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 AUTHORIZED TEXT VINDICATED, AND THE VARIOUS READINGS TRACED TO THEIR ORIGIN. 

by Dr. Frederick Nolan (1784-1864 A.D.)
A Presbyter of the United Church,
London.

CHAPTER ONE

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Europe, from the difficulties of acquiring the Greek language, prevented an edition of the New Testament from being attempted; until a comparatively late period. At nearly a century subsequent to the invention of printing, the Complutensian Polyglot was undertaken, under the patronage of Cardinal Ximenes, which contained the first printed copy of the Greek Testament. From the edition which was then prepared for publication, the subsequent editors 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 predecessors.  

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

So great a number of various readings as has been collected by the labors of these editors, has necessarily tended to weaken the authority of the Received Text; as it is at least possible that a great proportion of them may constitute a part of the original text of Scripture. And various expedients have been, in consequence, devised, in order to determine the authentic readings from the spurious, and to fix. the character of those manuscripts which are chiefly deserving of credit, in ascertaining the genuine text of the sacred canon. The most ingenious and important of these expedients is decidedly that suggested in the classification of manuscripts which originated with the German critics; which had been suggested by MM. Bengel and Seinler, but reduced to practice by the learned and accurate M. Griesbach. 

It is not to be conceived that the original editors 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 altogether ignorant of two classes of manuscripts; one of which contains the text which we have adopted 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 immense number of various readings which had been collected by Dr. Mills; to class his manuscripts by the Vulgate, and to form a Corrected Text, which should literally accord. with that translation as corrected by the hand of St. Jerome. 

But these schemes have been surpassed and superseded by the more highly labored 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 authority of St. Jerome, who flourished in the fifth century, he builds upon that of Origen who flourished its the third. Instead of the existence of two species of text, one of which corresponds with the Vulgate, and the other with the generality of Greek manuscripts, he contemplates the existence of three, which he terms the Alexandrian, the Western, and the Byzantine, from the different regions in which he supposes them to have prevailed. 
According. to this division, he has formed his classification of manuscripts, which he consequently distributes into three kinds. A choice among their respective texts he determines by the authority of Origen; whose testimony seems entitled to this respect, from the attention, which he, above all the ancients, bestowed upon biblical criticism. Finding a striking coincidence to exist between his scripture quotations and the celebrated manuscript brought from Alexandria, which was the scene of Origen's literary labors, he thence determines the manuscripts, which belong to that class which he distinguishes as the Alexandrian. The manuscripts, which differ from this class, and coincide, in their characteristic peculiarities, with those which have been directly imported to us from Constantinople, he distinguishes as the Byzantine. His third class, which contains the Western text, consists of a set of manuscripts, which have been principally found in Europe, and which possess many coincidences with the Latin translation, where they differ from the peculiar readings of both the preceding classes. 

To the manuscripts of the Alexandrian class, it may be easily conceived, the highest rank is ascribed by M. Griesbach: the authority of a few of these outweighing in his estimation that of a multitude of the Byzantine. The peculiar readings which he selects from the manuscripts of this class, he confirms by a variety of collateral testimony, principally drawn from the quotations of the ancient fathers, and the versions made in the primitive ages. To the authority of Origen he however ascribes a paramount weight, talking 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 readings in the Received Text, has been that of shaking 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 nature; as his corrections have extended to proscribing three important texts, in the fate of which the doctrinal integrity of the inspired text becomes necessarily implicated: for, a proof of the partial corruption of the sacred canon being once established in important matters, its character for general fidelity is necessarily involved. And what heightens the alarm which may be naturally felt at the attempts thus made to undermine the authority of the Received Text, is the singular ability with which they have been carried into execution. The deservedly high character which M. Griesbach's elaborate work has attained, affords the justest cause of apprehension from its singular merit. The comprehensive 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 any applause from his critical emendations. However divided the opinions may be which are held on the purity of his text, the merit of his notes is not to be denied. As a general and correct index to the great body of Greek manuscripts, they are an invaluable treasure to the scholar, and necessary acquisition to the divine. Indeed, admitting his classification, of manuscripts to be erroneous, as I am inclined to believe his text is corrupt, yet from the clear and comprehensive manner in which the various readings are disposed, by merely varying the principle of arrangement, they may be applied 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 predilection for the Alexandrian text, which he conceives he has discovered in the works of Origen, I am far from acquiescing. For I cannot see that M. Griesbach has evinced, by the production of characteristic affinities, that the text used by Origen was rather the Alexandrian than the Byzantine. There is in fact an indecision is Origen's testimony, arising from those readings, termed inconstant, in which he quotes as well against, as with the Alexandrian text, that destroys the force of his partial testimony in its favor. Did they merely consist in occasional deviations from this text, they would be of little moment: for Origen, like every divine, in quoting from memory, and by accommodation, must have constantly deserted the letter of the text. But when, his deviations from one text prove to be coincidences 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 favor of any one to which he but generally 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 Alexandrian. It is, indeed, true, that he was a catechist of Alexandria, 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 Alexandrian. The fact is, that he lived and died in a state of excommunication from that church, in which his principles were execrated, and his writings condemned: and the principal part of his commentaries were published in Palestine, instead of Alexandria. From the former circumstance we may infer, that in adopting a text, the Alexandrian church was not influenced by him; from the latter, that, on the same subject, he was not influenced by it; but followed the copies of the country in which his writings were published and dispersed. And this deduction is confirmed in an extraordinary manner by internal and collateral evidence. We are assured, on the highest authority, that while Palestine adopted the text of Origen, Alexandria adopted that of Hesychius. And an extraordinary proof of this assertion exists in the manuscript termed the Alexandrian, 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 preserved in the Vatican manuscript, it is. found to be different from that which is contained in the Alexandrian.  

It is indeed with little appearance of justice that Origen's authority can be claimed in favor of the Alexandrian text. At an early period he settled at Caesarea in Palestine: here he was ordained presbyter, and had a special license to expound the scriptures: and here the principal part of his commentaries were composed and published; which were subsequently collected by Pamphilus and Eusebius his professed apologists and imitators, and deposited in the library of Caesarea. By those works the latter extraordinary person, when bishop of that city, was assisted in revising that edition of the scripture at the command of Constantine, which, it is a curious fact, became the basis of the Byzantine text, instead of the Alexandrian. As to the churches of Rome and Alexandria, they respectively convened councils, in which he was condemned; and in the sentence which was pronounced against him, all the churches acquiesced, except those of Palestine, Phoenicia, Achaia, and Arabia.  

From the authority of Origen, little support can be consequently claimed to the Alexandrian 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 dissembled, 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 induce 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 asserted with one consent, by all who have inspected the principal of those manuscripts that contain the Alexandrian text, and who have compared their peculiar readings with the Old Italic and Syriac versions. It had been observed by M. Simon before the German classification had existed even in conception, and it has been confirmed by Prof. Michaelis since it has been formed. The latter profound orientalist has formed those deductions, which have been already made, from the conformity of the witnesses, who are thus coincident, though remotely situated; that, as currents preserve, by their uniform tenor, 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 Scripture. 

Such is the groundwork of M. Griesbach's system, which is so broad and deep, as not to be shaken by the destruction of its outworks. If it is susceptible of any impression, its very foundation must be sapped: and we must commence by accounting for the extraordinary affinities by which it is held together. A simpler principle must be in fact suggested 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 subject., and considering the affinity observed to exist between the Old Italic version and the original Greek, there is at the first glance something suspicious in the conformity, which betrays an alliance of a recent date. For this affinity was not discoverable in the Italic version of St Jerome's days. At the command of Pope Damasus, he undertook the revisal of the Latin translation, on account of its deviation from the original. This undertaking alone would sufficiently declare St. Jerome's opinion of this dissimilarity, which he undertook to remedy; if he had not in numerous places pointed it out. And his declarations are fully supported by the testimony of St. Augustine , who was no friend to innovation, and who to the last declined using the version retouched by St. Jerome.  

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 dissimilarity 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 Italic by the Vulgate and Greek. And the method in which he performed this task effectually removed the dissimilarity between them, which had so obstinately continued 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 the latter; taking due pains to make the new writing resemble the old. The manuscripts thus corrected, in which, on the basis of the old translation, the corrections of the new were engrafted, 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. 

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 authors than the illiterate monks of a barbarous age. And here it is likewise conceived the probable origin is traced for that peculiar class of manuscripts termed Codices Graeco-Latini, which are now found of such utility in correcting or in corrupting the sacred text. Every circumstance 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 corrections; the margin defaced by notes; the orthography abounding with barbarisms; and the Greek original and Latin translation aiming at a literal affinity, yet frequently at variance, not only with each other, but with themselves. Such, or I am grossly deceived, is the true pedigree of the Cambridge, the Laudian, the Clermont, and St. Germain manuscripts, &c. which occupy a principal rank in the new classification. The first of these manuscripts appears to have been brought out of Egypt, where it was seemingly composed for the use of some convent of Latin ascetics: this appears probable not only from some internal evidence in its margin, but from its ancient and barbarous orthography; the former of which seems to indicate, that it was not composed for domestic purposes; the latter, that it was not written in a country where Greek or Latin was the vernacular, at least the primitive, tongue. 

Submitting these observations to the consideration of my readers, I now leave them to estimate what authority they leave to the testimony of the old Italic version, quoted in favor of the German method of classification. To me it appears a matter capable of demonstration, that it can be entitled to none. The undertaking of Jerome and Cassiodorus, had they been silent upon this subject; would prove a dissimilarity once existing between the old Italic and the Vulgate and Greek of the Alexandrian recension. That dissimilarity has now disappeared, and they are found to coincide. 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 Italic with the Syriac, which cannot be traced through the Greek, as not discoverable in it, still 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 Syriac and Greek. This, it will appear in the sequel, was in his days no impossible task, from the veneration in which Jerusalem was held, and the pilgrimages undertaken to the Holy Land. We have, however, internal evidence of the matter in dispute. For the Latin and Syriac translations are observed to have some literal coincidences, particularly in the Gospels, which are alone said to have been retouched, while the Greek original is not found to partake of the affinity. Professor Alter, in a letter to Professor Birch, describing the version of the Jerusalem Syriac, specifies five places in St. Matthew, in which it agrees literally with the old Italic, while it dissents from the Greek. And Professor Michaelis 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 Syriac, two of which agree with the old Italic, while they differ from every known manuscript extant in Greek.  

The inferences which follow from these circumstances, are sufficiently obvious. And the affinities thus traced between the Oriental and Western text contained in the old Italic and Syriac versions are seemingly to be attributed, not to the original autographs of the apostles and evangelists, but to the corrected translations of Jerome, Cassiodorus, and Charlemagne. Indeed the existence of affinities 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 suppositions the most improbable, that the latter, which descended immediately from the common source of the whole, should lack 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 in the new classification, will entitle the former to somewhat more serious attention than it has latterly received. The general opinion entertained 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 authority for inserting the text of the three heavenly witnesses in his third edition of the Greek Testament. 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 Syriac. 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 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 Syriac 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. Notwithstanding the curiosity and attention which have been latterly bestowed on these subjects, and which no person, in the days of Erasmus, could have foreseen, they have been but recently observed. These affinities, which cannot be ascribed to accident, consequently claim for this manuscript, or the original from which it was taken, an antiquity which is very remote. But its affinities with the Syriac are not the only peculiarities, by which it is distinguished. It possesses various readings in which it differs from every known Greek manuscript, amounting to a number, which excited the astonishment of Prof. Michaelis and Dr. Mills. Some of them, we have already seen, are coincident with the Syriac 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 connected with them, is probably very remote. And if this source be traced by the analogy which it preserves to the old Italic, it must be clearly of the very highest kind.  

Though the testimony of the old Italic version cited in favor of the German classification must be given up, still it may be contended, that the concurrence of the Syriac and the Vulgate with the Greek of the Alexandrian recension, is adequate to 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 commencement of the fifth century. Nor can the Syriac claim a much higher original; the oldest proofs of its antiquity are found in the quotations of St. Ephrem, who flourished near the close of the fourth. Near the beginning of this century, an edition of the original Greek was published by Eusebius of Caesarea under the sanction of Constantine the Great. A brief examination of this point will probably enable us to account for the coincidence between the original Greek and those translations, on which the German mode of classification now rests its entire support.  

The authority with which Eusebius was vested to prepare this edition was conveyed in the following terms, as nearly as the original can be literally expressed. "It seemeth good unto us to submit to your consideration that you would order to be written on parchment prepared for the purpose, by able scribes and accurately skilled in their 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 compare 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 M. Griesbach; we shall perhaps discover how far it is probable 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 as probable interpolations in the Received Text. They amount principally to the following; the account of the woman taken in adultery, John 8:53.? viii 11, and three texts which assert in the strongest manner the mystery of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, and Redemption, 1 John v. 7, 1 Tim. iii. 16, Acts xx. 28.  

If two points can be established against Eusebius, that he lacked neither the power, nor the will, 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 favor of his having expunged, rather than the Catholics 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 emperor, 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. Let us add to these considerations, these further circumstances, that the pious emperor who had employed him to revise the text had been at considerable pains and expense to multiply copies of the scripture, and that the edition thus dispersed, as altered by Eusebius, was peculiarly accommodated to the opinions of the Arians, who from the reign of Constantine to that of Theodosius held an unlimited sway over the church; and there will arise something more than presumptive proof in favor 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 edition of Eusebius. 

With respect to the influence which his edition had upon the sacred text at large, it is most strongly evinced in the early translations. If it can be shown that it affected these, its more powerful operation upon the original cannot be reasonably disputed. 
On reviewing the translations of the eastern text, and considering the Coptic, 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 which Eusebius applied to the scripture, in inventing his celebrated canons, with the aid of Ammonius's harmony, and accommodating, them to the Gospels. And this remark may be in some measure extended to the Syriac, which, in possessing an affinity to the Vulgate, on which incontestably Eusebius's edition had some influence, betrays very decisive 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 version preserved in the Laurentian library, bearing date as far back as the year five hundred and eighty-six, has subjoined to it the canons of Eusebius and the epistle to Carpianus, describing their use in finding the correspondent passages of scripture. 

With these versions, those of the Ethiopic, the Armenian, the Arabic, and Persian, must stand or fall, in admitting its influence upon the former, we must admit it upon the latter, as made after them, instead of the original. Indeed the Coptic and Syriac have long become dead languages, being superseded by the Arabic, which is the learned language of the East, as being that of the Mohammedan scriptures. The Coptic and Syriac versions are consequently attended in general with an Arabic translation added in a separate column; out of which the priests, having first read the original which they rarely understand, then repeat the translation to the people.
Great as the influence which it thus appears, the edition of Eusebius possessed over the Eastern text, it was not greater than it possessed over the Western. If a doubt could be entertained that St. Jerome, 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 addressed to Pope Damasus. 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 several of the highest antiquity are still preserved in England and France, have the text accurately divided by the Eusebian sections. 

The influence of the Vulgate upon the Old Italic, which formed another branch of the Western text, has been already noticed. In the age of St. Augustine, it was making a sensible encroachment upon the antecedent translation. Ruffinus first followed it, and Cassiodorus brought it into general usage. In some of the oldest copies of the Italic notices appear declaring that they had been collated and corrected by the Vulgate. Bibles of this description, written in the age of Hugue de St. Chair, are still preserved with marginal references to St. Jerome and to the Greek; the readings of the latter were probably taken on the authority of the Vulgate which possessed the reputation of maintaining a scrupulous adherence to the original. After this period the new translation gradually superseded the old; and the former is now adopted by the Romish Church as of paramount authority to the original. 

If the influence of the edition of Eusebius extended thus wide, embracing both extremes of the Roman Empire, as affecting the eastern and western 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 immediate reputation, supported by the authority of Constantine. 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 reputation of the person by whom it was revised, was the 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 Vulgate, was of infinite service to those who had to struggle with great inconveniences in reading from the lack 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 ancient Synagogue, was greatly facilitated from its portioning out the text in a kind of prosaic meter. It can be therefore little matter of surprise that we find those divisions introduced into the whole body of Greek manuscripts, and that the stated number of verses into which they are subdivided is generally subjoined at the end of each of the books of Scripture. The bare existence of those divisions, particularly those of the former kind, in the manuscripts of the original Greek, which, as we have already seen, extended to the Eastern and Western translations, contains a standing evidence of their partial descent from the edition set forth by Eusebius. They are found in the oldest of those which have descended to us; some of which contain declarations that they were adopted from older. 

As it is thus apparent that Eusebius lacked not the power, so it may be shown that he lacked 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 that the latter part of St. Mark's Gospel was lacking in most copies of the Evangelist extant in his times, the beginning of the fifth century. As the passage is absolutely necessary to bring the Evangelist's narrative to a close, and as it introduces an apparent contradiction between the accounts which St. Matthew and St. Mark give of nearly the same incident, it is a moral 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 Eusebius; for we shall see that it evidently lost the authority to be derived from his powerful sanctions But though it contains many striking coincidences with the other Evangelists, Eusebius wholly omitted it in his Canons: there seems to be consequently no other reasonable inference, but that his edition agreed with them, and with the copies extant in the times of St. Jerome, in omitting this passage. Now those Canons, compared with the passage in question, convey all the certainty which can be derived from, presumptive evidence that he omitted this passage, not on the testimony of antecedent 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 composing such tables as those of Eusebius. The inference seems to be as strong, as the establishment of the point requires, that he first omitted this passage of St. Mark in the sacred text, as he has omitted it in his canons. 

Nor is the case materially different with respect to John 8:1?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 this 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. Chrysostom, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and St. Ambrose, that it is genuine, St. Augustine having specified the reasons of its having been withdrawn from the text of the Evangelist. Eusebius has however omitted all reference to it in his canons; for it is neither discoverable in the copies of the Greek, nor in those of the Vulgate. And in his Ecclesiastical History, he has obliquely branded it with some other marks of disapprobation; apparently confounding it with a different story. From these circumstances, I conceive, we may safely infer, that Eusebius's copies agreed with his canons in omitting 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 passages, it is not less probable that he omitted at least one of those verses, l 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 peculiar opinions. The doctrine of Christ being of one substance with the Father is asserted in all of them; though most particularly in St. John's Epistle. But on the subject of this doctrine, it is notorious that Eusebius shamefully prevaricated in the celebrated Council of Nice. He first positively excepted against it, and then subscribed to it; and at length addressed a letter to his Church at Caesarea, in which he explained away his former compliance, and retracted what he had asserted. On a person of such versatility of principle no dependence ought to be placed; not that I am inclined to believe what has been often laid to his charge, that he was at heart, an Arian. The truth is, as indeed he has himself placed beyond a doubt, he erred from a hatred to the peculiar notions of Sabellius, who, in maintaining that Christ was the First Person incarnate, had confounded the Persons, as it was conceived he divided the substance. Into this extreme he must have clearly seen that the Catholics were inclined to fall, in combating the opposite error in Arius; and on this very point he consequently maintained a controversy with Marcellus of Ancyra, who was however acquitted of intentional error by St. Athanasius and the Council of Sardica. Whoever will now cast but a glance over the disputed texts as they stand in our authorized version, will directly perceive that they afford a handle by which any person might lay hold who was inclined to lapse into the errors 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 canceling one of those passages, 1 John 5:7; and altering the remainder, 1 Tim. 3:16. Acts 20:28? 

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 descent, as it has been traced from the edition of Eusebius. Let him compare the alterations which have been recently made on their authority in the 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 [this] 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 inspired writers. Nor will it be thought that I presume too far in explicitly denying-That it acquires 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 beer altered from the times of Eusebius. 

Having thus removed the buttresses and drawn out the braces which uphold this vast and uncemented pile, we need no further earnest of its falling to the ground than the hollowness of its foundation. The same materials, when reduced to a heap may be employed in raising a new structure. Hitherto we have brought the integrity of the Received Text 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 favor. With this object it shall be my endeavor to suggest a new principle of classification 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. 

Chapter II 

 BY an analysis of the texts of different manuscripts, 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 originates from hence naturally suggested the expediency of an appeal to the writings of the early divines, and to the versions of the primitive ages, in order to ascertain upon their authority, the probable state of the text at an early period. For this purpose a choice has been made of Origen, and an affinity traced between his quotations and the readings of a peculiar class of manuscripts; which readings, as confirmed by the concurrence of the eastern and western versions, were supposed to possess sufficient evidence in this united testimony, of their having formed a part of the original text of Scripture. 

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 the coincidences on which this mode of classification 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 Emperor Constantine. 

The peculiar objections lying against an appeal to the testimony of Origen were then generally specified. 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 skeptical on this point, let him review the state of the text as preserved in their quotations as it has been extracted from their works by Dr. Mills and is inserted in his elaborate Prolegomena. And if he yet fails of conviction let him examine the peculiar readings of Origen and Chrysostom, whom 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. The fact is, they were so constantly exercised in the Scriptures, which they had nearly committed to memory, that they quote not by reference, but from recollection. However scrupulously, of course, they adhere to the sense of the text, they frequently desert its letter. As they constantly quote by accommodation and in explanation, as they frequently complete their expositions by connecting different parts of Scripture which do not succeed in the order of the context; they necessarily deviate from its exact phraseology. These and other justifiable liberties which they have taken with the sacred text, as having been occupied in explaining its sense, not in preserving its readings, consequently render their testimony, unless in very peculiar passages, of little further use, than, as I have already stated, to establish its doctrinal integrity. 

Deprived of the testimony of the primitive divines, our last appeal lies to the early translations. But few of these are of sufficient authority to entitle them to any attention in deciding the matter at issue. With the exception of the old Italic version, they are destitute of the external evidence which arises from the testimony of those early divines who might have appealed to them in their theological writings. Nor are the probabilities of the case much in favor of their antiquity. The Macedonian conquests had rendered the original language of the New Testament so general throughout the east, that the absolute necessity of a Syriac and Coptic version was not immediately experienced 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 Ethiopic possesses the fairest claims, but if we must admit it to have been more than corrected from the Greek, it must have been made at a comparatively recent period, as appears from the time at which Christianity was established in Ethiopia. With respect to the Syriac and Coptic, which have those strong presumptions against their antiquity, that have been already suggested; the antiquity of the latter is confessedly worse than suspicious, as it is accommodated with the sections and canons of Eusebius. The pretensions of the Syriac are scarcely less equivocal. As it is composed in different styles, and was thus possibly made at different periods, the probabilities are that the more ancient part of the version was retouched when the translation was completed. The bare probability of this circumstance, corroborated by the lack of positive evidence in favor of the antiquity of this version, destroys its authority as a testimony to which we may appeal in determining the genuine text of Scripture. 

The little satisfaction which is to be derived on this subject from the Syriac and Coptic versions, has entitled the Sahidic to a proportionable degree of respect. In support of the remote antiquity of this version, which is written in that peculiar dialect of the Coptic which is spoken in Upper Egypt, a work has been cited, in which it is principally preserved; and which, as supposed to be written by the heretic Valentinus, who flourished in the second century, necessarily supports its pretensions to at least an equal antiquity . 

To the species of evidence on which this work is thus recommended to us as ancient, I have much to object. The foundation on which the conclusion in favor of its antiquity is built, is in the first place weakened if not destroyed, by the doubtfulness of the fact that any work of the kind has been really ascribed by Tertullian to Valentinus. And this objection is considerably strengthened by the further consideration that many works under similar titles have been ascribed to his disciples. The circumstance of this work being written in Sahidic, 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 heretic, who was a person of no ordinary qualifications, could not be ignorant 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. It is in the last degree improbable that Tertullian could have understood him had he written in any other language; and wholly inconceivable that he should omit all mention of so extraordinary a circumstance as his. having read Valentinus in his vernacular tongue. Admitting all that can be claimed for this work, that it was really composed by the early heretic 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. In 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 heretic Valentinus, if we are to believe the testimony of Tertullian, on whose authority it is assigned to him. The passages of scripture introduced into this work are often misquoted in order to favor the Gnostic tenets, but we are assured that those contained in the works of Valentinus were faithfully cited, though perversely interpreted to support his heretical doctrines. We must therefore conclude, not merely from the external evidence, which is at best equivocal, but from the internal, which seems to establish all that I labor to prove, that the work imputed to Valentinus has been ascribed to him on inconclusive grounds. 

The Sahidic version quoted in the book of Wisdom, may consequently, for any thing which this argument concludes, be as well ascribed to the fourth century as to the second. And many weighty reasons may be, I conceive, urged to prove that the former was the period which produced this translation; several learned and pious persons having been at that time exiled in the Thebais, who could have found no better mode of employing their leisure than in procuring the Scriptures to be translated for the purpose of enabling them to diffuse Christianity more generally among the natives, with whose vulgar tongue they were unacquainted. And this supposition is not a little strengthened by the consideration that they were apparently the persons who brought into Europe the Cambridge, and other manuscripts of the same description, which resemble the oldest manuscripts of the Sahidic version, not merely in their form, as attended with a translation, but in their peculiar readings and the character in which they are written. The general prevalence of the Greek language, I again repeat, renders it highly improbable that this version should be ascribed to a much higher period. And the version itself, as abounding 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 inspired writers in the choice which they made of that language as the medium through which the sacred canon was to be published. To this circumstance 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 assistance of the primitive divines, and of the oriental versions, in ascertaining the original text of Scripture, our last dependence is rested on the old Italic translation. Here, however, it may be as securely as naturally placed. The Scripture was not less committed to the keeping of the Latin than of the Greek church, as the witnesses of its authenticity, and the guardians of its purity; and the knowledge of the languages spoken by those churches, was nearly commensurate with the Roman and Macedonian conquests. The former church possessed a translation, which, as generally quoted by the Latin fathers previously to the council of Nice, was consequently, made previously to any alterations which the original might have undergone under Constantine. This translation has been celebrated for its literal fidelity, and we have this security of its having long continued unaltered, that the Latins were not sufficiently instructed in the language of the original, to undertake the correction of the translation. 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, Tertullian excepted, until the age of Constantine; when the councils convened against the Arians, opened that intercourse between the eastern and western churches, which familiarized the latter with the original language of the sacred canon. After that period, Hilary, Lucifer, and Eusebius of Verceli arose, who are represented as possessed of learning sufficient to revise the old Italic translation.. St. Jerome was of a later period, who undertook that thorough revision of the text which has produced the present Vulgate: yet even in the same age, St. Augustine appears to have been but moderately versed in the Greek language. 

In proceeding to estimate the testimony which the Latin translation bears to the state of the Greek text, it is necessary to premise, that this translation exhibits three varieties-As corrected by St. Jerome at the desire of Pope Damasus, and presented in the Vulgate; as corrected by Eusebius of Verceli, at the desire of Pope Julius, and preserved in the codex Vercellensis; and as existing previously to the corrections of both, and preserved as I conceive, in the Codex Brixianus. The first of these three editions of the Italic translation is too well known to need any description; both the last are contained in beautiful manuscripts, preserved at Verceli, and at Brescia, in Italy. The curious and expensive manner in which at least the latter of these manuscripts is executed, as written on purple vellum in silver characters, would of itself contain no inconclusive proof of its great antiquity; such having been the form in which the most esteemed works were executed in the times of Eusebius, Chrysostom, and Jerome. The former is ascribed, by immemorial tradition, to Eusebius Vercellensis, the friend of Pope Julius and St. Athanasius, and, as supposed to have been written with his own hand, is deposited among the relics, which are preserved with a degree of superstitious reverence, in the author's church at Verceli in Piedmont. By these three editions of the translation, we might naturally expect to acquire some insight into the varieties of the original. And this expectation is fully justified on experiment. The latter, not less than the former, is capable of being distributed into three kinds; each of which possesses an extraordinary coincidence with one of a correspondent kind, in the translation. In a word, the Greek manuscripts are capable of being divided into three principal classes, one of which agrees with the Italic translation contained in the Brescia manuscript; another with that contained in the Verceli manuscript; and a third with that contained in the Vulgate. 

In ascertaining the particular Greek manuscripts which, as possessing this coincidence with the Latin, may be taken as the exemplars of each class, we have few difficulties to encounter. The affinity existing between the Vatican manuscript and the Vulgate is so striking, as to have induced Dr. Bentley, and M. Wetstein to class them together. And I proceed to offer some proof, that the affinity of the Harleian and Moscow manuscript, with the Brescia manuscript; and that of the Codex Cantabrigiensis with the Verceli manuscript, is not less striking and extraordinary. So that the Harleian and Moscow manuscript, the Cambridge manuscript, and the Vatican manuscript, (as respectively 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 distributed.
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 Italic translation contained in the Brescia manuscript. 

(There follows three pages of comparative readings in Greek and in Latin. These show the Greek of the Cantabrigiensis, the Vatican, and the Moscow manuscripts consistently corresponding with Latin of the Verceli, the Vulgate and the Brescia manuscripts, and all of these compared with the standard of the Received Text and the Authorized Translation.) 

This short specimen will sufficiently evince the affinity which the Greek and Latin manuscripts bear to each other, throughout the different classes, into which they may be divided. It will also illustrate the dissimilarity which those classes exhibit among themselves, in either language, regarded separately. In order to evince the affinity which in other respects they possess among themselves, it will be necessary to view a connected portion 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, including that part of the Sermon on the Mount which contains the beatitudes. 

(Then follows three pages showing side by side Mathew 5:1-12 in both the Greek and the corresponding Latin translation in all three classifications. Class I being the Codex Cantabrigiensis and the Codex Verceli; Class II being Codex Vatican and the Vulgate; and Class III being Codex Moscow and Codex Brescia.) 

A few general observations will suffice on the subject of those different classes of manuscripts in the Greek and Latin, as preliminary to further deductions. That the manuscripts in both languages possess the same text, though evidently of different classes, must be evident on the most casual inspection; they respectively possess that identity in the choice of terms and arrangement of the language, which is irreconcilable 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 mutual 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 witnesses and keepers of Holy Writ, to the existence of three species of text in the original and the translation. 

