could most easily confute his opponents. It is therefore not sufficient to know what reading he quotes, but we must likewise consider where he quotes it: and those therefore who collect various readings from the writings of the antient fathers, would do well to point out the book, chapter, edition, and page, in order to enable the reader to form a proper judgment.

(5.) It is necessary to make an accurate distinction between a quotation properly so called, and a passage of scripture introduced and applied as part of a discourse.

For if a writer, in treating any known doctrine of the Bible, uses the words of Scripture, he is at liberty to add or subtract, to contract or dilate them in a manner that is best adapted to the tenor of his discourse. But even such passages are not unworthy of notice, for if they are different in different manuscripts, and any one of these latter coincides with the former, the coincidence is not to be considered as a matter of chance. But when no manuscript corroborates the reading in such a passage, it is entitled to no voice in deciding on the text of the Greek Testament.

(6.) In collecting readings from the works of the fathers, an accu rate distinction must be made between those who wrote in Greek, and those who wrote in another language.

Properly speaking, the former only are to be considered when we select readings for the Greek Testament, and the latter immediately relate to the text of the version from which they are quoted, unless particular mention be made of the Greek, or the writer, like Jerome, made a practice of correcting the translation of his country from the original.

(7.) It must also be observed, whether a father takes notice of a test only once, or but seldom, or very often.

For a frequent repetition will make the slighter kinds of difference deserving of more attention; whereas a single instance or two of that sort will be the more easily imputed to a slip of the memory, or a casual mistake.

(8.) It is necessary to observe whether an author be uniform and consistent with himself, or different and various.

If a text be found differently expressed by the same author, we shall often be at a loss to know which he esteemed the right: and sometimes perhaps he may be wrong in each; and yet sometimes too it may be easily discovered, that one passage was designed to express the text more exactly, and another was only a reference by memory, and from thence proceeded the variation. An example of this we have in Chrysostom. In his comment upon Acts xx. 28. he reads it Tov Ocov, Church of God, three times (though Dr. Mill cites him there for the reading of Kupts Lord): but in his comment on Eph. iv. 12. he casually refers to this text, and quotes it probably by memory, and there he puts it down exkaŋeias rus Kupiov, that is, Church of the Lord.

(9.) The writings of the fathers are to be compared, one with another; and an inquiry must be instituted, what testimony arises from them upon the whole.

If it be a point, of which they generally take notice, or in which they are agreed; if we meet with no contrary voice, or none worthy of being regarded, or with some who argue for it, while others criticise or comment upon it, this will afford the clearest and strongest testimony that can be either desired or obtained. (10.) We must compare the evidence arising from an examination of the writings of the fathers, with that which appears to be the reading of the Greek manuscripts in general, and see how well they agree together. Where the MSS. in general and the fathers do agree, it must be some thing very extraordinary that will make it reasonable to believe that they are altogether in a mistake: Nay, that evidence from the fathers must be very strong, which will make it reasonable to think the Greek MSS. agreeing in general among themselves, are mistaken.

A casual citation of a text will not be sufficient to prove them so mistaken, not a bare comment upon a version, where it varies from the original: much less will this do, where opposite testimonies can be produced from Greek writers; and es pecially where those opposite testimonies are so full upon the point, as supposes and implies that they found the reading which they mention in the Greek copies

which were in use in their days. If any instance can be found in which it can be clearly proved from the writings of the fathers, that the general and allowed reading of the Greek copies, in the early ages of the church was different from the general reading of the Greek MSS. in our days, we should without hesitation give up such general reading of our present MSS. But it is very questionable whether one single instance of this sort can any where be found: and those persons who raise general clamours about the corruption of the manuscripts of the sacred writings, unsupported by any solid proofs, are no more to be heard, but still more to be condemned, than those who speak in this manner of the writings of the fathers. But in a matter of doubt and uncertainty, where the MSS. of the sacred writings in the original language are divided, the united testimony of the fathers will turn the scale in favour of the side for which they appear, and will more pow. erfully establish and confirm the general reading of the Scripture MSS. where they are agreed.1

(11.) The Fathers having in general quoted the Scriptures very exactly, as they had it in their copies, whenever a reading followed by them agrees with any antient manuscript, it is in all probability the genuine reading.

