is the admiration of every scholar; This theory, with all its mistakes, and want of proof to sustain it, is followed by Michaelis and Marsh; and, unless I be greatly in error, by all our opponents. The following is the sentiment of Marsh-in which he adopts this corrupted standard. "A reading, therefore, supported by the connected authority of the Syriac, the Coptic, and the Latin versions, by a quotation from Origen, and the ancient Greek MSS. of the Alexandrine and western editions, is not only of great importance, but may, in general, be regarded as genuine." Hence, while they hold up these MSS. as containing innate marks of a high original; they feel themselves justified in rejecting from their pages every text, or clause of a text, which is not found in their standard MSS. and versions! But many reasons may be adduced to show why we ought to view these standards with jealousy and distrust. It is well known to every scholar, in what manner St. Jerom, in the days of the Pope Damasus; and after him, about the middle of the sixth century, Cassiodorus-corrected the old Italick MSS. according to the reading of the Vulgate, and some Greek copies. The latter gave instructions to the monks whom he employed in this service, carefully to erase the former words, and to substitute his corrections in words, and in ink to resemble the old. "That they may be considered the execution of ancient writers:" "Ut potius ab antiquariis scriptæ fuisse judicentur. Hence, as Nolan remarks, "those MSS.. which *See Nolan's Inquiry, p. 5, 6, 7. 13. 319. Introd. to the N. Test. by Dr. Marsh, vol. ii. p. 28. + Cassiod. de Div. Lec. cap. 14, 15; and Nolan's Inq. p. 17, &c. VOL. II. Ch. Adv. were considered as containing the cending to the apostolical days, can marks of a high original, and asreally claim no higher authority a barbarous age."* than that of the illiterate monks of with the mischief done by Eusebius, But this was little, compared bishop of Cæsarea. For, to say the least, he seems to have originated all this venturous work of correcting MSS. and versions. He had certainly a disposition to do it. If he was not an Arian, or strongly inclined to that heresy, he did assuredly err by going into an extreme directly the reverse of Sabellianism. In the council of Nice, on the discussion of the doctrine of one substance in the Holy Trinity, Eusebius prevaricated in a scandalous it in positive terms. Afterwards he manner. He first excepted against actually subscribed to it. Then he wrote to his people at Cæsarea an epistle, in which he made a recantation of his former expressions.† these changes, so he also had the As he had the disposition to make opportunity and the power. The emperor Constantine the Great addressed a letter to him, in fifty copies of the scriptures to be which he instructed him to cause prepared. In his epistle he uses this expression: "Tav belav x. T. È.” "Of the holy scriptures, whereof chiefly, you know the preparation, (Tevnv.) and the use, to be necessary to the doctrine of the church." p. 92-95. lib. i. cap. vii. These are the words of πρότερον μεν συντρέχων τη Α'ρειανη αιρεσει ὑσερονδε ὑπογράψας τη See the Epist. of Const in Euseb. 3.R Now this clothed him with more power than any one man should have had in such matters. Besides these powers conveyed to him, he had, as a scholar, the most extensive influence. Add to this that, in consequence of the destruction of MSS. of the scriptures, throughout the churches, during the persecutions of the preceding emperors, copies of the sacred volume were very scarce. All these combined to give the codices of Eusebius an extensive influence and circulation. Now these codices were, according to his will and his power, carefully suited to the views of the Arians. I do not say that he wished thereby to oblige that sect: It was most probably on account of his hatred to the term "μotion," "one substance" which the last clause of our text supports. But whatever may have been his reasons, he caused 1 John v. and 7 to be expunged from the fifty codices: and also the word "God" out of Acts xx. 28: and the first clause of 1 Tim. iii. 16.* And the influence of the Arians having been carried to its height at the death of Constantine, they reigned and triumphed for forty years. And during this long period every facility was given to the fifty codices of Eusebius to extend their influence. "Mille corruptis codicibus," says Kettnerus, "ansam dare potuerunt."-And they did exert an extensive influence during these times. The history of it is traced by several writers: but by none perhaps, more carefully than by Nolan. He has shown that the influence of Eusebius is strongly marked on the versions of the east; and even in the Greek text itself, in many instances. The Coptick version, on which Dr. Marsh lays much stress, is evidently made to follow * See Kettneri Hist. Dicti. Joh. p. 85. And Nolan's Inquiry, p. 28 and 41. These writers give the fullest and most satisfactory evidence of this. this. The evidence must strike every one. It wants those texts which he expunged out of the fifty codices; and it has the changes which he made on other verses. It has also “ τους τίτλους και τα κεφαλαια the titles and chapters which Eusebius adopted. The same remarks extend to the Syriack versions: also to the Ethiopick (which Du Pin and others deduce from the Syriack); also to the Armenian, and the Arabick, and the Persick versions.