  The  least  objectionable  evidence  on  this  subject  is  Fa- 
cundus, who  has  effected  more  in  undermining  the  authenticity 
of  1  Joh.  v.  7.  than  the  whole  of  the  fathers  taken  together, 
who  have  been  cited  on  this  subject.  Facund.  ibid.  p.  6.  e. 
«'  Nam  et  Joannes  Apostolus  in  Epistola  sua,  de  Patre,  et 
Filio,  et  Spiritu  sancto  sic  dicit ;  '  Tres  sunt  qui  testimoniura 
dant  in  terra,  spiritus,  aqua,  et  sanguis,  et  hi  tres  unum  sunt  :* 

in  *  spiritu'  significans  Patrem .     In  '  aqua'  vero  Spiritum 

eanctum  significans, .  In  *  sanguine*  vero  Filium  signi- 
ficans, quoniam  ipse,  ex  sancta  Trinitate,  communicavit  carni 
ft  sanguine,"  Conf.  supr.  p.  549.  n,  w5. 


(    552    ) 

peculiar  respect  for  the  corrected  translation  of  St. 
Jerome "^  in  which  the  disputed  verse  was  omitted. 
The  testimony  of  P.  Leo  and  Facundus  presents 
still  fewer  difficulties;  as»it  is  adduced  from  their 
controversy  with  the  Eutychians,,  it  is  not  entitled 
to  the  smallest  respect.  The  disputed  text  embar- 
rassed their  cause  with  difficulties,,  which  they  were 
unable  to  solve"1;  it  is  therefore  unreasonable  to 

*ao  Vid.  supr.  p.  15.  n.  >8.  p.  532.  n.  I39.  The  following  dis- 
tinctions, made  by  St.  Augustine  in  the  same  chapter  in  which 
he  interprets  1  Joh.  v.  8.  ut  supr.  p.  549.  n.  *14.  will  sufficiently 
disclose  the  grounds  of  his  preference  for  the  corrected  reading 
of  the  Latin  version.  S.  August,  ubi  supr.  cap.  xxii.  col.  726.  e, 
"  Si  quo  autem  modo  tanti  sacramenti  profunditas  quae  in 
JZpistola  Johannis  legitur,  exponi  et  intelligi  potest,  secundum 
catholicam  Jidemt  quae  nee  confundit  nee  separat  TRINITATEM, 
nee  abnuit  tres  personas,  nee  diversas  credit  esse  substantias, 
nulla  ratione  respuendum  est.  Q,uod  enim  ad  exercendas 
mentes  fidelium  in  scrip turis  sanctis  obscure  ponitur  gratulan- 
dum  est,  si  multis  modis  non  tamen  insipienter,  exponitur." 
To  the  person  who  deemed  it  necessary  to  distinguish  thus 
accurately  between  the  Sabellian  and  Arian  notions,  1  John 
.v.  7«  must  have  been  an  encumbrance  not  easily  disposed  of; 
vid.  supr.  p.  539.  n.  I89.  p.  549.  n.  "4.  St.  Augustine  had  been 
a  convert  from  Manicheism ;  by  which  sect  the  Apolinarian 
and  Eutychian  notions  relative  to  Christ's  body  being  of  one 
substance  with  the  Trinity,  were  adopted;  vid.  S.  Athanas. 
contr.  Apolinar.  Lib.  I.  §  12.  Tom.  II.  p.  932.  c.  934.  d. 
,  **'  The  first  object  of  Facundus  in  undertaking  his  celebrated 
work  "  Pro  Defensione  Trium  Capitulorum,"  was  to  oppose 
the  Acephali,  or  Eutychians ;  in  which  controversy  he  was  inir 
plicated  by  P.  Leo  ;  Vid.  Facund.  Praef.  in  init.  p.  4.  a.  H? 
however  subsequently  enlarged  his  plan,  and  directed  his  attack 
against  the  Nestorians  and  Eutychians;  Id.  ibid.  Lib.  I.  cap.  i. 
p.  4.  d..  ;M  Nam  cum  dtue  nuncferveant  h$rese$.jfo- 


(    553    ) 

expect  in  tlieir  works,  any  thing  in  the  shape  of  an 
appeal  to  its  authority.     In  fact,  it  must  be  appa- 

•concilio  [Calchedonensi]  refutatae — mysterium  divines  Incarna- 
^tionis  oppugxiant,  Nestorianorum  dico,  et  Eutychianorum,"  &c. 
As  both  these  sects  subscribed  to  the  doctrine  inculcated  ia 
1  Joh.  v.  7.  it  seems  impossible  to  conceive  how  it  could  be 
employed  against  them ;  vid.  supr.  p.  534.  n.  m.  But  as  it 
^did  not  fully  take  in  the  distinctions  of  the  orthodox,  it  is  not 
impossible  to  shew  how  it  could  have  been  effectively  employed 
•against  them  by  the  hereticks.  "  The  term  "  Word"  in  the  dis- 
puted verse,  afforded  some  countenance  to  the  Nestorians,  in 
keeping  the  divine  nature  of  the  Logos,  in  the  Trinity,  apart 
.from  the  person  of  Christ ;  the  term  "  one  substance"  afforded 
the  Eutychians  still  greater  countenance  in  asserting,  that  the 
fleshly  or  human  nature  of  Christ  was  wholly  absorbed  in  the 
spiritual  and  divine.  The  distinctions  which  Facundus  is 
obliged  to  make,  in  order  to  explain  the  catholick  doctrine, 
clearly  evince,  how  much  he  really  apprehended  either  conse- 
quence being  deduced  from  the  disputed  passage.  Facund.  ib. 
cap.  v.  p.  10.  f.  "  Christum  igitur  FILIUM  Dei,  quemad- 
,modum  dictum  est,  in  duabus  prsedicamus  esse  naturis.  Nee 
dici  patimur  unam  ejus  ex  Divinitate  et  humanitate  compositam 
'esse  naturam,  ne  Patri,  cujus  simplex  natura  est,  consubstantialis 
-non  sit:  et  sicut  alterius  est  personce,  quam  Pater,  ita  etiam 
.alterius,  .id  est,  diverse?  dicatur  esse  naturce.  Verum  neque 
nobis  erit  consubstantialis  nisi  ejus  duce  natures  sint:  ut  scilicet 
.  alter  a  sit,  in  qua  consubstantialis  est  Patri,  altera  vero  in  qua 
consubstantialis  est  nobis.  At  huic  evidentissmse  rationi  bruta 
Eutychianorum  contentio  refragatur,  adfirmans,  Dei  VERBT  uni- 
.tatem  incommutabiliter  simplicem  cum  suscepta  humanitate,  in 
unam  componi  potuisse  naturam."  Conf.  S.  Athan.  contr.  Apo- 
Jinar.  Lib.  I.  §  2.  p.  923.  a.  $  12.  p.  932.  a.  Epis  ad  Epictet. 
^*9.  Ib.  p.  907.  e.  Let  the  reader  now  weigh  the  force  of 
**  Fiuus  Dei  in  duabus  naturis,"  in  the  former  part  of  this  pas- 
sage, with  *  VERBUM  in  nna  simplici  natura,''  in  the  latter ; 
Jet  him  then  apply  this  distinction  of  Facundus  to  the  disputed 
verse,  "  tree  sunt  qui  testificantur  in  ccelo,  Pater,  VERBUM,  et 


(    554    ) 

rent  to  the  most  superficial  observer,  that  Pacundus 
has  absolutely  laboured  to  destroy  its  authority  "*,  by 

Spiritus;  et  hi  tres  unum  sunt :"  let  him  then  pronounce  how 
far  Facundus  and  P.  Leo's  testimony  is  admissible,  on  the  au- 
thenticity of  this  verse,  which  embarrassed  their  cause  with  the 
greatest  difficulties,  and  was  wanting  both  in  the  authorised 
text  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  Church,  with  which  these  fathers 
were  well  acquainted ;  vid.  Facund.  in  Praef.  p.  4.  b.  c.  Leo. 
lib  supr.  p.  492.  b. 