Thus, in most copies of Matt. vi. 1. we read Take heed that ye do not your ALMS (eλenpoovvn); but in the Codices Vaticanus and Cantabrigiensis, and three or four other MSS. of less antiquity, as also in the old Italic and Vulgate versions and most of the Fathers, we read, dikatosvvny, righteousness, that is, acts of righteousness. This reading is most agreeable to the mode of speech which obtained among the Jews2 and consequently is the genuine one. Griesbach has therefore inserted it in the text.

Again, in Luke x. i. we read that the Lord appointed other seventy disciples. The Codicus Vaticanus, Cantabrigiensis, and Medicæus (No. 42 of Griesbach's notation), together with the Persian, Armenian, Vulgate, and four copies of the Old Italic versions, read ‹ßdoμnkovra duo, seventy-two; and in this reading they are supported by eleven Fathers principally of the Latin or Western Church. On the contrary, all the other MSS. have simply eBooμnkovтa, seventy, in which reading they are supported by the learned Greek Fathers, Eusebius, Gregory bishop of Nyssa, Cyril, Euthymius, Theophylact, and Theophanes, and by Irenæus, Tertullian, Ambrose, Jerome Damasus, and others among the Latin writers. The common reading therefore is established as the genuine one by the concurrence of the Fathers with MSS.

Once more, in John i. 28. we read that These things were done in Bethabara. This lection is found in thirty-one manuscripts, in the printed editions, in the Armenian version, and a late exemplar of the Sclavonic version, and is preferred by Origen, and after him by Eusebius, Suidas, Jerome, and others. But it is certain that, instead of Braßapa, we ought to read Bndavia, Bethany, which word is found in the Codices Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Ephremi, Basileensis, Harleianus No. 5684, Seidelii, Stephanin, Stephani, Regius No. 22432 (now 48) and Vaticanus 354, in B. and V. of Matthæi's notation, in upwards of one hundred other MSS. of less antiquity, and in the Syriac, Armenian, Persic, Coptic, and Vulgate versions, and in three MSS. of the Sclavonic version (one of the twelfth, the other two of the fourteenth century). The reading of Bravia, Bethany, is also confirmed by the most eminent of the primitive Fathers prior to the time of Origen (who is supposed to have first changed the reading); and is unquestionably the genuine one. Griesbach has therefore inserted it in the text.

(12.) The total silence of the Fathers concerning a reading, which would have confirmed their opinion in a controverted point, justly renders that reading suspicious, unless such total silence can be satisfactorily accounted for.

This negative argument against a reading will be of little weight where it respects the writings of one single author only and where it is founded only uport some particular part of his works, and such author has himself taken notice of the text in other places, it will be of no weight at all. Nay, if but one or two

1 Berriman's Dissertation, p. 38.

2 That the Jews in the time of Christ understood the word mp3 тsiDekan, dikatorven, righteousness, in the sense of alms, is abundantly proved by Mr. John Gregory, Works, pp. 59, 60. (London, 1684, 4to.) and especially by Dr. Lightfoot,. Works, vol. ii. pp. 153, 154. folio.

only have made mention of a text, this will be a better proof that it was read in their days, than any omission of their contemporaries, or of those that lived after them, will be a proof that it was not. But let us take this argument in the strongest light, and let the utmost possible be made of it; it can only furnish matter of doubt and inquiry; it can at most amount to no more than probable and presump. tive evidence, and nothing can be positively and certainly concluded from it. One plain positive proof from the original MSS. or the antient versions, will be able to weigh it down, unless it can be shown that they have been altered and corrupted.

6. Critical conjecture is not alone a legitimate source of emendation, nor is it at all to be applied, unless the text is manifestly corrupted, and in the most urgent necessity for the conjectural criticism of an interested party, in his own cause, and in defiance of positive evidence, is little better than subordination of testimony in a court of law.

(1.) Conjectural readings, strongly supported by the sense, connection, the nature of the language, or similar texts, may sometimes be probable, especially when it can be shown that they would easily have given occasion to the present reading: and readings first suggested by conjecture have sometimes been afterwards found to be actually in manuscripts, or in some version.

