those absurd principles which he and his followers espoused."'* But Le Clerc is more harsh in his censure; and hesitates not to term those absolutely mad, by whom the defalcation of the corrupted Gospel of Marcion are approved.t

Indeed the Translators of the New Version themselves, whatsoever convenience they may find in depriving of canonical authority the commencement of St. Luke's Gospel, because it was not to be found in "the copies of Marcion," do not always pay a similar regard to the same precious relicks of reputed heresy. It will not perhaps be denied, that the Scriptures of Marcion must be, in all respects, of equal validity; that the credit of his Arosoλov must vie with that of his Evayfeλov, and that both must stand or fall together. Yet we find that in Galat. i. 1, where St. Paul calls himself an Apostle, not for men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead," Marcion omitted the words God the Father, in order, as Jerome observes, to point out that Christ raised himself up by his own power; Omittebat Marcion, Kaι Oss πατρος in ejus Αποσολικα volens exponere Christum, non a Deo patre, sed per semet ipsum suscitatum." Hieron. in Galat. i. 1. But we do not find that these words are omitted, or even marked by italics, in the New Version : on the contrary, an argument is founded upon them in the notes, to prove that here Jesus Christ is distinguished from God, to whom he was subordinate, and by whose power, and not his own, he was raised from the dead." Were

* History of Heretics, p. 261.

† Docebat Marcion Christum venisse, ut opera Creatoris dissolveret. At de Christo nihil norat, nisi quod ex Novo Testamento acceperat, unde contrarium plane liquet; nisi quæcumque Marcionis sententiæ adversantur, quæ innumera sunt, insana licentia resecentur; quod nemo, sui compos, probaverit. Hist. Ecclesiastica, p. 649.

Lardner's History of Heretics, p. 266.

the Translators aware of this circumstance? They could not have been well ignorant of it, as Griesbach, whose text they profess to follow, distinctly refers to it in a note. But they may have been negligent. Supposing this then to have been the case, let us proceed to another reading in the Apostolicon, which they certainly did not overlook, viz. 1 Cor. xv. 47, because they expressly remark, that "Marcion is accused by Tertullian of inserting here the word xugios. "" Our common reading runs thus: "The second man is the Lord from heaven ;” ὁ δευτερος άνθρωπος ὁ κύριος εξ έρανε. This he read, "the second is the Lord from heaven;" deurgos & xugios e sgavs: but they read, "the second man will be from heaven." Thus in the very teeth of his authority, they admit the word av≈ρπwos, which he rejected, and reject the word xupios, which he admitted; and even presume to found an argument for the rejection of the latter expression upon the circumstance of his having admitted, or, as they say, inserted it. Where is the consistency of all this? Nor does their dereliction of professed principle terminate here. They modestly observe in their Introduction, "If this Version of the Christian Scriptures possesses any merit, it is that of being translated from the most correct text of the original which has hitherto been published," p. 8. Yet in the present instance, and this is not the only one of the kind,* they

* Another occurs 1 Cor. x. 9, where Marcion, Griesbach, and the received Text, all read, “Let us not tempt Christ;" which they change into," Nor let us try (tempt) the Lord." It is true they take no notice of Marcion, but they seem to express their surprise that the word Christ" is retained by Griesbach, even in his second edition." They do not indeed any where represent Griesbach's text as absolutely perfect, yet they consider it as perfect as the present state of criticism will admit; for they say, "The Editors of this work offer it to the public as exhibiting to the English reader a text not indeed absolutely perfect, but approaching as nearly to the Apostolical and Evangelical originals, as the present state of sacred criticism will admit; nor do they hold it up as a faultless translation, &c." Introd.

p. 30.

venture to discard "the most correct text of the original which has hitherto been published," the text of Griesbach, that indentical text, in which, as in one of the highest credit, they professed implicitly to confide; thus coolly throwing over-board the very pilot, to whose boasted guidance, in their passage through the perilous deeps of manuscript criticism, their inexperienced bark was avowedly committed.

But after all, what certain proof exists that the Marcionites themselves considered their Gospel as the composition of St. Luke? If the assertion of the new Translators be received, no doubt can be entertained upon the subject, because they advance this unqualified affirmation: "Marcion, like some moderns," (meaning, it is presumed, the admirers of Evanson, for the sect of Unitarianism is itself intersected,)" rejected all the Evangelical histories except St. Luke, of which he contended, that his own was a correct and authentic copy." Instead, however, of pressing them with opposite authority myself, I shall simply confront their statement with the very different one of a critic, to whom both parties are disposed to listen with much deference; the "learned and acute" Annotator of Michaelis. "It has been very generally believed," says Dr. Marsh, "on the authority of Tertullian and Epiphanius, that Marcion wilfully corrupted the Gospel of St. Luke. Now it is true, that the long catalogue of Marcion's quotations, which Epiphanius has preserved in his forty-second Heresy, exhibits readings which materially differ from those of the corresponding passages in St. Luke's Gospel; consequently, if Marcion really derived those quotations from a copy of St. Luke's Gospel, that copy must have contained a text which in many places materially differed from our genuine text, though the question will still remain undecided, whether the alternations were made by Marcion himself, or whether he used a manuscript, in which they had been already made. But that Marcion used St. Luke'

Gospel at all, is a position which has been taken for granted, without the least proof. Marcion himself never pretended that it was the Gospel of St. Luke, as Tertullian acknowledges; saying, Marcion Evangelio suo nullum ascribit autorem,' Adv. Marcion. lib. iv. c. 2. It is probable therefore that he used some apocryphal Gospel, which had much matter in common with that of St. Luke, but yet was not the same. On this subject see Griesbach, Historia Textus Epistolarum Paulinarum, p. 91, 92, and Loeffler's dissertation entitled, Marcionem Pauli Epistolas et Lucæ Evangelium adulterasse dubitatur,' which is printed in the first volume of the Commentationes Theologicæ "*

As the opinions of Griesbach, to whom a reference is made, deservedly rank high in the estimation, not only of the world in general, but the Uuitarians in particular, it may be proper to remark, that the argument of the German critic, in the passage above pointed out, tends to prove the impropriety of denominating Marcion a corrupter of St. Luke's text, because he never represented his Gospel as written by that Apostle. The result, however, drawn by Griesbach himself from this position being different from that of Dr. Marsh, I shall give it in his own language: "Hoc Marcioni propositum fuisse videtur, ut ex Evangelistarum, atque præsertim è Lucæ commentariis concinnaret succinctam de munere, quo Christus publicè functus erat, atque de ultimis fatis ejus narrationem, ita adornatam,

* Marsh's Michælis, vol. iii. part ii. p. 160. Dr. Marsh might have added a passage or two from Epiphanius, indirectly at least bearing on the same point. Instead of asserting that the Marcionites represented their Gospel as that of St. Luke, Epiphanius only says, that they used a Gospel which resembled that of St. Luke μονῳ Sε κεχρηται τό τῳ τῷ χαρακτηρι τῷ κατα Λεκαν Ευαγέλιῳ, § 9, and that they themselves simply called it the Gospel το παρ' αυτών λεγομενον Ευαγέλιον, 4 10.

ut inserviret illorum hominum usibus, qui quantum possunt longissimè a Judaismo discedere, eamque, ob causam, neglectis Vet. Test. libris, solis discipulorum Christi scriptis uti vellent, et hæc è philosophiæ suæ legibus interpretarentur. Talibus itaque lectoribus cum Evangelium suum destinaret, collegit ex Evangelistarum scriptis ea, quæ huic hominum generi grata esse sciret, omissis omnibus, quæ lectoribus suis displicere potuissent""*

Upon the whole then, taking a retrospective view of what has been advanced upon both topics, will Unitarian candour act unworthy of itself, if, instead of rejecting any part of St. Matthew's Gospel, upon the credit of the Ebionites, or any part of St. Luke's Gospel upon the credit of the Marcionites, it be disposed to give a due weight to that text, the authority of which no biblical critic of eminence has ever yet attempted to shake, if it put the concurrent testimony of antiquity, supported by the accu

* Perhaps the reader may not think me too minute if I subjoin the sentiments of another highly esteemed writer upon the same subject, the accurate and laborious Tillemont It is this; Pour le Nouveau Testament, des quatre Evangiles il recevoit seulement une partie de celui de S. Luc, qu'il n'attribuoit neanmoins ni a S. Luc, in a aucun autre des Apotres ou des, disciples, ni a quelque personne que ce, fust. Dans la suite ses sectateurs l'attribuerent a Jesus-Christ mesme, disant neanmoins que S. Paul y avoit ajoute quelque chose comme l'histoire de la passion. Ils le changeoient tous les jours selon qu'ils estoient pressez par les Catholiques, en retranchant et y ajoutant ce qu'il leur plaisoit. Ils en ostoient sur tout les passages, qui y sont citez de l'ancien Testament, et ceux ou le Sauveur reconnoist le Createur pour son pere. Histoire Eccles. vol. ii. p. 123. ed. 1732. It is curious to remark the different conclusions deduced by three respectable critics from the same premises. Tillemont conceives, that Marcion made his selections from the genuine Gospel of St. Luke; Dr. Marsh, not from the genuine, but from some apocryphal Gospel of the same Evangelist; and Griesbach, from St. Luke, St. Matthew, and St. Mark indiscriminately. All however coincide in the position, that Marcion did not assert his Evangelion to be "a correct and authentic copy of St. Luke."