cion, or with his own context, in preferring the charge against that heretic. And on making a slight alteration in his text, by merely transposing two words, where there is such strong reasou to suspect the error of a transcriber, that a similar error occurs in the subsequent page, every objection disappears which embarrasses his testimony.

In the phrase, 1 Cor. x. 9. "Neither let us tempt Christ as some of them also tempted," Epiphanius objects, that Marcion substituted Christ for Lord, in his Apostolicon. As it is, however, certain, that Marcion considered the Jews, while under the old dispensation, as subject to the second God, whom he termed the Creator; and believed that Christ merely descended, under the new dispensation, to supersede the law, and abolish the works of the Creator +; his peculiar opinions required that the reverse of this change should be made, and that "Lord" should be substituted for "Christ" in the contested passage. Again, in vindication of the received reading, Epiphanius proceeds to observe, that the terms Christ and Lord were synonymous; intimating that the former term was capable of the high sense of the latter, κἂν μὴδοκοίη τῷ Μαρκίωνι ; and subjoining, that it, not Kigos, was used by the Apostle in his context, govоTEταγμένης τῆς τὸ Χριστὸ ἐπωνυμίας ; this observation of course fur nishes ground for concluding that Epiphanius considered Xgisov, 1 Cor. x. 9. the genuine reading, which, if changed by Marcion, was of course altered to Kúgiov. This, in fact, is the best argument in support of the former reading, as it is an appeal to the practice of the Apostle; and if any person collates verses 4. 10. of the chapter before us, he will feel its force; and that it is impossible to conclude, from the use of Xgisòv in the one place, that Kúgiov was used in the other. Whether, therefore, we consider the peculiar opinions of Marcion, or the immediate remark of Epiphanius, it is inferable, that the true charge lying against the heretic is precisely reversed in his printed text; and that the real source of the variation from the vulgar Greek is the correction. of Marcion. And this conclusion derives no inconsiderable support from the consideration of the facility with which XN and KN might be confounded in the text of St. Epiphanius, from the similarity of the initial letters; a like error occurring

* S. Epiph. Hærr. p. 258. b. Μαρκίων ἀντὶ τῷ Κύριον Χρισὸν ἐποίησε Χρισὸν δὲ καὶ Κύριον ταυτὸν ὑπάρχειν, κἂν μὴ δοκοίη τῷ Μαρκίωνι, προϋποτε ταγμένης τῆς τὸ Χρισὲ ἐπωνυμίας, ἐν τῷ εἰπεῖν, ' ἡ πέρα ἦν ὁ Χρισος.

+ Id Ibid. p. 305. a. 374. a. Conf. S. Iren. adv. Hær. Lib. I. Cap. xxvi. p. 106.

Vid. supr. p. 666,

in the very next page of the same writer. Instead, therefore, of adventuring the desperate attempt of correcting the whole body of Greek MSS. by St. Epiphanius; we should propose as a more suitable specific for the difficulty before us, correcting that ancient Father, by his own context, and reading the passage in his works, Μαρκίων ἀντὶ τῇ ΧΝ ΚΝ ἐποίησε. Χρισὸν δὲ καὶ Κύριον ταυτὸν ὑπάρχειν, κἂν μὴ δοκοίη τῷ Μαρκίωνι, προϋποτε ταγμένης τῆς τὸ Χριςκ ἐπωνυμίας, ἐν τῷ εἰπεῖν ἡ πέτρα ἦν δ Χριςός· καὶ ἐκ ἐν τοῖς πλείοσιν αὐτῶν οὐδόκησε. On making this slight emendation, every objection to the passage before us disappears; and the testimony of St. Epiphanius regularly arranges itself on the side of the received reading.

With respect to the correspondent passage, 1 Cor. xv. 47, in which it is proposed to substitute on the authority of the Latin Vulgate, the second Man was from heaven, heavenly;" instead of the common reading of the Greek Vulgate," the second Man was the Lord from heaven;" we regret that our limits will not permit us to enlarge on it; as we conceive it possible to shew, from the internal evidence, that the former reading is alone ad. missible. We shall, however, offer a few observations on the external testimony, on which it is unadvisedly proposed, to cor rect the Greek Vulgate.