Thus, in Gen. i. 8. the clause, And God saw that it was good, is wanting to complete the account of the second day's work of creation, but it is found in the tenth verse in the middle of the narrative of the third day's work. Hence, many learned men have conjectured, either 1. That the sentence, And the evening and the morning were the second day, has been transposed from verse 10 to verse 8; or 2. That the clause, And God saw that it was good, has been transposed from verse 3 to verse 10. The latter conjecture affords the most probable reading, and is to be preferred, being confirmed by the Septuagint version; the translators of which most evidently found this clause in the copies which they used.

(2.) A conjectural reading, unsupported by any manuscripts, and unauthorised by similarity of letters, by the connection and context of the passage itself, and by the analogy of faith, is manifestly to be rejected.

In the address of James to the Apostles convened at Jerusalem, he gives it as his opinion that they should write to the believing Gentiles, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and fornication, and things strangled, and blood. (Acts xv. 20.) As the question related to the ceremonial and not to the moral law, the celebrated critic Dr. Bentley conjectured that for opvelas fornication, we should read Xoipelas, swoine's flesh and in this conjecture he has been followed by Mr. Reeves in the Scholia to his beautiful and useful editions of the Bible. But this reading is supported by no manuscript whatever, nor by any similarity of the letters, nor by the context of the passage; for in the encyclical letter of the Apostles (ver. 25.) we read fornication. If xopcias had been the correct lection in the first instance, it would have been unquestionably retained in the second. And when it is recollected that the word mopvtia, which in our version is rendered fornication, means not only the crime against chastity usually so called, but also adultery and prostitution of every kind (for which very many of the feasts of the idolatrous Gentiles were notorious), the force of the apostolic prohibition will be evident; and the genuineness of the commonly received reading will be established in op position to Bentley's arbitrary conjecture.

No one should attempt this kind of emendation who is not most deeply skilled in the sacred languages; nor should critical conjectures ever be admitted into the text, for we never can be certain of the truth of merely conjectural readings. Were these indeed to be admitted into the text, the utmost confusion and uncertainty would necessarily be created. The diligence and modesty of the Masorites are in this respect worthy of our imitation: they invariably inserted their conjectures in the margin of their manuscripts, but

most religiously abstained from altering the text according to their hypotheses and it is to be regretted that their example has not been followed by some modern translators of the Old and New Testament (and especially of the latter); who, in order to support doctrines which have no foundation whatever in the sacred writings, have not hesitated to obtrude their conjectures into the text. This is particularly the case with the Greek and English New Testament, edited by Dr. Macey, whose bold and unhallowed emendations were exposed by Dr. Twells, and also with the editors of the (Socinian) improved version of the New Testament, whose conjectures and erroneous criticisms and interpretations have been most ably exposed by the Rev. Drs. Nares and Lawrence, the Quarterly and Eclectic Reviewers, and other eminent critics.

IV. Having thus stated the causes of various readings, and offered a few cautions with regard to the sources whence the true lection is to be determined, it only remains that we submit to the reader's attention a few general rules, by which an accurate judgment may be formed concerning various readings.

1. That reading which is supported by the authority of the most antient manuscripts, and by all the antient versions, is to be accounted genuine. The earlier manuscript, cæteris paribus, is more likely to be right than the later, because every subsequent copy is liable to new

errors.

2. Readings are certainly right, and that in the very highest sense, at all consistent with the existence of any various reading, which are supported by several of the most antient manuscripts, or by the majority of them, by all or most of the antient versions, by quotations,by parallel places (if there be any), -- and by the sense; even though such readings should not be found in the common printed editions, nor perhaps in any printed edition.2

Thus, in the common printed editions of 1 Kings i. 20. we read, And thou, my Lord, O King, the eyes of all Israel are upon thee, which is not sense. Instead ofa And THOU, we have anys And Now, in ninety-one of the manuscripts collated by Dr. Kennicott, in the Chaldee paraphrase, and in the Arabic and Vulgate versions. This is the genuine reading, and is required by the sense.

Again, in Matt. xxv. 29. we read, From him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he HATH, ka O EXEI apnoeral. This is found in all the antient copies, and in the majority of manuscripts, and in all the versions but one. But in twenty-two other manuscripts and in the Vulgate, as well as in some copies of the Syriac, Sclavonic, and Old Italic versions, and six Fathers, we read ‘O`AOKEI EXEIN, that which he SEEMETH TO HAVE. But it is wrong, and has been corrected from Luke viii. 18.

