(now 48), and Vaticanus 354, all of which are manuscripts in uncial characters of great antiquity, in twelve manuscripts in smaller characters, by Griesbach, numbered 1, 17, 33, 77, 108, 114, 117, 131, 218, 236 of Professor Birch's Collation, the Evangelisteria, numbered 32 and 36, and seventy other manuscripts of inferior note, and by the manuscripts distinguished by Matthæi with the Letters B and V (both of the eighth century), a. c. and d. (all of the tenth or eleventh century,) and by eight others of Matthæi's manuscripts of less note, by the Armenian and Ethiopic versions, by the copies of the Old Italic version preserved at Verona, Vercelli, Forli, and Toledo, by Clement of Rome, by Origen once, by the author of the dialogue against Marcion, by Theodoret, Theophylact, Euthymius, Chrisocephalus, and other Greek writers. The reading of perpneneerat, therefore, being supported by such an overwhelming body of evidence, is very properly introduced into the text by Griesbach as preferable to the common reading of αντιμετρηθήσεται ; and it is further demanded by the parallelism. For pipari (judgment), «pivere (yo judge), and xpinocode (ye shall be judged), in the first line, require, in order to preserve the balance of the period, perpw (measure), perpere (ye measure), and prpora (ye shall be measured) in the second line.1

8. Of two readings of equal or nearly equal authority, that is to be preferred, which is most agreeable to the style of the sacred writer.

If therefore one of two readings in the New Testament exhibits the Hebrew idiom, it is preferable to one that is good Greek, because the latter has the appearance of being a gloss of some Greek writer, which the former does not present. Thus in Jude 1, nyraøpevois, sanctified, is a better lection than nyannperois, beloved; because the former is more in unison with the usage of the apostles in their salutations, and in the commencement of their Epistles. In Acts xvii. 26. the reading, tcros atparos, of one blood, is preferable to evos, of one (which occurs in Rom. ix. 10.), because it is in unison with the Hebrew style of writing. In John vi. 6. the common reading, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, Xpisos Ο υιός του Θεού ζώντος, is preferable to that of the holy one of God, & αγιος του Dev, which Griesbach has admitted into the text, omitting rou Swvros, on the authority of the Codices Vaticanus, Ephremi, Cantabrigiensis, Stephani 7, the Coptic version, and some other authorities of less note. That eminent critic, indeed, allows that the received lection is not to be despised; but we may observe that its genuineness is not only confirmed by the consentient testimonies of many MSS. versions, and fathers, but also from the fact and from the style of writing adopted by the Evangelists. For the appellation of holy one of God is no where applied to our Saviour, except in the confession of the demoniac. (Mark i. 24. Luke iv. 54.) In Acts iv. 27, 30. Jesus is termed ayos rais, holy child; but not holy one of God. On the contrary, the appellation of Christ, the Son of God, occurs repeatedly in the New Testament, and especially in this Gospel of John (i. 50.; 49 of English version, and xi. 27.), and is elsewhere expressly applied to him by Peter. See Matt. xvi. 16. The common reading therefore of John vi. 69. is to be preferred, in opposition to that adopted by Griesbach, as being most agreeable to the style of the sacred writer.

9. That reading is to be preferred which is most agreeable to the context, and to the author's design in writing.

Every writer, and much more a divinely inspired writer, is presumed to write in such a manner, as not to contradict himself either knowingly or willingly, and to write throughout with a due regard to the order and connection of things. Now in Mark i. 2, for ev rois apopηrais, in the prophets, several manuscripts read sv Hoaia to poprn, in the prophet Isaiah. Both Mill and Griesbach reject the common reading. But as the context shows that the evangelist cited not one but two prophets, viz. Mal. iii. 1. and Isa. xl. 3., the common reading ought to be retained, especially as it is supported by the Codex Alexandrinus, the Ethiopic and Coptic Versions, and the quotations of many fathers.