On this conclusion we may however found another deduction relative to the antiquity of this testimony. As the existence of a translation necessarily implies the priority of the original from which it was formed; this testimony may be directly referred to the close of the fourth century. The Vulgate must be clearly referred to that period, as it was then formed by St. Jerome, in its bare existence of course the correspondent antiquity of the Greek text with which it agrees, is directly established. This version is, however, obviously less ancient than that of the Verceli or Brescia manuscript; as they are of the old Italic translation, while it properly constitutes the new. In the existence of the ancient version, the antiquity of the original texts with which it corresponds is consequently established. The three classes of text which correspond with the Vulgate and Old Italic Version, trust be consequently referred to a period not less remote than the close of the fourth century. 

In attaining the testimony of the Greek and Latin Churches, at a period thus ancient, we have acquired 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 testimony 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 testimony, 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 sacred text, in his own age, which he refers to Egypt, Palestine, and Constantinople. This testimony is the rather deserving of attention, as it confirms, in an extraordinary manner, the previous assumption relative to the existence of three classes of text: and, as on the same broad distinction of the country where they are found, the Greek manuscripts have been distinguished, by modern critics into three different classes, two of which are referred to Egypt and Constantinople.
The result of the investigation to which this view of the subject leads, will, I trust, end in deductions 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 existed in the age of St. Jerome: with which they are identified by their coincidence with the Latin translation, which existed in the age of that Christian father.  

Of Class I. 

That the Cambridge manuscript, which is the exemplar of the First Class, contains the text which St. Jerome refers to Egypt, and ascribes to Hesychius, 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 pronunciation. It also possesses the lessons of the Egyptian 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 Samaritan 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 distinguished by that mark, which declares them to have been lessons read at that period. And agreeably to this representation, we find this manuscript referred to Egypt, by the generality of critics who have undertaken its description. As it was thus authoritatively read in the church, it evidently furnishes a specimen of the text which from a remote period prevailed in Egypt.  

2. The same conclusion is confirmed, in an extraordinary degree by the coincidence of this manuscript with the vulgar translation of the Egyptians. Of the different species of text which modern critics 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 Coptic translation, but particularly the Sahidic version. As Greek was manifestly the current language of Egypt, and manuscripts in that language were as obviously prevalent in Egypt; we must conceive that the vulgar translations of this country were accommodated to the generality of those manuscripts with which the natives were acquainted. The conformity of the Codex Cantabrigiensis to those versions consequently proves, that .this manuscript contains the text, which in St. Jerome's age, when the Sahidic version was apparently formed, was generally prevalent in Egypt. 

3. In the extraordinary coincidence of the Cambridge manuscript with the old Italic version preserved in the manuscript of Verceli, we have a further proof, which establishes the same conclusion. This version was corrected by St. Eusebius of Verceli, who was exiled in the Thebais, where the Sahidic dialect is spoken, during the period that the Christian church was under the dominion of the Arians. The active life of St. Eusebius will scarcely 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 heretics whom he unremittingly opposed, to the edition of Eusebius, most probably induced him to yield to a natural bias in favor 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 additional proof, that the latter is of Hesychius's edition, which, from St. Jerome's account, must in St. Eusebius's age have continued in Egypt; as it remained to the age of St. Jerome. It is indeed inconceivable, that St. Eusebius, in forming his translation, would have followed any text, which was of an equivocal character, or in less repute than that of Hesychius: his version consequently adds another 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 Syriac version, published under the auspices of Philoxenus, Bishop of Mabug, collated that translation with some Greek manuscripts, which he found in a monastery in Egypt, and has noted their various readings in the margin of his edition. So extraordinary is the coincidence of these readings, with the peculiar readings of the Cambridge manuscript, that some critics have been induced to believe it was the identical copy used in the collation. This notion is however refuted, by the internal evidence of the manuscript compared with the readings in question. From the conformity of those readings to the Cambridge manuscript, not merely in texts which are common to it with other manuscripts, but in texts peculiar to itself, we must infer its conformity to the text, which even to a late period was current in Egypt. 

Now as it is absurd to conceive that the peculiar readings alluded to in the last three instances can have proceeded from the one manuscript named in the first; or that they have been corrupted from each other: as St. Jerome has ascribed a peculiar text to Hesychius, which is no where to be found, unless it can be identified in some one of the aforementioned sources: and as in speaking of this text, he delivers himself in terms, which accurately agree with the text of the Cambridge manuscript: we must from these premises infer, that the text of this manuscript is virtually the same with that which St. Jerome refers to Egypt and ascribes to Hesychius. 

Of Class II. 

That the Vatican manuscript, which forms the exemplar of the Second Class, contains the text which St. Jerome refers to Palestine and ascribes to Eusebius seems to be clearly established by the following circumstances 

1. This manuscript possesses a striking coincidence in its peculiar readings with another manuscript, which is preserved in the Vatican library, where it is marked Urbin 2, and which we are enabled by the internal evidence of its margin to refer directly to Palestine and to identify with the edition of Eusebius. At the end of the Gospels it contains a notice specifying that it had been transcribed and collated with ancient copies in Jerusalem, which were deposited in the holy mountain. As the text is thus directly allied to the text of Palestine, it is identified with the edition of Eusebius in having his Canons prefixed to it and his sections and references accurately noted in its margin. The affinity of the celebrated Vatican manuscript, 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 Palestine.  

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 Syriac is expressly asserted by Prof. Birch, by whom that manuscript was twice carefully collated. That existing between the celebrated Vatican manuscript and the Jerusalem-Syriac is even more striking; and it is observed to extend to the Philoxenian version likewise, and by the intervention of the Vulgate may be ultimately traced to the old Syriac or Peshito. On its affinity to the Philoxenian and Jerusalem versions, I rather insist, as the former is divided into sections and has the Eusebian canons and sections carefully inserted in some of the oldest copies; and as the latter was apparently made in the fourth century when the edition of Eusebius was published in Palestine. As it is more than merely probable that the vulgar translation was formed from the current edition of the country; the affinity which the Vatican manuscript possesses to that translation contains a very convincing proof that it possesses the text of Eusebius and of Palestine.  

3. The striking coincidence of the Greek of the Vatican manuscript with the Latin of the Vulgate leads to the establishment of the same conclusion. This version received the corrections of St. Jerome during his abode in Palestine; it is thus only probable that the Greek copies after which he modeled it were those which, from being current in Palestine, were used in the monastery into which he had retired: but these he assures us were of the edition of Eusebius. For this edition he had imbibed an early partiality, through Gregory of Nazianzum, who first put the Scriptures into his hands, who had been educated at Caesarea in Palestine with Euzoius, who had been at considerable pains with Acacius to restore the decayed library of Pamphilus and Eusebius in that city. With this library St. Jerome was certainly acquainted, having found the Gospel of the Hebrews in it, which he afterwards turned into Latin. He has besides avowed his predilection for Eusebius's edition in revising that part of the Scripture Canon which contains the Old Testament; having expressly followed Origen's revisal of the Septuagint which, as he informs us, was incorporated in the edition published by Eusebius. And he has clearly evinced his acquaintance with the same edition in revising that part of the Canon which contains the New Testament by adopting Eusebius's sections in dividing the text of the Vulgate, and prefixing his canons to that version together with the epistle addressed to Carpianus. These considerations added to the known respect which St. Jerome possessed for Eusebius's critical talents fully warrant our adding the testimony of the Vulgate to that of the Syriac version, as proving that the Vatican manuscript, which harmonizes with those translations, contains the text which in St. Jerome's age was current in Palestine. 

4. We possess in the present instance, not less than the preceding, a collation of texts expressly made with the edition of Eusebius, about the year 458, which decisively establishes the same conclusion. Euthalius, who at that period divided the Acts and Catholic Epistles into sections, as Eusebius had divided the Gospels, expressly collated his edition with correct copies of Eusebius's edition preserved in the library of Caesarea in Palestine. Of the peculiar readings of this edition an accurate list has been published from a collation of manuscripts preserved in Italy. But so extraordinary is the affinity which they possess to the readings of the Vatican manuscripts, that some critics have not scrupled to assert that this manuscript has been interpolated with the peculiar readings of Euthalius's copies. The coincidences existing between them admit of a more simple and certain solution by considering Eusebius's text, to which they are respectively allied, as the common source of the resemblance. The affinity between Euthalius's readings 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 coincidences 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 manuscripts 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 particularly worthy of Eusebius: we may hence certainly conclude that the manuscript, in which all these characteristic marks are combined, contains 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, contain the text which St. Jerome attributes to Lucianus 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 manuscripts brought from Constantinople. These manuscripts, which far exceed in number those containing the Egyptian and Palestine text, contain the Vulgar Greek which constitutes the Received Text, and exists in our printed editions. Such, however, were the characteristic marks of the Byzantine edition in the age of St. Jerome: in that age, a Lucianus, (as the copies of the edition revised by that learned person were termed) contained the Greek Vulgate and possessed the text which was current at Constantinople. As the priority of the text of our printed editions to that age is evinced by the coincidence which it possesses with the old Italic version; the circumstance of this text being still the Greek Vulgate, and still found at Constantinople, very decidedly proves, that it is identical with that which St. Jerome ascribes to the same region, and assigns to Lucianus. 

2. The text of the manuscripts which contain the Byzantine edition, is observed to differ materially from the oriental versions; which involves an argument, though one it must be confessed, that is merely negative, which corroborates the same conclusion. The whole of the texts in St. Jerome's age were reducible to three. Two of them are referred to Egypt and Palestine, and are easily identified by their coincidence with the vulgar translations which still exist in these regions. The third 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 Constantinople, which directly identifies it with the text revised by Lucianus. 

3. The striking coincidence observed to exist between the text of the Moscow and Harleian manuscripts, and that of the Brescia manuscript, contains a further proof of the same conclusion. There seems to be no alternative left us, but to conclude, that the latter contains a version which had been made from the text revised by Lucianus, or that it has been corrected by the Byzantine text, since the time of St. Jerome. The latter is a supposition, however, which must be clearly set out of the case. The orthographical peculiarities of the text of this manuscript prove it at least antecedent to the age of Cassiodorus [i.e. the sixth century]. It possesses the errors which existed in the copies that preceded his times, and which he undertook to remove from the text of Scripture, and it differs in its peculiar readings from the Vulgate, which, from the same age, wholly superseded the old Italic translation. The strongest negative argument may be urged from the circumstance of its thus differing from the Latin translation, that it is totally 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 antecedent 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 translation as the Byzantine text from the Palestine. Nor is it to be disputed that it possesses that literal closeness to the original Greek, which we are assured, was characteristic of the old Italic translation. This character of literal fidelity seems to place out of dispute the possibility of its having been corrected since the age of the elder Eusebius. In the period intervening between his times and those of St. Jerome, the western world seems not to have possessed a person who was capable of forming such a translation. It is unnecessary to except here those learned persons who have peen specified on a former occasion; as they were attached to a different text from that contained in the common edition. If the text of the Brescia manuscript has been altered, it must have been consequently corrected previously to the age of Eusebius. 

And as it was manifestly formed by the Byzantine text, it consequently evinces the priority of that text to the Palestine, which was formed by Eusebius. 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 distinguishes two species of text; one of which was rectified and the other left unrectified, by the orthodox: and he represents the copies of the former, as those which omitted the passage in question.  

Of the two species of text which were published at Constantinople, by Lucianus and Eusebius, that revised by the latter certainly retained the passage for it is expressly referred to in his canons, and is retained in the Vulgate, which was formed after the text of his revisal. The edition of Eusebius consequently differed from the corrected copies of the orthodox, published in the days of St. Jerome and St. Epiphanius. But this passage is lacking in the Alexandrian 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 Byzantine text, their joint testimony consequently proves the antiquity of that text to be as remote as the time of St. Epiphanius [ ], and of consequence evinces its identity with that text, which St. Jerome, who lived in the same age, assigns to Constantinople and ascribes to Lucianus. 

Now, as the text preserved in the Harleian and Moscow manuscripts is that which exists in the manuscripts, which are brought from Constantinople; as it differs from the text of the Oriental translations, and therefore cannot be assigned to Egypt or Palestine; as it harmonizes with the text of the Latin 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. Epiphanius; we may from these premises summarily conclude, that it is identical with the text which St. Jerome attributes to Lucianus, and assigns to Constantinople.  

If the proofs which have been thus adduced at length are not deemed adequate to evince the identity 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 Constantinople; 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 expected, it has been sought and found to exist. It has been traced in the manuscripts and vulgar translations prevalent in those countries; and in the collations of texts and occasional versions which were made from those manuscripts and translations. And as this mode of proof is most full, so it appears to be most satisfactory. That the different texts of St. Jerome's age, and of the present times, should amount exactly to three, must surely convey no slight presumption in favor of their identity. But when, through the medium of the old Italic 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 labored proof by which I have endeavored to establish this conclusion, 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 descended to us have been preserved, would of itself render this point more than probable. It is however 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 Alexandrian manuscript are both assigned to the era of Jerome. Even the latest of those manuscripts which contain the exemplars of our different 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 contains the Byzantine text; the Vatican manuscript, 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 Byzantine 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 arriving at the present conclusion. If it is denied that those three texts have descended to us from the 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 reduced 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 supposition can be more irreconcilable to probability, than that which implies, that the Latin translation, after having undergone such a change, should ultimately acquire the characteristic peculiarities of the different versions which existed in the age. of St. Jerome? I will not insist at present on this circumstance, that some of these characteristic 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 languages, which certainty 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 of least two remarkable passages, which are nevertheless still found in the Greek and Latin Vulgate which have generally, if not exclusively, prevailed from that time to the present day, seems to place beyond all reasonable doubt, that this version claims an alliance to the text of the former period, instead of the latter. Nor is it to be disputed that we still retain two of the texts which in St. Jerome's age existed 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 Eusebius published from Origen; as unquestionably appears from its coincidence with the remains of the Hexapla, and the Vulgate of Jerome. And the Alexandrian manuscript, as possessing a different version, must preserve the revisal of Hesychius or Lucianus; most probably that of the former, as it was originally brought from Alexandria. From this matter of fact, we may surely conclude, that as the copies of the New Testament were infinitely more numerous than those of the Old, the three classes of text which are preserved in the former are not less ancient 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 considered St. Jerome's testimony, on the existence of these classes of text, as extending to the New Testament, though it is strictly applicable to the Septuagint. Whether his declaration; may be taken in this latitude, or not, is of little importance to the foregoing conclusions; as all that I have endeavored to prove has been established, independent of his testimony. The reader will easily perceive that the existence of three classes of text in St. Jerome's age has been proved from the coincidence of the Greek with the Latin translations which existed in the age of that father; and the identity of those classes with the three editions which I conceive to be his, has been proved from the affinity which they possess to the oriental translations. But even independent of this circumstance, a sufficient 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 declaration to the latter; that he speaks only of it is manifestly to be imputed to his having been exclusively engaged on the subject of the Septuagint. Of consequence, when he speaks of the New Testament, he explicitly admits that it was revised by Hesychius and Lucianus. That it had been revised by Eusebius is not to be denied; and St. Jerome has professed himself acquainted with his edition. While this learned father has likewise made a similar declaration, with respect to the editions of Hesychius and Lucianus; he clearly intimates that they were in use in his days, and expressly declares, that they had their respective admirers. Now, it is obvious, that the same causes which recommended any part of these different editions in any particular church must have tended to recommend the remainder. St. Jerome has, however, informed us, respecting the Septuagint, that the different editions of it as revised by Hesychius, Lucianus, and Eusebius, prevailed not merely in particular churches, but in different regions; we must of course form a similar conclusion respecting the New Testament which had equally undergone their revisal. As the whole bible was received in all churches, and different 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 adhered to the ancient and received text, was almost invincible; and in his Preface to the Latin Vulgate, he has declared, that the effects of this laudable prejudice against innovation were really experienced with respect to the editions of Hesychius and Lucianus: though the copies edited by these learned persons had every thing to contend with, from the rivalry of later editions, which had been published by Eusebius, Athanasius, and other orthodox revisers. This declaration of St. Jerome, and the reflection which he deemed necessary to cast on the editions of Hesychius and Lucianus, contain a sufficient proof, that the copies of those editions were generally prevalent in his age. In fact, a minute examination of the text of the Vulgate, which he published, enables us to determine, that in forming that translation he made use of versions formed from the editions of Lucianus and Hesychius. The proof of this last point I shall hereafter give in detail, as it contains the strongest confirmation of the main conclusion, 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 prevalence of those editions till the latter period, involves 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 Lucianus.  

I shall now beg leave to assume, as proved, that the three classes of text which exists in the Cambridge, Vatican, and Moscow manuscripts, are identical with the three editions of Hesychius, Eusebius, and Lucianus, which existed in the age of St. Jerome. Other diversities are indeed apparent in the Greek manuscripts, but they do not seem to be sufficiently important or marked, to form the grounds of a separate classification. A peculiar order of manuscripts 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 commentators. But as they are consequently of partial authority, and are evidently 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 principally conform. We thus frequently discover the influence of the Palestine text upon the Byzantine; which, doubtless is to be attributed to the publication of Eusebius's edition at Byzantium, under the auspices of the first Christian Emperor. It is certain that the orthodox, little satisfied with this edition, republished a revisal on the death of Eusebius and Constantine. In this manner St. Athanasius and St. Basil retouched some copies, of which, by an extraordinary chance, we seem to possess specimens in the celebrated Alexandrian and Vatican manuscripts. But these copies rather contained revisals of the edition which preceded their times, than constituted new editions of the text of Scripture. If published by their respective authors, they appear not to have passed into general use. The text of St. Basil never received the royal authority, and was therefore probably dispersed among a limited number of readers, and confined to a particular region. The revisal of St. Athanasius received that sanction, having been expressly prepared at the command of the Emperor Constans; but its authority expired with the influence of its author, on the death of that prince and his brother, the younger Constantine. The revisals of both these learned persons maybe therefore directly referred to the editions of Palestine and Constantinople, out of which they arose, and into which they subsequently merged: and as they are contained in the Vatican and Alexandrian manuscripts, which are respectively allied to those texts, we may consider them as little more than a repetition of the different editions which had been previously published by Eusebius and Lucianus.  

The whole of the Greek manuscripts maybe consequently reduced to three classes, which are identical with the editions of Egypt, Palestine, and Constantinople, as revised by Hesychius, Eusebius, and Lucianus. And the adequacy of this distribution may be established, with little comparative difficulty. As modern critics, after a careful analysis are enabled to reduce all manuscripts to three classes, and distribute the Cambridge, Vatican, and Moscow manuscripts in separate classes: hence, as these manuscripts are likewise the exemplars of the different texts in the present scheme of classification, this scheme must necessarily embrace every variety, and mark every characteristic 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, Alexandrian, 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 Palestine for Alexandrian, in order to ascertain the particular text of any manuscript which is to be referred to a peculiar class or edition. The artifice of this substitution admits of this simple solution; the Egyptian text was imported by Eusebius of Verceli into the West, and the Palestine text republished by Euthalius at Alexandria, the Byzantine text having retained the place in which it was originally published by Lucianus. In a word, a manuscript which harmonizes with the Codex Cantabrigiensis must be referred to the first class, and will contain the text of Egypt. One which harmonizes with the Vatican manuscript must be referred to the second class, and will contain the text of Palestine. And one which harmonizes with the Moscow 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 leave undertaken the classification of the Greek manuscripts, and that it derives no inconsiderable support from their respective systems. 

In the first place it accords with the plan of Dr. Bentley, whose object was to confront the oldest copies of the Latin Vulgate, and of the original Greek, in order to determine the state of the text in the age of St. Jerome. And, conformably to his plan, it ranks the Vulgate and Vatican manuscript 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 method of classification, but to the discovery of a more ancient text, by means of the priority of the old Italic version to the new or Vulgate of Jerome. 

It in the next place falls in with the respective schemes of M. Griesbach and M. Matthaei, and derives support from their different systems. It adopts the three classes of the former, with a slight variation merely in the name of the classes, deviating from that learned critic's scheme in this respect on very sufficient authority. And in ascertaining the genuine text, it attaches the same authority to the old Italic translation, which the same learned person has ascribed to that version. It agrees with the scheme of the latter critic, in giving the preference to the Greek Vulgate or Byzantine text over the Palestine and the Egyptian: but it supports the authority of this text on firmer grounds than the concurrence of the Greek manuscripts. Hence, while it differs from the scheme of M. Matthaei, in building on the old Italic version; it differs from that of M. Griesbach, in distinguishing the copies of this translation, which are free from the influence of the Vulgate, from those which have been corrected since the times of St. Eusebius of Verceli, of St. Jerome, and Cassiodorus. And it affords a more satisfactory mode of disposing of the multitude of various readings, than that suggested by the latter, who refers them to the intentional or accidental corruptions of transcribers; or that of the former, who ascribes them to the correction of the original Greek by the Latin translation, as it traces them to the influence of the text which was published by Eusebius, at the command of Constantine.  

As a system, therefore, that which I venture to propose may rest its pretensions to a preference over other methods, on the concessions of those why have suggested different modes of classification. Independent of its internal consistency, and the historical grounds on which it is exclusively built, its comprehensiveness may, I hope, entitle it to a precedence, as it embraces the different systems to which it is opposed, and reconciles their respective inconsistencies. 

Chapter III 

HAVING distributed the Greek manuscripts into three Classes, the next object of inquiry is to ascertain the particular class, in favor of which, the clearest and most conclusive evidence can be adduced, that it preserves the genuine text of Scripture. 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 authenticity 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 evangelical writers. It is this circumstance which adds so much weight to the testimony of the Latin Church, as it preserved its faith unimpaired, during the period of forty years when the Greek Church resigned itself to the errors of Arius. In addition to the joint testimony of those Churches, various direct and collateral lights arise on this subject, to determine our choice in the different classes, among which we are to make our election. From possessing a knowledge of the different persons by whom these texts were revised, we derive considerable support in choosing a particular class, or in selecting a peculiar reading. A comparative view of the classes of the Greek, or even of the Latin translation, regarded either relatively or apart, will frequently enable us to determine, by the principles of just criticism, the genuine Scripture text from the corrupted. 

On the most casual application of these principles to the different classes of text, they directly mark out the Byzantine edition, as that which is entitled to a preference over the Egyptian and Palestine. In the region occupied by that text, the apostolical writings were deposited; and they were here combined in a code by the immediate successors of the apostles. Here St. Paul, and his companion St. Luke, published the principal part of the Canon. From hence the great apostle addressed his Epistle to the Church at Rome, and hither he directed his Epistles to the Churches of Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colosse, and Thessalonica, which were situated in the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Hither St. John returned from banishment: here he remained until the times of Trajan, exercising the functions of an Ordinary; and here, having completed 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. And here every facility was afforded Linus, the first Bishop of Rome, and Timothy, the first Bishop of Ephesus, from their connection with St. Paul, St. Luke, and St. John, to form perfect copies of the New Testament Canon, which had been partly collected by the last surviving apostle. 

The peculiar text which exists in this region is not merely supported by the consideration of the place in which it is found: it is also supported by the concurring testimony of the Eastern and Western Churches. It is that text which we adopted immediately from the Greeks, on forming our printed 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 Italic version, contained in the Brescia manuscript; which is obviously free from the innova­tions of St. Eusebius of Verceli, of St. Jerome, and Cassiodorus. Consequently, it is the only text of the three editions which challenges the general testimony of the Eastern Church, and the unadulterated testimony of the Western, in favor 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 contains this testimony, possesses a text which, as composed of the old Italic version, must be antedated to the year 393, when the new version was made by St. Jerome. It thus constitutes a standing proof that the Byzantine text, with which it agrees, has preserved its integrity for upwards of 1400 years; during which period it was exposed to the greatest hazard of being corrupted. This proof, it may be presumed, affords no trifling earnest that it has not been corrupted during the comparatively inconsiderable period of two hundred and ninety years, which intervene between this time and the publication of the inspired writings. For while 290 years bear no proportion to 1400, the chances of such a corruption must diminish in proportion as we ascend to the time of the apostles. The first copyists must necessarily have observed a degree of carefulness in making their transcripts proportionable to their reverence for the originals, which they took as their models: from the autographs of the apostles, or their immediate transcripts, there could be no inducement to depart, even in a letter. It is, however; not merely probable that the originals were preserved for this inconsiderable period; but that they were preserved with a degree of religious veneration. And if they were preserved in any place, it must have been in the region contiguous to Constantinople, where they were originally deposited. To this region, of course, we must naturally look for the genuine text Scripture. 

It is indeed true, that those Churches, which were the witnesses and keepers of Holy Writ, vary in their testimony; and that the Greek original, as well as the Latin translation, have undergone some alteration: as appears from the classes into which they are respectively divided.  But, as they do not vary from each other in above one essential point, but generally conspire in their testimony, the translation 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 Hesychius and Eusebius in the Greek, and to the correspondent corrections made by St. Eusebius and St. Jerome in the Latin, the fidelity of the witnesses still remains unimpaired, and the unadulterated testimony of the Eastern and Western Churches still lies on the side of the text of Lucianus. 

These deductions will receive additional confirmation, and every objection to which they are exposed will be easily solved, by investigating apart the respective testimony of the Eastern and Western Churches. In the course of this investigation, it shall be my object to meet those objections which may be urged against the Byzantine text from the character of Eusebius and Jerome, who have avowed a predilection for the Palestine. 

I. The first argument which may be advanced in favor of the uncorrupted testimony of the Eastern Church is deducible from the extraordinary coincidence observed to exist between the manuscripts of the Byzantine edition. Though the copies of this edition, which constitutes the Greek Vulgate of the present age, and which seemingly constituted that. of the age of St. Jerome, are considerably more numerous than those of the other editions, they possess the most extraordinary uniformity in their peculiar readings. Had they existed in a state of progressive deterioration it is obvious that at the end of seventeen, centuries, they must have presented a very different appearance. The extraordinary 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 unquestionably 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 apparently possesses no intrinsic merit, that could entitle it to supersede the Palestine text, which was recommended by the united authority of Eusebius and the Emperor Constantine. And yet it has undoubtedly superseded the latter at Constantinople, where the Palestine text was first published under every advantage, arising from the authority. of the persons by whom it was edited. Nay, it has superseded it so effectually, that scarcely a copy of Eusebius's text is to be found in this region where Eusebius's edition was originally published. Nor is this all, but the Byzantine text must have thus superseded the Palestine text within a short space of the death of Eusebius. This is apparent not only from the existence of the former text in the Alexandrian manuscript, which was written within at least forty years of that period, but from the coincidence of this text with the Brescia manuscript, which contains the old Italic translation which prevailed until the age of St. Jerome. Now, when we consider the invincible pertinacity with which, the churches persevered in adhering to the common or vulgar text, it seems impossible to account for so great and so sudden a revolution as thus occurred at Constantinople, otherwise than by supposing that the attachment to tradition prevailed over the influence of authority; and that the edition of Eusebius thus gave place to the text of Lucianus, having superseded it, but for that limited period in which it was sustained by the royal authority. This assumption, which is confirmed in an extraordinary manner by the demand made by the Emperor Constans to St. Athanasius, to furnish a new edition on the death of Eusebius, is finally proved by the immense number of manuscripts possessing the Byzantine text which have been brought from Constantinople. Had not that change taken place, which it would be my object to evince, and at a period thus early, it is impossible to conceive how it could have taken place so effectually as to extinguish the edition of Eusebius where it was originally published; or, so peculiarly, as to reinstate the text of Lucianus. 

Whatever force be allowed to these conclusions, it must be at least admitted, that, as the testimony of the Brescia manuscript enables us to trace the tradi­tion of the Byzantine text to a period as remote as the year 393; that of the Alexandrian 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 immemorial tradition prevailed in the church from whence it was brought, that it was written not long subsequently to the Council of Nice, by a religious woman named Thecla. A religious person of this name certainly existed at this period, to whom some of the Epistles of Gregory Nazianzen are addressed, and the characters of the manuscript are of that delicate form, which evinces that it was written by the hand of a female. Nay, more than this, the tradition of the church respecting this manuscript, which there is no just ground for impeaching, is confirmed in an extraordinary manner by the internal evidence of the text, as it possesses every characteristic 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 editor concludes that it was written between the middle and close of the fourth century. It possesses the Gospels divided by the sections of Eusebius, which were introduced in the former period; it retains the Pauline Epistles, without those divisions, which were invented in the latter period; and it contains, as a part of the authorized text, the Epistles of St. Clement, which about the same period were prohibited from being read in the Church by the Council of Laodicea. For plenary information on this subject the reader must apply to the admirable Preface of the learned Dr. Woide, by whom it was published. From such internal evidence, joined with the external testimony of the Church, has the age of this celebrated manuscript been determined; and as it contains the Byzantine text, in the Gospels it necessarily proves the antiquity of that text to be as remote as the year three hundred and sixty-seven, when the Epistles of St. Clement were formally separated from the Canonical Scripture. 

The space of time which intervenes between this ancient period, and that in which the sacred writings were published, is not so immeasurable as to preclude the possibility of proving that  the tradition, which supports the Byzantine text, though suspended 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, during the forty years in which the Church was under the dominion of the Arians. But over this period the testimony of St. Jerome, who lived at the time, directly carries us, as he declares that the text which prevailed at Byzantium was that which had been revised by Lucianus, who perished in the persecution of Dioclesian and Maximian. The traditionary chain is thus easily connected. We know that in Constantine's age Eusebius’s text was published at Constantinople; we know that Lucianus's Septuagint differed from it, and that in St. Jerome's age it prevailed in the same region. There is consequently no alternative, but to admit, that the tradition which was interrupted in the former period, was renewed in the latter. 

