works the disputed passage might be discovered. Fortunately our enquiries were not distracted by a wide and interminable search. The remains of Ptolemy are collected in the fragments of the Gnostics, published by Massuet and Grabe *; but neither index nor marginal reference, in their collections, makes the least allusion to the disputed clause of St. Matthew. In the Epistle to Flora, p. 319. ed. Bened. the passage of Isaiah which has been quoted by the Evangelist is indeed cited; and herein lies: the pretext on which the critic deemed himself authorised to appeal to the testimony of Ptolemy. But the express reference of that writer to the prophet, and total silence respecting the evangelist very fully evince of how little value his evidence is to those who depend on his testimony. The Benedictine editors accordingly insert in their margin, Esai. xxix. 13. but make no allusion to Matt. xv. 8.; the only passage in question. The next authority quoted is Clemens Alexandrinus; and from Wetstein's note, as well as the Symbola Criticæ, Vol. II. p. 285. we cannot err in deciding, that the reference of Dr. Griesbach is made to Strom. Lib. II. Vol. I. p. 461. ed. Potter. Here again the context of the disputed passage is quoted; but no. reference made to prophet or evangelist, from which we can determine whether the quotation was drawn from Isaiah, St. Mark, or St. Matthew. In the lower margin of Archbishop Potter's edition we accordingly find a triple reference to Es. xxix. 13. Matt. xv. 8. Mark vii. 6. in which Dr. Griesbach probably felt himself authorized to make choice of that which best answered his purpose. We, however, find in his collection of texts from Clement and Origen, the passage before us referred to St. Mark as well as St. Matthew : this reference will sufficiently reveal what dependence he really placed on Clement's authority. The next witness cited in evidence, is the disciple of Clement, the indefatigable Origen; and here we were again directed to the particular part of his works, by the unerring authority of the Symbolæ Critica, Vol. II. p. 285. A cursory glance at the passage, we will not deny, seemed to furnish a testimony more to the purpose, than we hitherto discovered; as an allusion is made to the text of St. Matthew. But on a nearer inspection, our first opinion was quickly abandoned on a cross examination we found, to our no small satisfaction and surprize, that Origen transformed himself mito a witness in favour of the passage discarded on his authority. He unquestionably ascribes the disputed clause to our Lord, for which he could have no possible Append. S. Iren. p. 349. ed. Bened, Grab. Spic. Patr. Tom. I. p. 74. ed. Oxon. Conf. Symbb. Critt. Tom. II. pp. 285. 344. authority authority but St. Matthew*; his testimony consequently proves nothing, if it does not evince, that the contested passage was found * Orig. Comm. in Matt. § 11. Tom. III. p. 422. c. Mira' dè ταύτας ὅλας τὰς παρὰ Ἰυδαίοις τῶν πρεσβυτέρων παραδόσεις ἀπὸ τῶν προφητικῶν [ὁ Σωτήρ] βυλόμενος ἀπελέγξει λόγων, παρέθετο ῥητὸν ἀπὸ τὰ Ησαία, ὅπερ αὐταῖς λέξεσιν ὅπως ἔχει ὁ καὶ εἶπε κύριος, ἐγγίζει μοι ὁ λαὸς ὗτος ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν, καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς, καὶ προείπομέν γε ὅτι ἐκ αὐταῖς λέξεσιν ἀνέγραψεν ὁ Ματθαῖος τὸ προφητικόν The tenor of the sense, not less than the train of Origen's reasoning (comp. § 10. p. 491. b. sqq.) requires that ὁ Σωτὴρ should be taken to govern βαλόμενος ; in this view, the phrase ὁ Σωτὴρ παρέθετο ῥητὸν ἀπὸ τὸ Ησαία, is opposed το ἀνέγραψεν ὁ Ματθαῖος τὸ προφητικόν. We now ask, where Origen could have learned, that "the words of the prophet," which he quotes, iyi pas in Ti clóμars aut, were "opposed" by our Lord "to the Jewish traditions," unless in the Gospel of St. Matthew? On the first view of this passage we were inclined to believe, that the latter part of the prophecy had fallen from the text of Origen, absorbed by the phrasera is as it more fully jus tifies the critic's remark, that St. Matthew had not quoted the prophet ipsis verbis. But, on more mature deliberation, we abandon this opinion; as there is not only some difference, even in the clause which Origen quotes, between the Prophet and Evangelist, but that difference which justifies his declaration, that he had remarked it. Not to insist on the omission of Kúgios, analogous to ", the phrase. Ty clóμarı avtŵr y toî; xenon of St. Matthew does not express, aurais aici, the phrase "now of the Prophet; the force of the prepositive a, as Origen has remarked, and that also of the subjunctive 1, which is analogous to aure, not being rendered by the Evangelist. Accordingly Origen quotes the phrase with the proposition i; and it is accordingly rendered in the Greek Version of the LXX, ἐν τῷ σόματι αὐτὲ EV TOTS ZERO. This view of the subject is confirmed by Origen's context, vid. infr. p. 400. n. *. And in this view it was regarded by the Palestine reviser, who has rejected this phrase from the Septua gint, obviously on Origen's authority: vid. infr. p. 412. n. *. We will now put one or two questions to those who regard Origen's testimony in a different view from that which we have given of it, and follow Erasmus, Mills, and Griesbach, in supposing the disputed clause an interpolation in the Evangelist. If this passage has been thus inserted in St. Matthew, from whence has it been adopted? If from the original Hebrew by whom has it been inserted. If from, the Greek version, how comes the phrase to be altered? If at all from Isaiah, how comes it to be adopted against the authority of Origen, as they understand it? If the objector, on the other hand, feel disposed to put his interrogatory; how then has the preposition been omitted by the Evangelist, and the disputed clause. suppressed by his transcribers?