10. A reading, whose source is clearly proved to be erroneous, must be rejected.

11. Of two readings, neither of which is unsuitable to the sense, either of which may have naturally arisen from the other, and both of which are supported by manuscripts, versions, and quotations in the ritings of the fathers; the one will be more probable than the other, 1 Bp. Jebb's Sacred Literature, p. 144. In pp. 206, 329-331. of the same work he reader will find other instructive examples of the canon above given.

in proportion to the preponderance of the evidence that supports it: and that preponderance admits a great variety of degrees.1

In Acts xx. 28. we read, Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Of this sentence there are not fewer than six various readings, νίζ. 1. Την έκκλησίαν του Χριςου the church of Christ ; 2. Του Θεού, of God, which lection is expunged by Griesbach, who prefers, 3. Tou Kupiov, of the Lord. This reading is also preferred by Wetstein; 4. Tou Kupiov kaι Ocov, of the Lord and God, which Griesbach has inserted in his inner margin; 5. Tov Ocov xai Kupiov, of the God and Lord; and 6. Tov Kupcov Ocov, of the Lord God in order to determine which of these readings is to be adopted, it is necessary briefly to review the various authorities which have been adduced for each.

1 Tov Xpisov Of Christ. This reading is supported by no Greek MSS.; but it is found in the printed editions of the Peschito or old Syriac version, even in the Vatican copies of the Nestorians. This reading is also found in the Arabic version edited by Erpenius (which was made from the Syriac.) and it seems to be supported by Origen (probably, for the passage is ambiguous), by Athanasius, the anonymous author of the first dialogue against the Macedonians, Theodoret, the interpolated Epistle of Ignatius, Basil, and Fulgentius. The popish synod of the Malabar Christians, held in 1599, under the direction of Mendoza, the Portuguese archbishop of Goa, states that the Nestorians inserted this reading at the instigation of the devil, instigante diabolo !

2. Tov Ocov — Of God. This is the common reading. It is supported by that most antient and venerable MS., B, or the Codex Vaticanus, and by seventeen others, none of which indeed are older than the eleventh century, and many of them are more modern. It is also supported by two MSS. of the Peschito or Old Syriac version, collated by Professor Lee for his edition of the Syriac New Testament; and which, he states, are much more antient than those upon which the printed text was formed. This reading is also found in a very antient Syriae MS in the Vatican Library, in the Latin Vulgate, the Ethiopic, according to Dr. Mill, though Griesbach thinks it doubtful; and it is quoted or referred to by Ignatius, Tertullian, Athanasius, Basil, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Celestine bishop of Rome, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and eleven other fathers of the Greek and Latin church, besides the sixth Synod in Trullo (held a. D. 680,) and the second Nicene Synod (held A. D. 787.)

3. Του Κυρίου Of the Lord. This reading is supported by thirteen manuscripts, viz. the Codices Alexandrinus, Cantabrigiensis, Ephremi, and Laudianus, (all of which are written in uncial letters, of great and indisputed antiquity, and derived from different and independent sources), the Moscow MS. which formerly belonged to Chrysostom, according to Matthæi (on Eph. iv. 9.), who has noted it with the letter B. and eight others of less note. This reading is also found in the Coptic, Sahidic, in the margin of the Philoxenian or later Syriac, in the Old Italic as contained in the Codex Cantabrigiensis, and as edited by Sabatier, and in the Armenian versions. The Ethiopic version has likewise been cited, as exhibiting the reading of Kupov, Lord, but its evidence is indecisive, the same word being used therein for both Lord and God. Griesbach thinks it probable that this version reads Kupiov, from the consentient testimony of the Coptic and Armenian versions. Among the fathers, this reading is supported by Irenæus, Eusebius Athanasius, Chrysostom, Ammonius, Maximus, Antonius, Ibas, Lucifer, Jerome, Augustine, Sedulius, Alcimus, the author of the pretended Apostolical Constitutions, and the second Council of Carthage (which, however, in the Greek, reads Ocov, of God). 4. Του Κυρίου και Θεού Of the Lord and God. This reading is supported only