Now as the Scripture Canon was not published until the beginning of the second century, and as Lucianus most probably completed his revisal before the year 284, when the Dioclesian era commenced, the Byzantine text, if it has undergone any alteration, must have been corrupted in the course of this period. It will be readily granted, for reasons already specified, that this alteration could not have taken place in the earlier part of this term. The last possibility which the question admits, consequently is, that it was corrupted in the latter part of it, when the text was revised by the hand of Lucianus. 

But against this possibility we have the strongest security in the character of. that learned and pious martyr. To his skill in revising the sacred text the most honorable testimony is borne by the most unimpeachable witnesses, Eusebius and Jerome. These best judges of antiquity have expressed themselves on this subject in terms of the most unqualified approbation. One slight, yet important circumstance, which the latter critic has left on record clearly evinces the scrupulous fidelity with which Lucianus discharged this sacred trust. The text which he published was that of the vulgar Greek, or common edition, which loudly proclaims that his intention was to preserve the inspired 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 circumstance into account, together with the critical reputation of Lucianus: let us consider that the place and period in which he made his revisal was the region where the inspired writings were deposited, and within a short distance of the period when they were published: let us then revert to the possibilities which have been already calculated, that the immediate transcripts of the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists could have been corrupted in little more than one hundred years, while the Byzantine text has confessedly retained its integrity for full eleven hundred. We may thence form a just estimate of the conclusiveness of that evidence which still exists in attestation of the purity of the text of Lucianus. 

In fine, a very short process enables us to prove that the tradition which supports the authority of this text has continued unbroken since the age of the apostles. The coincidence of the Vulgar Greek of our present editions with the old Italic translation, enables us to carry up the tradition to the times of St. Jerome. The testimony of this learned father enables us to extend the proof beyond this period, to the times of Lucianus, in whose age the Byzantine text equally constituted the Vulgate or common edition. And the character of Lucianus, and the course which he pursued in revising the sacred text, connects this proof with the times of the inspired writers, who could alone impress that authority upon one text, which, by bringing it. into general use, rendered it, from the primitive ages down to the present day, the Greek Vulgate.

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

The manuscripts containing both these texts are comparatively few, having been generally superceded by the Byzantine edition. We scarcely posses a second copy of the Egyptian text; and should almost doubt its existence if it were not attested by St. Jerome, and if his testimony were not confirmed by the coincidence of the Sahidic version with the Latin translation of St. Eusebius, and by the agreement of both with the Cambridge manuscript, and the manuscripts collated by Thomas Heraclensis. The manuscripts containing the Palestine text are more numerous; but, according to the confession of M. Griesbach, they bear no proportion to those of the Byzantine edition. And they fall infinitely short of the number which might be expected to exist, when we consider the favorable 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 favor of their antiquity, 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. They are ascribed by M. Griesbach to the Alexandrian region, and there is little reason to question his authority on this subject. Here the Egyptian text was published by Hesychius, and hence brought into the West by St. Eusebius, of Verceli; and here the Palestine text was republished by Euthalius, who corrected his edition by Eusebius's copies; which were preserved at Caesarea. Now, taking the question on these grounds, there is little room for a competition between the Byzantine and Palestine editions. The country in which the one arose was that in which the apostolical originals were deposited; that in which the other was transplanted was the soil in which the Arian heresy first arose and principally flourished. When we take this circumstance into account, together with the peculiar opinions of Eusebius, by whom the Palestine text was revised and published, who lies under a suspicion of being tainted with Arianism, it seems to leave very little authority to a text which is particularly calculated to support the peculiar errors of Arius. 

But the authority of these texts is not merely weakened by this circumstance, that the traditionary evidence which may be urged in their favor is broken by the distance of Egypt and Palestine from Byzantium, where the originals of the inspired writers were deposited, and by the positive extinction of both texts in the region where they were pub­lished. 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 Euthalius. And of the extensive influence of the edition of the latter, we have a standing evidence, in the prevalence of the Euthalian sections, which very generally exist in the Greek manuscripts. In fact, so little calculated was the Egyptian text to retain its ground against the powerful influence of the Palestine, under the double publication of Eusebius and Euthalius, that the former was soon extinguished by the latter, in the region which may be termed its native soil. And so effectual has been its extirpation, that unless a few manuscripts had been imported into the West, we should retain no memorials of this text, but those which remain in the translations made in the Thebais, previously to the publication of Euthalius's edition. Very different was the fate of the Byzantine text. Though it gave place to the Palestine text, in the times of Constantine; the testimony of St. Jerome puts it out of dispute, that it must have been reinstated in a short period after the death of the elder Eusebius. 

In the next place, the traditionary evidence in favor of the Palestine text is broken by the intervention of an edition prepared by St. Athanasius, under the auspices of the Emperor Constans. It is a remarkable fact that the application for this edition was made in the very year of the death of Eusebius, who paid the debt of nature about the same time as the younger Constantine. An application of this kind, made at this remarkable period, if it does not convey some tacit censure against the text of Eusebius, clearly implies that some difference existed between his edition and the revisal of St. Athanasius. This supposition is not a little confirmed by the known enmity which subsisted between Eusebius and St. Athanasius; and by the peculiar opinions of the Emperor, which leaned in a contrary direction to those of the Bishop of Caesarea, whose principles were unquestionably warped towards Arianism. But one consideration seems to put the matter out of dispute: had not Eusebius's edition labored under some imputation, the demand of the Emperor 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 succeeded the Palestine text, and partially restored the text of Byzantium. It has been already observed respecting the celebrated Alexandrian manuscript, that it was written in Egypt previously to they ear 367. It remains to be observed, that as St. Athanasius returned to Alexandria from banishment in the year 338, on the death of the elder Constantine; and had revised the text of Scripture, in the year 340, under the Emperor Constans, and his brother the younger Constantine; he continued, with the intermission of a few months, to govern the Alexandrian church from the year 367 to the year 373, under the Emperor Valens. It is of small importance to my present object to calculate the chances, whether this celebrated manuscript 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 executed 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 biased by the influence of the Patriarch; as she has inserted, in the book of Psalms, the epistle of St. Athanasius, addressed to Marcellinus. I profess myself at a 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. Assuming this point as manifest, it directly throws the testimony of the Patriarch. on the side of the Byzantine text; as this text is adopted in the Gospels of the Alexandrian manuscript; which clearly constitute the principal part of the better half of: the Canonical Scriptures: Much might be advanced in favor 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 rejecting the text of Eusebius, might have been influenced 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  have seen the inexpediency and danger of venturing, in the infected state of the Eastern Church, to undertake at once the total suppression of Eusebius's edition: While this account affords a consistent 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 Epistles: 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 Byzantine. 

When we advance a step higher in scrutinizing the traditionary evidence which supports the authority of the Egyptian and Palestine texts, the apparent force which it appears to possess directly yields when it is submitted to the touch. In establishing 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 published cannot be antedated to the age of Hesychius; as that in which the Palestine was published cannot be antedated to the age of Eusebius. That both these editors made some innovations in their respective texts, can scarcely admit of a doubt. This is an inference which necessarily follows from the. consideration of their having published a text, which differed from the vulgar Greek, or common edition. It is in fact expressly recorded that Eusebius published that text of the Old Testament which had been corrected by Origen; and that Hesychius admitted into his text of the New Testament numerous interpolations. From such an imputation the text of Lucianus is obviously free, as he merely republished the vulgar edition. The antiquity of his text consequently loses itself in immemorial tradition; while that of his rivals is bounded by the age of their respective revisals. And this assertion, as I shall soon take occasion to prove, is equally applicable to the Italic version, which corresponds with the Byzantine Greek, and is contained in the Brescia manuscript. It must be obvious, of course, that the former circumstance as fully confirms the claims of Lucianus's text to an origin ascending to the apostolical age, as it detracts from the pretensions of Hesychius and Eusebius's texts to an immemorial tradition. True it is that St. Jerome seems to pass an indiscriminate censure on the editions of Hesychius and Lucianus. But, granting him to have possessed that impartial judgment on this subject, which is necessary to give weight to his sentence; yet when we come to compare St. Jerome with himself; 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 Testament, which the same learned person revised; we shall directly discern that his opinion does not in the least affect the question under discussion. 

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

II. On reviewing the testimony which the Western 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 im­portance of the latter of these witnesses, I have already offered a remark, deduced from the circumstance of the Western Church having retained the faith uncorrupted, while the oriental Church was infected with the Arian opinions. A minute examination of this evidence will very clearly evince that it rests on the side of the Byzantine text, instead of the Egyptian or Palestine. 

The first argument, which may be urged from hence, in support of the integrity of the Greek Vulgate, is deducible from the text of the Brescia manuscript. Of the author of this version we know nothing; though it is remarkable for its extraordinary fidelity to the original Greek. We are, on the other hand, perfectly acquainted with the framers of the text of the Vulgate and Verceli manuscript. which correspond with the Palestine and Egyptian editions. Now, such is the result which would precisely take place, had the fore-cited text derived its authority from the silent admission of the church, deduced from the primitive ages; while the latter were expressly acknowledged as recent translations from the time of their first publication. It is obvious, of course, that if the testimony of the Latin church, derived from immemorial 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, which we have already seen is similarly supported by the testimony of the Eastern. 

Nay, more than this, it maybe shown that the bare undertaking of St. Eusebius Vercellensis to revise the Old Italic version not only subverts the authority of his own text, but that of Hesychius and Eusebius's edition and consequently, ne­gatively supports the authority of the text of Lucianus. 

That the original version of the Latin Church had retained its integrity uncorrupted until the times of Pope Julius and St. Eusebius of Verceli is evident: from the external testimony of Hilary; from the circumstances in which the Western Church was placed; and from the internal evidence of the version in question. It is Hilary's express declaration that many of the copies of this version retained their purity untainted, even to his own times, having been preserved not merely by the integrity of the earliest ages, but by their very inability to pervert or correct the primitive translation. And this declaration is completely confirmed by the history of the Eastern and Western Churches, neither of which were sufficiently instructed in the languages spoken by both to undertake a revisal. But what renders this fact of importance is, that however the copies of the Latin version vary among themselves, they preserve a conformity to some edition of the Greek original. The first considerable variety in these copies must be of coarse 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 Italic translation. 

Now it is clearly implied in the circumstance of St. Eusebius's undertaking to correct the current translation, that this translation must have differed from the 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 undertook his revisal at the command of Pope Julius, who came to the Pontificate in the year 337; the ordinary Greek text was obviously contained in the edition of Eusebius of Caesarea, who lived, after this period, until the year 340. It is, of course, manifest that the received test 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 authorized 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 necessarily implies that a difference at first subsisted between them. It is consequently clear that the text of Hesychius is equally destitute of the primitive testimony of the Latin Church, as the text of Eusebius of Caesarea. And as the corrected version of St. Eusebius when the proposed alterations were made, must have differed from the original translation which remained uncorrected; it is apparent that the Corrected Version also must have equally lacked 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 Italic translation, which corresponds with the Byzantine 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 Lucianus'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 ancient than that of the latter; and that, while it is apparently uncorrected, it literally corresponds with the Byzantine Greek; it would admit of the following obvious solution. St. Eusebius 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 edition had, by the royal mandate, superseded the Byzantine text at Constantinople. It might not, therefore, have been safe for Pope Julius to authorize a version which was not merely different from the Received Text of the Greeks, but coin­cident with the edition which it had superseded. And this change took place after that greatest persecution of the Church, which occurred under Dioclesian and Maximian: in which the sacred Scriptures were sought with more care and destroyed with more fury than in any preceding persecution. 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 Vercellenis. It is probable that, in his choice of Hesychius's edition, in correcting the Latin version, he was influenced not merely by in­clination, but necessity. It is certain that, in the state of the Greek Church, there existed a sufficient cause to deter him from following the copies of the authorized edition. That Church vas then under the dominion of the Arian's, who were not merely suspected in that age of corrupting, the scriptures, but who absolutely expunged a remarkable text which St. Eusebius inserted in his revisal, and otherwise corrupted his version In fact, when all these circumstances are taken into account, the history of the Latin version, which is otherwise involved in inextricable confusion, directly ceases to be perplexed, and all the incidents 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 Western Churches. As the first intercourse cultivated by the Eastern and Western Churches, which introduced the latter to a knowledge of the Greek, was during the apostasy of the former to the Arian heresy, the first endeavor to supply this defect produced a comparison between this version and the original, as it existed in the authorized text of Eusebius 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 orthodoxy: and P. Julius, who then occupied the pa­pal chair, was consequently induced to employ St. Eusebius to revise the authorized version. The domination, however, of the Arian heresy at this period, 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 Lucianus's text, and as he obtained one of Hesychius's with ease, he consequently followed the text of the latter in forming his version. 

The influence of this emendation of the Latin version is directly perceptible in the greater number of the copies of the Italic 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 probably 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 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 Philastrius, who was bishop of Brescia. Whatever opinion be formed on this subject, it is apparent that the Latin Church lost all confidence in the ancient version, on the publication of an amended text by Eusebius Vercellensis. The influence of his edition is directly apparent in the works of St. Hilary, who was the friend and companion of the bishop of Verceli; and who has quoted from his edition in the whole of his theological writings. The quotations of Tertullian and Cyprian, which differ from this version, and yet accord with the Greek, contain a sufficient proof that they used a different translation. 

From the publication of St. Eusebius's revisal, we are to date the origin of the varieties which were soon introduced into the Western version. The Latin Church now possessed, in the primitive and the corrected edition, two translations; and these soon generated a multitude of others through various unskillful 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 possess a specimen in the Codex Veronensis, which has been published by M. Blanchini. It is manifestly formed on the basis of St. Eusebius's version, but has been revised and corrected throughout by the original text of Hesychius. 

Such was the state in which, at the distance of half a century, the Latin version was found by St. Jerome, who describes it as containing nearly as many different texts as different copies. It was merely a matter of accident, that he was brought up with a dislike for the vulgar edition of the Greek, and with a predilection for the corrected text of Eusebius; having imbibed an early partiality for this edition through Gregory of Nazianzum. And as it was natural, so it is unquestionable, that he took it as the standard by which he judged of the merit of other texts, without suspecting that he was measuring by a line of which he had not ascertained the positive dimensions. The result is that he was hence led to underrate the edition of Lucianus, not less than that of Hesychius, and consequently to allow neither their due weight when he was revising the text of the Latin translation. Still, however uninclined to feel or profess an open partiality to the edition of Eusebius Caesarensis, whose text had been certainly revised by the orthodox in the same age, among whom we cannot include the celebrated bishop of Caesarea; his specific object was to adhere to no particular text, but to follow the ancient copies of the original. Under this view he also, not less than St. Eusebius, overlooked the copies of Lucianus's edition as modern. For the Greek Vulgate having been partly destroyed under Dioclesian, and superseded under Constantine, it was not again restored until the reign of Theodosius, when it quietly reinstated itself on the extinction 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 authorized version. Notwithstanding 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 Italic version to a closer affinity with the original. The influence of the Vulgate on that version is consequently perceptible, to a greater or lesser degree, in all the more modern copies. Even the Brescia and Verceli manuscripts have not wholly escaped alteration, though they have been corrected in such a manner as to preserve the original readings. The Corbeian manuscript, which has been published with them, has been however more systematically corrected by St. Jerome's text. Of the four manuscripts, which constitute the Evangeliarium Quadruplex of M. Blanchini, which, it is curious to observe, contains specimens of the principal varieties of the old Italic translation, the Verona manuscript is alone free from the influence of the Vulgate of Jerome. 

In this confused and unsettled state the Western version continued for more than a century until the times of Cassiodorus. Of the effectual method which he took to settle the authorized version, by wholly superseding the old translation and establishing the Vulgate of Jerome, I have already expressed myself at large on a former occasion. With what success his efforts were crowned may be collected from the general prevalence of this text which he rendered the authorized version. So universally has it obtained, that if some copies of the old Italic had not been preserved as relics, or on account of the beautiful manner in which they were executed, we should probably possess no specimens of this version, but those which accord with the corrected text of St. Jerome. 

This brief sketch of the history of the Latin version, 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 confirmed 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 Italic translation is that which is preserved in the Brescia manuscript; 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 Italic 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 versions by which it was preceded. As St. Jerome has spoken of the state of the Latin text as it existed in 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 had 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 manuscript contains the text, out of which the other versions were formed. 

1. The general description which St. Jerome gives of the Latin copies existing in his times represents them as having the Gospels interpolated from each other. The edition which principally prevailed in St. Jerome's age was that of Eusebius Vercellensis. We consequently find, that the Verceli manuscript accurately accords with this de­scription, and exhibits those interpolations in its text. 

2. This censure St. Jerome has indiscriminately applied to the copies which existed in his age, while he speaks of the editions of Lucianus, as well as Hesychius. We infallibly know the standard by which he condemned them, as we possess in his own Vulgate the pure text, pruned from these redundancies. But on collating the Brescia manuscript with the Vulgate, we find the latter attributes readings to one Evangelist, which the Brescia manuscript ascribes to two. So far it verifies St. Jerome's account of the different copies of the Latin version, which I suppose to have existed in his era. 

3. In referring to the very copies before him, St. Jerome cites different passages which belonged to different texts. He has thus quoted Matt. xi. 23 as differently read in his different manuscripts. The one reading which he specifies is, however, found in the Verceli, and the other in the Brescia manuscript. The text of both is thus almost identified with that of the very copies which he collated. 

4. In citing this peculiar passage, he adopts the reading of the Verceli manuscript; and merely refers to the Brescia manuscript, as his “other exemplar”. But he evidently took the received text of the age as the basis of his revisal; and that text existed in St. Eusebius' edition. The Verceli and Brescia manuscripts, of consequence, must not only agree with his Latin copies, but the former contained the received text, the latter the superseded edition of St. Jerome's age; which is precisely conformable to what is assumed as true in the whole of the present system. 

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

It is thus, I trust, apparent, that St. Jerome's 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 ancient version may be exemplified in the same manu­scripts, which, as we have seek accord with the copies that he apparently used. The Verceli manuscript, I have already observed, as it constituted the received text, was taken as the basis of his revisal. 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 method, by furnishing similar readings to those which his corrections produced. 

In making this experiment, I shall confine my attention principally to the first ten chapters of St. Matthew's Gospel. Here, if anywhere, we may expect to find the author'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 labored by St. Jerome with the greatest care. And as it occurred at an early period of his revisal, before the fatigue attendant on so long and laborious an undertaking had induced the author 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 ancient translation, St. Jerome treated with disregard the editions of Hesychius and Lucianus, as conceiving the Gospels in these editions interpolated from each other. I have already stated that his notions of the genuine text must be sought in his own version. But on estimating the Cambridge and Moscow manuscripts, which contain the text of Hesychius and Lucianus, by the standard of the Vulgate, they answer St. Jerome's description, and appear to be interpolated as he has described them. 

2. In passing over these editions St. Jerome declares that it was his intention to follow the ancient copies in forming his version. When we except the editions which he rejected, by "the ancient copies" he must have meant those which contained Eusebius's edition, and the Vulgar Greek, both of which were ancient in St. Jerome's estimation, 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 deficiency in others. But on removing the super­fluous passages according to Eusebius's text, the corrected text agrees with the text of the Vulgate. And when a coincidence between the Vulgar Greek and Latin copies discovered a deficiency in Eusebius's text, the version of St. Jerome, as corrected by the ancient copies, corresponds with the text of the former. In both instances Eusebius's edition and the Greek Vulgate must have represented St. Jerome's ancient copies. 

3. In forming verbal corrections St. Jerome declares that his method was to collate the copies of the old translation together, and when they agreed with each other and with the original Greek to leave the version in the state in which he found it. We consequently find that when the Brescia and Verceli texts agree with the Greek, there exists a correspondent agreement between them and the Vulgate. In a few instances St. Jerome has deviated from this plan, but they are exceptions which strengthen the general rule, as he deemed it necessary to apologize for them in his commentary. The Brescia and the Verceli texts, as they verify his account, must of course preserve the Latin version as it was found in St. Jerome's copies. 

4. On collating those copies together, if they were found to differ from each other, St. Jerome's plan was to collate them with the old copies of the Greek, and thence to determine which of them agreed with the original. If one of his Latin copies agreed with Eusebius's text, he consequently adopted the reading. But if neither agreed with it, he of course translated the original and inserted the correction in his amended version. Now, on supposing that the Brescia and Verceli texts represent 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 manuscripts with Eusebius's edition. The Verceli and Brescia texts, in the first place disagree, where the former, which was St. Jerome's basis, differs from the Vulgate. In the next place where the Brescia or Verceli text corresponds with the Greek, we find its reading inserted in the text of the Vul­gate. In the last place, where those texts do not correspond, in which case both St. Jerome's basis and his "other copy" must have differed from the original, we there find that the Vulgate not only differs from both, but accords with the Greek of Eusebius, It must be of course evident that the 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, by which St. Jerome in some places modeled his translation, possessed not authority equal to that of the Old Italic version. And we consequently find that this very objection was made to the Greek text by Hilary the Deacon, and to St. Jerome by Helvidius, who accused him of following copies that had been corrupted. And that this objection was made with effect, is apparent from the Old Version having still maintained its ground in the Latin Church even against the authority of St. Jerome, and from the difficulty which attended its final suppression under Cassiodorus. But this testimony of the Latin Church against the new version is not merely negative, but may be thrown on the side of the Byzantine Greek and of the Primitive Version. Hilary, indeed, in objecting to the Greek copies supports a reading which probably existed only in the Received Text as revised by St. Eusebius of Verceli, and thus merely supports 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. 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 supported 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 inadequate to support the authority of the new Vulgate against that of the old, or primitive version. His declaration that he purposed following the old copies has been taken in a positive, not relative sense; his words instead of being interpreted with reference to the rectified copies which prevailed in his times have been understood of the copies of Pierius and Origen, to which he appeals occasionally. They have been however strained beyond what they will bear, for no general declaration ought to be taken in the strictness of the letter. As he was professedly a reader of Adamantius and of Pierius, whom he calls the younger Origen, he might have found the readings of their copies in their commentaries without inspecting their manuscripts. Had he possessed copies of the kind, he was not a person likely to suppress the fact, or introduce them to the acquaintance of his readers under the loose and indefinite title of "ancient 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 Caesarea. But what must lay the question at rest is the confession of St. Jerome himself, who not only declares that he possessed copies of Origen's Commentaries which had been. transcribed by Pamphilus, but expressly admits that Origen's library had fallen into decay and had been partially restored on vellum by Acacius and Euzoius. As Origen's library consisted of volumes written on the papyrus, such a library having been alone suited to the finances of a man who lived in poverty, and was supplied with the means of publishing his works by the munificence of his friend and patron Ambrose; it would have been rather a hazardous attempt in St. Jerome to boast of possessing his original copies. The authority of Origen's Commentaries became a sufficient voucher to St. Jerome for the readings Origen's copies; in this manner they are occasionally cited by him, while he generally conforms to the text of Eusebius. 

St. Jerome's authority is therefore inadequate to support the credit of the Vulgate against the authority of the ancient Latin translation. His version, as founded on a preference for Eusebius's text, was built on an accidental partiality, and on the same foundation rests the standard by which he condemned the text of Lucianus. His translation is besides destitute of the authority of the ancient 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 correcting the Received Text of his times, and in following the edition of Eusebius Caesariensis he adhered 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 primitive version of the Western Church, than the Received 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 forms the basis of the other. They possess that extraordinary conformity, which can be only accounted for by such an assumption. We however know the author of the Verceli text; while we are ignorant of that of the Brescia manuscript. Regarding the question as confined to the consideration 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 author's autograph, has been pre­served at his church in Piedmont, it is beyond all reasonable ground of doubt a copy of the edition which he revised; and we discover strong and indelible marks of this version having been the Received Text from the times of P. Julius, in the works of subsequent writers. We can be as little mistaken in the Greek text by which he formed his revisal; its literal coincidence with the Cambridge manuscript proves it to have been the edition of Hesychius; and this supposition is confirmed by the fact of the author's exile in Egypt, where the text of Hesychius prevailed. Now on assuming 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 Verceli MS, which was formed by correcting the one from the other, may be explained and accounted for. This assumption may be established by a brief exemplification. 

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 Cambridge manuscripts agree there is a correspondent agreement in the Verceli manuscript. 

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 manuscript. 

In both cases, therefore, when the basis and original agreed or disagreed, to the consideration of 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 priority, 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 Hesychius's text; and thus undermining the very foundation on which they are mutually built, necessarily destroy their common credit; and by consequence establish the exclusive authority of the text of the Brescia manuscript.

The most remarkable of the copies of the old Italic 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 Hesychius, they exhibit a diversity between themselves in numberless readings. From those peculiarities we may make several deductions, which will serve to establish 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 edition and their diversities among themselves, may be explained, but their verbal coincidences are wholly inexplicable. To account for the last peculiarity, we must conceive them formed on the basis of some common translation. And taking this circumstance into account, every peculiarity in their respective texts admits of an easy explanation. As their coincidence in the first case is explained, by conceiving them formed on the basis of some antecedent version; and their conformity in the second by conceiving them corrected by some common Greek text, their diversities in the third are explained by conceiving them corrected by different hands. 

Now, as the coincidences of the Verceli, Verona, and Cambridge MSS. are common to the Brescia MS. their joint testimony, so far, proves, that this manuscript contains the original version, on which they have been severally formed. And conformably to this notion, we find, that frequently where those manuscripts differ from each other, and one of them conforms to Hesychius's text; the other coincides with the Brescia manuscript. It is wholly inconceivable that this result could take pace 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 manuscripts 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 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 diversity 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 consequence, the version which conforms to a text, that has been thus new-modeled, must be of very recent authority. 

Thus tracing this labyrinth through all its windings, and pursuing the Latin version through all its changes, we ultimately arrive at the primitive Western Version. There now exists but one test by which it remains to be tried, the relative merit of the translation. And submitting it to this last assay, it appears to contain within itself a sufficient proof of its integrity. 

The uniformity of the text declares that it is an original composition, and by consequence the basis of those different texts which bear it a general affinity. The archetype by which it was formed is one, being that particular class of text which exists in the Greek Vulgate; and it conforms to this model in all its parts, while the other versions possess inequalities which have originated in attempts to improve upon it, as the primitive translation. 

A minute investigation of those inequalities constantly enables us to distinguish the original  version from the derivative. While it retains the common marks by which they evince their affinity to the Greek, in retaining the Greek idiom  it is free from peculiar solecisms which they have evidently acquired in undergoing a revisals. 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 another; while they possess many niceties which are the product of a second effort to approximate the copy still more closely to its model. And in the arrangement of the words, it preserves the tenor of the sense unembarrassed, while they exhibit those breaches in the sense, and encumbrances of the structure, which betray the hand of a corrector. Under every trial therefore, it bears internal evidence 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 Version, we may now leave the coincident testimony of the Greek and Latin Church, to speak for the integrity of the Received Text, which has furnished the model of our Authorized Version. The short specimen which I have already given of their extraordinary 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 comparative instability of the grounds on which those critics have built, who have made a. different election, and expressed a different partiality. 

The scheme of Dr. Bentley is manifestly defective. For though it is founded on the mutual testimony of the Greek and Latin translation, it is unsupported 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 Latin Vulgate, on which his scheme is principally founded, was not received in the West for the former 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 confirmed in all important points by the general testimony of tradition, is not of consideration to the Catholic Church which, in being the witness and keeper of Holy Writ, acknowledges no paramount or individual authority in transmitting from age to age the rule of faith and manners. 

The scheme of M. Matthaei, though unexceptionable, where that of Dr. Bentley is defective, is likewise defective in rejecting the testimony of the Western Church, and exclusively building on that of the Eastern. It has consequently no more than presumptive evidence to urge in its support for the first seven centuries; since which the generality of those manuscripts were written in which the testimony of the latter Church is transmitted. This evidence is undoubtedly of the highest kind, as it is improbable in the extreme that the Eastern Church could have corrupted the sacred text in the earliest and purest ages, and have preserved it uncorrupt in the dark and barbarous ages. As some manuscripts however exist, which are of greater antiquity than those which contain the Greek Vulgate, and which differ from it, while they agree with the Latin translation, their testimony leaves it a doubt, whether length of time, supported by uniformity of consent, ought not to decide against superiority of numbers. Such, it is obvious, was the opinion of Dr. Bentley, the reasonableness of whose scheme was founded on such a presumption, and it seems to render the merit of M. Matthaei's system at best but equivocal. 

The great merit of M. Griesbach's scheme consists in the singular skill with which he covered the feeble points which were left exposed by his predecessors. His professed object was to establish the antiquity of the Alexandrian text, by the united testimony of Clement and Origen; and to strengthen it by an alliance with the Western text, in order to form a counterpoise to the immense superiority in numbers on the part of the Byzantine edition. Both the pillars are unsound on which this system is rested. The individual testimony of Origen, proves nothing; as his readings are inconstant, they no more prove the antiquity of the Alexandrian 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 agreement with the Alexandrian text is fully as indecisive; it no more proves that they used that text, than it proves that Eusebius corrected it by their writings. The alliance between the Alexandrian 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 more strongly in favor 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 antiquity 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. 
Chapter IV 

OF the three classes of text which exist in the Greek manuscripts, it is, I trust, by this time apparent, that the Vulgar Greek is entitled to the preference, as that alone which is supported by the uninterrupted tradition of the Eastern and Western Churches. Much, however, remains to be advanced in favor 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 impeachment of three remarkable texts; which relate to points so essential to our religion as the doctrine of the Incarnation, Redemption, and Trinity. The defence of the Greek Vulgate, more particularly on these points, is of the greater importance, as involving that of the doctrinal integrity of the Sacred Canon.  