*-It is also to be observed that this influence found its way into the Vulgate. For the copies of the Vulgate used in France and England have the sacred text with the alterations, the titles, and divisions of Eusebius. And from the Vulgate this influence passed into those copies of the old Italick codices, which were under the control of the Roman see.t The Gothick, the Saxon, and some of the Sclavonick versions, which the zeal of our opponents has somehow or other dragged into this controversy, are also to be set aside as equally irrelevant in this inquiry. The first was made under the influence of Arianism. For it is a fact well authenticated, that the Goths, out of compliment to the emperor Valens, accepted the form of Christianity, modelled for them, by that Arian prince. That this work of mutilating, or correcting, if you will, was practised without secrecy, and without blushing, is well known to every scholar. "The facilities of correct * See Nolan, p. 31. It will be an object of our future Inthere be not actually extant the genuine quiry to ascertain, if possible, whether ancient version of the old Italick, in the translation of the Waldenses, the lineal descendants of the Italick church, who sustained their independence against the attacks of the Roman see, and who held the uninterrupted and free use of the scriptures. This text must be worth "a multitude" of Griesbach's MSS. + Socr. Eccles. Hist. lib. 4. cap. 1. And Nolan's Inq. p. 323. * found its injurious way into many of the original Greek copies. Transcripts from these exist in very great numbers. And on an examination of those, the learned find the texts above mentioned all wanting. And they discover the other minute changes existing in other texts, which he caused to be made in the fifty codices. They find also the "titles and divisions” of Eusebius. These proofs lying before the learned on the pages of our opponents' MSS. indicate, very clearly,the corrupted source whence they have descended. our opponents fully on this material But this is not all. I shall satisfy point. Griesbach, the author of our opponents' theory of the German classification, has afforded us the most full and satisfactory evidence against these very MSS. out of which they profess to condemn our verse. ing this text (the Palestine,) from Origen's works," says Nolan, "and the blind reverence in which that ancient father was held in the school of Cæsarea, seem to have rendered the corruption of the text unavoidable. Short annotations, or scholia, were inserted by Origen on the margin of his copies of the scriptures."-"A comparison between the text and the comment, constantly pointed out variations in the reading, and Origen's authority being definitive on subjects of sacred criticism, the inspired text was amended by the comment."This point is placed beyond conjecture by the most unquestionable documents. In some MSS. containing the Palestine text, it is recorded, that they were transcribed from copies, the originals of which had been corrected by Eusebius."-In proof of this, the following are the words quoted from a part of Eusebius's edition, and found in the Co- Origen, whose text he has quoted And, first; in regard to dex Marchalianus, "Пaupios xa as the authority and standard, in Πάμφιλος και Ευσεβίος διωρθώσαντο.”* Evreßios idingtwarto." "In this his classification: notwithstanding Codex Marchalianus," continues the unbounded confidence, which, Nolan, "the whole process observed at first, he placed in it-by his in correcting the text, is openly own confession, it turns out that avowed. The reviser there candidly states, that having procured the explanatory tomes of Origen, he accurately investigated the sense in which he explained every wordand corrected every thing ambiguous, according to his notion." "And as the Palestine text 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."‡ The influence of Origen and Eusebius having thus corrupted the two grand classes of MSS. the Alexandrine and the Palestine-it is supposed, with reason, that it Quoted from the Codex March. in Montfaucon, by Nolan, p. 508. f Quoted from the Cod. March, by Nolan, p. 509. + See Nolan's Inq. p. 509. that father is not worthy of the least confidence touching a single quotation: that is, when strict verbal accuracy is looked for. It was the case with Origen, as with many more of the fathers, that when he quoted a passage out of holy writ, he generally quoted from memory; and often the meaning-and sometimes his impression, or idea of itinstead of a correct verbal quotation. Hence Origen may, per accidens, be correct. Oftener he is not. Even Griesbach declares thisthat "no reliance can be placed on the edition of his works now in print: and his transcribers have used unwarrantable liberties with him Librarii-negligentiores fuedis locis e sacris scripturis citatis: runt in describendis aut recensen * Such as the close of Mark's Gospel; John viii. 1-11; 1 Jo. v. 7, &c. ** eosque e codicibus junioribus interpolarunt. And again, exemplar Originis non ab omni labe immune fuisset.' And, Originis exemplar interpolatum jam esset." " And what is more to my point, such is the character of the MSS. on which Griesbach, (and with him the rest of those on the other side,) have founded their whole argument against our verse-that Griesbach himself-remarkable for his learning and candour-is constrained to speak of them in very severe terms. It appears to his reader, that he sometimes gets out of humour with his own materials. He seems to feel like one disappointed and betrayed by them. He is constrained to say that he did not discover one of that class of MSS. (to which his theory gives the preference,) which preserved his favourite recension, unless in a very corrupted state. "Manifestum est jam," says he, "nullum superesse codicem qui ubique unam ac eandem recensionem ita exprimat, ut lectiones ex aliis recensionibus admixtas habeant nullas!" Nay, to crown the climax-and what will our opponents after Griesbach say to this ?-Griesbach himself, with one indignant sweep, overturns the whole authority of that class of MSS. He avows, and openly proclaims to the discomfiture of his whole theory,-that the very best of them, even those in which he had the greatest confidence, he discovers to be so overrun with errors and interpolations, arising from the marginal scholia, and comments of the fathers, "that they are fouled in every page with gross corruptions." "Satis inde patet" says the candid critick "quod innumeros gravissimosque errores in iis commissos codicibus, quos cæteroqui magni facio." * Griesb. Symb. Crit. tom. i. p. cix. And Nolan's Inq. p. 320. † Griesb. ut supra, p. cxxxii. + Griesb. Symb. ut sup. p. cix. cxi. and cxxviii. "Nullum codicem quamvis vetustum, ab interpretamentis, et glossematibus immunem esse largior."* This is a specimen of the candid avowal of their leading and most estimable critick. And the gentlemen on the other side, are bound to dispose of these serious charges against the very MSS. from which the whole of their leading argument has been taken-before they can offer another exception against the authenticity of our text. "Physician heal thyself." Now-to use the words of Nolan-"Let the most prejudiced of the German method of classing the Greek MSS. according to the coincidences of their respective texts, 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 MSS. of character have, in some measure, descended; its last feeble support seems to be withdrawn from the German system of classification." Our opponents may ask, how then can you account for those affinities existing between these manuscripts? I answer, it is evident from the conclusions to which we have been led. They are all traced to the corrupted text of Eusebius; and, with the learned Nolan, we deny in the most explicit terms, "that the clas * Griesb. Proleg. in Nov. Test, sect. iii. p. lxiv. edit. 2. mihi. † Nolan's Inq. p. 41, 42. sification by these affinities, 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 been altered from the times of Eusebius.” It may again be objected: According to your conclusion then, no reliance is to be placed on MSS. And if so, what will be the consequence if we carry out this principle into its full operation? Will you impeach the integrity of the scriptures? There might be some force in this objection, if only one class of MSS. had existed. But we have brought our objections thus far only against a certain class of MSS.; and the inference and objection of opponents are fair, if applied to the legitimate object. For indeed no reliance, in this question, is to be placed on those MSS. which are traced to the corrupted codices of Eusebius: and which derive their affinities to each other from their descent from his edition. I beg leave to draw the attention of the learned to the third section of Nolan's Inquiry. By a mass of evidence the most satisfactory, I conceive, which can be wished for, he establishes his position, that the Byzantine text contains the genuine edition of the scriptures. He shows this from ecclesiastical tra dition, the proper test of the integ of MSS. The Alexandrine and Palestine texts (whom our opponents follow,) want this testimony. The tradition of these is broken in two places. First, by the text of St. Athanasius: and second, by Hesychius and Eusebius. Moreover, the western church gives her testimony to the Byzantine text as the genuine edition. This is a point strongly established; and, I presume, the learned will admit it. Now give us MSS. from this source give us versions from the genuine Byzantine source and you will soon settle this question. From MSS. and versions of this class, we are willing to accept a decision which even our opponents will draw from them. But for the peace of the church, and for the honour of Bible criticism, let us hear no more of the classification of the German school; nor of the Alexandrine and Palestine MSS. or the versions drawn. from this corrupted source. No Eusebius-no Arian-shall be permitted by us, to sit in judgment on the holy scriptures, and to expunge and alter texts according to "their own notion."* I shall, in my next, enter on the defensive part of my subject-according to the divisions mentioned in my last number. I am, Mr. Editor, rity of the text. The Byzantine STRICTURES ON GIBBON'S CHARAC text is entitled to the preference from the place where it was found. It was found, he shows, in the region where the holy writings were deposited. It is the text retained by the Greek church. It has existed, with the evidence of an unbroken tradition for 1400 years. The eastern church gives its clearest testimony in favour of this text. It is supported by the number and prevalence of copies, and the antiquity TER OF ATHANASIUS. Mr. Editor-On reading, several sius, as given by the historian Gibyears ago, the character of Athanabon, the following remarks were penned. Perhaps they are of im This is their own phrase, used in the προς την εννοιαν "them," avowal quoted above. " εδιωρθωσάμην.” I corrected (the inspired writings,) "according to his notion." See Nolan, p. 509. |