**z  As  1  John  v.  7.  taken  in  the  strict  literal  sense,  fully 
agreed  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Eutychians ;  and  1  Joh.  v.  8. 
admitted  of  a  plausible  interpretation,  in  the  sense  of  the  three 
baptisms,  vid.  supr.  p.  548.  n.  alt :  the  only  plan  left  P.  Leo 
and  Facundus  in  opposing  these  hereticks,  was  to  take  advan- 
tage of  the  absence  of  the  seventh  verse  from  the  original 
Greek,  and  corrected  Latin  version,  and  to  pass  it  over  in 
•silence.  Facundus,  however,  who  was  P.  Leo's  interpreter, 
goes  somewhat  farther,  and  finding  the  seventh  verse  supported 
by  St.  Cyprian's  testimony,  as  Fulgentius,  his  contemporary, 
places  out  of  dispute,  vid.  supr.  p.  292.  n.  z91 ;  he  endeavours 
to  transfer  the  support  of  that  antient  father  to  the  next  verse, 
#nd  to  turn  it  against  his  adversaries,  who  ascribed  it  a  different 
meaning,  vid.  supr.  pp.  548,  549.  nn.  ai*  et  *15 :  most  probably 
-conceiving  the  disputed  passage  spurious.  With  the  assistance 
of  St.  Cyprian's  explanation,  1  John  v.  8.  afforded  him  as  much 
proof  as  he  required.  That  explanation  gave  the  whole  passage 
a  reference  to  the  Trinity,  instead  of  the  three  Baptisms ;  and 
it  supplied  the  term  "  Filius,"  which  Facundus  opposed  to  the 
Verbum  of  his  opponents,  vid.  supr.  p.  549.  n.  *15 :  while  the 
text  itself  furnished,  in  the  term  "  sanguis,"  grounds  for  that 
deduction,  which  Facundus  makes  in  direct  opposition  to  the 
tenets  of  the  Eutychians ;  Ibid.  "  In  *  sanguine1  vero  Filium 
significans,  quoniam  ipse  ex  sancta  Trinitate,  communicavit  carne 
et  sanguine :"  ut  supr.  p.  549.  n.  *15.  That  Facundus  alludes 
to  the  interpretation  of  the  eighth  verse,  in  the  sense  of  die 
three  baptisms,  of  water,  blood  or  martyrdom,  and  the  spirit, 
bupr.  p,  549.  n,  z  5.  is  I  conceive  apparent,  from  the  objection 


(    555    ) 

depriving  it  of  the  support  of  St.  Cyprian.  But 
with  so  much  skill  has  he  effected  his  purpose.,  that 
in  retaining  the  phrase  <(  in  earth/'  in  order  to 
strengthen  the  verse  which  he  has  quoted,  he  has 
evinced,  beyond  the  possibility  of  dispute,  that  the 
phrase  "  in  heaven/'  with  its  context,,  was  extant  in 
the  text  which  was  before  him1*1. 

tvhich  lie  states ;  Ibid ;  "  Numquid  f  hi  tres  qui  in  terra  testi- 
ficari,'  et  qui '  unum  esse'  dicuntur,  possunt  *  spiritus,  aut  aquae, 
aut  sanguines'  dici :"  which,  I  conceive,  was  an  adequate  objeo 
tion  to  the  interpretation  of  his  opponents.  Such  is  the  whole 
scope  and  object  of  Facundus's  reasoning. 

ax3  Mr.  Porson  indeed  objects,  that  the  words  "  in  terra,"  are 
interpolated  in  the  text  of  Facundus,  Lett,  to  Trav.  xii.  p.  386. 
as  they  are  "  inconsistent  with  the  interpretation  which  Facun- 
dus is  labouring  to  establish."  But  the  very  reverse  of  this 
assumption  is  certainly  the  fact,  as  will  be  made  apparent  in 
the  sequel.  And  M.  Griesbach  further  objects,  Append,  ad 
1.  1  Joh.  v.  7.  p.  14-.  n.  *.  "  probabiliter  e  Vulgata  recentiore  a 
librario  aut  ab  editore  Facundi  intrusa  ftierunt."  But  this 
unsupported  conjecture  has  not  the  shadow  of  probability,  as 
Facundus  is  not  accommodated  to  the  Vulgate,  in  the  passage 
before  us ;  he  reads  both  in  the  text,  and  in  his  comment,  "  tres 
sunt  qui  testific&ntur  in  terra,"  while  the  Latin  Vulgate  reads, 
«'  tres  sunt  qui  testimonium  dant ;"  and  in  some  MSS.  without 
''in  terra."  Op  the  other  hand,  that  Facundus  wrote  "in 
terra,"  is  apparent,  for  the  following  reasons.  (1.)  There  could 
be  no  object  in  adopting  these  words  from  theVulgate,  more  espe- 
cially if  they  are  inconsistent  with  his  interpretation.  (  2, )  They 
ere  six  times  repeated  in  his  observations,  as  is  admitted  by  the 
objectour,  vid.  Pors.  ibid.  (3.)  They  certainly  existed  in  the 
text  of  the  African  Church  when  he  wrote,  as  appears  from  the 
testimony  of  his  contemporary  and  compatriot  Fulgentius,  vid. 
-Pors.  ib.  p.  400.  Griesb.  ib.  p.  J5,  (4.)  They  are  delivered 
with  that  variation  in  the  testimony  of  Facundus,  and  yet  with 
that  coaformity  to  the  documents  which  were  before  him,  which 


(    556    ) 

This  consideration  will  enable  us  to  appreciate 
the  testimony  of  the  anonymous  writer  in  St.  Cy- 

proves,  that  Facundus  quoted  by  reference  to  his  authorities, 
and  that  his  quotation  has  been  preserved  unaltered.  The 
first  place  in  which  he  cites  1  John  v.  8.  as  taken  from  his 
otun  text,  naturally  follows  the  Vulgate;  he  there  reads,  "  tres 
sunt  qui  testimonium  -dant  in  terra ;"  vid.  supr.  p.  549.  n.  *15. 
conf.  p.  253.  The  subsequent  place  in  which  he  cites  the 
same  passage,  as  quoted  by  his  opponent,  follows  a  different 
reading;  he  there  uses,  "  tres  sunt  qui  testificantur  in  terra:" 
vid.  supr.  p.  549.  n.  il5.  conf.  p.  182.  n.  I58.  (5.)  The  words 
"  in  terra"  were  peculiarly  important  in  the  Nestorian  contro- 
versy, in  which  Facundus  was  engaged ;  as  is  apparent  from  the 
testimony  of  the  Oriental  Church ;  in  which  that  controversy 
particularly  prevailed :  Asseman.  Bibl.  Orient,  in  Xenaij.  Tom. 
•II.  p.  28.  "  Summam  hujus  Controversies  quse  Orientalem  Ec- 
clesiam  diu  multumque  devexavit,  accipe.  Scripserat  Xenajas 
ad  Monachos  quosdam  Syros  prolixam  de  Incarnatioms  mysterio 
Epistolam,  ia  qua  propositionem  hanc  frequenter  usurpabat, 

*  Unus  e  Trinitate  descendit  de  ccelo  incarnatus  est,  passus,  est 
crucifixus,  mortuus,  resurrexit,  ascendit  in  cesium9  et  similia : 
notare  volens  turn  Nestorianos,  qui  humanitatem  Christi  a  Dim- 
nitate  ac  persona  Verbi  separabant,  turn  Eutychianos  qui  corpus 
phantasticum  ab  eodem  Verbo  assumptum  opinabantur.     Exce- 
.pit  ilium  cum  risu  Anonymus  Nestorianus,  reprehendens  maxime 
illam  dictionem,  '  Unus  e  Trinitate/  quasi  duae  non  tres  divinae 
Personae  remanserint  in  ccelo,  si  «  Unus  e  Trinitate'  dicatur 
'  in  terrain  descendisse/   quac  sunt  ipsius  Anonymi  verba  a 
Xenaja  initio  Disputationis  relata:  aliaque  subjungit  absurda, 
quae  ex  ea  propositione  sequi  affirmat,  sed  maximum  ait  esse, 

*  vocis  illius  novitatem/     Ad  haec  Xenajas  e  Scriptura  et  Patri- 
ibus  demonstrat  vocem  illam  nee  novam  esse  nee  veteribus  incog" 
nitamt  &c.     Conf.  Zenon.  Epist.  ap.  Evagr.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib. 
III.  cap.  xiv.  p.  347. 1.  10 — 25.     (6.)  As  no  person  was  more 
profoundly  versed  in  this  controversy  than  Facundus,  it  is  ob- 
servable, that  in  appealing  to  the  disputed  passage,  he  keeps 
this  subject  fully  in  view.    He  opens  the  chapter  in  which  he 