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 probable 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 skeptical inquirer of the constant and intimate intercourse which was preserved between the particular branches of the Catholic 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 control of the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem; and the obligation laid on the Jews to visit the Holy City periodically, facilitated the means of communication between the great council and its most distant dependencies. That this intercourse 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 requisition of the Romans, to have been nearly three millions. We consequently find, that, while the Jews confessed on St. Paul's arrival at Rome, that they were acquainted with Christianity as “a sect which was every where spoken against,” they expressed surprise that they had “not received letters out of Judea, concerning” the apostle. This negligence, however, was soon remedied, when the rapid and extensive diffusion of the Gospel rendered Christianity formidable to the Jewish nation. The concurring testimony of Christian and Jewish writers, places it beyond a doubt, that as early as the reign of the Emperor Claudius, when the new converts were known under the appellation of Nazarenes, a circular letter was sent from Jerusalem, enjoining the dispersed Jews to excommunicate the Christians, under that title, in all their synagogues.

At how early a period the Christian Church adopted this mode of communication from the Jewish Polity must be apparent from the first council held in the reign of the same Emperor at Jerusalem, after the model of the Jewish Sanhedrin. 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 extrinsic purity. On this occasion “it pleased the apostles and elders and the whole church,” assembled in council, “to send chosen men,” and “to write letters by them;” in which a general dispensation was granted from Jewish ceremonies, and precautions were used to obviate some excesses, which might arise from the unlicensed abuse of Christian liberty. 

In such habits of intercourse the Christian Church had already existed for half a century on the completion of the New Testament Canon: from the reign of Claudius in the middle of the first age, to that of Domitian near the beginning of the second. That in the latter period, this intercourse was still strictly maintained is rendered certain by documents of unquestionable authority. St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp, who lived at this period, and who enjoyed the intimacy, and succeeded to the labors, of the apostles, explicitly mention the custom of convening synods for the purpose of ordaining persons to convey circular letters through the different churches: and in this manner they took especial care that their epistles should be generally dispersed through the Christian world. Accounts of the martyrdom of those primitive bishops were thus transmitted to the most distant provinces, in epistles attested with that care, which I formerly had occasion to remark, was observed until the middle of the third century. 

After this view of so remarkable a part of the primitive 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 collection of those epistles preserved at Jerusalem that numbers of the primitive pastors, who succeeded to the charge and labors of the apostles, traversed those distant regions which had been converted by the apostles, established churches in them, and delivered to them copies of the Gospels. The Epistles, which constitute the remaining part of the Canon, had been addressed to particular churches, but the attention which the inspired penmen had employed to authenticate and to disperse their writings, and the care which the primitive churches used in obtaining and circulating the commonest documents, renders it morally certain that the whole Scripture Canon of the New Testament must have been dispersed as widely as the Chris­tian name, within a short period of its first publication. 

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 constant communication which was maintained between the churches which had been planted by the apostles, and were the immediate depositories of their writings, it was impossible that any authentic work which proceeded from them could have existed in one church, without having been communicated to another. The intercourse between the Syriac Greek and Roman Church, was of the closest kind, under the immediate successors of the apostles; some of whom were vested with the government of particular churches at the very time in which the Scripture Canon was perfected. St. Clement, the companion of St. Paul, communicated with the Corinthian Church from Rome; St. Polycarp, the disciple of St. John, visited Rome and corresponded with the Syrian Church from Smyrna; and St. Ignatius, his contemporary and friend, not only communicated with the churches of Ephesus and Rome, but visited both in person. In the epistles addressed by those primitive bishops to those different churches, much more is implied than that they were possessed of the inspired writings. St. Polycarp speaks of the Philippians as versed in the Scriptures, while he quotes the Old and New Testament; and St. Ignatius, in impugning some tenets of the early heretics, appeals to the “Gospels” and the “Apostles,” under which terms the whole of the Christian Canon may be properly included. If we may now assume what it seems vain to deny, that any two of those churches possessed perfect copies of the Scriptures, which were apparently possessed by the Catholic Church; we have thus a sufficient security in the testimony which they respectively 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 members, still they must have lacked authority to influence other churches to become a party in the conspiracy. But the different interests which divided every particular congregation must have rendered such an undertaking wholly impracticable. Within less than a century after the publication of the apostolical writings, the sect of the Montanists arose, in the very bosom of the church, and spread itself from Phrygia to Gaul and Africa. As these heretics were every where mingled with the Catholics, and used the same Canonical Scriptures, they must have discovered any attempt to corrupt their integrity. Nor could they have lacked the inclination to expose it; as the Catholics convened synods against them, condemned their doctrines, and expelled them from their communion. But, in the mutual recrimination to which their differences gave rise, the heretics nowhere accuse the Catholics, who derided their “New Prophecies” of corrupting the sacred oracles. Let us even suppose this difficulty surmounted, and that the Catholics and heretics, forgetting their mutual animosities, had agreed to corrupt the Scriptures; still the disagreements which arose between different churches, must have rendered any attempt on the integrity of Scripture wholly abortive, by leaving it open to detection. A difference of opinion, respecting the time of keeping Easter interrupted the unanimity which had long subsisted between the Greek and Roman Churches; and to such an extent was their mutual animosity carried, that the Western Church proceeded to the extremity of excommunicating the Eastern. A like diversity of opinion, at a period somewhat later, divided the Roman and African Churches on the subject of baptizing heretics. Had there existed any ground of accusation against any of those churches on this head, it seems wholly inconceivable 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 favor 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 required in reason; any formal defence of the integrity of the inspired writings, in the primitive age, would indeed defeat its object, by conveying a suspicion that it needed vindication. But as no ground of suspicion existed, we find no defence undertaken. That which was unquestionable from the first was received without exciting a doubt; and silence on this subject conveys a sufficient proof of integrity. 

It may be shown, 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 followers, had given rise to many narratives founded on traditionary accounts, in which some truth was retained with a great admixture of error. A number of spurious works of this description were composed, particularly by the heretics, who infested the Church from the earliest age; and under the title of Gospels and Acts, were inscribed with the names of different apostles. Besides these, many of the writings of the apostles' companions, had been read in different churches; and had thus become a part of the authorized text, though not of the Canonical Scriptures. In discriminating between these apocryphal works and the authentic Scriptures, the ancients 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 established the Canon. 

In selecting a period out of the primitive ages which is best calculated to afford us satisfactory information on this subject, our attention is immediately attracted to that which produced the controversy relative to Easter. As this is a period in which party spirit ran high, it is a crisis which is likely to put us in possession of the truth, by exhibiting both sides of the question. It is likewise distinguished by the number of learned and inquisitive 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 most remote provinces would constitute a sufficient 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 deliberations should be communicated to the remotest branches of the Catholic Church. At this period Narcissus, who at an advanced age, had Alexander for his suffragan, was bishop of Jerusalem; Polycrates, Serapion, Demetrius, Victor, and St. Irenaeus, respectively settled at Ephesus, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, and Lyons, were vested with the government of the principal churches in the Asiatic, Syriac, Egyptian, Italic, and Gallican provinces. Among the writers celebrated at that period, we particularly distinguish Pantaenus and Clement, of Alexandria; Origen, afterwards presbyter, of Palestine; Caius, presbyter of Rome; St. Irenaeus, then bishop of Lyons; and Tertullian, presbyter of Carthage. From the joint testimony of witnesses thus competent, and thus widely dispersed, the most unanswerable body of evidence may be deduced in favor of the integrity of the Canonical Scriptures. 

In the first place, the integrity of the sacred writings was, at this period, the subject of particular investigation. The Marcionites, a sect which was particularly opposed by St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, had rejected the principal part of the Canon, and corrupted the remainder; and the Theodotists, who had been excommunicated by Victor and refuted by Caius, had systematically corrupted the sacred writings. From the remains of Caius and the works of Tertullian, it appears that both these ancient fathers had carefully collated the genuine and the adulterated copies. Alexander and Origen, who were friends and correspondents, were professed collectors of books; the former founded, at his own expense, the library at Jerusalem, and the latter laid the foundation of that at Caesarea. Pantaenus and Clement, who had been intimates of Alexander and Origen, were travelers and curious enquirers into the subject under discussion. The former, in a mission undertaken to India, on which he was deputed by Demetrius, successor to Julianus in the see of Alexandria, there saw the Gospel of St. Matthew as originally written in Hebrew, which was preserved from the times of St. Bartholomew, the apostle of India. And the latter, who was Alexander's messenger from Jerusalem to Antioch, has perpetuated the tradition, which he received from an elder named Macarius, respecting the Epistle to the Hebrews; that it was originally written by St. Paul, in the same language, but afterwards translated into Greek by St. Luke the Evangelist. These facts will sufficiently evince the wide dispersion of the sacred writings, and the attention which was devoted to the subject before us, at this truly primitive period. With respect to Origen, his testimony would be of itself sufficient to establish all that it is my object to evince. Through motives of curiosity he visited Rome, and was deputed on a mission to Arabia; and from the discovery which he made of some obscure versions of the Hebrew Scriptures, it might be inferred, that he was a diligent inquirer into the authority of the New Testament. But his testimony may be collected not merely by implication, but from his express declarations. He has drawn the justest line between the canonical and the apocryphal books has ascribed the former their due and exclusive weight; and has deduced their authority from the immemorial tradition of the Catholic Church; which his profound learning and local researches furnished him with ample means of investigating. 

If we now take the works of Clement, Origen, and Tertullian, and compare them with our Scriptures, as preserved in the original Greek, and in the Latin translation, it is impossible to resist the conviction, that the sacred writings must have retained their integrity since the times of those primitive fathers. We find them collectively quoted by those early fathers, under their proper titles, and on all occasions where their authority could be adduced. Of Tertullian it has been observed, that he contains more numerous and extensive extracts from the New Testament, than all the writers of antiquity, for a long succession of ages, have adduced from the voluminous writings of Cicero; though his works have formed a standard, by which succeeding writers have endeavored to model their stile. The writings of Clement and Origen have undergone a severer scrutiny than those of Tertullian; all the scripture quotations which are discoverable in such of their works as are extant, have been extracted from them, and have been disposed in their proper order. They contain ample and connected quotations from all the books of Scripture, which not only evince the general integrity of the sacred writings, but demonstrate, by the most extraordinary coincidence with the vulgar Greek, that the texture 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, which is thus borne to the integrity of the sacred Scriptures, 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 Jerusalem: but Pantaenus is expressly said to have been a disciple of those who were the immediate auditors of the Apostles. Alexander represents Narcissus, who was likewise bishop of Jerusalem, as having been an hundred and sixteen years old, when he acted as his suffragan in that see, at Jerusalem; he of course must have enjoyed the same opportunities of conversing with the immediate disciples of the apostles, which were possessed by Pantaenus. Tertullian is referred to a period near that of the apostles, by St. Jerome, who drew his information from one who was informed by an acquaintance of St. Cyprian, his disciple. St. Iranaeus mentions his having been acquainted with St. Polycarp, who was placed in the see of Smyrna by St. John the Evangelist; and gives an affecting description of the accounts which he heard that venerable old man deliver of the apostle, and of the impression which, while he was yet a boy, they had made upon his recollection. With these facilities of arriving at the opinions of the apostolical age, on a subject of such paramount importance as that of the sacred canon, it remains to be observed, that the apostolical tradition, as preserved by the succession of bishops throughout the Catholic Church, was at this period an object of curious investigation. Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, expressly appeals to it in the controversy respecting Easter; and on this subject of comparatively minor importance, states the traditionary customs, as derived from St. Polycarp and St. John, in the churches of Smyrna and Ephesus. Similar appeals are made to it, by St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, on the rule of faith which had been delivered to the Church by its original founders, and preserved by their successors. The former states, that the apostolical tradition was preserved in every church throughout the world; the latter appeals to the apostolical writings as preserved in the particular churches, where they were deposited by their inspired authors. 

As the early period in which those apostolical fa­thers flourished is thus easily connected with the age of the apostles; it may be no less easily connected with that in which the Latin Vulgate was made, and the Alexandrian manuscript written; the joint testimony 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. Cyprian. St. Athanasius, who lived when the Alexandrian manuscript was written, was present in the Council of Nice, and [had] the acquaintance of St. Epiphanius, the friend of St. Jerome. But the great Athanasius must have conversed with many who had known the disciples of Origen. Demetrius, who was contemporary with the latter, governed the church of Alexandria forty-three years; and his successors, Heraclas and Dionysius, who occupied the same see for thirty-three years subsequently to his times, were the disciples of Origen. But Dionysius was summoned to the Synod, held at Antioch, which was convened against Paul of Samo­sata; and Lucianus, the martyr, who revised the Byzantine text, was contemporary with Paul, who was deposed by the Synod of Antioch. As he survived this period, until the persecution of Maximin, and was not martyred until within thirteen years of the Council of Nice, he must have been a contemporary of St. Athanasius, and would have been doubtless present in that Synod, had he not been prematurely cut off among the martyrs of Palestine. By the intervention of Dionysius and Lucianus, the tradition is thus connected from the times of Origen to those of St. Athanasius, St. Epiphanius, 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. He has given a list of the canonical and apocryphal books, in his Festal Epistle, which forms a sufficient evidence of the integrity of the vulgar edition; in proving the same books to be now in use, which were re­ceived at the time of the Nicene Council. What adds still greater weight to his authority, is the explicit appeal which he makes to the tradition of the Church, while employed in enumerating the Canonical Scriptures. As he was present in the Council of Nice, where the Bishops of the Catholic Church were assembled together, and as he visited the churches of Greece, Syria, Gaul, and Italy, 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 Catholic. The different editions which are incorporated in the Alexandrian manuscript, contain a sufficient 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 embodied 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 subject, in which a difference of opinion must have been productive of greater ills, than could arise from merely verbal inaccuracies in the authorized Scriptures. Regarded with these limitations, this celebrated manuscript may be considered a full exposition of St. Athanasius's testimony to the integrity of the Sacred Text. 

To the testimony of St. Athanasius, as fully set forth in the Alexandrian manuscript, we may now add that of St. Jerome, as delivered in the Latin Vulgate; in order to confirm the evidence of the Eastern Church by that of the Western. Not to insist on the explicit testimony which he has borne to the different books of the Canonical Scriptures, his Vulgate contains a sufficient voucher for the testimony borne by the Latin Church to the general integrity of the Sacred Canon. St. Jerome's alterations extended to little more than verbal corrections; he supplied some passages, and he expunged others, in the received text of his age: but he translated no new book, he removed no old one, from the authorized version. From the New Vulgate, 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. Athanasius, in possessing the same authorized books, the testimony of both forms a sufficient evidence of the integrity of the Greek Vulgate; which contains the same Scriptures which those early fathers agree in pronouncing Canonical.        

As the testimony of the Alexandrian 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 irrefragable 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 Catholic Church, the wide and rapid circulation of the Scriptures must be inferred by necessary consequence. From their universal dispersion must be inferred their freedom from general corruption. Verbal errors might have arisen in the text, and have been multiplied by the negligence of successive transcribers: and the destruction of the sacred books in particular regions might have afforded opportunity to particular revisers, to publish editions of the text with fancied improvements. But, from the different interests which divided the Church, these alterations must have been confined to unimportant points; and, from the general dispersion of the Scriptures, must have been limited to particular districts, or have continued but for an inconsiderable period. The state and history of the text furnishes numerous 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 generally used in the Church, were those which were published by their inspired authors; and as far as the testimony of those early witnesses extends, that they are the same which are still in use in our churches. The testimony of those primitive fathers is connected with that of St. Athanasius and St. Jerome by a very few links, which prove that the tradition which was preserved in the times of the former, could not have been interrupted in the times of the latter. Their evidence is, however, as clearly as it is plenarily set forth in the Alexandrian manuscript, and the Latin Vulgate, which, as delivering the same testimony at different times, and under different circumstances, furnish, by their coincidence an unanswerable proof of the integrity of the Canonical Scriptures. 

But the same positions admit of a different establishment, from some antecedent observations. The Alexandrian manuscript contains an evidence of the existence of three classes of text as early as the year three hundred and sixty-seven; and consequently a proof of the permanence of the text of Byzantium from that time to the present. The existence of this peculiar text for fourteen centuries involves no inconsiderable proof of its permanence since the times of the Apostles. This presumption, which is so strongly corroborated by the multiplicity of the copies of this edition, and by their extraordinary coincidence with each other, is finally confirmed by the testimony of the primitive Latin version; which, as obviously made in the earliest age, furnishes, by its coincidence with the Greek Vulgate, a demonstrative proof of the permanence of the Received Text or vulgar edition. 

In fine, the coincidence of the Greek and Latin Vulgate, which contain the positive testimony of the Eastern and Western Church, constitutes a sufficient evidence of the integrity of the Canonical Scriptures. They prove, by their unity of consent, that the Sacred Canon is complete; without any deficiency or superabundance of books; and without any diminution or increase of their parts or members. Their point testimony consequently furnishes an adequate test by which we may, in most cases, correct their variations from themselves, and rectify the imperfections of other texts and editions. Hence, in the first instance, they sufficiently establish the authority of those canonical books, which have been question­ed by private persons, or by particular Churches. In the next place, their conspiring testimony establishes the authority of particular passages, which have been omitted in particular versions, or cancelled in particular editions. The private testimony of individuals, the testimony of national churches, to which the evidence of fathers and versions, as well as of particular manuscripts, is necessarily reducible, can have no weight against the conspiring testimony of the two great Churches in the Eastern and Western world, which were the depositaries of the apostolical writings. We may very easily account for the suppression of particular passages, or even books, in a limited number of copies; but their occurrence in the great body of manuscripts, which properly contain the testimony of the Church, is not to be accounted for, otherwise than by admitting them to have possessed that authority from the first, which procured them a place among the Canonical Scriptures. 

A closer examination of this point will, however, place the integrity of the text beyond all reasonable ground of controversion. Of the different books which are numbered among the Canonical Scrip­tures, the Apocalypse and Epistle to the Hebrews have excited the most serious opposition. Of the various passages which constitute those books, Mark xvi. 9-20. John viii. 1-11, have been exposed to the most formidable objections. If, however, the canonical authority of the sacred volume be groundlessly questioned in these respects, we may a fortiori 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 objections urged against them are merely confined to a doubt respecting the name of the inspired persons by whom they were written. The former was conceived to have proceeded from John the Elder, whose tomb was shown at Ephesus, together with that of St. John the Evangelist; the latter was conceived to have proceeded from St. Luke, St. Clement, or St. Barnabas, the companions of St. Paul the Apostle. The particular objections urged against those books from the internal evidence I shall consider hereafter; the following con­siderations 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 constituted a part of the Canon. Admitting thus much, which, by the way, is all that is worth contesting, the point in dispute may be brought to a speedy determination. It has been urged in objection to those books, that the one introduces the name of St. John, the other omits the name of St. Paul, contrary to the practice of those Apostles in their genuine writings. This distinction seems decisive of the question, and directly identifies the true authors of the Apocalypse and the Epistle. The introduction of the name of the inspired writer implies an authoritative declaration of the apostolical function: such a designation is, of course, as properly abandoned by both Apostles in dictating epistles to the whole church, or to particular congregations 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 Catholic Epistle, and St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, declines using the title; for this obvious cause, that the one was no universal Bishop, the other not an Apostle of the Hebrews, but of the Gentiles. But in addressing the particular churches of Rome and Corinth, or the seven churches of Asia, both St. John and St. Paul, in in­troducing their names, assert their apostolical authority. 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 Emperor Trajan. And with respect to the Epistle to the Hebrews it may be as briefly decided. Though St. Paul has declined introducing his name into this Epistle, he has asserted that authority over Timothy in deputing him on a mission, which is irreconcilable with the notion of its having proceeded from any person of inferior authority; or is indeed clearly demonstrative of the fact that it was written by the great Apostle. 

As these considerations, deducible from the internal evidence, seem to annihilate the force of the objections raised to those canonical books; the external testimony of two witnesses, who are above all exception, fully confirms the authority which they derive from the ecclesiastic tradition. St. Irenaeus, who was but one remove, in the line of succession, from St. John, having heard his disciple St. Polycarp, expressly ascribes the Revelation to the Evangelist; and speaks of the apocalyptic vision as having been seen in his own age, towards the end of the reign of Domitian. And a contemporary 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. To the testimony which St. Irenaeus bears to the work of St. John, we may add that of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Melito, Theophilus, Apollonius, and Clemens Alexandrinus, who flourished in the age of St. Irenaeus; and Origen, who flourished at the beginning of the subsequent era. And to the testimony which Clement has borne to the Epistle of St. Paul, we may add that of St. Clemens Romanus in the same age, and of Origen and Dionysius Alexandrinus; in the succeeding, Eusebius 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 ascribes the Epistle to the Hebrews to St. Paul  without hesitation. And St. Athanasius and St. Jerome, at the close of the same century, speak in the same terms, without limitation or exception; these extraordinary men may be allowed to deliver the opinion of the Eastern and Western Churches, if the testimony of either may be collected from the statement of individuals. Of this "cloud of witnesses," each of whom is a host in himself, the earlier part lived at that period, when the true state of the question could have been scarcely missed by the most careless inquirer; 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 appeal has been made on the subject under discussion. 

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 vindication. If even those books, which are represented as of doubtful authority, admit of so full and satisfactory a defence, we may necessarily infer the unquestionable authority of those which have never excited suspicion. The works of Clement and Origen in the East, of Tertullian and Cyprian in the West, who generally quote from all the canonical books, are sufficiently declaratory of the testimony of both Churches, as derived from immemorial tradition. The evidence of Lucianus and Eusebius, to whom St. Athanasius and St. Jerome respectively refer; will connect the traditionary chain, as extending from the apostolical age to the final establishment of Christianity under the Emperor Theodosius. After this period it must be unnecessary to search after proofs in support of the integrity of the Canonical Scripture. 

At the last-mentioned period, two remarkable passages, as I have already observed, had been partially withdrawn from the sacred text; though now admitted almost without exception into the vulgar text of the Eastern and Western Churches. 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 cir­cumstance of their being absent from some copies of St. Jerome's times, and from some which have descended to the present period. But this consideration falls infinitely short of proving them spurious, or more than expunged from the text of Eusebius, and, after his example, omitted in the text of the orthodox revisers. That they were absent from the former edition, is evident from the testimony of the Eusebian Canons, in which they do not appear; that they were absent from the latter, appears from the positive testimony of St. Jerome, confirmed by that of St. Epiphanius. The determination of the question must therefore turn on this alternative; their having been suppressed in the received text of St. Jerome's age, or inserted in that of the subsequent 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 calculated, and, until disproved, I am free to conclude, have been established from the circumstances under which his edition was published. That they were omitted also in the text of the orthodox revisers, is, I conceive, evident, from the testimony of St. Jerome; as he lived in the age when both these editions prevailed, and declares; that those passages were absent from the generality of copies extant in his times. Two witnesses will be now sufficient to establish the authenticity of those passages, and to connect the chain of tradition from which their authority is derived; one to prove that they were removed from the prevailing text of the age; and one, to show that they existed in the antecedent edition. 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 lack the passage which he declares was suppressed. For the second position, the best voucher must be his contemporary St. Jerome, who has inserted those passages in his translation. He has thus implicitly asserted their existence in the old copies of the original, by which he corrected his version. As his testimony to the existence of these passages is, consequently, antecedent 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 filling up that breach in the ecclesiastical tradition, by which their canonical authority is properly supported. 

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 establish the former, as to invalidate the latter position. The history of the adulteress, contained in St. John, would be likely to offend some over scrupulous readers; as liable to be misrepresented by persons waywardly inclined to pervert the sacred oracles. The narrative of the resurrection, contained in St. Mark, would he likewise liable to exception; 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 suppression of those passages, as in preventing their insertion in the Sacred Canon. If we suppose them authentic, they contain no difficulty which may not be easily cleared up; if we suppose them spurious, it is as impossible to account for their being so exceptionable, as they thus appear, as it is to account for their having been admitted, with all their imperfections, into the vulgar text of the Eastern and Western Churches. No object appears to exist which could have induced any person to invent such passages, no influence which could have induced 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 object 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 object of the apostolical testimony. This proof was given, by the express appointment of our Lord, in Galilee; and by manifesting himself by the most infallible evidence to his apostles, “showing them his hands and his side.” Let it be however observed, that St. Mark records the promise, which foretold this plenary revelation of our Lord to the disciples; and that his account of the accomplishment of it is contained only in the suspected passage. From its being thus indispensably necessary, not merely to complete the general purpose of an Evangelist, in writing a Gospel; but to complete the express object of St. Mark, it must be considered a part of the authentic 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 opposing the rising heresies of the Nicolaitans and Corinthians. Of those heretics the apostle declares; “thou halt them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught—to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate. Repent, or else I will come unto thee quickly," &c. Marriage had been condemned and rejected by those abandoned miscreants; who asserted the lawfulness of the most promiscuous intercourse of the sexes. And by this doctrine, which was but too well suited to the low state of morals in the times of heathen superstition, they had seduced numbers from the severe discipline of the primitive church. It was therefore required, by the express object which the Evangelist 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 life the remarkable circumstances of his having sanctioned a marriage by his presence; and par­doned a penitent adulteress, on the condition of her "sinning no more." Viewed with reference to those circumstances, these narratives are corroborative of each other; and are illustrated by the declarations of our Lord, which the Apostle relates; "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 negative 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 received; considering the immense number, and wide dispersion of the Scriptures, and the obvious objections to which those passages were exposed from the earliest period. That they occur in the vulgar edition of the Greek and Latin is indisputable; and the only mode of accounting for this circumstance is by conceiving them part of the original text, as published by the inspired writers.

With respect to John viii. 1-11, it is indeed less constantly retained in the Greek than Mark xvi. 9-20; but while the cause of this circumstance is sufficiently apparent, we can trace the tradition in favor 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 interpolation, 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 revised the Scriptures, there is not one to whom it can be ascribed with the smallest appearance of reason. 

1. As this passage occurs in the Greek, it cannot be ascribed to Athanasius or the last revisers. As far as we possess any knowledge of their editions, they omitted this passage: it is quoted by antecedent writers, and St. Jerome, in introducing it into the Latin Vulgate, has implicitly declared that it was found in the copies antecedent to their revisal. Nor can it be ascribed to Eusebius Caesariensis; it does not occur in his text or canons, and is apparently glanced at in his history, as entitled to little credit. Nor can it be assigned to Lucianus or Hesychius; for their real or imputed interpolations were rejected, on the credit of the same copies, by St. Jerome, in whose Vulgate this passage is certainly retained. As it exists, however, in the Egyptian and Byzantine text and was not invented by those persons by whom these editions were first revised, it must have necessarily existed in the original text from which they were respectively derived. 

2. As occurring in the Latin, this passage cannot be ascribed to St. Jerome, the last reviser. He expressly states it existed in the old Italic version, which preceded his revisal; and in it we consequently find it at this day. Nor can it be ascribed to Philastrius of Brescia, or Eusebius of Verceli, for it does not occur in those manuscripts in which alone their respective texts can be supposed to exist. As it, however, occurs in the Old Italic 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 originally 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 delivered in the Received Text fully establishes the authenticity of the passage under consideration. And this evidence is finally confirmed by the explicit testimony of early ecclesiastical writers. Wherever we might expect any traces of this passage to exist, we find it specifically noticed. It occurs in the Harmony of Tatian, who wrote in little more than fifty years of the death of St. John; it is noticed in the Synopsis of Scripture, which is generally ascribed to St. Athanasius; and in the Diatessaron, which is ascribed to Ammonius, by Victor Capuanus. Nor was it unknown to Eusebius, to St. Ambrose, to St. Chrysostom, and St. Augustine. But the testimony of St. Jerome is definitive in establishing the authenticity of this passage. While he expressly states that it existed in the old version of the Latin, he has implicitly admitted that it existed in the ancient copies of the Greek, by giving it a place in his Vulgate. Taking therefore the testimony of the Eastern and Western Churches, as contained in the Received Text and Version; as supported by the uninterrupted chain of tradition, and as expressly avouched by St. Jerome; we must acknowledge this passage as a part of the genuine text of Scripture, or reject that testimony, on which the Sacred Canon is proved authentic.

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 advocates for a more correct text than exists in our printed editions, must be considered authentic or spurious. 

I have hitherto labored to no purpose if it is not admitted that I have already laid a foundation sufficiently broad and deep for maintaining the authen­ticity of the contested verses. The negative argument arising in their favor, from the probability that Eusebius suppressed them in his edition, has been already stated at large. Some stress may be laid on this extraordinary circumstance, that the whole of the important interpolations, which are thus conceived to exist in the Received Text, were contrary 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 subsequently 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 Catholics, 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 favor is that of the Sabellians; but this heresy was as contrary to the tenets of those who conformed to the Catholic as of those who adhered to the Arian opinions. It thus becomes as improbable that the former 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 suppression when they were 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 which this intricate subject is involved directly vanishes. The solution of the question lies in this narrow space, that he expunged them from the text, as opposed to his peculiar opinions: and the peculiar apprehensions which were indulged of Sabellianism by the orthodox, 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 favor of the authenticity 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 Vulgate; subjoining those various readings, which are supposed to preserve the genuine text.   

(The following verses are then quoted in Greek and in Latin; Acts 20:28; 1 Timothy 3:16; 1 John 5:7-8.)  

As the Byzantine text thus reads, in Act. xx. 28. evkklhsi,an tou/ qeou/, and in I Tim. iii. 16. Qeo.j evfanerw,qh, the Palestine, or Alexandrian, according to M. Griesbach, reads, in the former place,  evkklhsi,an tou/ kuri,ou, and in the latter, o]j evfanerw,qh. In 1 John v. 7. the Byzantine and Palestine texts agree, while they differ from the common reading of the Latin Vulgate;—omitting en tw/| ouvranw/|( o` path,r( o` lo,goj( kai. to. {Agion Pneu/ma\ kai. ou-toi oi` trei/j e[n eivsiÅ 8  kai. trei/j eivsi.n oi` marturou/ntej evn th/| gh/|, which occurs in the Received Text of our printed editions; and answers to "in coelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra," in the Latin Vulgate. Such are the prin­cipal varieties of those celebrated texts. 

In proceeding to estimate the respective merit of these readings, the first attention is due to the internal 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 authentic. 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, there is but the alternative, that the other must be authentic. 

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 evkklhsi,an tou/ kuri,ou is unknown to the language of the Greek Testament, and wholly irreconcilable with the use of ivdi,ou ai[matoj for ai[matoj auvtou, in the context, as leading to a false or absurd meaning. The phrase evkklhsi,an tou/ qeou is that uniformly used by the evangelical writers, and that used above ten times by St. Paul, to whom the expression is ascribed by the inspired writer. And qeou is absolutely necessary to qualify the subjoined ivdi,ou, as the latter term, if used with kuri,ou, must imply that our Lord could have purchased the Church with other blood than his own: which is apparently absurd and certainly impertinent. 

2. In 1 Tim. iii, 16, the phrase o]j evfanerw,qh is little reconcilable with sense or grammar. In order to make it Greek, in the sense of "he who was manifested," it should be ov fanerwqei.j; but this reading is rejected by the universal consent of manuscripts and translations. The subjunctive article o]j is indeed used indefinitely; but it is then put for o]j a]n, o]j eva.n, o[jij a]n, wa/j o[jij; 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. 

3. In 1 Joh. v. 7, three masculine adjectives, trei/j oi` marturou/ntej are forced into union with three neuter substantives, to. Pneu/ma( kai. to. u[dwr( kai. to. ai-ma; a grosser solecism than can be ascribed to any writer, sacred or profane, 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 correspondent substantive in the neuter. 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 Joh. v.7 by the Latin Vulgate, and in Act. xx. 28 by both the Greek and Latin Vulgate, contained the 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 testimony of the Eastern and Western Churches is confirmed by the internal evidence of the original. An admirable rule is laid down by M. Griesbach for determining, between two readings, which is the genuine. I am wholly mistaken, or it may be shown, that every mark of authenticity which he has pointed 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 tenor of the sense and language as fully declares for the received reading, as against the corrected. 

1. In Act. xx. 28. the apostolical phrase, evkklhsi,an tou/ Qeou/, is not only preserved, but its full force consequently assigned to the epithet ivdi,ou. This term, as used by the apostle, has an exclusive and emphatic force; an exclusive, in limiting the sense to "God," the subject of the assertion;—an emphatic, in evincing the apostle's earnestness in using so extraordinary an expression. “Feed the Church of God, which he purchased with no other blood than his own,” is the literal meaning of the phrase; and this meaning is not more clearly expressed, than we shall see it was required by the object of the apostle, in writing. 

2: In 1 Tim. iii. 16. there can be little doubt that the "Great Mystery," of which the apostle speaks, and that whereby some one “was manifested in the flesh,” must be the Incarnation. If we take the account given of this “mystery” in John i. 1. 14. it marks out “God” as the divine person who “was manifested.” And putting this term into the letter of the text, it renders the apostle’s explanation answerable to his purpose and to the solemn mode of his enunciation. For, as the manifestation of no person, but the incomprehensible and divine, can be a mystery, any “manifestation” of “God,” as “in the flesh,” must be a “Great Mystery.” So far, the apostle’s phrase is as just as it is sententious. 

3. In 1 John v. 7. the manifest rent in the Corrected Text, which appears from the solecism in the language, is filled up in the Received Text; and o` path,r( o` lo,goj, being inserted, the masculine adjectives, trei/j oi` marturou/ntej, are ascribed suitable 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 apostle's language alone, but in his meaning. St. John is here expressly summing up the divine and human testimony, “the witness of God and man;” and he has elsewhere formally enumerated the heavenly witnesses, as they occur in the disputed passage. In his Gospel he thus explicitly declares, “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 me." And yet, in his Epistle, where he is expressly summing up the testimony in favor 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 suppressed 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 accidental insertion, as we are taught, of those witnesses, from a note in his margin. Nor is this all, but this solecism is corrected, and the oversight of the Apostle remedied, by the accidental insertion of the disputed passage from the margin of a translation; the sense of which, we are told, it embarrasses, while it contributes nothing to amend the grammatical structure! Of all the omissions which have been mentioned respecting this verse, I. call upon the impugners of its authenticity to specify one, half so extraordinary as the present? Of all the improbabilities which the controversy respecting 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 competition with so flagrant an improbability as the last. Yet, on the assumption of this extravagant improbability as matter of fact, must every attack on the authenticity of this verse be built, as its very foundation ! 

From viewing the internal evidence of the disputed 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 present question, to ascertain the subject which was before the apostles, in delivering themselves on the occasion before us. Some light arises to direct us in this enquiry from the consideration, that the words of both apostles were addressed to the Church at Ephesus, in which the Gnostic 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 exhortation delivered to the bishops and presbyters assembled in that city: and 1 Tim. iii. 16 occurs in the Epistle addressed to Timothy, who was resident in the same place and was, for some time subsequent, bishop of Ephesus. With respect to St. John, the matter before us is not involved in greater difficulty. His Epistle was written towards the close of his life, which was ended at Ephesus, in which city he had an interview with Cerinthus, the leader of the Gnostic heresy, against whom it was partly directed. 

It is further deserving of remark, that both apostles are expressly engaged on the subject of those early heresies with which the Church of Ephesus was menaced, if not infected. With regard to St. Paul, the context of the passages before us puts the matter out of dispute. "Feed the Church of God," he declares to the Ephesian pastors, "which he has purchased with his own blood. For I 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." To the same purpose he delivers himself in his Epistle to Timothy; "And without controversy great is the Mystery of Godliness; God was manifested 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 seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils." The early tradition of the Church, confirmed by the internal evidence of St. John's Epistle, fully justifies our forming a like conclusion with respect to it, and the Epistle to Timothy, to which it appears to allude. "Little children," declares the Evangelist, "it is the last time, and as ye have heard, that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many anti­christs. They went out from us, but they were not of us—Who is a liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ. He is antichrist that denieth the Father 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 the flesh 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 be in God." 

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 heretics whom the apostles opposed. St. John has very expressly declared, that they "denied the Father and the Son;" having disputed that "Jesus was the Son of God," and that "he was come in the flesh." With this representation, exactly accords the account which we receive of the tenets of the Nicolaitans and Cerinthians; those heretics whom the apostles expressly opposed. They "denied the Father," not merely disputing his paternity, in denying his only-begotten Son, but 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 inferior and angelical nature, and had consigned it to their superintendence. They "denied the Son," as disallowing his eternal filiation, and degrading him into the order of secondary and angelical existences. Thus far the Nicolaitans and Cerinthians agreed. They agreed also in "denying that Jesus was the Christ;” though they maintained this doctrine under different modifications. The Cerinthians, dividing the person of Jesus Christ, considered Jesus a mere man; born in the natural manner from Joseph and Mary; but mystically united with the angelical being Christ, who descended upon him at the time of his baptism. This union, they conceived, was dissolved at the time of the crucifixion; the man Jesus having suffered on the cross, while the impassible Christ ascended into the heavens. The Nicolaitans "denying that Jesus was come in the flesh,” considered Jesus Christ a mere phantasm, having a form which resembled flesh, but which consisted of an ethereal essence. At the time of the crucifixion, they held, that he secretly with­drew himself, while Simon the Cyrenean suffered in his likeness. 

While these heretics 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 respectively descended from the Jews, though their notions were warped by the peculiar opinions of Simon Magus, they must have derived from both sources some knowledge of this mystic doctrine. Hence it is of importance to observe that the Jews expressed their belief in this doctrine in the identical terms which occur in the suspected passage; "and the three are one.” It is likewise observable, that as these notions had descended to the heretics; the Nicolaitans, in particular, expressed the same belief in similar language. And the Hebrew Gospel, which was used by the Ebionites, if not by the Cerinthians, both of which sects were opposed by St. John, not only retained the same doctrine, but inculcated it in the terms which were used by the Jews. It is therefore indisputable, whatever becomes of the text of the heavenly witnesses, that the doctrine which it inculcates was forcibly obtruded upon the attention of St. John, in the very words in which the suspected passage is expressed. 

From viewing the state of the subject as before the apostles, let us now consider the manner in which they have discussed the points at issue between them and the heretics. The determination of this matter is decisive of the true reading of the contested passages. With respect to the heretics who were opposed by St. Paul, as it has been already observed, it was not only a fundamental article 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; otherwise 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 appositely illustrate the strong emphasis with which the apostle insists on the Incarnation and Redemption in both passages: "God," he declares, "was manifested 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 heretical 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 consequence, the circumstances under which those verses were delivered as fully confirm the reading of the one, as they invalidate that of the other. The apostle expressly undertakes to warn the Church against those heretics whose errors he is employed in refuting. "Therefore watch," he declares to the Ephesian pastors, "and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. To Timothy he declares, "If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ.”—"Take heed unto thyself," subjoins the apostle, "and to thy doctrine; continue in them'"," &c. But if we omit "God," with the Corrected Text, St. Paul is so far from delivering any warning on the subject of those heretics, even while he expressly alludes to the doctrines which they had corrupted, that he rather confirms their errors 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 occasions when he was less imperatively called upon to deliver his sentiments, asserts the Divinity of our Lord in terms the most strong and explicit. 

These conclusions are further supported by collateral evidence. St. Ignatius, an auditor of St. John, who impugned the errors of the Nicolaitans respecting the divinity of the Logos, adopts the identical expressions of St. Paul in an Epistle addressed to the same church at Ephesus, and insists on the divinity, incarnation, and passion of Christ, in language the most full and explicit. Had all antiquity been silent on the subject of these contested verses, which are supported by the most full and unexceptionable evidence, the single testimony of this apostolical father would determine the genuine reading beyond controversion. 

With respect to 1 John v. 7,8 it has been already observed, that it was directed against the peculiar errors of the Nicolaitans and Cerinthians. Of those sects it has been likewise observed, that they respectively denied that Jesus was "the Son of God," and "came in the flesh," though they mutually expressed their belief in a Trinity. Such are the fundamental errors which the apostle undertakes to refute, while at the same time he inculcates a just notion of the Trinity, distinguishing the Persons from the substance by opposing trei/j in the masculine to e]n in the neuter. 

Against those who denied that "Jesus was the Son of God," he appeals to the heavenly witnesses; and against those who denied that he "was come in the flesh," he appeals to the earthly. For the admission of the one, that the "three," including the Word, were "one" God, as clearly evinced the divinity of Christ, as identifying him with the Father; as "the spirit" which he yielded up, and "the blood and water" which he shed upon the cross, evinced his humanity as proving him mortal. And this appeal to the witnesses is as obvious, as the argument deduced from it is decisive; those who abjured the Divinity of our Lord, being as naturally confuted by the testimony of the heavenly witnesses, as those who denied his humanity by the testimony of the earthly. Viewed with reference to these considerations the apostle's argument is as full and obvious, as it is clear and decisive; while it is illustrated by the circumstances under which his epistle was written. But let us suppose the seventh verse suppressed, and he not only neglects the advantage which was to be derived from the concession of his opponents, while he sums up "the witness of men," but the very end of his epistle is frustrated, as the main proposition is thus left unestablished, that "Jesus is the Son of God." And though the notions of the heretics 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 errors. Not to insist on the circumstances of the controversy, the object of the apostle's writing, not less than the tenor 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 circumstances of the controversy in which the sacred writers were engaged, may extend in establishing the authenticity of the disputed verses. As interpolations, 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 in each of the passages, and attended by consequences so various and remote, that it should amend the solecism of the language, supply the defective 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 unsuit­able to the controversies agitated in the primitive Church? The early heretics did not subscribe to those parts of the canon in which they occur; and they did not meet the difficulties of those disputes which were maintained with the latter. In order to answer the purposes of those controversies, Christ, in two of the contested passages, should have been identified with "God," who "was mani­fested in the flesh," and "purchased the Church with his own blood." And instead of "the Father, Word, and Spirit," the remaining passage should have read, "the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." Otherwise, the interpolated passages would have been direct concessions to the Gnostics and Sabellians, who, in denying the personal difference of the Father and Son, were equally obnoxious to those avowed adversaries, the Catholics and the Arians. Nor did the orthodox require these verses for the support of their cause; they had other passages which would accomplish all that they could effect; and without their aid, they maintained and established their tenets. Admitting the possibility of an interpolation, in the three instances, we must be still at a loss to conceive with what object it could have been attempted. 

On taking the reverse of the question, and supposing the Byzantine text preserves the genuine reading, 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 favored the errors 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 context or meaning. Kuri,ou, as a word nearly synonymous with qeou/, was inserted in Act. xx the Sabellian tendency of the passage was thus obviated, and the harshness of the phrase, which ascribed blood to God, was removed. After the analogy of a similar passage in Col. i. 26, 27  to. musth,rion to. avpokekrumme,non avpo. tw/n aivw,nwn kai. avpo. tw/n genew/n\ nuni. de. evfanerw,qh toi/j a`gi,oij auvtou/(  oi-j hvqe,lhsen o` Qeo.j gnwri,sai ti, o` plou/toj th/j do,xhj tou/ musthri,ou tou,tou evn toi/j e;qnesin( o[j evsti Cristo.j evn u`mi/n( h` evlpi.j th/j do,xhj\, 1 Tim. iii. 16. was changed into mi,ga evji musth,rion( o]j evfanerw,qh: o]j being preserved in the masculine to denote a person, and in this form agreeing with cristoj, sylleptically implied in musth,rion. Out of this reading, musth,rion o] evfanerw,qh  naturally arose, merely by correcting the false concord. 1 Joh. v. 7. presented fewer difficulties to the corrector; the iteration in the sentence made it merely necessary that the obnoxious passage should be erased; and it was consequently expunged by Eusebius, as little conducive to the doctrine of the church, from being calculated to support the Sabellian errors. Regarded in this view, there is little more on the subject before us which needs a solution. The last evidence of authenticity, which is specified in the rule proposed by M. Griesbach for determining a genuine from a spurious reading is thus clearly made out in favor of the text of Byzantium, for thus all the varieties in the passages before us are easily accounted for on considering them corruptions of the genuine text, as preserved in that edition. 

Thus reasoning on the very grounds chosen by the adversaries of those texts, the question of their authenticity is easily decided; as far, at least, as respects the internal evidence. It is now merely necessary, that the testimony of competent witnesses should be adduced, to corroborate the internal evidence, with external. 

Of the manuscripts which have been cited on this subject, 1. the Vatican, and fifteen of the Greek Vulgate, read in Act. xx. 28 qeou/; in which reading they are supported by the manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, without a single exception. About fifty Greek manuscripts of the same edition also read qeou/, but in conjunction with kuri,ou. 

2. The Alexandrian, and all known manuscripts, except two of the Palestine, and one of the Egyptian edition, read in 1 Tim iii. 16 qeo.j; the Latin Vulgate reading "quod," in opposition to every known manuscript but the Clermont. 

3. The whole nearly of the manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate contain 1 Joh. v. 7; which is not found in any Greek MS. but the Montfort; a manuscript which has been obviously corrected by the Latin translation. 

Of the Christian fathers who have been quoted on this subject, the following have been cited in favor of the reading of the Received Text, or Greek Vulgate. 

1. On Act. xx. 28. St. Ignatius, in the apostolical age; and Tertullian, near the same period. At the distance of a century and upwards from those primitive times, St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Epiphanius, St. Ambrose, and St. Chrysostom, deliver the same testimony. In the following age occur Ibas and Coelestinus; and in the succeeding, Fulgentius, Ferrandus; and Primasius. In the next age we meet Antiochus, and Martin I, and in the subsequent, Bede, who is followed, after some distance of time, by Etherius, OEcumenius, and Theophylact.     

To these we may add some anonymous authorities, whose age is not easily determined. 

2. On 1 Tim. iii. 16 we may quote St. Ignatius; in the apostolical age; and Hippolytus, in the age which succeeded. The next age presents St. Athanasius, St. Gregory Nyssene, and St. Chrysostom; and the following age, St. Cyril, of Alexandria, Theodorit, and Euthalius. At a considerable distance of time, occur Damascene, and Epiphanius Diaconus; who are followed by Photius, OEcumenius, Theophylact, and others, at different intervals. 

3. On 1 Joh. v. 7. we may cite Tertullian in the age next the apostolical, and St. Cyprian in the subsequent era. In the following age, we may quote Phoebadius, Marcus Celedensis, and Idatius Clarus; and in the succeeding; age, Eucherius, Victor Vitensis, and Vigilius Tapsensis. Fulgentius and Cassiodorus occur in the next age, and Maximus in the subsequent; to whom we might add many others, or indeed the whole of the Western Church, who after this period generally adopted this verse in their authorized version. 

With respect to 1 Tim. iii 16 and 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, without a formal deduction.

With respect to I John v. 7. the case is materially 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 evidence. And though it may seem unwarrantable to set aside the authority of the Greek Church, and pay exclusive respect to the Latin, where a question arises on the authenticity of a passage which properly belongs to the text of the former; yet when the doctrine inculcated in that passage is taken into account, there may be good reason for giving even a preference to the Western Church over that of the Eastern. The former was uncorrupted by the heresy of the Arians, who rejected the doctrine of the passage in question; the latter was wholly resigned to that heresy for at least forty years, while the Western Church retained its purity. And while the testimony borne by the latter on the subject 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 possesses the singular merit of removing the aforementioned imperfection on being merely turned into Greek and inserted in the context of the original. Under these circumstances there seems to be little reasonableness in allowing the Western Church any authority, and denying it, in this instance, 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. 

1. In those great convulsions which agitated the Eastern and Western Churches for eight years, with scarcely any intermission, and which subjected the sacred text to the greatest changes through that vast tract of country which extends round the Levant, from Libya to Illyricum, the African provinces were exposed to the horrors of persecution but for an inconsiderable period. 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 ancient fathers. 

2. As the African Church possessed this competency 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 in council. After the African provinces had been overrun by the Vandals, Hunneric, their king, summoned the bishops of this church and of the adjacent isles to deliberate on the doctrine inculcated in the disputed passage. Between three and four hundred prelates attended the Council which met at Carthage; and Eugenius, as bishop of that see, drew up the Confession of the orthodox, in which the contested verse is expressly quoted. That a whole church should thus concur in quoting a verse which was not contained in the received text is wholly inconceivable; and admitting that 1 John v 7 was thus generally received, its universal prevalence in that text is only to be accounted for by supposing it to have existed in it from the beginning. 

3. The testimony which the African church has borne on the subject before us is not more strongly recommended by the universal consent, than the immemorial tradition of the evidence which attests the authenticity of the contested passage. Victor Vitensis and Fulgentius, Marcus Celedensis, St. Cyprian, and Tertullian, were Africans, and have referred to the verse before us. Of these witnesses, which follow each other at almost equal intervals, the first is referred to the age of Eugenius, the last to that nearly of the Apostles. They thus form a traditionary chain, carrying up the testimony of the African Church until it loses itself in time immemorial. 

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. Phoebadius and Eucherius, the latter of whom had been translated from the Spanish to the Gallican Church, were members of the latter; and both these churches had been exempt, not less than the African, from the effects of Dioclesian's persecution. Both those early fathers, Phoebadius and Eucherius, 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 Hosius whose influence tended to extend the Arian opinions in the Western world, at the very period in which he cited the contested passage. In addition to these witnesses we have, in the testimony of Maximus, the evidence of a person who visited the African Church, and who there becoming acquainted with the disputed passage wrote a tract for the purpose of employing it against the Arians. 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. Not to insist at present on positive testimonies, 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 imperfect in itself, directly recovers its original integrity on being filled up with the passage which is offered on the testimony of this witness. Thus far the testimony of the Greek Church is plainly corroborative of that of the Western. 

6. In fine, as Origen and Eusebius have both thought that one church becomes a sufficient voucher for one even of the sacred books of the Canon; and as Eusebius has borne the most unqualified evidence to the integrity and purity of the Church of Africa, we can have no just grounds for rejecting its testimony on a single verse of Scripture. And when we consider the weight of the argument arising in favor 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 passage is authentic. But when we add the very obvious solution which this lack of subsequent evidence receives, from the probability that Eusebius suppressed 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 lacking to convince any ingenuous mind that 1 John v. 7. really proceeded from St. John the Evangelist. 

I shall now venture to conclude, that the doctrinal integrity of the Greek Vulgate is established, in the vindication of these passages. It has been my endeavor to rest it upon its natural basis; the testimony of the two Churches, in the eastern and western 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 contradictory, but defective, and this merely on one side. To direct us, however, in judging between the witnesses the internal evidence at once reveals that an error 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 accidental, there seems to be no possible mode of accounting for it, but by supposing, that there was a period when the witnesses agreed in that testimony which is more full and explicit. However inadequate therefore either of the witnesses may be considered, when regarded separately, yet when their testimony is regarded comparatively it is competent to put us in possession of the truth in all instances, which are of any importance. 

It is scarcely necessary any further to prolong this discussion by specifying the relative imperfection of those systems, to which the present scheme is opposed. Those of Dr. Bentley and M. Griesbach are fundamentally defective in sacrificing the testimony of the Eastern Church for the immense period, during which the Greek Vulgate has prevailed; that of M. Matthaei is scarcely less exceptionable, in rejecting the testimony of the Western 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 integrity of the inspired Word is properly sustained, must necessarily build on a foundation of sand. Whether we build on the authority of Origen, or of the Ancient Manuscripts, or that of the Versions of the Oriental or of the Western Church, all our documents 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 preference 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 infinitely greater chances of corruption from external sources. Particular Manuscripts, not to speak of the sacred writings, yet of the ancient Fathers are liable to gross and willful corruption at the first; and Versions may be made, for aught we can determine, from corrupt copies, or by unskillful hands. In these possible cases, we are possessed of no certain 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 impossible, and consequently not likely to be attempted. It seems therefore to savor 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. 
Chapter V 

THE integrity of the sacred canon being once placed beyond the reach of the objector's exceptions; 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 successors a written Instrument, was to furnish them with an unerring rule of faith and manners. But it is not necessary to the perfection of this Instrument, that it should be guarded by a perpetual miracle from the chances of literal errors. The real practical advantages of any rule of faith or morals must result from a religious adherence to the precepts which it incul­cates. But it will not be disputed, that those precepts might have been conveyed in an endless variety of manners by the inspired writers; and that the language in which they chose to deliver the precepts may be endlessly varied, while the doctrine is preserved unchanged in its intention and substance. Were an exact literal acquaintance with the phraseology of the sacred text indispensably necessary to an attainment of the important truths which it reveals, it is obvious the inspired writings could 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 retain an accurate remembrance of the language in which they are expressed, and no memory was ever adequate to the task of retaining the whole work without many omissions and misrepresentations. 

The general and doctrinal integrity of the sacred canon being preserved from corruption, there exists no obvious or necessary cause that the text should be preserved immaculate. How fully impressed with this conviction the inspired writers were, must be directly apparent from the use which they have made of the Septuagint, which was ever considered a free translation. Those who were best qualified to inform us on this subject have expressly declared that the apostles have quoted from that version. Yet while they are no where observed to follow it where it misrepresents the sense, they are frequently observed to quote it where it merely deserts the letter. While the circumstance of their wri­ting in Greek clearly demonstrates the prevalence of that language among their early converts, it is observable, they made no provision that the primi­tive 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 errors of that translation a matter of minor importance. 

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 practice that they considered the advantages resulting from a purer text would not be compensated by the inconveniences which would arise from disturbing a settled state of affairs. The authority of the Greek version was already acknowledged by multitudes 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 politic, 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 Corrected Text or improved Version of the New Testament in defending the Received Text or Vulgar edition. Admitting that we were agreed on the discovery of such a text, which, for my own part, I reject as an idle chimera, the general reception of the Vulgar Text and Authorized 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 favor of these prejudices we may plead a very ancient prescription. On the first endeavor to impose a new version on the Latin Church similar apprehensions were felt, and like discontent was manifested by its members. 

Though on these grounds the Greek Vulgate would admit of a fair defence, I am prepared to dispute its claims to a preference over every text and edition on different principles. It challenges the testimony of tradition in its favor for full eleven hundred years, even by the concession of its opponents; and unless I am altogether wrong in my calculations, that period may be demonstrably extended to full fourteen hundred. The inferences flowing from these circumstances have been already made; and if any force be allowed to what I have advanced, it must be allowed at the least, that this text is of the best edition, and that it is free from any considerable corruption in the general tenor of the text, and in the parts affecting any point of doctrine. 

  With respect to the verbal integrity of the text, I am far from asserting that I conceive the Greek Vulgate immaculate. On the contrary, I believe it may be inferred, in the strictest consistency with what has been hitherto advanced, that the Byzantine test may possess verbal errors, while the Egyptian and Palestine editions preserve the genuine 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 error; and that the error which thus arose might have been propagated through all the copies which have descended from the same edition. I here only enter my protest against the inference that these errors could have extended to important points, or that the edition in which they abounded could have prevailed for more than a limited period, and during the operation of some powerful cause against the received text, which generally prevailed in the Christian world, as published by the apostles. 

On this possibility we may fairly ground an in­quiry 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 favorable. result to the reputation of the Greek Vulgate. In the course of this inquiry, I am wholly deceived, or it may be shown, 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 esta­blish the relative purity of that text, and evince the imperfections of other editions; but trace the corruptions 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 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 denominates Codd. L, 17. The principles of his criticism are reducible to two canons, which are laid down in his description of the latter manuscript. In judging between different readings he decides that attention must be paid, l. to the internal marks of authenticity; 2. to the consent of the oldest and best witnesses consisting of manuscripts, versions, and fathers, especially if they are of different kinds of text, or follow different recessions. 

With respect to the internal evidence, he makes it depend upon various circumstances, to determine which he lays down a variety of rules applicable to most possible cases. In estimating the external evidence he considers the Alexandrian and Western editions ancient and separate witnesses. Of the fathers and versions which he principally quotes, he joins in alliance with the Alexandrian text Origen and the Coptic version, or by their joint or separate authority determines those readings which he deems Alexandrian. To these witnesses he unites other vouchers, whenever he finds them coincident, combining the testimony of Clement, Eusebius, Athanasius, Basil, and Cyril, with that of Origen, and strengthening the evidence of the Coptic by that of the Vulgate and Syriac version. With the Western text he, of course, endeavors to unite the testimony of the Western fathers, combining as far as is possible the evidence of Tertullian and Cyprian with that of the Latin translation. To those readings, which are supported by the greatest weight of evidence, he necessarily gives the preference. But he attaches very different degrees of importance to his different witnesses, according to the following scale of gradations. l. The testimony of both recensions must be received in sub­jection to the internal marks of perfection or error. 2. A reading which, when internally regarded, is apparently good, is admissible on the single testi­mony of either the Western or Alexandrian recension, in opposition to that of the Byzantine. 3. The authority of the Alexandrian 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 Alexandrian and Western texts in order to outweigh the authority of the text of Byzantium, is rested on the supposition that both the former are ancient and separate witnesses. But this is a supposition which is certainly founded in error 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 Alexandrian or Palestine text and revised the West­ern version. And the intercourse which St. Eusebius and St. Jerome maintained with the East renders it wholly inadmissible that their versions should be considered separate witnesses from the Alexandrian or Palestine. Their known predilection for Origen leaves their testimony, when quoted as separate authority for the same text, entitled to something less than respect. Not to insist on later intermixtures of the Eastern and Western texts, which are antecedent to the existence of almost every manuscript with which we are acquainted; we need not pass those concessions, which the force of truth has extorted from our opponents, for a proof that these texts are inextricably confused, and blended together. 

Admitting any force to exist in the foregoing remarks, it is still a point in dispute that the Palestine or Western text is antecedent to the text of Byzantium. If all that has been hitherto advanced be not fundamentally erroneous, neither of those texts can be antedated to the fourth century, at which period the last-mentioned text demonstrably existed. A priority may be indeed claimed for the Alexandrian or Palestine text on account of its alliance to Origen's writings. But not to insist on the possibility of this text having been interpolated from his writings, the inconstant readings of that early father renders this plea at best inconclusive, as it evinces the antiquity of the Byzantine text by the same proof that it establishes that of the Alexandrian. 

Such appear to be the fundamental errors in Griesbach's system, which have spread unsoundness 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 Alexandrian and Western recension, is borne out by the coincidence of those manuscripts which he considers ancient, with the quotations of Origen. But we have only to take his own account of the state in which he finds the best part of his materials, in order to dis­cover the extreme insecurity of the fabric which he has buttressed with props so unsound, and raised on so hollow a foundation. 

With respect to the testimony of Origen, which is the basis of his system, he admits sufficient for us to see that when strict verbal accuracy is sought it is not entitled to the smallest attention. According to M. Griesbach's voluntary concessions, his works must have gone through a course of progressive deterioration, which must leave us at a distance infi­nitely more remote from a knowledge of the pristine state of his text, than of that of the inspired writings. It appears, in the first place, that no reliance can be placed on the printed editions of his works as retaining his text, and as little on the fidelity of his different transcribers. Admitting his testimony subject to these errors, it is further conceded, that no dependence can be safely rested on his accuracy of quotation, as he constantly deserts his written authorities. And supposing that we have miraculously escaped an error in pursuing a reading through these chances, it is further granted that there is no security in depending on the very copies which he used, as they too were sufficiently often corrupted. 

With regard to the character of those Manuscripts, on which our critic chiefly depends, it finally proves to be the case that they do not justify his speaking of them in terms more respectful. It does not appear that in the course of his inquiries he discovered one which preserved either of his favorite recensions, unless in a state of corruption. In numberless instances he demonstrates their defects and traces the error to its origin. Nay, in one sweeping clause, he demolishes their authority by openly proclaiming, even of those which he holds in the highest repute, that they are fouled in every page with corruptions from marginal scholia and from the interpretations of the ancient 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 particular Manuscripts. The Coptic and Sahidic, the later Syriac and Italic, cannot be accounted ancient or separate witnesses. As these versions are divided by the Eusebian sections, they possess internal evidence of having in some measure descended from the Palestine edition. An agreement between such witnesses may thus furnish evidence in favor of the reading of Eusebius's text, but none whatever of the text of the Apostles and Evangelists. With respect to the Persian and Arabic, they follow the fate of the same edition. Of these versions, however, as well as of the Gothic, Saxon, and Slavonic, the testimony of which is unaccountably drawn into the decision of the present question, it must be observed that if they are admitted as ancient witnesses, they cannot be received 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 definitive, 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 ancient or separate witnesses; their concurrence proves no more than is proved by the coincidence of the Coptic and Philoxonian version, that this conformity is derived from the text of Eusebius. The concurrence of Clement and Origen in the East, with Tertullian and Cyprian in the West, may be conceived entitled to greater attention. But, in the first place, the very existence of such a coincidence of testimony must be disputed. And granting that it exists in some cases, it is still a point to be proved that it at all identifies the Scripture text used by those ancient fathers. 

The works of those early writers lie under the positive imputation of being corrupted. The copies of Clement and Origen were corrupted in their life time; the manuscripts from which Tertullian's works have been printed are notoriously faulty; and the copies of Cyprian demonstrate their own corruption, by their disagreement among themselves, and their agreement with different texts and revisals of Scripture. It is likewise indisputable, that these fathers not only followed each other, adopting the arguments and quotations of one another; but that they quoted from the heterodox as well as the orthodox. They were thus also likely to transmit from one to another erroneous quotations, originally adopted from sources not more pure than heretical revisals of Scripture. When a few of these readings were recommended by the successive adoption of different fathers, they were easily transferred from their comments to the margins of particular manuscripts, and were thence transplanted into the text from the margin. New revisals of Scripture were thus formed, which were interpolated with the peculiar readings of scholiasts and fathers. Nor did this systematic corruption terminate here; but when new texts were thus formed, they became the standard by which the later copies of the early writers were in succession corrected. From such progression in error, it is 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 present copies of the works of the early writers.

In fine, when this system is pushed to its necessary 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 accounted ancient. Such is the virtual concession which M. Griesbach is reduced to the necessity of making in explaining his system. He very freely admits that neither of those texts on which his system is built, is consistent in itself; as we might well conjecture, from the heterogeneous materials which enter into their composition. Nay more, he is forward to confess, that the manuscripts from which those ancient texts were originally formed were grievously corrupted. Reasoning from his own concessions, of course this corruption of the sacred text must have preceded the times of Clement and Tertullian, which are his earliest vouchers, and must be necessarily referred to the age which directly succeeded to the apostolical! After the concession of this point, it is difficult to discover what further objections remain to be made to this system. To me it appears, that the person would subvert M. Griesbach's theory to the foundation, who would prove, that this conclusion necessarily followed from the principles on which it was founded. That the sacred text should have been thus grossly corrupted at this primitive period, and yet have so far preserved its characteristic peculiarities to the present day, that we should be able to recover any just notion of it, is a paradox so monstrous, that the man who maintains it, may, I conceive, 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 exertion of sagacity to discover that the theory of sacred criticism must be absolutely inverted in that 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 impossible to proceed a step in inquiries like the present, without reasoning from some assumed probabilities, 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 period thus early; the text, of course, which merits no better character, must be referred to that early period, 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 ancient manuscripts, fathers, or versions, in violation of this fundamental principle. Until we have established the integrity of those vouchers, the principle on which we build must lack stability. To take the consent of those witnesses as an evidence of their integrity, is to reason against the undisputed fact of their having been corrupted by one another. And to refer them, in consequence of this coincidence, 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 under­gone revisals, in which it was not merely liable to interpolation, but positively acquired those peculiarities which are now taken as evidence of its antiquity. We may be indeed told, that a critic who is moderately skilled in his art, well knows how to clear those obstacles. But while ten lines of proof would be worth volumes of such modest assertions, it seems to be rather inauspicious to the success of such undertakings, that they should com­mence, and proceed, and terminate, without any attention to the changes which the text has positively undergone, since the time of its first publication. 

II. Such appear to be the most striking objections which lie against the plan proposed by M. Griesbach for restoring the corrupted integrity of the canonical Scripture. As his fundamental rule, with which I am not in the least disposed to quarrel, is thus unapplied and inapplicable to his theory; it now remains that we should enquire how far it may be accommodated to the principles of that, on which I have ventured to believe the integrity of the same text may be defended. To such a mode of defence we may give the preference, not only because it is least exposed to the exceptions of the objector, 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 ancient, and which deliver a separate testimony, the main point of enquiry consequently is, where such witnesses may be discovered. After this difficulty is surmounted, 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 ancient 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 Syriac Church in the East, and the Latin in the West, as being witnesses possessing, above all others, the necessary requisites of being ancient and separate. Situated at nearly equal distances on each side of the Greek Church, which must be considered the natural witness 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 ancient than any with which we are acquainted. 

The antiquity of these vouchers is, however, determinable for a definitive and an immense period. The old Syriac version cannot be brought down lower than the fourth century, the Old Italic not lower than the third, as both translations are quoted by the writers who lived at these different periods. Though both versions underwent considerable alterations at this period, two revisals of the Latin version having been published by St. Eusebius and St. Jerome, and probably of the Syriac version also, by some unknown persons, it is probable, that both retained most of the characteristic 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 Vulgate, when it is rendered apparent that they were neither corrected by it at that time, nor at any subsequent period. For assuming this to be the case, there can be no mode of accounting for their agreement among themselves, but by supposing them to preserve their conformity to the common source from whence they have respectively descended. 

The antiquity of these versions being not less remote than the fourth century, it follows of course, that they must be separate witnesses, as far, at least as they are coincident with the Greek Vulgate. For let us assume that they have been corrected by each other, and either the original or one of the translations must be considered the common source of their agreement. 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 consideration. 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 influence on each other. The antiquity, however, of both versions, renders it wholly impossible that they could have been new-modeled by this text. 

According to the principles of our opponents, the vulgar text, or Byzantine edition, had scarcely an existence in the fourth century, when those versions 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. Christianity then assumed a new form under the Emperor Constantine, in becoming the established religion. Under the auspices of this monarch a new revisal of the sacred writings was published by Eusebius, to the influence of which we must impute almost every considerable change which the text underwent in the original or in translations. The extension of Christianity about this period, added to the list of Versions a Gothic and Ethiopic, if not an Armenian and Arabic, translation. Re­visals of the Old Italic and Syriac, undertaken in the same century, produced the Latin Vulgate and Jerusalem Syriac. The agreement of these versions with each other, and with the Greek manuscripts imported into the West from Palestine, and divided by the sections of Eusebius, enables us very clearly to determine his edition, which was authorized from the reign of Constantine to that of Theodosius. As the Syriac and Italic provinces were exposed to the same casualties which destroyed the sacred books as far westward as Britain, the versions which were generally received in those regions most probably underwent some change at this period. But this change proceeded not from the Byzantine, but the Palestine text. And we consequently find that the revisal of Eusebius has had some influence on the Old Italic and Syriac, as both versions agree with the Palestine text in omitting some remarkable pas­sages. 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 ancient witnesses. 

As the influence of Eusebius's text, and the authority of those Emperors who favored the Arian heresy, render it next to impossible that the Byzantine text should have had any effect on the Old Italic and Syriac versions, at this early period the history of those versions, and the state of the Latin and Syrian Churches render it wholly impossible that the vulgar Greek should have attained, at a subsequent period, such influence over the Oriental and Western versions that it should betaken as the standard by which they were corrected. 

The case of the Western version may be summarily decided. At the close of the fourth century it was revised by St. Jerome, and the extraordinary reputation of that learned father renders the supposition not merely improbable, that any person would undertake to do over again what he had so ably accomplished, but absurd in the extreme, that such a person would complete the task without 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 errors of the primitive Latin version which were corrected in the modern Vulgate. These characteristic marks, and some others which have been already pointed out, very decisively evince that the text of this manuscript cannot be brought lower than the close of the fourth century. 

The case of the Syriac version is not involved in greater difficulty. As the Peshito, or Syriac Vulgate, is the received text of the two great sects into which this Church is divided, it is impossible that any general corruption of this text could have taken place since the year 451 and the meeting of the Council of Chalcedon. After the period, those religious differences, which had commenced under Ibas, Theodorus Mopsuestenus, and Theodorit, and which were widened under Barsumas, Philoxenus, and Severus, rapidly spread through the East, from Edessa and Antioch, to Arabia, Mesopotamia, and Armenia. It is therefore wholly inconceivable that both sects should agree in correcting the received text, or that one of them, having introduced any change into that text, could prevail on the other to accept it as the authorized 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 Syriac translation. The internal evidence of the later Syriac version, which was made under the auspices of Philoxenus, by whose exertions Eutychianism was established in Syria, clearly proves that the influence of the Palestine text had continued during the whole of this period, as that version corresponds with the Palestine text, where the vulgar Syriac 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 authorized version. Previously to that period the preponderancy of the Arian faction in this country rendered it wholly impossible, 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 Emperor Charlemagne undertook the correction of the Latin translation by the Syriac and Greek, from whence it may be conceived those versions have acquired a resemblance which cannot be deduced from their common 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 Vulgate of St. Jerome became the authorized text from the middle of the sixth, in order to discover that this consideration does not affect the main point in dispute, which is confined to the primitive Latin version. It may indeed account for some resemblances which the old Syriac bears to the modern Vulgate, and to those manuscripts on which the latter version has had some influence, but it has little relevancy to the pure copies of the Old Italic, 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 account for the affinity of the Latin and Syriac versions, it is wholly inadequate to account for that of the Syriac translation and the original Greek, which are the witnesses whose integrity I am particularly 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 Syriac and Latin versions are ancient and separate witnesses when adduced in favor of the Byzantine Greek, as that the later Western and Oriental versions, which are cited in support of the Alexandrian text, derive their common affinity 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 Latin and Syriac 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 connection by which every part of the system, which rises upon this foundation, is held together, is the connected testimony of tradition. Whether we consider the original Greek, or the two versions which are the witnesses of its integrity, the evidence of these vouchers is held together by this connecting principle, for the immense period of fourteen centuries. From the very concessions of our adversaries, it appears that the vulgar text of the Greek, the Latin, and the Syriac Church, has existed for the whole of that time. As the tradition extended far above this period, it is implied in the very nature of this species of evidence, that it could not have sustained any considerable 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 inconceivable that any age would accept a text, transmitted by their immediate predecessors, having weaker evidence of its integrity than their predecessors 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 reasoning, 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 tradition was interrupted in the region occupied by the Greek, Latin, and Syriac 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 reunited, and the vulgar Greek restored at Byzantium. The Latin and Syriac texts, as existing merely in a translation, and consequently as separated from the parent source, had greater obstacles to surmount in regaining their original tenor. The immediate authority of St. Jerome and Eusebius in the different regions where the Latin and Syriac were received must have also given these versions a stronger bias towards the Palestine text than to the Byzantine. Yet against the operation of these causes the influence of tradition insensibly prevailed; and notwithstanding the near alliance between these versions and the former text, they possess a close affinity to the latter. Now, as we have just seen, that this relationship cannot be in the collateral degree, but in the hereditary line, since those versions have not been corrected by the vulgar text, the affinity sufficiently proclaims how far they are supported by the authority of tradition, as it is only through it, that they can possess an alliance to the Greek Vulgate. 

The foundation of the system which it is my object 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 dependence is rested, it is not disputed that they are faithful to the tenor 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 proportionally multiplied with the progression of time, at the end of this immense period, this agreement is preserved. Among the many concessions which are made us, this is not the least important to the establishment of the conclusion for which I contend. It is indeed true, that the Egyptian and Palestine texts are almost wholly preserved, in manuscripts which are of greater antiquity than any which preserve the Byzantine; the Alexandrian, Vatican and Cambridge manuscripts coming to the former editions instead of the latter. But while it can be never inferred from the antiquity of these manuscripts that the Egyptian or Palestine text is prior to the Byzantine, it may be concluded from their preservation for so long a time, that the manuscripts have not been in use, and that the text which they contain 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 relics in the monasteries in which they have been preserved. Yet, waving these considerations, the testimony of two of these manuscripts, and those which are apparently the most ancient, may be fairly cited in favor of the vulgar text. With this text the Vatican manuscript is found to coincide in the opening chapters of St. Matthew, and the Alexandrian in the whole of the Gospels, whatever be the antiquity of these manuscripts, it is consequently subsequent to that of the Byzantine text. Such being the case with the oldest manuscripts with which we are acquainted, the Greek Vulgate has nothing to apprehend from the testimony of the Codex Cantabrigiensis. As this manuscript is divided by the sections of Euthalius it cannot be older than the middle of the fifth century, but that the Byzantine text existed previously to this period is fully allowed us; by this concession, of course, the testimony of the Cambridge manuscript is left little weight, when cited against the Greek Vulgate. 

With regard to the testimony of Versions, our choice is principally limited to the Latin and Syriac translations. It is however sufficient that in their evidence we possess the testimony of ancient and competent witnesses, and that their testimony is admitted, even by the concession of our adversaries, to be virtually on our side. And however the intrinsic weight of this evidence may be disputed, its momentum is increased by the comparative lightness of the testimony by which it is counterpoised. The Coptic, and later Syriac, the Ethiopic, Armenian, and Gothic versions, which are the natural allies of the Palestine text, cannot stand in com­petition with the old Italic, the ancient Syriac and the Vulgate, which are the unbiased 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 explained. Their immediate connection with that edition, if not their direct descent from it, renders the joint testimony of such witnesses entitled to very little attention, when weighed against the con­curring evidence of witnesses like the Greek, Syriac, and Latin texts, which have not been yet even presumptively proved to have had the smallest influence 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 Scripture; but sufficient has been already advanced to prove that implicit reliance cannot be always placed on their authority. It may be however observed in support of the vulgar text, that in all points of importance, their testimony may be cited in its favor. We may, however, appeal to still earlier witnesses among the apostolical fathers on the integrity of the Greek Vulgate. Though those primitive writers are not copious in their Scripture quotations, they are often found to correspond with the Vulgar Greek in readings wherein that text differs from the Palestine. With regard to those writers who flourished in the age which succeeded the Council of Nice, our adversaries are free to claim Eusebius, Basil, Cyril, and others, who followed the latter edi­tion as the authorized text, while they give us up their contemporaries, who favored the text of Byzantium. 

From the premises thus laid down, we may proceed to make the necessary inferences. Instead of the rules for determining the verbal integrity of the sacred text deduced by M. Griesbach from the testimony of the Alexandrian and Western recensions, I would beg leave to propose the following, founded on the testimony of the Greek Vulgate and the Old ltalic and Syriac Versions, viewed comparatively with that of the Egyptian and Palestine texts, and the later Eastern and Western Versions. 

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 ancient and separate witnesses. 

2. When the Egyptian and Palestine texts agree, and yet dissent from the text of Byzantium, the consent of the Old Italic or Syriac Version with the Byzantine Greek outweighs the testimony of the antecedent witnesses. 

3. When the Old Italic and Syriac 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 rending of the Greek Vulgate. 

The reasonableness of these rules may he easily evinced from the foregoing observations. It must be here evident at a glance, that there is scarcely any witness from which the Palestine text can receive support, scarcely any but the Palestine from which the Byzantine text must not derive confirmation. From the fundamental principles already laid down it appears, that in order to entitle any witness to a voice, it must deliver a separate testimony. 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 acquainted can be said to be free from its influence. No other text of course, not excepting the Byzantine, can appeal to its testimony or afford it support, as a separate witness. But as every text and version, which we know, was originally formed independent 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 favor of a various reading from an application of the foregoing rules. 

1. When the Egyptian text agrees with the By­zantine, 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 lack every requisite which can give it authority as an adequate witness. Of itself it is destitute of the support of tradition, and it lacks by supposition the support of an ancient 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 in 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 imme­diate 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 authority. The testimony of either the old Italic, or Syriac version, if adduced on the side of the Byzantine text, must of course turn the scale in its favor. And the reading which is supported by this weight of evidence, possesses every thing requisite to prove it genuine. It possesses the authority of tradition in the Byzantine text, and that of consent in those ancient and separate witnesses, the Italic and Syriac Versions. 

3. When the old Italic and Syriac versions agree with the Palestine and Egyptian texts, the concurrence of these witnesses may be merely owing to the influence of Eusebius's edition; their joint evidence can then of course reckon but as the testimony of a single witness. The testimony of the later Versions, for instance, the Italic or Syriac, when cited on the side of the Byzantine text, will of course turn the scale in favor 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 modeled 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 recast into new translations. As the later versions have been formed on the basis of some primitive 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 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 ancient testimony. Consequently the reading which is supported by this weight of evidence, possesses every thing requisite to prove it authentic. 

4. With respect to the Manuscripts which may be cited in favor 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 num­ber and coincidence as witnesses, and the antiquity of the text which they support by their concurring evidence. From the conspiring testimony of manuscripts, versions, and fathers, it appears that this text must have existed at least at the close of the fourth century. But no manuscript with which we are acquainted possesses internal evidence which will warrant our placing it higher than this early period. The testimony of none of course can be cited, as disproving the priority of the text which exists in the most modern of those manuscripts that conform to the vulgar edition. To establish the integrity of this text is the main object of our endeavors, and if it be not evinced by the concurrence of those innumerable witnesses who agree in a testimony, which has been perpetuated for fourteen hundred years, the labor must be unavailing which endeavors to prove it by the coincidence of a few manuscripts, of which we cannot certainly know the origin. 

Beyond these considerations, and above this pe­riod, we cannot extend our positive proofs in favor of the integrity of the Byzantine text; but I am not aware how they can be extended above it, in favor of the Palestine edition. After examining the testimony of versions and manuscripts as far as it extends, our only appeal lies to the external evidence of the fathers. And here, it must be confessed, appearances seem to set strongly in favor of the text of Palestine. The early writers who have been cited in support of this text, as having followed it in their quotations, may be thought to outweigh the strongest presumptive evidence which may be adduced in favor of the Byzantine. But the testimony of none of them but Origen reaches higher than the fourth century. After a little further insight 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 Pales­tine text has been to rest the credit of this text on the authority of Origen, my object has been to shift it upon that of Eusebius. Sufficient, I trust, has been already advanced to prove that the testimony of Origen rather identifies it as the text of Palestine than of Alexandria, and consequently proves it the text of Eusebius, who revised the Palestine edition. It is certain that the works of Origen in which it is conceived to be preserved, were written in Palestine, and that in the precipitancy with which Origen fled from the enmity of Demetrius, when he sought refuge in that country, he was compelled to leave his books at Alexandria. Of the remains of his writings, which have descended to our times, only some fragments of the “Principia,” and two short books of his "Commentaries," were written in this city.. The last books of his expositions of St. John, and the whole of those of St. Matthew together with his treatise on Prayer, and his reply to Celsus, were written on his settlement in Pa­lestine. These last works, however, contain the only parts of his writings which possess any Scripture references from which we can discover the text that he followed in his quotations; the Philocalia, which preserves the remains of his "Principles," being miscellaneous in its subject, possesses no references to the New Testament, but those which have been already specified. 

The whole of the presumptive evidence which arises from these preliminaries, consequently tends to prove that the text which Origen followed in his Commentaries was the Palestine, not the Alexandrian. The remark is of importance, as in forming a running exposition, he must have followed the text which was before him, and he has indeed prefixed it in several instances to the comment. It is of importance also to observe that in composing his Commentaries he preserved a peculiar plan in his quotations, which he neglected in delivering his Homilies, having followed the corrected text of his Hexapla in the former, and that of the Greek Vulgate in the latter compositions. These circumstances, being kept fully in view, a few considerations will enable us to appreciate the weight of the testimony which he has borne to the verbal integrity 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 heretical revisals of Scripture. They were undertaken at the request of Ambrose, who had been a convert from heresy, and who gave them to the world without the consent of their author, who lived to repent of the errors, which they contained. That compositions of this equivocal cha­racter, and which have been notoriously corrupted 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 he deviates from the Palestine; nor can it be certainly concluded from his express references, that the text which he used did not conform to the former edition. When due allowance is also made for the influence which his peculiar readings have had on the Palestine text, as revised by Eusebius; it seems to take from his testimony its entire weight, in deciding the question at issue. 

When the testimony of Origen is set out of the way, no further obstacle opposes the application of the foregoing rules to the vindication of the vulgar edition. As the general integrity of this text is attested by vouchers which render it absolutely un­questionable, our attention is only called towards those passages which have been impeached on evidence apparently credible. This evidence has been collected and embodied by M. Griesbach, and on the strength of it he has rejected several passages from the sacred canon, as spurious. Of these passages, 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. I shall lay these, in the first place, without exception, 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 succeeded the apostolical, must have written before the sacred text could have been corrupted. In determining the present question, the testimony of the Syriac Church cannot be admitted as authority. Having been infected at an early period in the third century with the heresy of Paul of Samosata, it wholly lapsed into Arianism in the fourth; and was finally rent in the fifth into the different sects of Nestorians and Eutychians. High therefore as its testimony must rank, where merely the verbal integrity of the sacred text is concerned, it can have little weight on the doctrinal. The Arabic numerals, annexed in the subjoined examples to the testimony of the Latin church, indicate the different editions of the Italic version which support the prefixed reading: the primitive or Brescia text, the revised or Verceli, and the new or Vulgate of Jerome, being numbered in their order. An asterisk is added to the readings adopted by M. Griesbach in his Corrected Edition.   

[There follows quotes of the following Scripture texts: Matthew 19:17; Mark 13:32; Luke 2:33; Luke 11:13; Luke 22:43,44; John 3:4; Acts 8:37; Acts 15:28; Col. 1:14; Col. 2:2; and 1 John 4:3.  These texts are quoted in Greek and in Latin. The Greek quotes are from the Byzantine text and the Palestine text. The Latin the quotes are from the Italic or Latin Bibles, that is they are from the Old Italic, the Verceli revision, and Jerome’s revision, the Latin Vulgate, as noted above. These quotes are also followed by supporting Greek and Latin quotes from the early church fathers. The quotes from the Latin Bibles and from the church fathers are all quoted in support of the distinctive readings of the Byzantine text.]   

In the concurring testimony of the Eastern and Western Churches thus adduced in favor 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, sup­ported by those early vouchers, existed in the sacred text from time immemorial. This evidence is, however, rendered positive by the express testimony 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 impeached by M. Griesbach; one only is destitute of the authority of some one of those primitive witnesses. And this example is so firmly sustained by the external testimony of the vulgar texts of the Greek, Latin, and Syriac churches, and by the internal evidence of the sacred context, that not a doubt can be entertained of its being authentic. As to the remaining texts, the testimony of St. Polycarp, Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, and Tertullian, speak so plain a language with respect to them, as not to leave room for a cavil on their authenticity. Two testimonies from St. Irenaeus have been indeed adduced from a Latin translation, but the least attention to the scope and context of this primitive writer must convince the most skeptical inquirer, that the reading of the vulgar text must have been before him while he was writing. A little closer attention to the testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus, will, I trust, also evince, that a similar conclusion must be formed respecting his allegation, and that we must infer from his mode of quotation that he read in his copies, as we read at this day, in the Greek and Latin Vulgate. I do not long delay to anticipate any objections which may be made to those testimonies on the suspicion of their being interpolated from the vulgar edition. As the passages involve peculiarities, not merely verbal, they could not have been altered with ease, and as they do not relate to any contested point of doctrine, and have never been quoted to decide any, there could be no object in such a sophistication. They are indeed so completely interwoven with the subjects of the different writers, in whose works they are found, that they cannot be removed without making such a rent in the context as would directly evince their removal. Infinitely greater, and indeed insuperable, must have been the obstacles with which any sophisticator would have to contend in inserting 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 dependence 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 primitive Italic and Syriac translations have been already pointed out as the best and earliest witnesses; to their decision let us now submit the determination of the question. The following collection 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.   

[There follows quotes of the following Scripture texts: Matthew 6:19; 15:8; 18:29; 18:35; 19:17; 20:22-23; 27:35; Mark 4:24; 6:11; 6:33; 13:14; Luke 4:18; 9:55; 10:22; 11:2; 11:4; 11:44; 17:36; John 1:27; 5:16; 6:22 and 8:59. These quotes are in Greek, Latin, and Arabic. The Greek quotes are from the Byzantine text. The Latin quotes are from the various Italic or Latin Bibles as previously noted, as well as from the Syriac. The Arabic quotes of course are from the Syriac as well.]   

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 tes­timony of either of those ancient unimpeachable witnesses. For Mat. xv. 8. is destitute of the sup­port of the Syriac version; and Luk. x. 22. Joh. vi. 22. of that of the primitive Italic; while Mat. xxvii. 35. is not only absent from the latter transla­tion, but lacking in many copies of the former, as well as in many of the Greek Vulgate. But the dissent of those ancient versions from the former passages does not in the least impeach their authenti­city. As in these omissions the Syriac and Italic Versions accord with the Palestine text, their negative testimony against the vulgar Greek must be imputed to the influence of Eusebius's edition; while their positive testimony in favor of the same text can be only accounted for by admitting their coincidence with the original Greek text from which all editions have descended. That in Mat. xv. 8. the Brescia manuscript possesses the genuine reading, has been already rendered apparent, from a comparative view of the copies of the Italic translation. In fact the dissent of the latter copies of this version from the vulgar Greek may be traced to the influence of Origen's writings, to which we must impute the deviation of the Palestine text, in the instances before us, from the Greek Vulgate. And the extensive influence of Eusebius's text renders it difficult to pronounce on the authenticity of Matt. xxvii. 35. The absence of this text from the Palestine edition is easily accounted for, as I hope in the sequel to prove; its total absence from the pri­mitive Italic version, and partial absence from the Syriac, is of course accounted for in the former consideration. But its partial introduction into the Syriac, 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. Jerome has given of Lucianus's text; the interpolation of the original might be laid to his account, as it perfectly answers the description which he has given of Lucianus's alterations, and as such is omitted in the modern Vulgate. The influence of Lucianus, whose text prevailed from Byzantium to Antioch, of which latter city he was a presbyter, would fully account for the admission of this verse into the Syriac translation. But we have every reason to believe St. Jerome mistaken in his judgment of Lucianus's edition. And in favor 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 pas­sage. The oblique manner in which it is referred to by the other Evangelists, seems to establish the same conclusion; as its explicit citation in the Gospel of St. Matthew rendered it merely necessary that they should refer to it obliquely. 

In making the above citations, I have confined my attention to the passages rejected by M. Griesbach from the Gospels, not merely from choice, but necessity. Neither the primitive Italic nor Syriac Version extend beyond that part of the New Testament; the Acts and Epistles of the former Version being wholly lost, and those of the latter having been considerably altered since the Gospels were rendered, if not wholly translated, at a subsequent period. But in this loss there is not so much to regret, as may be at first imagined; for we do not require the remaining parts of those versions to determine the matter at issue. As in the different classes of manuscripts, one species of text prevails through every part of the text; those copies which are of the same class having the Gospels agreeing with the Acts and Epistles; when we establish the superior purity of any class, in the principal part of the text, we may thence legitimately infer that of the remainder. Or to reduce this matter to more certain principles, when by the assistance 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 comparative testimony of the principals, determine the authentic text of Scripture. In this undertaking considerable use may be likewise made of the versions; whatever be the changes which they may have undergone, since their first formation. As we know the original text by which they have been re­touched, and the points in which they have been affected, the Palestine text being the model by which they were shaped, and points of doctrine being those in which they have been influenced, a slight calculation will enable us, if not to recover the primi­tive 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 Syriac 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 perfect defence of the Greek Vulgate on every point of the smallest importance in which its integrity has been impeached as corrupted.

That no other text of the Greek but the Palestine edition has had any influence on the old Italic and Syriac, or their descendants, the versions of Philoxenus and St. Jerome, I have already endeavored to prove. The corrections which the Latin Vulgate received under the Emperor Charlemagne may be indeed conceived to invalidate its testimony, when adduced as a separate witness with the Syriac in favor of the original Greek. But when we observe the distinction which must be made between the Byzantine 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. Eusebius engaged in this undertaking. In the fourth and fifth centuries a knowledge of Greek was a rare attainment among the Latins. Many were certainly able to read it, but destitute of so inconsiderable yet necessary assistance as a Lexicon, few would undertake to translate it. St. Jerome and his contemporary, Ruffinus, are remarkable exceptions, but the reputation which they acquired as translators, the latter on very slender pretensions, sufficiently reveal how very rare the endowment was at this period. As we descend below this period, in­stances are still more rare of those who possessed this qualification. The subjugation of the Western Empire by the Goths, who extended their arms into Africa, rendered this age particularly unpropitious to study. Sedulius Hibernensis, who impelled by an insatiable thirst for information, traveled as far eastward as Asia, whither literature was now retiring from the West, is a singular instance of a person acquainted with Greek in an age, when the light of science had nearly set in the western hemisphere. The difficulties with which Cassiodorus had to contend in the next age, in procuring a competent person to revise the Latin translation, sufficiently proclaim how very unusual the same qualification was in the age when he flourished, the school of Nisibis, situated at the extreme borders of Syria, having been the nearest place from whence a person qualified to discharge this office could be procured. Junilius, a contemporary of Cassiodorus, mentions as an unusual circumstance his having seen one person, a Persian, who had been educated at Nisibis and possessed this rare though humble endowment. 