1 Gerard's Institutes, p. 275.

2 From Professor Birch (of Copenhagen) finding nothing noted in his collation of the Vatican MS. respecting the reading of Ocov, (though he expressly says, that if any variety of reading had taken place in that MS. it could not have escaped him, as he intended to examine this remarkable place above all others in all the MSS. that came in his way,) Griesbach endeavours to set aside the testimony furnished by the Vatican MS. But it is a FACT that Ocov is the reading of that manuscript: for (1.) it WAS there in 1738, when it was collated by the very learned Thomas Wagstaffe, then at Rome, for Dr. Berriman, who was at that time engaged in preparing for publication his work on the genuineness of 1 Tim. iii. 16.; and (2.) Osov IS the reading of the Vatican MS., for a transcript of it was obtained by Mr. R. Taylor from the keeper of the Vatican library for the second London edition of Griesbach's Greek Testament, printed by him in 1818, with equal beauty and accuracy.

by the Codex G. (Passionei, assigned by Blanchini to the eighth, but by Montfaucon to the ninth century), and sixty-three other MSS.; none of which, though they form the majority in point of number, are among the most correct and authoritative. It is also found in the Sclavonic version, but is not cited by one of the fathers; and is printed in the Complutensian and Plantin editions.

5. Tov Ocov kaι Koplov - Of the God and Lord. This reading occurs only in the MS. by Griesbach numbered 47: it is an apograph transcribed in the sixteenth century by John Faber of Deventer from one written in 1293.

6. Tev Kupiov Ocov Of the Lord God. This reading is found only in one MS. (95 of Griesbach's notation) of the fifteenth century, and the incorrect Arabic version printed in the Paris and London Polyglotts; and it is cited by Theophylact alone, among the fathers.

Of these six readings, No. 2. Tov Ocov, Of God, No. 3. Tov Kuplov, Of the Lord, and No. 4. Tov Kupiov xai Ocov, Of the Lord and God, are best supported by external testimony, and it is the preponderance of the evidence adduced for each, that must determine which of them is the genuine reading.

1. The testimony of manuscripts is pretty equally divided between these three readings.

Though Kupov is supported by the greater number of uncial MSS. (viz. the Codices Alexandrinus, Cantabrigiensis, Ephremi, and Laudianus), yet esou is supported by the Codex Vaticanus, which is of the highest authority; and Kupcov Kat O, though deficient in this respect (for G. or the Codex Passionei, as we have noticed, is not earlier than the eighth or ninth century), yet it is most numerously supported by manuscripts of different families, and especially by the Moscow manuscripts, and by the Complutensian edition.

2. The antient versions, supporting Ocov and Kuptov, are equal to each other in number indeed, but those which support the former are superior in weight. For the Latin Vulgate, the Peschito or Old Syriac, and the Ethiopic, in favor of ecou, are of higher authority than their competitors, the Coptic, Sahidic, and Armenian. The compound reading Kupov kat Osov is unsupported by any but the Sclavonic; which is closely connected with the Moscow manuscripts.

66

3. The testimony of the fathers is greatly in favour of Ocov. For though a considerable number of counter-testimonies in favour of Kuptor is named by Wetstein, and copied by Griesbach; yet no citations from thence are adduced by either, which leads us to suspect, that their testimony is either spurious, slight, or else refuted by the express citations on the other side. Thus, the objection of Athanasius to the phrase, "the blood of God," as being no where used in Scripture, and to be reckoned among the daring fabrications of the Arians," recorded by Wetstein, is abundantly refuted by his own counter-testimony, citing the received reading of Acts xx. 28. and by the frequent use of the phrase by the orthodox fathers, Ignatius, Tertullian, Leontius, Fulgentius, Bede, Theophylact, and others above enumerated. The objection, therefore, was urged inconsiderately, and probably in the warmth of controversy; in which Athanasius was perpetually engaged with the Arians, his incessant persecutors.

Kupio kai Beov, is unsupported by the fathers before Theophylact; and is contradicted by his testimony in favour of Ocov.