(    557    ) 

prian,  and  to  give  some  account  of  the  origin  of 
that  work,  which  is  written  on  the  baptism  of  here- 
ticks.  And  when  we  consider  that  the  controversy 
on  this  subject  was  soon  terminated;  and  that  some 
works  were  ascribed  to  St.  Cyprian,  by  the  Mace- 
donians, for  the  purpose  of  supporting  points  of 
controversy  like  that  before  us224;  we  may  at  least 

quotes  1  Job.  v.  8.  with  the  following  remark ;  FacuncL  ib.  cap. 
iii.  p.  6.  c.  "  Sed  tacendum  non  arbitror,  quod  sint  etiam 
Catholici,  qui  sicut  credimus  nescientes  hoc  ante  memorata 
Synodo  confirmatum,  superflue  contra  de  verbo  contendant: 
quia  videtur  eis,  quod  dici  non  debeat,  Vmtm  de  Trinitate  pro 
noMs  crucifixum,  sed  potius  unam  de  Trinitate  personam."  (7.) 
With  the  phrase  "  in  terra,"  Facundus's  application  of  1  Joh. 
v.  8.  was  complete ;  as  striking  at  both  the  heresies  against 
which  Jie  reasoned ;  but  without  it,  directly  the  reverse.  The 
terms  "  in  terra,"  were  opposed  to  the  Nestorians,  "  qui  huma- 
nitatem  Christi  a  persona  Verbi  separabant ;'  the  term  "  san- 
guis"  was  opposed  to  the  Eutychians,  "  qui  corpus  phantas- 
ticum  ab  eodem  Verbo  assumptum  opinabantur."  In  every 
other  respect  those  hereticks  would  have  subscribed  to  Facun- 
dus's  text  and  exposition ;  as  they  did  not  deny  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity;  but  strenuously  asserted,  that  *'  there  were  three 
that  bore  witness  in  heaven,  the  Father,  Word,  and  Holy  Ghost,'* 
&c.  So  far  therefore  is  the  phrase  "  in  terra"  from  being  in- 
consistent tKith  Facundus's  reasoning,  that  it  is  necessary  to  it, 
in  order  to  give  it  the  requisite  effect.  But  from  this  phrase, 
it  must  be  collected,  as  M.  M.  Person  and  Griesbach  were 
fully  conscious,  that  the  correspondent  words  "  in  ccelo,"  ex- 
isted in  the  text  from  whence  1  Joh.  v.  8.  has  been  quoted ; 
and  consequently,  that  Facundus  could  be  no  stranger  to  the 
context,  1  Joh.  v.  7.  "  tres  sunt  qui  testificantur  in  ccelo,"  &c. 

"4  Ruffin.  de  Adult.  Librorr.  Grig.  p.  53.  a.  "  Sancti  Cy* 
priani  martyris  solet  omne  Epistolarum  corpus  in  uno  codice 
$cribi.  Huic  corpori  hceretici  quidam  qui  in  Spiritum  sanctum 
blasphemant,  Tertidliani  lildlum  de  Trinitate  reprehensibiliter 


c  m  > 

admit  the  possibility,  that  this  anonymous  tract 
might  have  been  fabricated  for  the  express  purpose 
of  exhibiting  the  context  of  St.  John,  without  the; 
disputed  passage.  This  passage  was  thus  deprived, 
at  a  stroke,  of  the  testimony  of  St,  Cyprian,  and  of 
the  text  which  existed  in  his  times2*5;  and  this,  as 
we  have  seen,  in  the  peculiar  case  of  P.  JL^eo  and 
Facundus,  was  no  inconsiderable  object  with  the 
polemicks  who  engaged  in  those  days.  Until  at 
least  some  better  account  is  given  of  this  anonymous 
tract,  we  need  not  regard,  with  much  apprehension, 
any  appeal  to  its  testimony  on  the  subject  at  present 
contested. 

Nor  do  the  objections  which  have  been  adduced 
against  the  testimony  of  Eucherius,  from  the  diver- 
sity of  the  copies  which  contain  that  writer's  works, 

(quantum  ad  veritatem  fidei  nostrse  pertinet)  scriptum  inserentes^ 
ei  quamplurimos  codices  de  talibus  exemplariis  conscribentesy  per 
totam  Constantinopolim  urbem  maximam  distrahi  pretio  viliori 
fecerunt,"  &c. 

aa*  It  is  a  curious  circumstance,  that  a  remark  is  made  in  the 
tract  under  consideration,  which  must  have  been  intended  to 
bring  disrepute  on  the  edition  of  the  Latin  version  published 
by  Eugebius  Vercellensis.  A  remarkable  passage  which  he 
admitted  into  the  sacred  text,  in  Mat.  iii.  15.  vid.  supr.  p.  127* 
n.  *s.  is  said,  in  this  tract,  which  is  ascribed  to  the  times  of  St* 
Cyprian,  to  exist  in  HO  Gospel ;  vid.  supr.  p.  44-5.  n»  39.  With 
whatever  object  this  tract  has  been  ascribed  to  St.  Cyprian,  it 
is  at  least  possible,  t&at  rhis  remark  might  have  been  made  with 
a  view  to  depress*  the  credit  of  the  revised  text  of  Eusebius 
Vearcellensis ;  and  that  1  John  v.  6.  8.  was  quoted  without  vers* 
7.  io  order  to  deprive  this  verse  of  St.  Cyprian's  support ;  by 
rendering  it  probable,  that  it  no  more  existed  in  the  sacred  text, 
in  bis  days,  than  Mat.  iii.  15,  ut  supr. 


(    559    ) 

and  which  sometimes  omit  the  contested  passage, 
at  all  affect  the  point  in  dispute z26.  Eucherius  pre- 
ceded the  sera  which  produced  the  Eutychian  con- 
troversy ;  and  in  quoting  the  disputed  text,  he  fur- 
nished an  authority  in  favour  of  that  heresy ai7.  As 

**  Vid.  Griesb.  Append,  inloc.  1  Joh.  v.  7,  8*  p.  16. 

aa?  This  observation  will  appear  more  probable  when  Euche- 
rius's  testimony,  as  read  in  two  MSS.  at  Vienna,  Codd,  theol. 
lat.  64?.  109.  is  compared  with  the  remark  on  Facundus's  testi- 
mony, supr.  p.  554.  n.  "*.  "  III.  Sanctam  et  indmduam 
designat  Trinitatem,  ut  Joannes  apostolus :  *  tres  sunt  qui  tes- 
timonium  dant  in  coelo,  Pater,  Verbum  et  Spiritus  sanctus* 
[cod.  109.  addit  '  et  tres  imum  sunt:']  Et  Baptismum,  ut  ipse 
(idem)  Apostolus  ait :  '  et  tres  sunt  qui  testimonium  dant  in 
terra,  spiritus,  aqua  et  sanguis,  et  (hi)  tres  unum  sunt."  As 
this  testimony  is  decidedly  contrary  to  the  orthodox  interprets- 
tron  of  Facundus,  who  suppresses  vers.  7.  in  order  to  deprive 
the  Eutychians  of  the  testimony  of  St.  John ;  and  interprets 
vers.  8.  of  the  Trinity,  in  order  to  deprive  vers.  7.  of  the  tes- 
timony of  St.  Cyprian  ;  the  reader  may  determine,  whether  it 
is  more  probable  the  catholicks  suppressed,  or  the  hereticks 
inserted  1  Joh.  v.  7.  "  tres  sunt,"  &c.  with  "  et  Baptismum," 
in  the  text  of  Eucherius.  Nor  is  the  authenticity  of  the  above 
passage  of  the  Vienna  MSS.  in  the  least  affected,  by  the  quo- 
tations adduced  from  Eucherius's  "  Quaestiones  in  Vet.  et  Nov« 
Testament."  p.  88.  ed.  Si  chard,  ap.  Griesb.  ub.  supr.  p.  17* 
One  of  those  quotations  convicts  the  other  of  a  palpable  omis- 
sion. In  the  first  it  is  declared  that  1  Joh.  v.  8.  was  interpreted 
of  the  Trinity ;  and  in  the  second,  that  the  Trinity  was  proved 
merely  from  Gen.  i,  1,2.  Ps.  xxxii.  6.  Matt,  xxviii.  19.  Rom* 
Xi.  36.  From  the  latter  passage  of  course,  something  has  been 
removed.  M.  Griesbach  would  probably  say  1  Joh.  v.  8  :  but 
it  is  just  as  easy  to  say  1  Job.  v.  7,  8.  And  in  support  of  the 
latter  assumption,  we  may  appeal  to  the  testimony  of  Cerealis 
in  the  subjoined  note ;  and  quote  the  'first  of  the  passages  ad- 
duced in  the  present  note  from  Eucherius. 


(    560    ) 

tlie  removal  of  an  obnoxious  passage  from  his  works 
was  merely  an  accommodation  of  his  quotations  to 
the  sacred  text,  as  corrected  by  the  Greek,,  it  is  only 
wonderful  that  the  text  .of  the  heavenly  witnesses 
should  have  retained  its  place  in  any  copy  of  his 
writing's.  For  the  testimony  .  of  Cerealis ai8  fully 
evinces,  that  this  text  has  disappeared  from  some 
tracts,  in  which  it  was  originally  inserted. 

The  variations  of  the  disputed  passage,  as  read  in 
the  modern  Latin  Vulgate,  present  no  gTeater  diffi- 
culty. In  some  copies  it  is  wholly  omitted,  in  some 
it  is  annexed  in  the  margin,  though  in  most  it  is  in- 
serted in  the  text.  But  that  it  has  been  thus  added, 
as  a  gloss  on  the  eighth  verse,  is  an  assumption 
which  may  be  very  easily  refuted.  In  the  first 
place,  it  was  a  custom  unknown  to  the  primitive 

215  Bengel.  Appar.  Grit.  var.  in  1  Joli.  v.  7.  §  xvi.  p.  463. 
*'  Cerealis  Afer — librum  scripsit  contra  Maximianum  Arianum, 
in  quo  negant  dictum  Johanneum  extare :  quod  tamen  penitus 
negari  non  debebat.  Solent  Afri,  ut  vidimus,  duo  ilia  dicta, 

*  Ego  et  Pater  unum  sumus,'  et  c  tres  unum  sunt*  conjunctim 
laudare :  et  sic  Cerealis  cap-  i.  ubi  dictum  illud  prius  pro  Patris 
Filiique  unitate  citavit,  subjungit :  «  Quia  vero  non  solum  unum 
sunt  Pater  et  Filius,  (sed)  addito  Spiritu  sancto  suiter  hales 
demonstratum :'    quibus  verbis  Cerealis  dictum  alterum,   '  hi 
tres  unum  sunt,'  ad  caput  de  unitate  Spiritus  Sancti  cum  Patre. 
et  Filio,  (quod  in  ejus  libro  est  cap.  xv.)  distulisse  videtur,  et 

*  subter*  vel  ipse  prse  copia  aliorum  argumentorum  e  memoria 
dimisisse,  vel  per  alios  postea  mutilatus  esse."     Had  the  truly 
learned  authour  of  this  remark  considered  the  sense  in  which 
the  hereticks. understood  *  Verbum,*  and  '  tres  unum  sunt,'  in 
explaining  their  tenets,  he  would  have  doubtless  rested  in  the 
latter  supposition,  as  that  alone  which  is  founded  in  proba- 
bility. 


(    561    ) 

church,  to  allude  to  the  mystery  of  the  Trinity,  un- 
less in  oblique  terms,  before  those  who  had  not 
bee'n  initiated  in  the  Christian  covenant  "9.  In  the 
next  place,  the  seventh  verse  is  really  no  explana- 
tory gloss  of  the  eighth,  unless  we  suppose  it  framed 
by  thehereticks*30.  Prom  the  times  of  Tertullian 
and  Cyprian,  in  whose  interpretations  the  disputed 
verse  is  supposed  to  have  originated,  to  thosr  of 
Fulgentius  and  Eugenius,  in  whose  times  it  was 
confessedly  incorporated  in  the  sacred  canon,  an 
orthodox  exposition  of  the  doctrine  extracted  from 
the  eighth  verse,  could  have  been  only  expressed  in 
the  terms  the  cc  Father  and  the  Son/'  instead  of 
"  the  Father  and  the  Word  *J  V  &c.  By  the  latter 
reading,  of  course,  the  supposition  that  the  seventh 
verse  is  a  marginal  gloss  on  the  eighth,  is  so  com- 
pletely overthrown,  that  it  furnishes  a  very  decisive 
confirmation  of  the  contrary  assumption  ;  that  the 
disputed  Verse  was  originally  suppressed,  not  gra- 
dually introduced  into  the  Latin  translation; 

In  fact,  as  the  explanation  offered  by  the  im- 
pugners  of  the  text  of  the  heavenly  witnesses,  to 
account  for  the  varieties  in  this  translation,  thus 

ai9  S.  Chrysost  Horn,  in  1  Cor.  xv.  19.  Tom.  X.  p.  3?9.  a. 

#TO»  y»f  [<H  upvtroi~]  ^ffxoXw^av  %puv  sroifidi  rr/v  el^yTjffiv, 
«vafxafov]£«  v  pri  Xe'vEtv  aotQws,  y  E»?  ayra;  e*$ep£iM  rx  XKoppvfla. 
Cyril.  Hieros.  Cateches.  vi.  §  xv.  p.  97.  1.  21.  £}i  T*  W£fl  T^ 


£9r<x£xaXi;/u<(t>i6va/f,  *'va  EMOTES  m^ol  vovaaffi'  xj  ct  ^  t$ori<;t 

jo-i*     Conf.  supr.  p.  54-5.  n.  aos. 
i10  Vid.  supr.  p.  539.  n.  l39.  p.  552.  n,  MI. 
^  Vid.  supr.  p.  you,  n.  307«  conf.  p.  292.  nn.  *39  et  *-', 

O  0 


(    563    ) 

wholly  fails  of  its  end;  a  very  satisfactory  solution 
of  the  difficulty  which  thus  arises,  may  be  suggested 
in  the  consideration,  that  St.  Jerome  put  forth  two 
editions  of  the  Catholick  Epistles,  in  one  of  which 
the  contested  verse  was  omitted,  though  it  was  re- 
tained in  the  other.  And  this  conjecture  may  be 
maintained  on  the  strength  of  many  corroborating 
circumstances.  It  is  indisputable,  that  two  editions 
of  some  books  of  Scripture  had  been  not  only  pub- 
lished by  that  early  father132;  but  that  one  edition  had 
been  in  some  instances  dedicated  to  Eustoehium45*, 
to  whom  the  Catholick  Epistles  are  inscribed,  in  the 
Prologue*34.  Now  as  St.  Jerome  likewise  under- 
took the  revisal  of  the  Italick  translation,  at  the  re- 
quest of  P.  Damasus,  we  have  thus  authority  for 
believing,  that  two  editions  had  been  published  of 
the  part  of  Scripture  in  question.  And  admitting 
this  to  have  been  the  case,  every  difficulty  in  the 
matter  before  us  admits  of  the  clearest  solution. 
Agreeably  to  the  prejudices  of  the  age  in  which  the 

*3*  Separate  editions  of  St.  Matthew  had  been  inscribe^, 
luith  separate  Prologues,  to  P.  Damasus,  and  Eusebius  Cremo- 
nensis ;  Conf.  S.  Hier.  Tom.  VI.  p.  iii.  xi.  and  separate  editions 
of  parts  of  Isaiah,  to  Amabilis  and  Eustochium,  Conf.  Tom,  IV. 
p.  44.  a.  b.  p.  62.  a. 

133  Of  the  twelve  minor  Prophets,  Nahum,  Michea,  Zepha* 
niah,  and  Haggai,  were  inscribed  to  Paula  and  Eustochium ; 
vid.  S.  Hier.  Tom.  V.  p.  113.  f. 

a3*  S.  Hier.  Prol.  in  Cann.  Epp.  Tom.  I.  eol.  1667.  ed. 
Bened.  "  Sed  tu  virgo  Christi,  Eustochium^  dum  a  me  impen- 
sius  scripturce  veritatem  inquiris,  meam  quodammodo  senectutem 
invidorum  dentibus  corrodendam  exponis,  qui  me  falsarium, 
corruptoremque  sacrarum  scripturaruna,  promuiciaDt." 


(    563    ) 

Latin  Vulgate  was  published135,,  St.  Jerotne  inserted 
the  contested  verse  in  the  text  which  was  designed 
for  private  use,,  omitting  it  in  that  which  was  in- 
tended for  general  circulation236.  And  in  thus  act- 
ing, he  adhered  to  the  peculiar  plan  which  he  had 
prescribed  to  himself  in  revising  the  Latin  transla- 
tion; having  omitted  the  disputed  verse,,  in  the 
authorised  version,  on  the  authority  of  the  Greek, 
from  whence  it  had  been  removed  by  Eusebius2*7: 
but  having  availed  himself  of  the  variations  of  the 
Latin  translation.,  in  chusing  that  reading  of  the 
disputed  verse.,  which  was  calculated  to  support  the 
ecclesiastical  doctrine  of  one  substance,  as  under- 
stood by  the  initiated  in  the  Christian  mysteries*38. 

«s  Via.  supr.  p.  545.  n.  aos. 

**6  The  strongest  distinction  is  drawn,  by  St.  Jerotne,  be- 
tween the  copies  which  were  intended  for  private  use,  and 
those  which  were  intended  for  general  circulation ;  supr.  p.  101. 
ii.  JlS.  That  the  edition  of  the  Catholick  Epistles  inscribed  to 
Eustochium,  was  of  the  former  kind,  is  evident  from  the  cau- 
tion expressed  in  the  Prologue,  supr.  n.  2?4.  "  meam  senec* 
tutem  invidorum  dentibus  corrodendam  exponis,  qui  me  falsa- 
rium,  et  corruptorem  sacrarum  scripturarum,  pronuneiant." 

237  Vid.  supr.  p.  158.  n. "*.  p.  161.  n.  "9. 

a38  S.  Hieron.  ibid.  Prol.  in  Epp.  Cann,  ut  supr.  "  Sed 
sicut  Evangelistas  dudum  ad  veritatis  lineam  correximus,  ita 
has,  proprio  ordini,  Deo  nos  juvante,  reddidimus.  Est  enim, 
prima  earum,  Jacobi,  una ;  Petri,  duae  ;  Johannis,  tres ;  et  Juda? 
una :  quae  si  ut  ab  eis  digestae  sunt,  ita  quoque  ab  interpretibus 
fideliter  in  Latinum  verterentur  eloquium,  nee  amb'guitatem 
legentibus  facerent,  nee  sermonum  sese  varietas  impugnaret; 
illo  prcecipue  loco  ubi  de  unitate  Trinitatis  in  prima  Johannis 
Epistola  positum  legimus.  In  qua,  etiam  ab  infidelibus  [f.  fide- 
Hbus]  translatoribus  multum  erratum  esse  ab  fidei  verltate 


(    564    ) 

On  summing  up  the  arguments  which  have  been 
urged  against  the  text  of  the  heavenly  witnesses,  I 
cannot  therefore  discover  any  thing  which  materially 
affects  the  authenticity  of  this  verse,  either  in  the  omis- 
sions of  the  Greek  manuscripts,  or  the  silence  of  the 
Greek  fathers ;  in  the  variations  of  the  Latin  version, 
or  the  allegorical  explanations  of  the  Latin  pole- 
micks.  The  objections  hence  raised  against  that 
text,  are  perfectly  consistent  with  that  strong  evi- 
dence in  its  favour,  which  is  deducible  from  the  in- 
ternal evidence,  and  the  external  testimony  of  the 
African  Church;  which  testimony  remains  to  be 
disposed  of,  before  we  can  consider  it  spurious. 
Nor  is  there  any  objection  to  which  the  text  of  the 
Vulgar  Greek  is  exposed,  in  other  respects,  which  at 
all  detracts  from  its  credit. 

.,,It  has  been  stated  against  1  Joh.  v.  7,  8.  as  read 
in  the  Greek  Vulgate,  that  the  objection  raised  to 
the  grammatical  structure  of  the  Palestine  text*19, 
is  removed  but  a  step  back  by  the  insertion  of  1  Joh. 
y.  7  :  as  the  same  false  concord  occurs  in  the  con- 
text 1  Joh.  v.  8.  as  read  in  the  Byzantine  edition  : 
Tfut  ol  fAa^Tuoai/TK  being  there  made  to  agree  with 
TO  TrvfUpa,  xj  TO  -M«£.  But  this  objection  has  been 
made  without  any  attention  to  the  force  of  the 
figure  attraction.  The  only  difficulty  which  embar- 

,  comperimus ;  trium  tan-turn  vocabula,  hoc  est,  '  aquae,  sanguinis 
et  spiritus,'  in  sua  editione  ponentes,  et  Patris,  Verbi,  ac  Spi- 
ritus'  testimonium  omittentes  in  quo  maxime  et  fides  catholics 
roboratur,  et  Patris,  ac  Filii,  ac  Spiritus  sancti  una  divinitatis 
Bubstantia  comprobatur," 
^  Vid.  supr.  p.  257. 


(    565    ) 

rasses  the  construction  lies  in  furnishing;  the  first 
adjectives  Tff*V  •*  potfTupwts  with  substantives; 
which  is  effectually  done,  by  the  insertion  of  0  rUr^ 
?£  o  Ac-yof,  in  the  disputed  passage.  The  subse- 
quent o*  TfaV  fAa£TU£8VT*?  are  thence  attracted  to 
the  foregoing  adjectives,,  instead  of  being-  go- 
verned by  the  subsequent  TO  vvtvpa,  *J  TO  tfup,  in 
the  strictest  consistency  with  the  style  of  St.  John 
and  the  genius  of  the  Greek  language*40. 

It  has  been  further  objected  to  the  Byzantine  text, 
that  t'xxxWav  T»  0eS  Act.  xx.  28.  has  been  substi- 
tuted for  ixxPwn'ai'  TS  Kuf/tf,  in  order  to  accommo- 
date the  phrase  to  the  style  of  St.  Paul ;  and  that 
parallel  examples  to  3$  ifousfuSi  I  Tim.  iii.  16.  used 
in  the  definitive  sense  of  t(  he  who  was  manifested/' 

a*°  On  the  figure  attraction,  see  Mess,  de  Port  Royal  Gr. 
Gram.  B,  VII.  ch.  i.  p.  319.  ed.  Lond.  1797.  Examples  of  this 
figure  are  not  unfrequent  in  St.  John ;  vid.  Joh.  xiv.  26.  xv.  26. 
xvi.  13.  In  the  last  instance  we  read,  orav  &  &&,  fxe7vor  TO 
IIvEt^a  rJjr  «X»»Sit«$:  but  ixmo?  is  here  attracted  to  t$  &$&-, 
IxeTvos-.  vers.  8.  which  is  governed  by  e  YlapwOdlos  ItefaiTou, 
vers.  7.  In  fact  this  structure  was  preferred  by  the  Evange- 
list, as  asserting  the  Personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  applying 
to  him,  an  adjective  in  the  masculine.  But  without  this  prepa- 
ration of  the  phrase,  1  Joh.  v.  7.  &c.  no  grammatical  figure  will 
reconcile  the  false  concord  of  Ibid.  8.  as  read  in  the  Corrected 
Text  of  M.  Griesbacb,  to  the  genius  of  the  Greek  language^ 
A  Syllepsis,  which  is  properly  a  poetical  licence,  at  least  a 
rhetorical  figure,  and  of  course  wholly  beside  our  present  pur- 
pose, will  not  answer  this  end;  as  the  Apestle  has  spoiled  the 
effect  of  this  figure,  in  determining  the  gender  of  nw^oc  to  be 
neuter,  by  prefixing  to  it  the  article  TO,  and  coupling  it  with 
TO  iA*flvftiv  in  his  context:  he  has  thus  wholly  unfitted  it  for 
qualifying  the  subjoined  oj  /xaplygS/Iej  x,  T.  I, 


(    566    ) 

occur  in  Mar.  iv.  25.  Luc.  viii.  18,  Rom.  viii.  32, 
But  the  former  observation  appears  to  me  to  remove 
one  difficulty  by  the  happy  expedient  of  creating  a 
greater;  for  thus  a  double  inconsistency  is  substan- 
tiated —  against  the  Apostle  in  the  first  instance,  and 
against  the  Evangelist  in  the  second,  which  is  no 
less  happily  conceived  to  be  corrected  by  the  blun- 
der of  a  transcriber*41.  And  the  latter  observation 
unfortunately  finds  not  the  least  support  from  the 
adduced  examples,  as  they  are  essentially  different 
from  the  passages  which  they  are  taken  to  illus* 


HI  Via,  supr.  p.  255.  n.  I85. 