Admitting that the Greek text had any influence on the Latin Vulgate, it must have been that text which existed in the Palestine edition, for with it alone the orientalists were acquainted. When we are therefore informed, that the correction of this translation was undertaken from the Syriac and Greek, the only reasonable inference is that the Syriac was the Philoxenian version, the Greek the Palestine text, which were employed in the revisal. This supposition is fully confirmed by the coincidence which exists between that text and version, and the affinity which both possess to the modern Vulgate. That the readings of the latter version were more than collated with the Greek and Syriac texts, and the true readings more than ascer­tained from different copies of the translation which was originally made from the Palestine edition, is rendered wholly improbable by many consi­derations. To recast the translation by a different test, if practicable, would have been an useless attempt and inconsistent with the high veneration in which St. Jerome's translation was held. It was this veneration which must surely have directed the authors of this revisal to Palestine, where they could not be ignorant the Vulgate was framed, in search of the Greek, from whence that version. was made originally. And the preface prefixed by St. Jerome to the Gospels, directed them not merely to the original, from whence it was derived, but to extraneous sources which were naturally conceived to exist in the Palestine text and Syriac translation. Whatever might have been the care employed in correcting the modern Vulgate, it could thus have extended to little more than restoring its original readings. And thus much is apparent from the internal evidence of the copies of the Vulgate, which were corrected by Alcuine under Charlemagne, and which have descended to our times; it does not appear that these copies approximate more to the vulgar text of the Syriac and Greek, than any other copies of that translation. 

Nor is the integrity of the Syriac Vulgate less capable of vindication from the charge of those who would insinuate that it has been corrupted from the Greek Vulgate. That such a corruption could not have taken place subsequently to the year 450, when the Philoxenian version was formed, has been already evinced from the history of the Syrian church since the middle of the fifth century. And the bare consideration that this version was framed, at that period, by the Palestine text, renders the conception absurd in the extreme that the primitive version could have previously coincided with the same edition; the eviction of which agreement is essentially necessary to the establishment of the assumption, that the latter version has been subsequently altered, to correspond with the text of Byzantium. As the Peshito, or Syriac Vulgate, has never sunk in the esteem of the Syrian church, the formation of a new version cannot be imputed to the circumstance of the old having become obsolete in its language, or fallen in its reputation, nor to any other cause but the publication of a Greek text which attained to higher repute than that from which the original version was formed. Had it been in consequence of the corruption of the primitive translation from some modern Greek text, it must be obvious that the only plan left to those who would undertake to remedy this evil, would have been to restore the primitive readings by a collation of the old copies of the version with those of the original. But this is a supposition which is not only refuted by the internal evidence of the version, which possesses no such corrections, but is wholly irreconcilable with the veneration in which the vulgar version is held by the Syrians. In fact, the whole of the circumstances of the case tend as fully to prove that the text with which the primitive version agrees was ancient, as that by which the latter version was formed, was modern. From which consideration the priority of the Byzantine to the Palestine text, follows of course, as it is with the former that the primitive version corresponds, while the revised corresponds with the latter. Admitting this to be the case, which it will not be found easy to disprove, the unsupported assumption that the Syriac Vulgate has been. corrected by the Byzantine Greek requires no further refutation. Such an assumption can be only maintained on the grounds of the affinity discoverable between the Syriac and Greek, which affinity must be thus attributed to this obvious cause, that the one was originally made from the other.

As these considerations seem adequate to vindicate the integrity of the Syriac Vulgate, they involve an equally strong argument in favor of the antiquity of this translation, which is universally admitted to be the most ancient of the Oriental versions. That this version existed in its present mutilated form, previously to the fourth century, I cannot be easily brought to. conceive. The extravagant antiquity ascribed to it by the native Syrians and Orientalists is clearly entitled to no attention. So great a work as the translation of the whole Bible into the language of that people must have been effected by labor and time. That part of the version which contains the Old Testament has been attributed to the Jews, and the mere circumstance of this part of the canon having been the first that was translated, seems decisive of the fact. The Christians possessed no knowledge of the Hebrew, from which this version was made, and were not even in possession of the original, until the publication of Origen's Hexapla. In compiling this great work in the third century, Origen probably made some use of the Syriac version, having frequently referred to it in his margin. In the fourth century it is noticed by Eusebius, Basil, and Ambrose, and is expressly quoted out of the old and New Testament by Ephrem, the Syrian. In this century, of course, the translation 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 sup­position 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, but by the absence of Eusebius's sections, which cannot be supposed to have existed in the Palestine text, when the version of the Gospels was made. All these considerations taken together, claim for the first part of this version an antiquity not less remote than the third century: And this assumption is rendered more probable by many corroborating circumstances. The establishment of the Palestine school under Origen excited a spirit of literary exertion among the Syrians at this period, and directed their attention to biblical criticism. 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 simultaneously declined. The Syrians now began to cultivate their native tongue, and one of the first efforts to give it a written existence was employed in converting the best of books into the vernacular lan­guage. But the peculiar character of that part of the version which was first formed, conveys a proof which is at once demonstrative of its antiquity and of its freedom from later corruption, a proof which is rendered decisive by the wide and early dispersion of this translation, which rendered its general corruption impossible. From the extraordinary agreement of the primitive Syriac version and the Greek Vulgate, we of course deduce a like conclusion to that which has been already deduced from a similar agreement between the vulgar Greek and the primitive Latin translation. From hence we must infer that the original text, which corresponds with those most ancient versions, must be nearly coincident with that from which these versions were at least formed in part, in the primitive ages. 

The testimony of those ancient and separate witnesses, the primitive Latin and Syriac Versions, now bears down the scale with accumulated weight in favor of the Greek Vulgate, which is confessedly supported by the uninterrupted testimony of tradition for fourteen hundred years. Beholding the age of this text identified with the fourth century by the concurring testimony of manuscripts, versions, and fathers, let us, by a single glance of thought, con­nect that period with the times of the Apostles and those in which we live. Let us consider the uni­formity 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 authorized Versions of the oldest Churches, which we are infallibly assured were received in the age where the testimony of Manuscripts fails. Supported by these vouchers, which carry us up to a remote and indefinite period, let us consider the history of the original 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 pro­fessed merely to transmit the vulgar text, and who possessed no authority to impose a sophisticated text upon his contemporaries. Observing that St. Jerome attests the prevalence of Lucianus's text at the very period to which our demonstrative proofs of its in­tegrity extend, let us then remember by how few links the chain of tradition is connected from the age in which he flourished to that in which the apostles wrote, that the intervention of two persons connects the times of Athanasius with those of Origen, 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 modern collators against the vulgar edition, the co­incidences 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. Without 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 favor of the integrity of the Greek Vulgate, requires not so much a sound judgment as an honest mind. 

In closing the vindication of the Received Text, nothing more remains for its advocate, than to reply briefly to the charge of incompetence 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, and a lack of the most necessary helps to correct the text, of which it is conceived he was destitute, has been urged as a sufficient proof of the inefficiency of his attempt. Of Manuscripts, it is said, he knew little, having possessed none of those ancient copies of which his successors have made so much use in amending the text. Of Versions he was even more ignorant, having been wholly unacquainted with those of the Oriental and Western Church. And of Fathers he made little use, having merely followed Athanasius, Nazianzen, and Theophylact, without being conscious of the value of Clement, Origen, and Cyril's testimony, in correcting the text. 

How far the lack of those necessary helps to correct 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 without extending our attention beyond the three doc­trinal 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 editor 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 advantages which the text would have gained from his corrections would be more than counterbalanced by the disadvantages which it has sustained from his corruptions. But in this undertaking, I am free to conclude, until what I have advanced to the contrary is refuted, he has totally failed. His system appears to be as unsound in theory as it is deleterious 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 the integrity of the sacred canon, he has not adduced a single witness whose testimony is admissible, 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 labored to improve upon his design. His extraordinary success in that immortal work may be clearly traced to the wisdom of the plan on which he proceeded. 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 ob­jections on which he has been condemned, and a full exposure of the shallowness of those principles on which his labors would be now superseded by a different system of critical emendation. 

With respect to Manuscripts, it is indisputable that he was acquainted with every variety which is known to us, having distributed them into two principal classes, one of which corresponds with the Complutensian edition, the other with the Vatican manuscript. And he has specified the positive grounds on which he received the one arid rejected the other. The former was in possession of the Greek Church, the latter in that of the Latin. Judging from the internal evidence, he had as good reason to conclude the Eastern Church had not corrupted their received text, as he had grounds to suspect the Rhodians, from whom the Western Church derived their manuscripts, had accommodated then to the Latin Vulgate. 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 Arians; an affinity between any manuscript and that version, consequently conveyed some suspicion that its text was corrupted. So little dependence was he inclined to place upon the authority of Origen, who is the pillar and ground of the Corrected edition. 

With regard to Versions, it is true he was unac­quainted with the ancient Italic and later Oriental translations. But were the history of those versions known to the objector, 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 primitive Italic and Syriac Versions he was unacquainted, but I yet remain to be informed of what other use they could have been made, than to confirm him in the plan which he had judiciously chosen. 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 dependence was rested on the Greek and Latin Vulgate; and if we may believe himself, he used some ancient copies of the latter. Of these he made the best use, confronting their testimony and estimating the internal evidence of the context with the external testimony of the Eastern and Western Churches, he thence ascertained the authentic text of Scripture. A particular vindication of this part of his plan cannot be demanded from me, who have advanced so much to prove that it affords the only rational prospect of ascertaining the primitive or genuine text of the New Testament; whatever aid may be derived from other versions and texts in defending contested readings. 

In using the testimony of ancient Fathers it appears never to have entered his conception that any utility could be derived from collating them verbatim with the text of Scripture. Before the labors of modern critics, the monks of Upper Egypt and Palestine, who divided their time between this profitable employment and the perusal of Origen's speculative theology, were probably the only persons 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 Erasmus. With this view he read over the works of the principal writers and commentators, bequeathing the task of collating their quotations with the text of Scripture to his more dull and diligent successors. With what effect he engaged in such an office, those who are curious to be informed will best ascertain by examining the text which he has published. The advocates of the Received Text have little to apprehend from a comparison with the Corrected Text, by which it is now supposed to be wholly superseded. In all those passages in which the integrity of the sacred text has been defended, the vindication of Erasmus's text is inseparable from that of the vulgar edition. 

It is not, however, my intention to assert, that I conceive the text of Erasmus absolutely faultless, but with the exception of some places, in which the reading of the Greek Vulgate has not been preserved, I know not on what authority we might venture to correct it. The Egyptian and Palestine texts have been so often convicted of error 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. And when the verbal integrity merely of the sacred text is concerned, no one it is presumed, will set the testimony of Versions and Fathers in competition with that of the vulgar edition. I am well aware, that many manuscripts of reputed antiquity exist, which contain the Byzantine text and yet differ from the Received Text set forth in the printed edition, but numberless circumstances prohibit our correcting it on their authority. 

Nothing can be more fallacious than the criteria by which the age of Greek manuscripts is in general determined. To be written in the large or uncial character, without accents or spirits, is among the most decisive masks of antiquity. But I would submit it to the profound in antiquarian research, whether more can be safely inferred from these peculiarities, 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 remedy 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 acquainted; 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 sacred writings, in the age when he flourished. And the accounts which are recorded of the notaries or swift-writers, which attended Origen and St. Chrysostom, when delivering their Homilies, sufficiently prove that a small and connected character must have been in use when they lived, similar to that which exists in the most modern manuscripts. 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 character of any paramount weight in determining the genuine text of Scripture.

For some slight verbal and literal errors in the vulgar Greek we must indeed compound, as the unavoidable effect of careless transcription, but these do not in the least impeach the integrity of the Received Text or Authorized Version. In the investigation 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 error or form the ground of controversy. They generally relate to verbal niceties, which are not capable of being expressed in a translation, and as such cannot be deserving of the smallest consideration from divines, of whatever importance they may be regarded by critics or gram­marians. 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 authorized reading. This inference is clearly deducible from their practice with respect to the Septuagint, and indeed the variations discoverable in their quotations from the Old Testa­ment and in their narratives of our Lord's discourses, must convince us that they considered that strict literal accuracy which is now required in their works, as far beneath their attention. In the uncertainty which must attend every attempt to recover 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 general. 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 manuscripts which contain the vulgar Greek, we have fixed on the worst, any advantage which would arise from a change, would be more than counterbalanced by the disadvantages of innovation. But that the Greek Vulgate merits this character, is a point which will not be readily conceded by its defenders: and the advocates for an improved edition have infinitely more to advance in favor of their schemes of emendation, 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 Received Text in any point of the smallest importance have proved wholly abortive. The same plea will not be easily established in favor 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 opposition of a rival edition; and by affording an adequate opportunity of vindicating the tradition of the Church from every suspicion of corruption, add the last confirmation to that system by which the authority of the Received Text has been defended. 

Chapter VI 

THE plenary concession that the Byzantine text has preserved its integrity for fourteen hundred years, leaves the unwarrantable assumption that it was corrupted in the earliest ages entitled to very little respect. Were we destitute of proof on this subject, the bare probabilities of the case would be decisive of the point at issue; the task of proving the corruption of the Greek Vulgate would at 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 establishment of his theory that he should succeed in substantiating this charge against it. Having limited 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 existence, he believed the task was only to be attempted in order to be achieved. His promises on this subject stand recorded by his own hand, what he has offered us in place of a performance stands attested by the same voucher. His acknowledged incompetence to substantiate his point, consequently renders the defence of the Greek Vulgate complete, since this text, which is amply supported by positive proofs, is wholly unaffected by positive exceptions.

But the matter at issue must not be suffered to rest on these grounds. However defective the advocates of the Alexandrian text have found their materials in proving the corruption of the Byzantine, we find no such deficiency in returning the compliment on the Egyptian and Palestine. The corruptions of these tests, if I am not altogether deceived, may be clearly demonstrated and traced to the very source from whence they have originated. In prosecuting this object the testimony of Origen may be wholly disposed of, and his evidence, which has been hitherto used to support the Palestine text, may be effectually employed to destroy 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 destitute of positive support from those who have affected to uphold it. 

From what has been already adduced on the history of the inspired text and the connected testimony of tradition, it is apparent that the received or vulgar text, as preserved by the orthodox, could not have undergone any considerable change from the apostolical age to the times of Origen. Some verbal errors probably arose in particular copies from the negligence of transcribers, but the testimony of this ancient 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 Septua­gint, readers it next to impossible that any corruption of the New Testament could have escaped his observation, if it really existed. He speaks, it is true, of a difference existing in the copies of his times. But this opinion he offers merely as a conjecture, grounding it on the diversity observable in the accounts which the different Evangelists give of the game incident, and it occurs in a work which is of very little authority, as written while Origen's opinions were far from settled or deserving of any attention. His opinion must be taken from a different part of his writings, and in his last and greatest work he explicitly states that he knew of no persons but the followers of Marcion and Valentinus, who had corrupted the Scriptures. As this is the latest opinion which he has delivered on this subject, it must be taken as his definitive sentence. 

To some period subsequent to the era of Origen, we must consequently fix the first change which took place in the received text of Scripture. And 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 Gospels. 

Whatever may have been the alterations which Lucianus and Hesychius introduced into the sacred writings, they must be clearly attributed to the in­fluence of Origen's writings. Previously to his times, the inspired text had undergone no alteration, and they revised it not many years subsequent to the publication of his Hexapla. As he had labored to supersede the authorized version of the Old Testament, he contributed to weaken the authority of the received text of the New. In the course of his Commentaries he cited the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion on the former part of the Canon, he appealed to the authority of Valentinus and Heracleon on the latter. 

While he thus raised the credit of those revisals, which had been made by the heretics, he detracted from the authority of that text which had been received 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 Testament on the testimony of the Old, and to convict the copies of one Gospel on the evidence of another, thus giving loose to his fancy and indulging in many wild conjectures, he considerably 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 critical labors of Origen. On this task, however, they entered with very different views, the attention of Lucianus having been principally directed to the Old Testament, while that of Hesychius was chiefly employed on the New. 

The terms in which the text of Lucianus is mentioned, as being identical with the vulgar edition, very clearly evince that the received text was republished by this learned father with little alteration. As he is principally mentioned as a reviser of the version of the Old Testament, and as Origen's critical labors particularly affected that part of the sacred canon, it is more than probable that his emendations were confined to it alone. At the early period in which he wrote the Septuagint only lay under the imputation of being corrupted, and no possible reason can be assigned which could induce him to tamper with the New Testament. He must be clearly acquitted of the charge of yielding undue submission to the authority of Origen, as he rejected the corrected text of the Septuagint inserted in the Hexapla, and republished the common edition. Setting aside the authority of Origen 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 ancient father, that Lucianus's text prevailed at Byzantium in the age when he wrote, where it has demonstrably prevailed to the present day; we have only to compare the Byzantine text with the Latin version of St. Jerome, in order to discover the passages against which his censure is chiefly directed. There is thus little difficulty in vindicating Lucianus from the charge of corrupting the Scriptures, and little more in tracing the error under which St. Jerome labored 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 authorized edition, had they been corrections of Lucianus. They include some passages which were favorite texts employed by the Arians in supporting their opinions against the Catholics, it is of course inconceivable that in the age subsequent to that in which Lucianus published his edition, the Catholics would have allowed them to retain their place in the text, unless they undoubtedly believed them authentic. They include some other passages relating to the mystic doctrines of revelation, which the prejudices of the age prevented the orthodox from divulging to those who were not regularly initiated in their sacred mysteries. If it is conceived that such passages could have been invented by Lucianus, which is a notion that is exposed to many obvious objections, considerable difficulties must still attend the supposition that they would be admitted into the canonical 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 Lucianus'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 error under which he labored. In fact, the mistake 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 Eusebius's edition. His objection must of course fall to the ground if it can be shown that the text of Eusebius was defective, as omitting those passages which were retained in Lucianus's edition. For St. Jerome having been unconscious of the deficiency of one text, imagined the integrity of the other was redundant. 

Under this view of the subject, the various readings of the sacred text are ultimately traced to the editions of Hesychius and Eusebius; the one, according to St. Jerome's express declaration, having interpolated the inspired writings, the other, according 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 Scripture. 

Of Hesychius we know nothing more than that he was a bishop of Egypt, who perished in the persecution in which Lucianus was martyred. But this little seems to identify him as a disciple of Origen. 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 curiosity was excited respecting the allegorical sense of Scripture, which Origen had supported, and relative to the nature of the body, its organization and enjoyments, in that state which is to succeed the resurrection. 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 condemned as heretical, Dioscorus, bishop of Hermopolis, with the Egyptian monks, were professed converts to Origen's notions. Under these circumstances, the churches of Egypt were gradually prepared for the reception of a revised text, accommodated to the principles of Origen's criticism. 

We have only to compare the account which Origen has given of the method in which he proceeded 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 suggested by Origen for its improvement. In cor­recting the Old Testament, Origen had compared the different copies of the Greek version, and had admitted the authority of the versions made by the heretics, and in insinuating the corruptions of the New, he corrected the statement of one Evangelist by the accounts of the other, and appealed to the testimony of the Gospels compiled by the heretics. We scarcely discover a peculiarity in the Egyptian text which may not be directly accounted for by conceiving the reviser actuated by the ambition of giving that perfection to the text of the New Testament, which Origen, following similar principles, had given, to the text of the Old.

With respect to the works by which Hesychius was assisted in entering on this undertaking, we know that he was possessed of a Harmony and several apocryphal works which had been used by Origen in compiling his Commentaries. Ammonius, who preceded Origen in the government of the school of Alexandria, had constructed a work of the former kind, in which he disposed the coincident passages of the different Evangelists in parallel columns, and it appears, from the writings of Clement and Origen, that "the Gospel of the Hebrews," "the Acts of Paul," and "the Preaching of Peter," were well known to the disciples of that school. With respect to the authority which was ascribed to these works, it is certain that Origen did not absolutely reject the last, though he did not receive it as a canonical work. A very slight degree of attention bestowed on the Egyptian text, as preserved in the Cambridge or Verceli manuscript, must convince any person that it has suffered from the influence of these different works. As the Gospels of that edition have been. corrected by each other; the deficiencies of one being frequently supplied from the fulness of another; it is evident the text must have been corrected by some reviser who made good use of a Harmony . And 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 some weight in compiling that edition. 

But the Commentaries of Origen afforded still greater assistance to the editor 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 Palestine texts is a point which appears to me to be capable of demonstration. Of the passages consisting of quotations from the Old Testament introduced into the New, in which the Greek Vulgate differs from the Egyptian and Palestine editions, the most remarkable are Matt. xv. 8, xxvii. 35, Luc. iii. 5, iv. 18, as in these texts the reading of the latter editions is apparently supported by the express testimony of Origen's commentary. But comparison of the comment with the documents which were before Origen very clearly evinces that in forming this idea, the revisers of the Egyptian and Palestine texts were deceived. In Matt. xv. 8, an ignorance of the Hebrew led them into an error with respect to the meaning of Origen, as Origen's testimony, when properly understood, not only discovers the source of the various reading in the Egyptian edition, but confirms the peculiar reading of the Byzantine. The same observation may be likewise extended to Luc. iii. 5. A repetition of the same word in Origen's comment on this passage, led to an ambiguity, which a reference to the Hebrew would have directly cleared up; but the reviser not having possessed even learning sufficient to collate the Greek with the original, undertook 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 error subject to an immediate detection on confronting the testimony of the Greek version with the Hebrew original. In omitting Mat. xxvii. 35 the reviser of the Egyptian edition has laid himself equally open to detection. The allegation of this passage from the Psalms, by St. Matthew, introduced an apparent contradiction between the Evangelist’s text and quotation, which was first pointed out by Ammonius’s Harmony; the obliteration of the disputed passage removed the contradiction, though it did not solve the difficulty, for which indeed Origen appears to have found no remedy, as he passes it over in silence. The expedient which answered the immediate exigency of the revisers was consequently adopted, and the passage omitted accordingly. But the partial quotation of the words of the disputed passage, and the general reference to its sense by Origen, clearly prove that it existed in his copy; his testimony of course as fully confirms the integrity of the Byzantine text, as it reveals the source of the corruption of the Egyptian. In the abridgment of the prophecy, cited in Luc. iv. 18, we discover a still stronger proof of the corruption of the Egyptian text, and of the integrity of the Byzantine. While the disputed passage is indispensably necessary to the fidelity of the Evangelist's narrative; a slight verbal difference between it and the original Hebrew, which was first revealed in the Hexapla; clearly discovers the grounds of offence which occasioned its suppression in the Egyptian text, and points out the authority on which the Vulgar Greek was corrected. In Mat. v. 4, 5, to which we may add Mat. xxiii 14, we plainly discover the source of the various reading of the Egyptian text in the 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 accom­modation to the comment of Origen. When to these considerations we add that of the general conformity of the Egyptian text to the peculiar readings of Origen, they afford us ample grounds for concluding that this edition has been systematically corrupted from his writings. So far is this conformity from evincing the antiquity of the Egyptian text, that it deprives it, when considered separately, 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 advantages which had been possessed by his predecessor, he was directed in using them by very different principles. While he was no less biased in favor of Origen, than Hesychius, he possessed greater facilities of consulting his commentaries, a complete set of Origen's works having been deposited in the library of Caesarea. He possessed also, in the edition of Hesychius, a text in which many of the peculiar readings of Origen, his master and preceptor 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 labor.

Of these different helps towards revising the sacred text, Eusebius fully availed himself in publishing the Palestine text, to the use which has been made of them we may indeed attribute most of the peculiarities discoverable in that edition. Of the Harmony of Ammonius, it is unquestionable he made considerable use in ascertaining the passages introduced into the Egyptian edition, thus much may be clearly collected from the testimony of St. Jerome, 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 edition, having here found them incorporated in the sacred text, while the testimony of Origin became sufficient authority for him to retain them as genuine. But the edition published in Palestine by the elder Eusebius, had its peculiar readings. The most important of them have been already specified, and some account has been given of the causes which occasioned their suppression in the Palestine edition. Of these passages, in which the Vulgar Greek and Corrected Edition differ, not a few are found in the text of Eusebius. A critical examination into the source of these various readings of the Palestine edition will, I trust, end in the further confirmation of the same conclusion which it has been hitherto my object to establish.

The most remarkable of those passages in which the Palestine and Byzantine texts differ are Matt. xix. 17, Luke. xi. 2, 4, 13. It will not appear extraordinary that the former edition should agree in these passages with the peculiar readings of Origen, when it is remembered that it was revised by Eusebius, the admirer and apologist of the father of sacred criticism. But it is particularly deserving of remark that the Palestine text, in coinciding in these passages with Origen, also corresponds with the peculiar readings of Valentinus and Marcion. When we take into account the nature and tendency of that tract, in which the extraordinary readings of those passages are preserved, that it inculcates heterodox notions and quotes other apocryphal texts, there will not be much reason to doubt that the alteration of the text in those places must be ultimately referred to those heretics whom Origen, in his riper judgment, has accused of corrupting the text. 

The peculiar doctrines of the Marcionites are summed up in a narrow compass by St. Irenaeus and St. Epiphanius. They agreed with the followers of Cerdo in acknowledging two principles; one of these they called the good God, conceiving him to have his residence above the heavens; and the other they termed the just God, considering him the author of the works of the Creation. The former they considered inscrutable, and wholly unknown, until the advent of Christ, who first revealed him to the world; the latter they supposed the God, who had revealed himself to the Jews, who had delivered the Law by Moses, and had spoken by the Prophets. Between these personages they conceived that there was some opposition of will and nature; the one presiding over the immaterial spiritual world; the other over the material visible creation. Christ, as the Son and legate of the good God, came to abolish the power and dominion of the Creator. He was not however made in the flesh, but appeared merely in the likeness of man; the object of his appearance on earth having been to abolish the Law and the Prophets; to save the souls, not the bodies of men; for the Marcionites agreed with the Nicolaitans and other Gnostics in denying the resurrection. In order to justify these notions, the founder of the sect had framed antitheses between the Law and the Gospel, in which he endeavored to show that the one was contrary to the other. 

These opinions, which had been broached by Marcion near the times of Hyginus, bishop of Rome, until those of Pope Damasus, had maintained their ground against the opposition of  Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Rhodon, Origen, and Epiphanius, and had produced the different sects of Lucianists, Tatianists, and Apelleians. The Valentinians were a kindred sect which sprang from that common source of heresy, the school of Simon Magus, 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 estimation. Of the important light in which they were held we may form some idea. from the Rule of Faith and the description of heresy which are given by Origen, both of which are framed expressly with a view to the Valentinian and Marcionite notions. 

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 which this controversy had upon his mind. As the heretics had depressed the Creator, representing him as inferior to Christ, he was driven into the opposite extreme and in asserting the transcendent glory of God, too incautiously depreciated the Son's co-equality with the Father. Though he very successfully combated the fundamental errors of his opponents, their reasonings, particularly when seconded by the speculations of  Plato, seem to have had so far an influence upon his sentiments as to induce him to embrace some very extraordinary notions relative to the constitution of Christ’s body, and that of the human frame after the resurrection. Some of these notions he adopted from Tatian, by whose peculiar opinions he confesses himself to have been once influenced, and from whom he obviously imbibed that extraordinary attachment to a state of celibacy, which he professed in numberless places. 

As the founders of those different sects had tampered with the text of Scripture, and the Marcionite heresy had extended itself through the Egyptian, Palestine, and Italic dioceses, it cannot be deemed extraordinary that the particular texts which prevailed in these regions should have insensibly undergone some changes, from the influence of the editions revised by the heretics. 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 generally received to the exclusion of the vulgar edition. As it has been customary with the disputants, who were engaged in defending the orthodox and the heretical side of the question, to reason from the concessions and to quote from the Scriptures acknowledged by their adversaries, the distinctions between the pure text and the corrupted revisal were at length wholly confounded in their writings. In a country where there was little stability of religious opinion, and where great liberties had been taken with the sacred text, little confidence could be reposed in any edition. The works of approved writers furnished the only standard by which they could be tried, but they now afforded but a fallacious criterion, as containing quotations which were drawn from various equivocal sources. A difference between these quotations and the sacred text become a sufficient evidence of the corruption of the latter, and the next object was to amend the text by accommodating it to the quotation. 

On the most cursory view of those passages in which the Egyptian and Palestine texts differ from the Greek Vulgate it must be evident that the Marcionite and Valentinian controversies must have had considerable influence on the former editions. Having already laid those passages before the reader, I shall now proceed to point out the particular manner in which the peculiar readings of the aforementioned texts have apparently originated. 