From this abstract, it appears to the writer of these pages, that the external evidence preponderates, upon the whole, in favour of Ocov; and this is further confirmed by the internal evidence. For, in the first place, the expression EKKλngta Tou Oce, church of God, is in unison with the style of St. Paul;2 and it occurs in not fewer than eleven passages of his epistles, while the phrase c«<λnoia tov Kupiov, church of the Lord, occurs no where in the New Testament. And, secondly, O might easily give occasion to the other readings though none of these could so easily give occasion to Ocov. If (as Michaelis remarks) the evangelist Luke wrote Ocov, the origin of Kupcov and Xpisov may be explained either as corrections of the text, or as marginal notes; because "the blood of God" is a very extraordinary expression; but if he had written Kopiav, it is inconceivable how any one should alter it into

1 Nov. Test. vol. i. p. 597.

2 See canon 8. p. 334. supra.

3 Compare 1 Cor. i. 2. x. 32. xi. 16. 22. xv. 9. 2 Cor. i. 1. Gal. i. 13. 1 Thess. ii. 14. 2 Thess. i. 4. and 1 Tim. iii. 5. 15. The phrase exλnota rov Kupiov, congrega. tion of the Lord, is of frequent occurrence in the Septuagint version, whence it might have crept into the text of the MSS. that support it, particularly of the Codex Alexandrinus, which was written in Egypt, where the Septuagint version was

nade.

VOL. 11.

43

Ocov. And on this latter supposition, the great number of various readings is inexplicable. It seems as if different transcribers had found a difficulty in the passage, and that each corrected according to his own judgment.

Upon the whole, then, the received reading, exkλneca rov Ocov, church of God, is BETTER supported than any of the other readings, and consequently we may conclude that it was the identical expression uttered by Paul, and recorded by Luke.1 (12.) Whenever two different readings occur, one of which seems difficult, and obscure, but which may be explained by the help of antiquity, and a more accurate knowledge of the language, whereas the other is so easy as to be obvious to the meanest capacity, the latter reading is to be suspected; because the former is more in unison with the style of the sacred writers, which, abounding with Hebraisms, is repugnant to the genius of the pure or strictly classical Greek language.

No transcriber would designedly change a clear into an obscure reading, nor is it possible that an inadvertency should make so happy a mistake as to produce a reading that perplexes indeed the ignorant, but is understood and approved by the learned. This canon is the touchstone which distinguishes the true critics from the false. Bengel, Wetstein, and Griesbach, critics of the first rank, have admitted its authority; but those of inferior order generally prefer the easy reading, for no other reason than because its meaning is most obvious.

(13.) If for a passage, that is not absolutely necessary to the construction, various readings are found, that differ materially from each other, we have reason to suspect its authenticity; and likewise that all the readings are interpolations of transcribers who have attempted by different methods to supply the seeming deficiency of the original.

This rule, however must not be carried to the extreme, nor is a single variation sufficient to justify our suspicion of a word or phrase, though its omission affects not the sense, or even though the construction would be improved by its absence: for, in a book that has been so frequently transcribed as the New Testament, mistakes were unavoidable, and therefore a single deviation alone can lead us to no immediate conclusion.

14. Readings, which are evidently glosses, or interpolations, are invariably to be rejected.

(1.) Glosses are betrayed, 1. When the words do not agree with the scope and context of the passage; 2. When they are evidently foreign to the style of the sacred writer; 3. When there is evident tautology; 4. When words, which are best absent, are most unaccountably introduced; 5. When certain words are more correctly disposed in a different place; and lastly, when phrases are joined together, the latter of which is much clearer than the former.

(2.) "An interpolation is sometimes betrayed by the circumstance of its being delivered in the language of a later church. In the time of the apostles the word Christ was never used as the proper name of a person, but as an epithet expressive of the ministry of Jesus, and was frequently applied as synonymous to Son of

God.' The expression therefore Christ is the Son of God,' Acts viii. 37. is a kind of tautology, and is almost as absurd as to say Christ is the Messiah, that is, the anointed is the anointed. But the word being used in later ages as a proper name, this impropriety was not perceived by the person who obtruded the passage

on the text."