v  *4i  In  Mar.  iv.  25.  Luc.  viii.  18.  S?  signifies  he  who,  on  no 
other  account,  than  because  he  ivho  is  synonymous  with  whoever  t 
in  English;  the  latter  being  the  proper  meaning  of  the  term 
in  Greek,  and  a  meaning  which  reduces  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  to  non- 
sense. In  Rom*  viii.  32.  o?  is  the  subjunctive  article,  and,  as 
such,  tied  by  the  particle  ys  to  its  antecedent  ©eo?  ;  as  is  di« 
rectly  apparent  on  viewing  the  text  independent  of  its  artificial 
division  into  verses,  tl  o  ©go*  I>K\^  vpuv,  TK  *«$'  »}/*«»;  os  ys 
T»  i^tr  £»S  «*  E^sio-aro.  Had  not  this  connexion  existed,  the 
Apostle  would  have  used  the  participle,  with  an  article,  agree- 
ably to  the  genius  of  the  Greek,  and  his  usual  practice  :  Gal, 
ii.  8.  3  yog  Ingyijcrag.  Ib.  iii.  5,  o  a»  atixjuwyuv*  2  Cor.  ix.  10, 
o  ^  wxp^nyuv.  Nor  does  the  example  adduced  from  Col.  i. 
27.  supr.  p.  281.  furnish  any  parallel  instance  to  1  Tim.  iii.  16, 
St.  Paul  has  expressly  determined  the  gender  of  purvgio*  to  be 
neuter  (1.)  by  the  context;  writing  TO  /xwr^oy  TO  '  awoxegw/*-. 
:  and  (2.)  by  the  sense,  as  Xpiros  is  not  TO  ^p^ov,  but  a 
o$  Tr,s  ^ojrjy  ra  /*yr*?§'«,  as  the  Apostle  shews,  by  subjoin- 
ing v  Ixw*?  T?$  3^|«{  :  so  that  the  true  antecedent  to  o?,  in  oj  lj-» 
X^M,  is  o  vKuroc.  If  the  passage  admitted  not  of  this  expla- 
nation, an  Attraction,  by  which  o;  and  X^ro?  were  made  to 
agree,  would  afford  a  better  explanation  of  the  phrase 


0    567    ) 

It  has  been  further  urged  against  the  Greek  Vul- 
gate, that  Liberatus  states  the  vulgar  reading  of 
1  Tim.  iii.  16.  to  be  a  correction  of  the  heretick 
MacedOnius ;  and  that  1  John  v.  7.  could  not  have 
existed  in  the  sacred  text,  in  the  age  of  the  Alogi> 
since  these  hereticks  rejected  the  Gospel  of  St» 
John,  as  militating  against  their  peculiar  opinions 
yet  have  not  objected  to  the  Epistles  of  the  Evan- 
gelist, which  are  equally  opposed  to  their  tenets, 
when  the  disputed  verse  forms  a  part  of  his  context. 
But  When  the  principles  of  Liberatus  are  taken  into 
account,  together  with  the  obscurity  and  contradic- 
toriness  of  his  testimony,  it  will  not  be  deemed  wor- 
thy of  implicit  credence143.  We  may  however 

jut;r»j£i«  oj  Ir*  Xpjro?,  than  that  which  supposes  TO  pvrvfM  and  <?; 
to  agree,  by  the  most  palpable  solecism. 

443  The  charge  urged  by  Liberatus  is  expressed  in  the  fol- 
lowing terms;  Liber.  Brev.  cap.  xix.  p.  134.  "  Hoc  tempore 
Macedonius  Constantinopolitanus  Episcopus  ab  Imperatore 
AnaStasio  dicitur  expulsus,  tanquam  Evangelia  falsasset,  et 
maxime  illud  Apostoli  dictum  ;  *  Quia  apparuit  in  carne,  justi- 
ficatus  est  in  spiritu.'  Hunc  enim  immutasse,  ubi  habet  o?,  id 
est,  quit  monosyllabum  graecum,  littera  mutata  5  in  a  vertisse, 
et  fecisse  «,-,  id  est,  ut  esset  Deus  apparuit  per  carnem,  Tan- 
quam Nestorianus  ergo  culpatus  expellitur  per  Severum  mona- 
Cliufn."  The  text  of  Liberatus  has  been  here  obviously  accom- 
modated to  his  account  of  the  Nestorian  heresy,  vid.  supr.  p. 
521.  n.  l38.  As  we  know  the  different  readings  of  the  Greek 
copies  to  which  he  alludes,  we  may  correct  his  text,  without 
difficulty:—**  hunc  enim  mutasse  ubi  habet  OS  id  est  qui, 
monosyllabum  grsecum  [et]  littera  mutata,  0  in  0  vertisse  et 
fecisse  ©2,  id  est,  ut  esset,  «  Deus  apparurit  per  camera."  But 
to  this  statement  of  Liberatus  there  are  several  objections.  It 
appears,  from  the  testimony  of  St.  Chrysostome,  that,  for  many 


(    568    ) 

grant,  that  it  has  every  foundation  in  truth,  without 
affecting  in  the  least  the  integrity  of  the  Greek  Vul- 
gate. When  it  is  remembered,  that  the  reading 
which  Macedonius  is  said  to  have  corrected,  is  found 
in  a  verse  which  Eusebius  had  previously  corrupted  ; 
we  may  admit  that  the  alteration  was  made  in  some 
copies,  and  yet  maintain  that  the  integrity  of  the 
sacred  text  was  restored,  not  impaired,  by  the  last 
emendation.  But  the  possibility  of  thus  altering  a 
few  copies,  will  be  still  infinitely  remote  from  ac- 
counting for  the  general  corruption  of  the  Greek 
Vulgate;  and  until  this  object  is  attained,  the  pre- 
sent objection  must  wholly  fail  of  its  intention.  As 
to  that  which  has  been  advanced  from  the  consU 
deration  of  the  Alogi,  who  have  not  objected  to  St. 
John's  Epistle,  it  seems  to  have  been  urged  from  a 
partial  view  of  St.  Epiphanius's  account  of  those 
hereticks.  As  far  as  I  can  collect  from  his  words, 


years  previous  to  the  tim.es  of  Macedonius  and  Severus, 
l$«vE£u$q  had  been  the  reading  of  the  Byzantine  edition  ;  so 
that  no  culpability  could  attach  to  the  bishop  of  Constantino- 
ple, for  introducing  this  reading  in  his  copies  :  vid.  supr.  p.  289. 
in  l73.  A  totally  different  account,  and  one  which  carries  in- 
ternal marks  of  its  truth,  is  given  by  Evagrius,  of  the  causes 
which  occasioned  Macedonia's  expulsion  from  the  see  of  Con- 
stantinople, at  the  instigation  of  Seyerus  :  vid.  Evagr.  Hist. 
peel.  Lib.  III.  cap.  xliv.  p.  380.  1.  10.  And  the  account  of 
Liberaius  is  rejected  as  wholly  improbable,  not  only  by  Bishop 
Pearson,  and  Dr.  Berriman,  but  the  Jesuit  Garuier,  who  had 
*om.e  interest  in  supporting  Liberatus's  testimony,  as  it  afforded 
some  countenance  to  the  reading  of  the  Latin  Vulgate.  VicU 
Garn.  hvJLiberat.  p.  137.  Pears,  on  Creed.  Vol.11,  p.  137«. 
Bcrrim,  Dissert,  on  1  Tim.  p.  231. 


(    569    ) 

lie  has  implicitly  declared,  that  they  objected  not 
less  to  the  Epistles  written  by  St.  John,  than  to  his 
Gospel*44.  And  had  not  this  been  the  case,  the 
objection  might  be  easily  set  aside;  as  it  equally 
proves,  that  the  first  verses  of  the  Epistle  must  have 
been  also  absent  from  the  Apostle's  text,  as  they 
are  even  more  strongly  opposed  to  the  peculiar 
tenets  of  the  Alogi.  As  this  is  a  position  which  wilt 
be  hardly  sustained  by  any  objectour,  I  apprehend, 
that  the  present  objection  in  proving  so  much,  really 
proves  nothing. 

A  few  words  will  now  cover  the  Greek  Vulgate 
from  every  object. on  which  has  been  raised  to  its  ver- 
bal integrity Z45.  It  has  been  an  old  objection  urged 

144  St.  Epiphanius  expresses  himself  on  the  present  subject 
in  the  following  unqualified  terms.  User.  LI.  p.  423.  d, — 
«7ro/3aXXb<Ji  [_oi  Ahoyo^  'ludwa  rois  /3/jSXbJ1.  iirti  a»  TO>  Aoyov  » 
at  TOV  wapa  'luixvua  xtxygvypitov,  "A^oyoi  x?W)$^<ro>Ja».— — — oTTore 
^evov7a»  Qinrei  tat-  /3<jSX»'a  f»  a  wo  T£  ay'm  ^luavva  xsxijgu'y/^eva, 
i  fu  c^Xov  elV),  on  BTO*'  tla-it  xj  oJ  o/AO»ot  T«TO»?>  ^6§»  uv  elWev 
o  ayior  'Iwavv^jr  iv  rous  xaS'oXixaTj  F.'Xisoha.'is'  ort,  (  i<rxa.vn  u^at 
in*  x.  T.  I.  The  connexion  of  the  sense,  in  the  last  clause  of 
this  sentence,  apparently  renders  it  necessary  that  we  should 
suppose  the  Alogi  rejected  the  Catholick  Epistles ;  and  Peta- 
vius  accordingly  renders  the  first  clause  ;  "  sed  cum  universes 
Joannis  lilros  proprie  rejiciant,"  &c. 

a45  I  shall  add  but  another  remark  on  1  Joh.  v.  7.  in  answer 
to  Mr.  Person's  question,  Lett.  XII.  p.  397.  "  If  the  Spirit 
that  witnesses  in  the  sixth  verse  be  the  holy  Spirit,  which  \ 
think  cannot  be  doubted,  *  because  the  Spirit  is  truth,'  why  is 
the  epithet,  after  being  twice  omitted,  added  m  the  seventh 
yerse,  to  mark  a  distinction  without  a  difference?'*  Because 
when  the  Holy  Ghost  is  mentioned  by  himself,  "  the  Spirit'^ 
Becomes  his  sufficient  designation  ;  vid.  Joh.  i.  33i  iii.  (J.  vu  63* 


(    570    ) 

against  the  Apocalypse  and  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
that  neither  of  those  canonical  books  corresponds 
with  the  style  of  the  authour,  with  whose  name 
they  are  inscribed;  the  one  possessing  an  elevation 
of  language  which  is  not  discoverable  in  the  works 
of  St.  Paul/ the  other  abounding  in  solecisms  which 
are  not  discoverable  in  the  other  writings  of  St.  John 
the  Evangelist.  But  when  due  allowances  are  made 
for  the  latitude  in  which  the  term  style  was  used  by 
the  antients;  and  when  the  peculiar  subjects  of  the 
books  under  review  are  taken  into  account,  this  ob* 
jection,  which  at  best  is  founded  on  a  very  fallacious 
criterion*46,,  admits  of  a  very  easy  solution.  As  the 
term  style,  in  the  original  acceptation,,  was  applied 
not  merely  to  the  peculiar  mode  of  expression,  in 
which  a  writer  delivers  himself,  but  jointly  to  the 
diction  and  sentiment;  an  elevation  in  the  latter, 

vii.  39.  But  when  lie  is  mentioned  with  the  Father  and  the  Son, 
the  epithet  '*  holy"  is  necessary  to  distinguish  him  among  the 
Persons,  as  the  Father  and  Son  are  equally  Spirits ;  vid.  Matt, 
xxviii.  19.  £  Cor.  xiii.  13.  The  epithet  which  is  added  with  so 
much  propriety  in  the  seventh  verse,  would  have  been  absolutely 
improper  in  the  sixth ;  as  "  the  Spirit"  there  means  "  the 
Spirit  of  Christ ;"  such  being  the  proper  designation  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  where  he  is  considered  as  the  Spirit  sent  by  the 
Son,  to  bear  witness  of  him,  as  in  the  passage  before  us,  conf. 
Rom,  viii.  9.  Jon.  xv.  26.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  on  the  contrary 
his  proper  designation,  when  he  is  considered  as  the  Sanctjfier  ; 
d.  being  co-equal  and  Co-essential  with  the  Creatour  and  the 
Redeemer,  rather  than  a  spirit  proceeding  from  either.  As 
the  human  spirit  is  meant  in  the  eighth  verse,  the  epithet  holy- 
is  of  course  as  properly  omitted  in  this  verse,  as  it  is  retained 
in  the  preceding. 
-  **  Vid.  Orig.  Epist.  ad  African.  Tom.  I.  p.  29.  e. 


which  arises  out  of  the  subject,  has  afforded  the 
chief  ground  to  the  objection.  In  the  retrospect 
which  the  one  Apostle  takes  of  the  primitive  state 
of  the  Church,  and  in  the  prospect  which  the 
other  gives  into  its  future  fortune,  objects  seized 
the  imagination,  which  were  essentially  different 
from  those  which  engrossed  the  attention,  when  they 
described  the  acts  of  our  Lord,  or  inculcated  his 
doctrines.  Adapting  their  language  to  their  matter, 
they  adopt  a  different  elevation  of  manner  in  treat- 
ing different  subjects ;  and  have  thus  furnished  the 
objectour  with  grounds  to  urge  his  exceptions. 
With  greater  plausibility  have  they  been  urged 
against  the  Apocalypse,  than  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews. By  a  nice  attention  to  the  texture  of  the 
phrase,  many  expressions  have  been  discovered  in 
the  latter,  which  are  characteristick  of  the  manner 
adopted  by  St.  Paul  in  his  other  Epistles.  And 
though  some  expressions  in  the  Apocalypse  appear 
to  be  less  reconcilable  to  the  style  of  St.  John ;  yet 
when  it  is  considered  that  they  are  Hebrew  idioms447 

*47  These  examples  are  collected  by  Mt  Bengel,  who  offers 
the  following  vindication  of  them ;  Apparat.  Grit.  Fund.  Cris* 
Apoc.  §  v.  p.  488. — "  Spectat  hue  maxime  duorum  casuura 

constructio:    cap.   i.  5.  «TTO  'lir>?a  X§»rS,   o  potgrvi;  o  wir«« « 

Cap,  ii.  20.   f\v  yvtouKOt,  y  Ktyutra.   ill.  12.   T»jf  xau/Sjy  *l£^w<raX^  n 

*aTa/3a*Vs0-«, Nee  longe  abeunt  ilia:  cap.  xiv.  9.  ru  §y£u 

icj  TJjy  ijxova  avrv.   XVli.  4.  jS^iAyy/xarwv  tcj  T&  axa^a^r*  :  vel  etiam 

cap.  iv.  4.  vii.  9.  xiii.  3. In  summa,  Hebraismus  toto  regnat 

libro,  prima  specie  insolens  et  asper,  sed  revera,  cum  assueveris, 
non  solum  tolerabilis,  sed  etiam  dulcis  ac  plane  ccelestis  stilo 
curiae  dignus.  Johannem  tibi,  lector  Apocalypseos,  propone 
Jlebraice  cogitantem,  Gra?ce  scribentcm."  The  vindication 


(    572    ) 

which  are  particularly  suited  to  the  prophetical 
style,  which  is  adopted  by  St.  John,  we  have  no 
great  allowance  to  make  for  the  difference  of  the 
Evangelist's  subject,  in  order  to  meet  every  objec- 
tion which  has  been  made  to  these  passages. 

Thus  weighing  every  objection  which  has  been 
stated  against  the  Greek  Vulgate,  there  appears  to 
be  none  urged,  which  can  at  all  affect  its  integrity^ 
as  a  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  manners.  In  regard- 
ing the  constitution  of  the  primitive  church,  and  the 
care  taken  to  disperse  the  commonest  documents 
relative  to  ecclesiastical  polity,  it  is  impossible  even 
to  conceive  how  theinspired  text  could  have  been  cor- 
rupted in  the  first  ages  of  Christianity.  In  the  age 
of  St.  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian,  who  followed  in  the 
next  succession  after  the  Apostles,  the  authenticity 
of  the  sacred  canon  was  investigated  with  the  ut- 
most care ;  and  in  the  age  of  Origen,  who  suc- 
ceeded at  no  great  interval  of  time,  it  was  still  con- 
sidered free  from  corruption*48.  To  the  period 
intervening  between  his  times  and  those  of  St. 
Chrysostome,  whatever  alterations  were  made  in 
the  text  must  be  referred ;  as  at  the  latter  period 
the  vulgar  text,  which  has  been  since  used  in  the 
Church,  was  confessedly  adopted.  In  this  period, 
which  extends  to  little  more  than  an  hundred  and 
fifty  years,  we  are  accordingly  informed,  that  those 
editions  of  the  Greek  were  published,  to  which  we 

of  M.Eisner,  who  thinks  these  idioms  may  be  reconciled  to 

the  genius  of  tlte  Greek  language,  appears  to  me  to  be  wholly 

inadmissible;  Vid.  Elsn.  Observv.  Sacrr.  Tom- II.  p.  - 

**  Vid.  sqpr.  p.  431.  «.  10« 


(    573    ) 