3. Greater is the authority of a reading found in only a few manuscripts of different characters, dates, and countries, than in many manuscripts of a similar complexion. But, of manuscripts of the same family or recension, the reading of the great number is of most weight. The evidence of manuscripts is to be weighed, not enumerated: for the agree ment of several manuscripts is of no authority, unless their genealogy (if we may be allowed the term) is known; because it is possible that a hundred manuscripts that now agree together may have descended from

one and the same source.

4. Readings are certainly right, which are supported by a few antient 1 See a notice of this edition in page 132. supra.

2 Gerard's Institutes, pp. 266-265

manuscripts, in conjunction with the antient versions, quotations, parallel places (if any), and the sense; though they should not be found in most manuscripts or printed editions, especially when the rejection of them in the latter can be easily accounted for.

The common reading of Psalm xxviii. 8. is, The LORD is their strength w (LaMeV); but there is no antecedent. In six manuscripts and all the versions, however, we read, wys (Loмev) of his people, which completes the sense. This emendation is pronounced by Bp. Horsley, to be unquestionable :' he has therefore incorporated it in the text of his New Version of the Psalms, and has transPated the sentence thus:

Jehovah is the strength of his people.

In most manuscripts and printed editions of Eph. v. 9. we read, The fruit of the SPIRIT (TOU пvevparos) is in all goodness, and righteousness, and truth. But it is the fruit of the LIGHT (Tov poros) in the Codices Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Claromontanus, Augiensis, San-germanensis, and Boernerianus, and six others of less note, as well as in the Syriac version, the Arabic version edited by Erpenius, the Coptic, Sahidic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Old Italic, and Vulgate versions; and it is so quoted by seven of the fathers. wros, light, is therefore considered by most critics as the true reading, because the Spirit is not mentioned in any part of the context; and this reading is inserted in the text as genuine by Griesbach. The connection, indeed, shows that this last is the true reading, which was altered by some unknown copyist or critic, because it was uncommon, from Gal. v. 22. As light (Eph. v. 8.) not only means the divine influence upon the soul, but also the Gospel, the apostle Paul might with admirable propriety say that the fruit of the light (that is, of the Gospel) is in all goodness, and righteousness, and truth : — goodness, ayawoven, in the principle and disposition; righteousness, δικαιοσύνη, the exercise of that goodness in the whole conduct of life; -and truth, anda, the director of that principle and of its exercise to the glory of God and the good

of mankind.

5. Of two readings, both of which are supported by manuscripts, the best is to be preferred; but if both of them exhibit good senses, then that reading which gives the best sense is to be adopted.

In Psalm ii. 6. there are two readings, one of which is found in the Masoretic copies, and the other in the Septuagint version. The former may be literally translated thus: Yet will I anoint my King upon my holy hill of Sion. This reading is supported by weighty evidence, viz. the Masora, the quotation of it in Acts iv. 27., the Greek versions of Aquila and Symmachus, the Chaldee paraphrase, and Jerome. The other reading, which is found in the Septuagint, may be thus rendered: But as for me, by him I am appointed king on Sion, his only mountain. Now here the authority for the two readings is nearly equal: but if we examine their goodness, we shall see that the Masoretic lection is to be preferred, as being more grammatically correct, and more suited to the context.

6. A good various reading, though supported only by one or two witnesses of approved character, is to be preferred.

7. In the prophetical and poetical books of the Old Testament, as well as in the New Testament, that reading is best which accords with the poetical parallelism.

The subject of poetical parallelism is fully considered in Chapter X. §§ II. III. infra. The application of this canon to the various readings of the Old Testament has long been recognised; but as its applicability to the New Testament is not so obvious, we shall illustrate it by an example drawn from the latter. Thus, in Matt. vii. 2. we read,

Εν ώ γαρ κρίνετε, κριθήσεσθε.

Και εν ώ μετρείτε, αντιμετρηθήσεται υμιν.

For, with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged;

And, with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. For avriueron noerai, shall be measured again, (which is the reading of the common printed editions, of the manuscript by Matthæi noted with the letter H, of the manuscript 13 of Griesbach's notation, of the Vulgate version, of some manuscripts of the Old Italic version, of Polycarp, of Clement of Alexandria, of Origen sometimes, and of the Latin Fathers,) we read μerpnInocrai, shall be measured, in the Codices Vaticanus, Harleianus No. 5684, Cyprius, Stephani, Regius 2243,