At the head of those passages stands Mat. xix. 17, with which we. may join Luc. xviii. 19, which constituted a principal text of the Marcionites, as relating to their fundamental tenet respecting the nature of the Deity. An examination into the peculiar opinions of those heretics leaves us very little room to doubt that the various reading of the texts before us originated with them, and that they acquired that authority in Origen’s works, which obtained them a place in the Egyptian and Palestine edition. The same observation nearly may be extended to Luc. ii 38, the peculiar reading of this text having originated with the Origenists, who endeavored to strengthen the argument deduced from the genealogy in favor of our Lord’s incarnation, by deducing the line of descent at least nominally through Joseph. Nor is the case materially different with respect to Luc. xi 13, relative to the gift of the Spirit; Origen having originally adopted this text as it was understood by the Marcionites, furnished, by his different explanations of it, the various readings of the Egyptian and Palestine editions. In Luc. xxii 43-44, we discover the influence of the same heretics’ notions, and with this text we may join Col. i 14 as relating to the same subject; in these examples a degree of coincidence between the Marcionite and Origenian 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 readings of 1 John iv 3. Origen’s endeavor to avoid the peculiar errors of the Valentinians respecting the person of Christ having produced that exposition from whence his followers have corrupted the reading of the vulgar edition. 

The various readings of Luc. xi 2, 4 are of the same character, as relating to the fundamental tenets of Marcion relative to the abode of his Good God above the heavens, and to his special providence as extending to the affairs of this lower world. The reading of the heretic’s Gospel having been admitted into the Commentary of Origen, thence made its way into the Palestine text; the opinion of that early critic having been clearly in favor of the notion, that the vulgar text of St. Luke was interpolated in those places in which it differed from Marcion’s Gospel, and agreed with the text of St. Matthew. Together with the above passages, which relate to the Lord’s prayer, we may join that containing the doxology, Matt. vi 13, as connected with the same subject. The Marcionites, however, have nothing to answer for on the score of canceling this verse, as they rejected the entire Gospel in which it occurs. The deviation of the Palestine text from the Byzantine is however easily accounted for, having originated from a misconception of Origen’s testimony, which was conceived to negative a passage which it merely passed over. 

Of the texts next in importance to those which have been specified, John i 27 relates to the preexistence of Christ, and Luc. ix 55 to the cause of his advent. The Arian tendency of the reviser of the Palestine text, and the Origenian tendency of the reviser of the Egyptian, respectively occasioned the suppression of both passages. To some vague notions which the heretics held respecting the object of our Lord’s descent into hell we probably owe the suppression of Mark vi 11, which may be joined with the preceding texts as not unconnected with them in subject. 

Of the remaining passages in which the Greek Vulgate differs from the Egyptian and Palestine texts, John v 3-4 refers to the angelical hierarchy. These verses were probably omitted on this account by the Origenists, who were professed enemies of the Valentinians, as these heretics perverted the doctrine relative to that order of beings to many superstitious purposes. The causes which occasioned the suppression of Matt. xx 23 are much more apparent; the influence of the Marcionite tenets on Origen’s Commentaries, having obviously 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 heretics, or in the texts which they followed, which has not left some deep mark impressed 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 principle and the severe character of the second, in his religious system. Many of the corrections of the Egyptian and Palestine texts have consequently originated in attempts to destroy the force of those antitheses in the sacred text which had been pointed by Marcion. Some have arisen in endeavors to amend his gross perversions, or his foul aspersions of the Law, and some in attempts to correct his false notions relative to the nature and attributes of God, the person of Christ, and the character of the legal dispensation. In this manner it is not uncommon to find the peculiar phrases of Marcion’s text, and the very order of his language, retained in the Egyptian and Palestine 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 readings might have crept into the edition of Eusebius. The scripture text of Tatian, which most probably conformed in many respects to the Gospel and Apostolicum of Marcion; the text of Hesychius, which was compiled from various apocryphal works; and the Commentaries of Origen, which abounded in quotations drawn from heretical revisals of Scripture, opened a prolific source from which they directly passed into the Palestine edition. The facilities of correcting this text from Origen's writings, and the blind reverence in which that ancient father was held in the school of Caesarea, seem to have rendered the corruption of this text unavoidable. Short annotations or scholia had been inserted by Origen in the margin of his copies of Scripture, and the number of these had been considerably augmented by Eusebius, most probably by extracts taken from Origen's Commentaries. A comparison between the text and comment constantly pointed out variations in the reading, and Origen's authority having been definitive on subjects of sacred criticism, the inspired text was amended by the comment. Had we no other proof of this assertion, than the feasibility of the matter, and the internal evidence of the Greek manuscripts, we might thence assume the truth of the fact, without much danger of erring. But this point is placed beyond conjecture by the most unquestionable documents. In some manuscripts containing the Palestine text it is recorded that they were transcribed from copies, the originals of which had been “corrected by Eusebius.” In the celebrated Codex Marchalianus the whole process observed in correcting the text is openly avowed. The reviser there candidly states, that, “having procured the explanatory Tomes of Origen, he accurately investigated the sense in which he explained every word as far as was possible, and corrected every thing ambiguous according to his notion.” After this explicit acknowledgment, it seems unnecessary any further to prolong this discussion. A text which bears internal marks of having passed through this process, which has been convicted on the clearest 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 Palestine texts is set aside, the number of various readings, which exist in these editions, or their descendants, 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 necessarily implicated. We thus no longer require a clue to guide us through the labyrinth of those readings, however various or numerous. The testimony of the derivative witnesses, whether existing in quotation or translation, directly resolves itself into that of the principals, which contain the different editions of the original Greek, published in Egypt and Palestine. 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 authorized. The matter before us thus reverts into the original channel, 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 allegation of friends, not less than the concession of enemies, it appears that they are neither important nor numerous, falling infinitely short of what might be expected when due allowances are made for the errors 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 collated with the most minute and scrupulous industry. 

Here, consequently, this discussion might be brought to a close, were it not expedient to anticipate some objections which may be urged against the conclusion, which it has been hitherto my object to establish. Of the texts of the Greek Vulgate, which have been vindicated as genuine, Act. xx. 28, 1 Tim. iii. 16, 1 Joh. v. 7 have been exposed to formidable objections. The Palestine edition in its reading of those passages has obtained a strenuous advocate in M. Griesbach. Having already laid the various readings of that edition before the reader, and specified some objections deduced from the internal evidence which preclude our considering them genuine, 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 only are cited in favor of kuvrioj in Acts xx 28; not half that number in favor of o]j in 1 Tim. iii 16; all that are extant and known, with the exception of two, in favor of the reading of M. Griesbach's corrected edition [in 1 John 5:7]. 

2. Of Versions, the Sahidic, Coptic, Armenian, and margin of the later Syriac, support kuvrioj in Act. xx. 28; the same versions, with the Ethiopic and Erpenian Arabic, support o]j in 1 Tim. iii. 16: and all that are extant, except the Latin Vulgate and Armenian, the corrected reading of 1 Joh. v. 7. 

3. Of the Fathers who have been cited in favor of the Palestine text, the following is a brief statement. (1.) On Act. xx 28. St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, Eusebius, Didymus, S. Chrysostom, and Theophylact; S. Jerome, Lucifer, and Augustine; Theodorus Studites, Maximus, Antonius, Ibas, Sedulius, and Alcimus; the Apostolical Constitutions, the Council of Nice, and the second Council of Car­thage; a catena quoting Ammonius, and a manuscript containing the Epistles of S. Athanasius. (2.) On 1 Tim. iii. 16 Cyril Alexandrinus, S. Jerome, Theodorus Mopsuestenus, Epiphanius, Gelasius Cyzicenus, and, on his authority, Macarius of Jerusalem. (3.) On I Joh. v. 7 it has been deemed sufficient to state that the fathers are wholly silent respecting it in the Trinitarian controversy, while some of them even quote the subjoined verse, and strain that doctrine from it by an allegorical interpretation, which is plainly asserted in the contested passage. 

Such is the external testimony which is offered in favor 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 Eusebius, and are consequently disqualified from appearing in evidence on account of his peculiar opinions. With respect to the few manuscripts which support the reading of Acts xx. 28, 1 Tim. iii. 16. they particularly approximate to his edition, as containing the Palestine text, and are consequently on that account not entitled to the least degree of credit. 

The same observation may be made in reply to the testimony of Versions which has been adduced in evidence on this subject. None of them can lay claim to a degree of antiquity prior to the fourth century. In that age the principal of the ancient versions were made, chiefly under the auspices of Constantine the Great, who employed Eusebius to revise the text of Scripture. The only probability 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 Sahidic and Coptic, the later Syriac and Latin translations. They cannot, of course, be allowed any separate voice from the Palestine text in deciding the matter at issue. 

This consideration seems to leave very little weight to the authority of the Fathers, who are adduced in evidence on this subject. With a few exceptions, which are of no account, they also succeeded the age of Eusebius; in referring cursorily to those verses they may be conceived to have quoted from his edition, as containing the received text of the age in which they flourished. I here except, as preceding his time, S. Ignatius, S. Irenaeus, and the compilers of the Apostolical Constitutions, who have been quoted in support of Act. xx. 28, but their testimony is not entitled to the smallest respect, as derived to us through the most suspicious channels. The first and last of these witnesses are quoted from editions which have been notoriously corrupted, as it is conceived, by the Arians, and we consequently find that the genuine works of Ignatius read with the Byzantine Text instead of the Palestine. And with regard to St. Irenaeus's evidence, it is quoted merely from a translation which has been made by some barbarous writer who, in rendering the scriptural quotation’s of his original, has followed the Latin version which agrees with St. Irenaeus in possessing the Palestine reading. 

We might give up the remaining authorities without any detriment to our cause. With respect to the evidence of St. Athanasius, St. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Cyril of Alexandria, it is most unfairly wrested in support of the Corrected Text, as it is decidedly in favor of the Received Text, where it is fully and explicitly delivered. As to that of Eusebius, a word need not be advanced to invalidate its credit. With respect to Didymus, Jerome, Lucifer, Augustine, and Sedulius, 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 authorized version in preference to the Greek of Erasmus, or any of the translations of the early reformers.  A few words would serve in reply to the authority of the Councils cited on this subject; that of Nice has been however most falsely and imperfectly reported, and that of Carthage, as reported in Greek, supports the received text, while in Latin it supports the corrected. If, after these observations, the testimony of the remaining writers cited on this subject be alleged, throwing Ammonius and Macarius into the same scale, as entitled to equal respect, from the questionable shape in which they approach us, we think the advocates of the Corrected Text, who must receive this testimony subject to the mistakes of the original authors and the errors of subsequent transcribers, fully entitled to the benefit of their authority. We have thus only to deplore the peculiar state of those who are reduced to the desperate situation of sustaining a cause which rests on so unsolid a foundation. 

In reply to the argument which is deduced in fa­vor of the corrected reading of 1 John v. 7 from the silence of the fathers, who have neglected to appeal to this text in the Trinitarian controversy, it may be, in the first place, observed that no such controversy existed. 

In the first age of the Church the subjects debated by the Catholics and heretics turned upon the divinity and the humanity of Christ; on the doctrine of the Trinity there was no room for maintaining a contest. Not only the heretics, 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 principles, in the "one" Divinity. Such was the doc­trine of the two great sects into which they may be divided, consisting of Gnostics and Ebionites, for such was the doctrine of the Jews and Magians from whom those sects respectively descended; and such, consequently, is the doctrine which is ex­pressly ascribed to Simon Magus, Cerinthus, Ebion, Valentinus, Marcion, and their followers. 

To the Gnostics the Sabellians succeeded, whose opinions had been previously held by Noetus, and subsequently maintained by Paul of Samosata. 

But I yet remain to be informed how this text could have been opposed to the errors of those heretics. As they followed the Ebionites, and 1 Joh. v. 7 had been quoted by the Evangelist as a concession of those heretics, this text, in the strictness of the letter, decided rather in their favor, than in that of the orthodox. 

Marcellus of Ancyra and Photinus his disciple are referred to the Sabellian school. The contests 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 were engaged in sustaining it. Eusebius and Marcellus, by whom it was carried on, were professedly agreed on the existence of "three" persons or subsistences in the Divine Nature; one of which they likewise believed to be “the Word," or Logos, and asserted to be "one" with God; it is consequently inconceivable that the text should be quoted to settle any point which was contested between them. The whole stress of the controversy rested on the force of the term Son, as opposed to the term "Word," or Logos; for the latter being equivocal, afforded the heretics an opportunity of explaining away its force, so as to confound the persons, after the error of Sabellius, while the former, as implying its correlative Father, effectually refuted this error, by establishing a personal diversity between the subsistences; since it involved an absurdity to consider a Father the same as his Son, or represent him as begetting himself. As the text before us uses the term "Word" instead of Son, it must be directly apparent that it was wholly unqualified to settle the point at issue; it can be therefore no matter of surprise that no appeal. 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 ardor of controversy drove them into extremes, the one leaning towards the error of Arius, and the other towards that of Sabellius, the text in dispute, as containing the orthodox doctrine, must have been as unsuitable to the purpose of the one as of the other; the term e]n making as much against Eusebius, who divided the substance, as the term trei/j against Marcellus, 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 Trinity, or were conducted on the same princi­ples as against the Sabellians; the notions of the latter on the subject of that doctrine were perfectly orthodox. In these contests, of course, we must look in vain for a Trinitarian controversy, or for a suitable occasion to cite the verse in question. 

To the Sabellians the Arians may be opposed, as falling into the opposite extreme; the former confounding the Persons, as the latter divided the substance. But the contests maintained with these heretics, as not extended beyond the consideration of the second Person, did not assume the form of a Trinitarian controversy. The whole of the matter in debate the Catholics conceived capable of being decided by a few texts, some of which had the high authority of our Lord, and on such they rested the whole weight of the contest. As they were accused by their opponents of falling into the opposite extreme of the Sabellians, the contested passage must have been wholly unsuitable to their purpose, as embarrassing the question with greater difficulties than those which they undertook to remove. It is therefore little wonderful that they did not appeal to it in their contests with these heretics. 

The same reasons which prevented the orthodox from citing this passage in their contests with the Arians, prevented them from citing it in their disputes with the Macedonians. In the latter case there was no question agitated respecting the second Person of the Trinity, as in the former no question respecting the third. In neither, of course, did the contests maintained with those heretics 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 Trinity; their disputes with the Catholics being properly confined to the question whether the Son possessed one subsistence or two persons, instead of two subsistences and one person. In these controversies, of course, there was no greater necessity for an appeal to the disputed passage, than in any of the preceding. 

After the period which produced these controversies, 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 agitated the eastern and western world. But it was of a different character from those which preceded. The disputants, having at length agreed on the existence of the third person, now began to dispute on his mode of operation, a discussion which, consequently, admitted of no appeal to the text of the heavenly witnesses. 

It will, however, be doubtless objected, that although the controversies maintained by the Church, as not embracing the doctrine of the Trinity, did not admit of reference to 1 John v 7, yet, as turning on the divinity and the humanity of Christ, they necessarily suggested the expediency of an appeal to Acts xx. 28, 1 Tim. iii. 16. But this objection will have little force when it is remembered that the passage was not considered decisive, as not using the term Christ, and that the heretics who ex­cepted against the doctrine inculcated in those texts, rejected also that part of the canon in which they are contained. Of the heretics who took the lead in this controversy, the Ebionites wholly renounced the authority of St. Paul, and the Gnostics, Marcionites, Valentinians, and their followers, corrupted or rejected the Acts and Epistles to Timothy. The orthodox were consequently reduced to the necessity of deducing their scriptural proof from that part of the canon on the authority of which they and their adversaries were mutually agreed, and were thus prevented from making those frequent appeals to the verses in dispute which the controversy may be conceived to have suggested. 

It is thus apparent from the state of the early controversies maintained by the Catholics that there was no point contested which rendered an appeal to the text of the heavenly witnesses absolutely necessary. It may be now shown, from the distinctions introduced in those controversies, that the orthodox were so far from having any inducement to appeal to this text, that they had every reason to avoid an allusion to it, as it apparently favored the tenets of their opponents.

From the brief sketch which has been given of the progress of controversy in the primitive church, it must be apparent that the Sabellian controversy presented the most suitable occasion for an appeal to the contested passage. The peculiar tenets of the different sects which may be classed under this name had originated with the Jews, and had been adopted from them in the Egyptian Gospel from whence they descended to Noetus, Praxeas, Sabellius, and their followers. Under Paul of Samosata, they attained that influence in the Syriac Church which occasioned the meeting of the Council of Antioch. In the following century they were revived by Marcellus, Photinus, and Apollinarius, and were expressly condemned by the Council of Sirmium, which was convened against the Photinians. 

Of the tenets of these different sects we have an explicit account not only in the writings of those polemics who opposed their errors, but in the confessions of faith which were drawn up by the councils that were summoned against them. But in whatever form Sabellianism presents itself, we are compelled to acknowledge that it absolutely derives support from the text of the heavenly witnesses. These heretics, adhering to the very letter of the text, asserted that the “Word” and “Spirit” were in God, as the reason and soul are in man; a stronger testimony in their favor than that of the heavenly witnesses could not be easily fabricated. It seems to be therefore just as reasonable to expect that the Catholics would appeal to this text, in vindicating the doctrine of the Trinity against those heretics, 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 o`moousion was wholly rejected, though in this term the whole strength of the Catholics' cause was rested, and in that of Sirmium it was passed over in silence; the heretics 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 favorite tenet.

It may be however objected that as this text must have been challenged by the heretics, some reference must have been made to it by the orthodox, in replying to the arguments of their opponents. It is much to be regretted that we retain no more of the controversies of those heretics, than their orthodox adversaries were able to refute; yet scanty as the accounts of those controversies are we discover sufficient in the remains of them to warrant us in asserting that the disputed text was claimed by the heretics. 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 Eusebius to Marcellus must be set out of the question for reasons which were formerly specified. In the works of Tertullian and Epiphanius we consequently find manifest traces of the disputed text, which very sufficiently declare that it was not only appealed to in the controversy, but challenged on the side of the heretics. 

If we now consider the period during which the Sabellian controversy prevailed, we shall easily perceive that the negative argument adduced against 1 Joh. v. 7 derives its entire strength from an inattention to the true state of that controversy, and the period for which it prevailed. The first effectual opposition which was made against that heresy was in the council of Antioch, about sixty years previously to the council of Nice. From this period it silently gathered strength from the opposition of Arianism, until it was formally condemned in the middle of the fourth century by the council of Sirmium. The last effectual blow was struck against those rival sects in the second general council, convened at the close of the same age in Constantinople. 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. 

Let us therefore advert to the history of the sacred text for the whole of this period, and view it comparatively with the state of religious controversy. 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 promotion of what he believed [was] the ecclesiastical doctrine. Let us recollect that at the latter part of the term the Vulgar Text was again restored by the Catholics, whose prejudices were not less violently opposed to the Sabellian errors than their avowed enemies, the Arians; and that the disputed text was still conceived to be on the side of the heterodox. Let us hence consider the peculiar tendency of Eusebius's religious opinions, and the ver­satility of principle which he exhibited in the Council of Nice on the subject of the doctrine inculcated in the disputed passage. Let us keep in view the confession of St. Epiphanius, who flourished when the Greek Vulgate was restored; that in the sacred text, as revised by the orthodox, some remarkable passages were omitted, of which the orthodox were apprehensive. Let us further consider that this charge is brought home to the Epistle which contains the disputed verse, if not to the passage in question, by Socrates, who declares that the former was mutilated by those who wished to sever the humanity of Christ from his Divinity. Let us next remember the confession of St. Chrysostom, 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 passages. Let us finally call to mind how closely the Nestorian and the Eutychian heresy followed after those times; and that the former was not affected by the disputed passage, while the latter was to all appearances established by its authority. When we consider all these circumstances, which must have severally contributed to render the orthodox 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 authorized edition; so far shall we be from requiring express allegations of it in every controversy which was agitated during the period of nearly two centuries, in which the doctrine of the Trinity was canvassed, and which was gradually settled by the first four general councils, that we shall be at a loss to discover in what shape it could have been produced by the Catholics, had it even retained its place in the authorized 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 disputed verse has been quoted, while the disputed verse is wholly omitted; and that the doctrine of the Trinity has been proved by an allegorical interpretation of verse 8 which is expressly asserted in verse 7. The former assertion is principally founded on the testimony of an anonymous writer in St. Cyprian and P. Leo the great; the latter on the testimony of St. Augustine and Facundus Hermionensis. But these objections admit of a very simple solution. 

However paradoxical the assertion may in the first instance appear, it is notwithstanding the fact, that a stronger argument was deducible from the testimony of the earthly witnesses in favor of the Catholic doctrine, than from that of the heavenly witnesses. The point on which the orthodox and heterodox divided was the diversity of the Persons; on the unity of the substance there was no difference of opinion between the Catholics on the one side, and the Sabellians, the Apollinarists, and the Eutychians, on the other. The whole of the distinctions on which the orthodox founded their proofs of the former point were lacking in the disputed verse, but those on which the heterodox founded their proofs of the latter were forcibly marked in the same passage. The Sabellians contended that the Father, and his Word, and Spirit, were one Person, while the Catholics maintained that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, must be three Persons. And the Apollinarists and Eutychians held that the three which bore record in heaven were one substance, the humanity of Christ being absorbed in his Divinity; while the Catholics, asserting the existence of two natures in the same Divine Person, believed that Christ was of one substance with God in the former, but of a like substance with Man in the latter. We thus easily discover the causes which induced the orthodox to rest their cause on the testimony of the earthly witnesses instead of the heavenly. The specific mention of "the blood" in verse 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, without any confusion of substance, against the Eutychians. Under this view, the preference shown 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. Jerome, 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 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 embarrassed their cause with difficulties which they were unable to solve; it is therefore unreasonable to expect in their works anything in the shape of an appeal to its authority. In fact, it must be apparent to the most superficial observer, that Facundus has absolutely labored to destroy its authority by depriving it of the support of St. Cyprian. But with so much skill has he effected his purpose, that in retaining the phrase "in earth," in order to strengthen the verse which he has quoted, he has evinced, beyond the possibility of dispute, that the phrase "in heaven," with its context, was extant in the text which was before him. 

This consideration will enable us to appreciate the testimony of the anonymous writer in St. Cyprian, and to give some account of the origin of that work which is written on the baptism of heretics. And when we consider that the controversy on this subject was soon terminated; and that some works were ascribed to St. Cyprian, by the Macedonians, for the purpose of supporting points of controversy like that before us; we may at least admit the possibility that this anonymous tract might have been fabricated for the express purpose of exhibiting the context of St. John without the disputed passage. This passage was thus deprived, at a stroke, of the testimony of St. Cyprian and of the text which existed in his times; and this, as we have seen, in the peculiar case of P. Leo and Facundus, was no inconsiderable object with the polemics 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 diversity of the copies which contain that writer's works, and which sometimes omit the contested passage, at all affect the point in dispute. Eucherius preceded the era which produced the Eutychian controversy; and in quoting the disputed text he furnished an authority in favor of that heresy. As the removal of an obnoxious passage from his works was merely an accommodation of his quotations to the sacred tent, as corrected by the Greek, it is only wonderful that the text of the heavenly witnesses should have retained its place in any copy of his writings. For the testimony of Cerealis fully evinces that this text has disappeared from some tracts in which it was originally inserted. 

The variations of the disputed passage, as read in the modern Latin Vulgate, present no greater diffi­culty. In some copies it is wholly omitted, in some it is annexed in the margin, though in most it is inserted 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 church to allude to the mystery of the Trinity, un­less in oblique terms, before those who had not been initiated in the Christian covenant. In the next place, the seventh verse is really no explana­tory gloss of the eighth, unless we suppose it framed by the heretics. From the times of Tertullian and Cyprian, in whose interpretations the disputed verse is supposed to have originated, to those of Fulgentius and Eugenius, in whose times it was confessedly incorporated in the sacred canon, an orthodox exposition of the doctrine extracted from the eighth verse, could have been only expressed in the terms the "Father and the Son," instead of "the Father and the Word," &c. By the latter reading, of course, the supposition that the seventh verse is a marginal gloss on the eighth, is so completely overthrown, that it furnishes a very decisive confirmation of the contrary assumption, that the disputed verse was originally suppressed, not gradually introduced, into the Latin translation. 

In fact, as the explanation offered by the impugners of the text of the heavenly witnesses, to account for the varieties in this translation, thus 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 Catholic Epistles, in one of which the contested verse was omitted, though it was retained 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 published by that early father; but that one edition had been in some instances dedicated to Eustochium, to whom the Catholic Epistles are inscribed in the Prologue. Now as St. Jerome likewise undertook the revisal of the Italic translation, at the request 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 Latin Vulgate was published, St. Jerome inserted the contested verse in the text which was designed for private use, omitting it in that which was intended far general circulation. And in thus acting he adhered to the peculiar plan which he had prescribed to himself in revising the Latin translation, having omitted the disputed verse in the authorized version, on the authority of the Greek, from whence it had been removed by Eusebius, but having availed himself of the variations of the Latin translation, in choosing that reading of the disputed verse which was calculated to support the ecclesiastical doctrine of one substance, as understood by the initiated in the Christian mysteries. 

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 omissions 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 polemics. The objections hence raised against that text are perfectly consistent with that strong evidence in its favor, which is deducible from the internal 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 I Joh. v. 7, 8. as read in the Greek Vulgate, that the objection raised to the grammatical structure of the Palestine text, is removed but a step back by the insertion of I Joh. v, 7, as the same false concord occurs in the context [in] I Joh. v. 8. as read in the Byzantine edition; trei/j oi` marturou/ntej being there made to agree with to. Pneu/ma( kai. to. u[dwr.    But this objection has been made without any attention to the force of the figure attraction. The only difficulty which embarrasses the construction lies is furnishing the first adjectives trei/j oi` marturou/ntej with substantives; which is effectually done, by the insertion of o` path,r( o` lo,goj, in the disputed passage. The subse­quent trei/j oi` marturou/ntej are thence attracted to the foregoing adjectives, instead of being governed by the subsequent to. Pneu/ma( kai. to. u[dwr, in the strictest consistency with the style of St. John and the genius of the Greek language. 

It has been further objected to the Byzantine text; that evkklhsi,an tou/ Qeou Act. xx. 28 has been substituted for evkklhsi,an tou/ kuri,ou, in order to accommodate the phrase to the style of St. Paul; and that parallel examples to o]j evfanerw,qh [in] 1 Tim. iii. 16. used in the definitive sense of "he who was manifested," 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 substantiated—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 blunder of a transcriber. And the latter observation unfortunately finds not the least support from the adduced examples, as they are essentially different from the passages which they are taken to illustrate. 

It has been further urged against the Greek Vulgate that Liberatus states the vulgar reading of I Tim. iii. 16. to be a correction of the heretic Macedonius; and that I John v. 7. could not have existed in the sacred text in the age of the Alogi, since these heretics rejected the Gospel of St. John as militating against their peculiar opinions, yet have not objected to the Epistles of the Evangelist, 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 contradictoriness of his testimony, it will not be deemed wor­thy of implicit credence. We may however grant that it has every foundation in truth, without effecting in the least the integrity of the Greek Vul­gate. 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 accounting for the general corruption of the Greek Vulgate, and until this object is attained the pre­sent objection must wholly fail of its intention. As to that which has been advanced from the consi­deration 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 heretics. As far as I can collect from his words, he has implicitly declared that they objected not less to the Epistles written by St. John, than to his Gospel. And had not this been the case, the objection might be easily set aside, as it equally proves, that the first verses of the Epistle must have been also absent from the Apostle's text, as they are even more strongly opposed to the peculiar tenets of the Alogi. As this is a position which will be hardly sustained by any objector, I apprehend that the present objection in proving so much, really proves nothing. 

A few words will now cover the Greek Vulgate. from every objection which has been raised to its verbal integrity. It has been an old objection urged against the Apocalypse and Epistle to the Hebrews, that neither of those canonical books corresponds with the style of the author, 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 ancients; and when the peculiar subjects of the books under review are taken into account, this objection, which at best is founded on a very fallacious criterion, admits of a very easy solution. As the term style, in the original acceptation, was applied not merely to the peculiar mode of expression in which a writer delivers himself, but jointly to the diction and sentiment, an elevation in the latter 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 treating different subjects, and have thus furnished the objector with grounds to urge his exceptions. With greater plausibility have they been urged against the Apocalypse, than the Epistle to the Hebrews. By a nice attention to the texture of the phrase, many expressions have been discovered in the latter, which are characteristic of the manner adopted by St. Paul in his other Epistles. And though some expressions in the Apocalypse appear to be less reconcilable to the style of St. John, yet when it is considered that they are Hebrew idioms 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 objection 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 regarding the constitution of the primitive church, and the care taken to disperse the commonest documents relative to ecclesiastical polity, it is impossible even to conceive how the inspired text could have been corrupted 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 utmost care; and in the age of Origen, who succeeded at no great interval of time, it was still considered free from corruption. To the period intervening between his times and those of St. Chrysostom, 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 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 con­sideration; that of Palestine, which prevails in the writings of Eusebius, Athanasius, Cyril, and Isidore, and is, found in the Vatican manuscript; and that of Byzantium, which prevails in the writing of Chrysostom, Gregory Nyssene, Nazianzene, &c. and is found in the great body of Greek manuscripts. The weight of evidence which supports both editions 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 witnesses, contained in the primitive Italic and Syriac versions, is generally found on the side of the Greek Vulgate, the testimony of those witnesses being further confirmed by that of the primitive fathers. The variations in the testimony of later texts, versions, and writers, is besides easily traced to the influence of the Marcionite and Valentinian heresies, which, as merely affecting a text essentially different from the Vulgar Greek, leaves the evidence arising in favor of this text from the immemorial 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 consideration. Were the Greek Church the only witness of its integrity, or guardian of its purity, the ob­jection would be of vital importance. But in deciding 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 com­parative view of their testimony enables us to determine the genuine text in every point of the smallest importance. And after the progressive labor of ages, in which every thing that could invalidate their evidence from the testimony of dissenting witnesses has been accumulated, nothing has been advanced by which it is materially affected. To the mind which is not operated on by these considerations, nothing further need be advanced in the shape of the argument.  

THE END