V 

can  trace  every  variety  in  the  sacred  text,  whether 
existing  in  the  original  or  in  translations.  Of  these 
editions,  however,  two  only  are  entitled  to  any  con- 
sideration ;  that  of  Palestine,,  which  prevails  in  the 
writing's  of  Eusebius.,  Athanasius,  Cyril.,  and  Isidore, 
and  is  found  in  the  Vatican  manuscript249;  and  that 

149  I  have  already  ventured  to  offer  a  conjecture,  that  this 
celebrated  MS.  is  allied  to  the  text  revised  by  St.  Basil:  vid, 
supr.  p.  104.  We  are  assured  by  a  person  who  possessed  # 
transcript  made  from  a  copy  of  the  library  of  Csesarea,  in  Cap- 
padocia,  that  St.  Basil  had  corrected  the  text,  and  had  accu- 
rately marked  it  with  points  and  accents  :  Syncel.  Chrono- 
graph. p.  203.  b.  ed.  Par.  1652.  i»  l»l  <&  atwygdiqiu,  Xia'v 


*y  $1*05  Bac-Ueios  rot,    (I|   uv  txefvo   o 

#»#A»a.  The  following  considerations  may  be  offered  in  sup- 
port of  the  above  conjecture.  (1.)  St.  Basil  studied  in  Csesa- 
rea  in  Palestine,  with  Gregory  of  Nazianzum,  and  imbibed  that 
partiality  for  Origen,  and  consequently  for  the  Palestine  te.xt, 
which  was  common  to  the  disciples  of  that  school  :  vid.  Socrat. 
Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  IV.  cap.  xxvi.  p.  245.  1.  9—13.  conf.  supr.  p. 
84.  n.  7\  (2.)  The  Vatican  MS.  differs  from  all  known  manu- 
scripts of  equal  antiquity,  in  having  accents  and  marks  of 
asperation  added  by  the  original  transcriber  ;  Vid.  Birch.  Nov. 
Test.  Prolegomm.  p.  xiv.  (3.)  The  Greek  MSS.  of  the  reli- 
gious order  of  St.  Basil,  which  had  been  dispersed  in  several 
monasteries  through  Calabria,  were  transported  to  Rome  by 
P.  Menitius,  Prefect  of  the  order,  and  were  deposited  in  the 
library  of  St.  Basil  in  that  city:  vid.  Montfauc.  Palseogr.  Gnec. 
p.  xxiii.  As  many  of  the  most  valuable  MSS.  in  Italy  have 
been  transferred,  through  the  arbitrary  power  of  the  Popes,  to 
the  Vatican,  it  is  possible,  that  the  celebrated  MS.  which  is 
distinguished  by  this  name,  might  have  thus  made  its  wav  into 
the  Pontifical  library. 


(    574    ) 

of  Byzantium,,  which  prevails  in  the  writings  of 
Chrysostome,  Gregory  Nyssene,  Nazianzene,  &c, 
arid  is  found  in  the  great  body  of  Greek  manuscripts. 
The  weight  of  evidence  which  supports  both  edi- 
tions, has  been  already  laid  in  detail  before  the 
reader.  In  almost  all  points  of  importance,  they 
mutually  afford  each  other  confirmation;  and  where 
this  coincidence  fails,  the  testimony  of  the  oldest  wit- 
nesses, contained  in  the  primitive  Italick  and  Syriack 
versions,  is  generally  found  on  the  side  of  the  Greek 
Vulgate ;  the  testimony  of  those  witnesses  being  fur- 
ther confirmed  by  that  of  the  primitive  fathers*50. 
The  variations  in  the  testimony  of  later  texts,  ver- 
sions, and  writers,  is  besides  easily  traced  to  the 

.  as°  The  following  list  of  passages,  quoted  by  those  Fathers 
who  lived  in  the  next  succession  after  the  Apostles,  includes 
the  principal  texts  in  which  the  Greek  Vulgate  differs  from  the 
Palestine  edition.  They  may  be  disposed  in  four  classes,  ac- 
cording to  their  importance :  and,  as  read  in  the  vulgar  Greek, 
are  supported  by  the  annexed  authorities.  (L)  1  Job.  v.  7« 
Tert.  Cypr.  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  Ignat.  Act.  xx.  28.  Ignat.  Tert. 
Tid.  supr.  p.  291.  nn.  a83  et  *8*.  p.  275.  n. 13i.  p.  286.  n.  »«, 
(2.)  Mat.  xix.  17.  Just.  Mart.  Jb.  xx.  22,  23.  Iren.  Ib. 
xxvii.  25.  Tert.  Luc.  iv.  18.  Iren.  Joh.  i.  27.  Orig.  vid. 
aupr.  p.  372.  sqq.  (3.)  Mar.  xiii.  32.  Iren.  Luc.  ix.  55.  «*. 
'Clem.  Alex.  Cypr.  Ib.  xi.  13.  Tert.  Ib.  xxii.  43,  4-4-.  Just. 
Mart.  Joh.  v.  3,  4.  Tert.  Act.  viii.  37.  Iren.  Ib.  xv.  28. 
Clem.  Tert.  Col.  i.  14.  Iren.  Ib.  ii.  2.  Clem.  Alex,  ut  videtur. 
1  Joh.  iv.  3.  Polyc.  Tert.  vid.  supr.  p.  380.  sqq.  (4.)  Matt. 
«..1S^.  Barn.  Clem.  Rom.  Ib.  vii.  2.  h.  Polyc.  Clem.  Rom. 
Ib.  xxv.  4-1.  *.  Tert.  Mar.  i.  2.  b.  Iren.  Luc.  iv.  18.  i.  Iren. 
Ib.  vi.  26.  h.  Iren.  Ib.  ix.  62.  u.  Iren.  Tert.  Rom.  T.  14.  *, 
Iren.  vid.  Griesb.  nn.  in  locc. 


(    575    ) 

influence  of  the  Marcionite  and  Valentinian  here- 
sies :  which,  as  merely  affecting  a  text  essentially 
different  from  the  Vulgar  Greek,  leaves  the  evi- 
dence, arising  in  favour  of  this  text  from  the  imme- 
morial tradition  of  the  Church,  unaffected  by  any 
objection. 

In  the  single  instance  of  the  text  of  the  heavenly 
witnesses,  a  difficulty  arises ;  as  it  cannot  be  denied 
that  this  verse  has  been  wholly  lost  in  the  Greek 
Vulgate.  But  I  cannot  admit  that  the  integrity  of 
the  sacred  text  is  at  all  affected  by  this  considera- 
tion. Were  the  Greek  Church  the  only  witness 
of  its  integrity,  or  guardian  of  its  purity,  the  ob- 
jection would  be  of  vital  importance.  But  in  de- 
ciding the  present  question,  the  African  Church  is 
entitled  to  a  voice  not  less  than  the  Byzantine ;  and 
on  its  testimony,  we  receive  the  disputed  passage. 
In  fact,  as  the  proper  witnesses  of  the  inspired 
Word,  are  the  Greek  and  Latin  Churches;  they  are 
adequate  witnesses  of  its  integrity.  The  general 
corruption  of  the  text  received  in  these  Churches, 
in  the  vast  tract  of  country,  which  extends  from 
Armenia  to  Africa,  was  utterly  impossible.  A  com- 
parative view  of  their  testimony,  enables  us  to  de- 
termine the  genuine  text,  in  every  point  of  the 
smallest  importance*51.  And  after  the  progressive 
labour  of  ages,  in  which  every  thing  that  could  in- 
validate their  evidence  from  the  testimony  of  dis- 
senting witnesses,  has  been  accumulated,  nothing 

2-51  Vid.  supr.  p.  306.  ... 


C    S76    ) 

has  been  advanced  by  which  it  is  materially  affected. 
To  the  mind  which  is  not  operated  on  by  these  con- 
siderations., nothing  further  need  be  advanced  in  the 
shape  of  argument. 


THE  ENI>. 


R.  and  R.  Gilbert,  Printers,  St.  John's  Square,  London. 


Hui