It is, in the first place, asserted on the authority of Tertullian, that Marcion first substituted "Kugios gave for downes & Beast" But Tertullian advances nothing of the kind; be obvi ously asserts, that Marción substituted Kupios for 'Adzu in cerse 45, where the term 'Adau exclusively occurs; but with respect to verse 47, with which we are alone concerned, he merely asserts that he omitted av pazos §. This interpretation of his testimony, which indeed naturally flows from his words, is placed out of doubt, by the Dialogue against Marcion," ascribed to Origen, in which the text of the heretic is quoted in full, and precisely

* Vid. S. Epiph. ibid. p. 359. b.

+ The running text in St. Epiphanius, Ibid. p. 357. c. was, of course, naturally accommodated to the express testimony of that ancient Father.

Griesh. n. in h. 1.

Tert. adv. Marc. Lib. V. cap. x. p. 473. c. Ad hoc enim et de ipso Christo præstruit, Factus primus homo Adam in aninam vivam; novissimus Adam in spiritum vivificantem :' licet stultissimus hæreticus noluerit ita esse. Dominum' enim ponit novissimum,' pronovissimo Adam'. Eodem modo et homine hominis revincetur. Primus (inquit) homo de humo terrenus; secundus Dominus de cœlo.' Quare • secundus' si nonhomo' quod et primus. Aut numquid et primus Dominus' si et secundus.'

6

conformable

conformable to the above representation. The origin ascribed to the received reading, is consequently without any the least foundation, in the assertion of Tertullian. But further; on estimating the full force of that primitive father's objection, his testimony directly arranges itself on the side of the vulgar edition. After having quoted the disputed clause, as read by the heretic, primus homo de humo terrenus, secundus Dominus de cœlo ;" he merely accuses him of having suppressed "homo," and destroyed the verbal antithesis between "primus homo" and "secundus homo +;"-Quare "secundus" si non homo, quod et "primus?" Aut nunquid et " primus Dominus" si et secundus?" But he neither insists on the suppression of "cœlestis," nor on the interpolation of " Dominus," nor yet on the total destruction of the antithesis in the sentence, as he must have done had he read with the Latin Vulgate, " Primus homo de terra terrenus; secundus homo de cœlo coelestis." And this view of the question is further confirmed by the reason of the case; Marcion having, merely in consistence with his tenets, suppressed "Adam" in one text, and "homo" in the other; on the common principle which induced him to mutilate every passage which asserted the human nature of our Saviour. If we therefore replace the term, the suppression merely of which is objected by Tertullian, the clause which he has quoted precisely accords with the received reading "Primus homo de humo terrenus, secundus [homo] Dominus de cœlo." We are of course only at liberty to conclude, that Tertullian found in his copies the reading of the Vulgar Greek ; ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος ἐκ γῆς χοϊκὸς· ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρω πος, ὁ Κύριος ἐξ ὀρανό.

The testimony of Tertullian being thus brought round, on the side of the received reading, the external testimony by which it is supported, is abundantly sufficient to establish its authenticity, Independent of the testimony of this primitive father in the West, and of Origen in the East §. it is supported by the common suffrage of the Greek Vulgate, confirmed by the early testimony of the primitive and revised Syriac Versions. The remote antiquity of this concurrent evidence, reduces the supposition of its

* Dial. adv. Marc. subnex. Orig. Op. Tom. I. p. 864. a. TaỡтZ μὲν ἤκεσας τῷ ἀποστόλω· ἐκεῖνα δὲ ἐκ ἔκάσας λέγοντος· ὁ ἐγένετο ὁ πρῶτος ἄνα θρωπος Αδαμ εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν· ὁ ἔσχατος Κύριος, εἰς πνεῦμα ζωοποιδινό ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος ἐκ γῆς χοῖκος, ὁ δεύτερος κύριος ἐξ ἐραν.

+Vid. supr.

Tert. de Carn. Christ. cap. ii. p. 308. "His opinor consiliis, tot originalia instrumenta Christi delore, Marcion ausus es; ne caro ejus probaretur." Vid. infr.

Orig. Select. in Psal. Tom. II. p. 559. d.

general

general corruption to a palpable absurdity. As the Dean of Cork has justly observed, after the Bishop of St. David's, the orthodox cause gains nothing by the difference between the Greek and Latin Vulgate; as either passage establishes the heavenly origin of our Lord. But by the change the fullest concession was made to the Marcionites; the admission of the disputed clause being not merely the acknowledgment of a text calculated to support the fundamental error of those heretics, but the adoption of an authority, fabricated, as our opponents assert, for the express purpose of sustaining it. While on this supposition it is easy to account for the variation of the Latin Vulgate, from the standard of the Greek; the passage being probably considered a Marcionite corruption of the text*, and as such corrected at the pleasure of the translator: on the same supposition, the general corruption of the Greek, and the primitive translations, is utterly inexplicable; the Marcionite heresy having particularly prevailed when those versions were formed. In the former consideration, the testimony of St. Cyprian is completely disposed of, whose single authority now stands in opposition to the testimony of the old and revised Syriac. He was engaged in the Marcionite controversy, and like the generality of readers who have appealed to Tertullian, might have conceived he possessed the testimony of that father in support of the reading which best suited his purpose. For, in confirmation of this assertion, it must be observed, that he not only adopts many of Tertullian's peculiar readings, in opposition to the Italic and Greek; but quotes the passage before us, suitably to the testimony of that father, as it is gene

Such was obviously the opinion of the author of the "Dialogue,' quoted above; who, having lived at the time, and written in the country, in which the Palestine text prevailed, justifies its reading on this principle against the reading of Marcion; Dial. ut supr. p. 864. e. τὴν γὰρ κατὰ σάρκα γένησιν ἀνελεῖν βελόμενοι, ἐνήλλαξαν τὸ ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος καὶ ἐποίησαν, ὁ ὁ δεύτερος κύριος.

Vid. S. Cypr. Ep. xxiii. ad Jubaian. p. 200. Of the various places, in which St. Cyprian quotes the disputed text, the MSS. agree only in two; which are, of course, most probably correct. We read in the tract, De Zel. et Liv. p. 226, "Imus homo de terræ limo, secundus homo de cœlo: qualis ille de limo, talis et qui de limo: et qualis cœlestis, talis et cœlestes:" and the disputed clause of this reading is confirmed by a like coincidence of the MSS De Orat. Domin. p. 146. and by a sufficient number of MSS. in the other places where the text occurs. Yet it is obvious, from the context, and other places in his works, that here St. Cyprian omits cœlestis, not less than Dominus; the source of the one omission as well as the other, may be easily discovered in Tertullian; vid. supr. p. 294. p. §,

rally

rally misunderstood; at the same time that he deviates from the common reading of the Greek and the Latin.

Whatever difficulty now remains in the external testimony, is easily traced to an inconstant reading in Origen*; the difficulty which arises from the variation in this writer's evidence, receiv ing an adequate solution in the part which he took against the Marcionite heresy: it being his constant practice to quote the received reading in one place, and to give it such a turn in another, as wrests it from the side of his opponents +. Having passed through this process, and received the sanction of Origen, it is little wonderful that it should have made its way into the Pales. time text, which was modelled after the principles of Origen's criticism. Its adoption in the writings of Athanasius, Basil, Cyril, Isidore, &c. who adopted the Palestine text, and of Jerome, Augustine, and Hilary, who used the Latin Vulgate, can be therefore no secret, as they followed that text in their writings. While the testimony of those fathers thus necessarily resolves into that of the Palestine text; the testimony of this text can have little weight when opposed to that of the antient Syriac, which possesses much higher antiquity. Thus subducting from the force of the adverse testimony, quoted against the Greek Vulgate, it can have little weight against the inexplicable difficulty in which the supposition is involved, that the manuscripts of this edition have been generally corrupted from the pe culiar reading of Marcion.

Having advanced these observations in confirmation of our author's conclusion, who strongly urges the impossibility on which we have just insisted; we will now sum up the result of his investigations in his own forcible language, adding our perfect concurrence in the justice of his assumptions.

"I have now, I trust, made good the charge, which in a former edition, had been advanced against the Unitarian Editors, respecting their disingenuous use of the name of Archbishop Newcome.And if, whilst I have been employed in establishing this charge, evidence has arisen, of artifice, and dishonesty, not only in their application of the Primate's name, but in their treatment of other authorities, bearing on those parts of Scripture, which vitally affect the Unitarian question; if in their exposition of those parts of Scripture, numerous instances have appeared, of falsehoods in quotation, of fallacies and blunders in reasoning, of rashness and ignorance in criticism, of confidence in assumption, of unblushing hardi

* Orig. Hom. xix. Joh Tom. IV. p. 302. d. It is observable, that while Origen merely quotes ὁ δεύτερος άνθρωπος ἐξ ἐρανë his subject merely requires the citation of this part of the disputed passage. + See Brit, Crit. New Ser. Vol. V. P. 20.

hood