(3.) "If one or more words that may be considered as an addition to a passage, are found only in manuscripts, but in none of the most antient versions, nor in the quotations of the early fathers, we have reason to suspect an interpolation." In Acts viii. 39. the Alexandrian manuscript reads thus: IINA [ATIONEHEZENEMIΤΟΝΕΥΝΟΥΧΟΝΑΝΓΕΛΟΣΔΕ] ΚΥΗΡΠΑΣΕΝΤΟΝΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΝ The Spt [holy fell upon the eunuch, but the Angel] of the Lord caught away Philip. The words between brackets, Michaelis thinks, are spurious; and Griesbach decidedly pronounces them to be an emendation of the copyist. They are found in six manu

1 Nov. Test. a Griesbach, tom. ii. pp. 112-117. and Appendix, p. (34.) 2d edit. (Hale Saxonum, 1806.) Dr. Hales, on Faith in the Trinity, vol. ii. pp. 105–131. Michaelis's Introduction to the New Testament, vol. p. 335. Nolan's Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, pp. 286-289. 516-518. Mr. N. has given at length the quotations from the writings of the fathers in which Oros is found.

scripts cited by him, but these are not antient; and they are also in the Armenian version executed in the end of the fourth, or early in the fifth century, and in the Sclavonic version executed in the ninth century. We are justified therefore in stating that they are not to be received into the sacred text.

15. Expressions that are less emphatic, unless the scope and context of the sacred writer require emphasis, are more likely to be the genuine reading, than readings differing from them, but which have, or seem to have, greater force or emphasis. For copyists, like commentators, who have but a smattering of learning, are mightily pleased with emphases. 16. That reading is to be preferred, which gives a sense apparently false, but which, on thorough investigation, proves to be the true one.

17. Various readings, which have most clearly been occasioned by the errors or negligence of transcribers, are to be rejected. How such readings may be caused, has already been shown in pp. 313–319., supra.

18. Lectionaries, or Lesson Books, used in the early Christian church, are not admissible as evidence for various readings.

Whenever, therefore, Ineous, Jesus, adeλpoi, brethren, or similar words (which were antiently prefixed to the lessons accordingly as the latter were taken from the Gospels or Epistles, and which are found only in lectionaries), are found at the beginning of a lesson, they are to be considered as suspicious; and fifty manuscripts that contain them have no weight against the same number which omit them.

19. Readings introduced into the Greek text from Latin versions are to be rejected.

20. A reading that is contradictory to history and geography is to be rejected, especially when it is not confirmed by manuscripts.

In Acts xii. 25. we read that Barnabas and Saul returned FROM (c) Jerusalem, where seven manuscripts, two manuscripts (5 and 7) of the Sclavonic version, and the Arabic version in bishop Walton's Polyglott, have us, ro Jerusalem. This last reading has been added by some ignorant copyist, for Barnabas and Saul were returning from Jerusalem to Antioch with the money which they had collected for the poor brethren.

21. That reading which makes a passage more connected is preferable, all due allowance being made for abruptness in the particular case. Saint Paul is remarkable for the abruptness of many of his digressions.

22. Readings, certainly genuine, ought to be restored to the text of the printed editions, though hitherto admitted into none of them; that they may henceforth be rendered as correct as possible they ought likewise to be adopted in all versions of Scripture: and till this be done, they ought to be followed in explaining it.

23. Probable readings may have so high a degree of evidence, as justly entitles them to be inserted into the text, in place of the received readings which are much less probable. Such as have not considerably higher probability than the common readings, should only be put into the margin: but they, and all others, ought to be weighed with impartiality.

24. Readings certainly, or very probably false, ought to be expunged from the editions of the Scriptures, and ought not to be followed in ver sions of them, however long and generally they have usurped a place there, as being manifest corruptions, which impair the purity of the sacred books.

The preceding are the most material canons for determining various readings, which are recommended by the united wisdom of the most eminent biblical critics. They have been drawn up chiefly from Dr: