Concerning the Various Readings. T was next to impoffible that the original copies of the New Teftament fhould not in procefs of time be loft, efpecially during the grievous perfecutions which the church was at firft expofed to, without a perpetual miracle which there is no ground for fuppofing. To prevent fuch an inconvenience, the primitive Chriftians took care to write out feveral copies, that if any should happen to be lost in one place, there might be fome to be found in another. There are none of thofe antient copies, which were taken from the originals, extant at this time; but as the number of them increafed by degrees, there are feveral of a confiderable antiquity ftill in being, from which, editions of the Greek Teftament have been printed at different times (*). Great numbers of these manufcripts are to be feen in the most famous libraries of Europe (†). L All diverfity between copies made by different perfons, and at different times, and places, could not poflibly have been prevented, without a great and a continual miracle. Thefe differences that occur in manufcripts, are termed various readings. When therefore it is faid that there is in fuch, or fuch a place, a various reading, the meaning of it is, that you read otherwife in one manufcript than in another. Origen long ago complained (a) of thefe diverfities, which he afcribed to feveral caufes, as the negligence, raíhness, and knavery of transcribers. St. Jerom (b) tells us, that when he made his verfion of the New Teftament, he collated the manufcripts that were then extant, and found a great difference among them. Several perfons are of opinion that it would have been much better to let thofe various readings remain in libraries, than communicate them to the publick, as hath been done, efpecially in this, and the last century: but this diversity is fo far from being any way prejudicial to religion, that, on the contrary, the making of it known to the world hath been of great fervice to the Christian caufe, and that upon feveral accounts. 1. As this diverfity could not by any means be fo well con cealed, as not to be discovered fome way or other, the enemies of our religion would have taken from thence an occafion of infulting, and magnifying this difference, and would have proclaimed it every where, that there must needs be a very great diverfity between the manuscripts and printed copies, fince people were unwilling to communicate the various readings to the world. Whereas by their being made publick, we find with pleasure, and even with fome admiration, that thofe va、 riations confift in indifferent points, that there is none of any oon, fequence (*) The firft was in the year 1515, at Complutum a city of Spain, now called Alcala. (†) For an account of them, fee Dr. Mill's Prolegomena to his edit. of the New Tellament, printed at Oxford in 1707. And a differtation upon that subject, printed at Amfterdam, Anno 1709. (a) Origen Hom, S. in Matt. (b) Hier, Præf. in 4 Evang, fequence but what may be eafily reconciled by comparing other manuscripts, and that they are almost every where nothing but pure mistakes of the tranfcribers, which are unavoidable in any work whatfoever. It may also have fometimes happened, that a fcholium or note, which had by one transcriber been put in the margin to illuftrate a paffage of fcripture, was foifted into the text by another, either because he looked upon it as a good obfervation, or imagined that it belonged to the text. But in this cafe, it is very obfervable, that the difference caused by fuch additions as thefe, doth no way affect either faith, or morality. Several criticks, for instance, are of opinion, that the 7th verfe in the vth chapter of the Ift Epiftle of St. John, crept in this manner from the margin into the text, because this paffage is not to be found in most of the antient Greek and Latin manufcripts, nor in the writings of the Greek fathers, that difputed against the Arians. But let it be, if you will, an omission in the manuscripts where it is wanting, or an addition in those where it occurs, it can no way be prejudicial to the Chriftian faith; fince whatever fenfe you put upon that paffage, the fame truth being taught in other places of the New Teftament, there is no more occafion of adding, than there is inconvenience in omitting it. The whole queftion then is to know the truth of the matter; [i. e. whether this paffage hath been foifted in or not.] 2. It is evident from thofe various readings, that the books of the New Testament have not been corrupted by the malice of hereticks, and that if there occurs any difference between the feveral copies of them, it is entirely owing to the careleffness or ignorance either of the tranfcribers, or of thofe that dictated, the latter of which might poflibly mistake in reading or pronouncing. And indeed it is plain that if thofe tranfcribers had been directed by hereticks, they would have made fuch alterations as countenanced their errors and prejudices, and that their varying from the other copies would not have been confined to words, or different turns, which in the main fignify the fame thing, or to fome additions or omiflions, from which they could reap no manner of advantage. If likewise they had altered any paffages in one of the gospels, they must have altered alfo all the reft, where the fame matter is recorded. Now we find no fuch thing, and instead of the differences obfervable in their copies, they would have taken care to render them exactly uniform, had they had any defign of corrupting the text on purpose to fupport their opinions. In fhort, neither would an orthodox Christian nor a heretick, have prefumed to falfify any one place in the New Teftament. Had the former been guilty of fuch a pious fraud, the hereticks would not have spared him in the leaft; as on the other hand, no orthodox person would have fuffered hereticks to make any falfification in the facred writings. The hereticks that sprung up in the apoftolical times attempted indeed to corrupt the gofpels, but all their endeavours proving unfuccefsful, they forged feveral gofpels, as we learn from St. Irenæus (c). This father docs not charge the hereticks with falfifying (c) Iren, l.i. c. 17. the the New Teftament, but only with putting a wrong fenfe upon it, and taking fome paffages from thence, which they put into their pretended gofpels (d). It is true that we find Origen complaining (e), that the Marcionites, Valentinians, and Lucianites had adulterated the gofpel. But it is well known how they were expofed by St. Irenæus,Tertullian, and others; though Arianifm had been then anathematized, it got notwithstanding the upper hand in the following ages. Now what could be easier than for the Arians to have feized all the copies, and changed then as they thought fit. Yet it is what the Greek fathers, who difputed against them, never charged them with. They confuted them, on the contrary, with paflages, which were not by them, called in question. St. Ambrofius, a Latin father, accufes indeed the Arians of having added to the 32d verfe of the xiiith chapter of St. Mark thefe words, "nor the Son;" and he affirms at the fame time, that they were not in the ancient manuscripts. But we have more reafon to believe in this particular the Greek fathers, than St. Ambrofius, who in all probability had confulted but few Greek manufcripts, and who used the ancient Italick verfion. It is really strange, that these words fhould be wanting in the ancient manuscripts, when they are found in all those that are now extant, fome of which are fuppofed to be as old as the fourth century. Then we cannot well imagine what St. Ambrofius means by the antient manufcripts. The Italick verfion which he used, and wherein these words occurred, had been tranflated from the most ancie n tmanufcripts, and perhaps from the originals themfelves, fince it was done in the beginning of the fecond century. St. Irenæus (f) who lived about the fame time, found these words in his manufcripts. When Arius preffed Athanafis with this paffage (g), nothing could be more natural than for him to fay, that thefe words, "neither the Son," were not in the ancient copies. But instead of that, in answer to the objection made to him, he observes that the rest of the Evangelifts were filent in this particular, and he puts an orthodox interpretation upon the words of St. Mark. So that in all probability St. Ambrofe had been impofed upon in this matter, and too rafhly given credit to a falfe report. The manufcripts written in after ages have not the leaft marks of the errors which sprung up after Arianifm. Some of the Latin fathers have indeed accufed the Pelagians and Lutychians of falfifying the gofpels, but without any manner of ground. It is fuppofed, for inftance, that St. Jerom upbraids the Pelagians for having altered the 14th verfe of the xvith chapter of St. Mark, wherein JESUS CHRIST reproves his difciples for the hardnefs of their hearts, because they did not believe those who had seen him after his refurrection. But we find nothing of this in St. Jerom (b). Having alledged the incredulity of the difciples to prove that it is not in our power to prevent falling into fin, he brings in the answer which the Pelagians made to the objection; but he doth not speak of (e) Orig. contra Celf. I. ii. p. 77. (d) Id. l. i. c. i. p. 1-19. the the text being corrupted, nor of various readings in this place, as there is really none in the manufcripts. It is true, St. Jerom fays, that this paffage is to be found in fome manufcripts, and efpecially in the Greek ones; but what he means by this, we cannot well imagine, fince all the manufcripts, Greek as well as Latin, agree in this refpect with the printed copies. Vigilius bifhop of Tapfus in the fifth century accufes the Eutychians of having altered the 28th verfe of the xvth chapter of the fame gofpel, by putting that Jefus Chrift was "numbered among the dead," whereas it is in the text, that he was "ranked among malefactors." This alteration they made, as the bishop pretends, with a defign to countenance their notion, that Jefus Chrift did not really fuffer and die, but only appeared to others fo to do. But nothing can be more groundlefs than this charge. We do not learn that Eutyches ever maintained that Jefus Chrift did not really die. This was only a consequence drawn from his doctrine, wherein he confounded the two natures of Chrift. Befides, fuppofing that he had been an affertor of the opinion of the Docete (*), this change was likely to do more harm than good to his caufe; fince the original Greek word, which he rendered "to be reckoned," fignifies alfo "to be ranked amongft." He muft cherefore have made the like alteration in St. Luke (i), where the fame words are read, which yet we do not find he did. But what puts the matter out of all doubt, is, that this various reading is of a more antient date than the Eutychians, fince it occurs in a writer of the third century (k). It must then be a various reading, which was put into the copies by mistake (†), and not out of any ill defign. We have infifted upon this point, that we might give the reader to understand how indiscreet a zeal it is, to charge the hereticks with having faifified the holy fcriptures; fince fuch a charge tends to deftroy the authenticknefs of that facred book, and befides, it may be retorted against the orthodox Chriftians. We must do thefe latter juftice as well as the first, and not accuse them, without fufficient reafons, of having been guilty of pious frauds, for maintaining the truth. There are authors, for inftance (), who imagine, that the words just now alledged, nor the Son," had been taken away by orthodox Chriftians. Some weak and ill-defigned perfons, being fenfible of the advantage which the adverfaries of Chriftianity ufed to take from thefe words, may perhaps have been rafh enough to commit fuch a piece of knavery. But it would be wrong, to lay the blame upon all the orthodox Chriftians in general. And after all, it is as unreasonable to accuse them of having cut off this paffage, as to imagine (*) Hereticks which maintained that Jefus Chrift did not really partake of the human nature, and alfo that his fufferings were not real, but that be only fecmed to fuffer and die. (i) Luke xxii. 37. (k) Hippolitus de Antichr. 26. in Auct. Biblioth. Patrum, Part I. (†) By the fame means undoubtedly this whole verfe hath been left out in the Alexandrine manufcript; which is of no manner of confequence, fince the particular is recorded in St. Luke. (4) Pfaff. Differt. de Var. Lect. p. 192.. imagine that it hath been foifted in by hereticks. Both fides ought to be ruled by the greateft number of copies, where these words are to be found, rather than fall into injurious reflections one upon another. Thus alfo we read, Luke i. 35. "The Holy-one which fhall be born of "you." Now the laft words, "of you," being omitted in several manufcripts, fome learned authors pretend, that they were added by orthodox writers, in oppofition to the Eutychian herefy (m), as alfo to prove that Jefus Chrift was really born of Mary, and formed out of her fubstance. But the force of this paffage doth not lie fo much in the words "of you," as in the words to be born, or begotten. And then at this rate, St. Matthew's expreffion (n) "in her," must have been alfo an interpolation. Befides, St. Irenæus (6) read, "in you," before there were any fuch things as Eutychians. As did alfo Tertullian (p), St. Ambrofe (g), and St. Auguftine (r): which is a manifest proof that the Italick verfion, which, as we have already obferved, was made from the moft ancient manufcripts, read it fo. St. Jerom read alfo the fame words in his manuscripts, fince we find them in the Vulgate. All the ancient verfions have them. Upon the whole therefore we muft conclude, that "in you," is the truc reading, and hath not been put in by any orthodox writer. This accufation brought against orthodox Chriftians, of having inferted into the facred writings, or taken away from thence fome words, is of a very ancient date. St. Epiphanius afferts (s), that they had cut off these words from St. Luke's gofpel (t)," he wept over it." But it is really very ftrange, that they fhould be omitted in the manufcripts in St. Epiphanius's time, and yet be found in all thofe that are now extant. The reafon alledged by that bifhop for this alteration, is very trifling. He fays, that orthodox Chriftians were afraid left this particular fhould bring a reflection upon our bleffed Saviour. But they fhould then, upon the very fame account, have left out that paffage of St. John's, wherein it is recorded that Jefus Christ wept for Lazarus (u). yet we do not find that this is omitted in any manufcript. It is then much better to fuppofe that Epiphanius was miftaken, than to charge the orthodox Chriftians with fo notorious an impofture. And indeed it is well known that he is far from being exact. Perhaps thefe words had been omitted in fome few copies made by weak and fuperftitious perfons; but these copies being of no authority, they have not been transmitted down to us. And It must alfo be fuppofed, that it is only owing to a mistake, that wę do not find it recorded in fome manufcripts of St. Luke's gospel (w), that an angel frengthened Jefus Chrift during his agony. Had this been defignedly taken away, it would have been much better to leave out the whole account of this agony, fince the enemies of our religion might take from thence a more fpecious pretence for accufing Jesus Chrift of weaknefs, than from the help which he received (m) Dr. Mill ad loc. (p) Tertull. adv. Marc. 1. iv. (r) Aug. Serm. 123. T. V. (1) Luke xix. 41. (2) Matth. i. 20. p. 658. (0) Iren. iii. 26. (q) Ambrof. in Rom. v. (s) Epiphan. in Anchorat. 31. (u) John xi. 35. from (w) Luke xxii. 43. Hilar. de Trin. 1. x. p. 74. Hier. contr. Pelag. 1. ii. |