-How obvious is the reply! The Evangelist, found in the evangelist. And this conclusion is abundantly con firmed by his context; he there represents the contested passage as opposed to the Jews, who did not believe in Jesus *; but this is certainly no where done, unless in those copies of St. Matthew which conform to the Vulgate edition. In Origen's testimony we consequently find an authority, so little in favour of the Corrected Text, that it may be fairly cited against it. From the Greek Fathers we now pass to the Latin; in estimating whose authority we shall follow the references of Sabatier, from whom they have been obviously cited in a string by his epitomiser. The first evidence quoted is that of Tertullian; a reference being made, by Sabatier to Lib. IV. adv. Marc. p. 712. a. On an inspection of several editions, we could find nothing to answer this reference. After an examination of Pamelius's edition, who has distinguished the scripture references by a different type, we could discover nothing to justify the allegation of the fourth book against Marcion, but two passages +, which appeared wholly beside the purpose of those who wished to wrest Tertullian's authority against the received text. In both he is not only silent respecting St. Matthew; but expressly refers to "the prophet" Isaiah. We accordingly find, that the index of scripture authorities, made by Ingelmontius, possesses no reference to the evangelist; and that not only it, but the margin of every edition which we consulted, ascribes the alleged passages to Isaiah instead of St. Matthew. The testimony of Cyprian, which is next cited, was easily Evangelist, having plenary authority to render the sense, rather than exhibit the words, of the Prophet, altered the phrase, in changing the Hebrew into a Greck idiom. And the reviser of the Palestine text suppressed the clause from the same superficial view of Origen's authority, which probably induced St. Jerome, and certainly induced Dr. Griesbach to expunge it: for that he did suppress it may be absolutely demonstrated; vid. infr. p. 412. n. * Orig. ubi supr. p. 493. d. μόνον τοῖς μὴ εἰδόσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ἐπαγγελομένοις εἰδέναι γράμματα, τότε εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος “μόνῳ τῷ στόματι ἐγγίζειν τὸν λαον τῶν Ιεδαίων τῷ Θεῷ, καὶ τοῖς χείλεσι τιμᾶν αὐτόν φησι, διότι ο ἡ καρδία αὐτῶν διὰ τὴν εἰς τὸν ΙΗΣΟΥΝ ἀπιστίαν 4 πόῤῥω ἐστιν ἀπὸ Κυρίε, Here we have not only abundant proof that Origen considered the disputed clause, εγγίζει μοι τῷ στόματι καὶ TOT X opposed by our Lord to the Jews; but the adoption of this phrase by him, in place of ἐν τῷ στόματι καὶ ἐν τοῖς χείλεσι, puts it out of dispute, that he quotes the passage, not from Isaiah, but in the very words of St. Matthew. + Vid. Tert. adv. Marc. Lib. IV. cap. xii. xvii. pp. 507. h. 511. h. ed. Pam. 1617. found found by Sabatier's reference to Ep. lxviii. p. 118. which our first attempt discovered in the Benedictine edition. But though we found the text of Isaiah quoted, and the authority of some "Gospel" alleged, we have still to complain, that no mention was made of St. Matthew. And that we are not singular in pronouncing, that the alleged testimony contains nothing at all to the purpose, we may appeal to very adequate authority. In the margin of the Oxford and Benedictine editions, we find a reference merely to Marc. vii. 6: the learned editors of those works were therefore as dull as ourselves in apprehending, how the quotation should be necessarily referred to St. Matthew. The reference of Sabatier to St. Hilary directed us to Tract, in Ps. cxlviii. col. 590. a: the testimony of the prophet was thus easily found in the Benedictine edition. The margin now, for the first time, presented us with a reference to Matt. xv. 8. but at this we were not startled, as we were perfectly aware, that the reference was made to the Vulgate of Jerome. On casting our eye from the margin to the text, we accordingly found, that no better authority existed for the preference thus given to Matt. xv. 8. above Mar. vii. 6. Is. xxix. 13. than may be extracted from the words, " dictum est." After making this discovery, we gave ourselves little further trouble about the evidence of the good bishop of Poictou. The conclusion was not very different to which we were led, on an inspection of the testimony of Ambrose; to which we may add that of his companion Ambrosiaster. In the variety of passages to which we were directed in Ps. cxviii. Tom. I. col. 1212. d. Lib. de Virg. Tom II. col. 244. a. Ep. xli. 960. d. and which were easily found in the Benedictine edition, we could discover no graver reason for the reverend editors' caprice, in giving the alleged passage to Is. xxix. 13. in one place, and to Matt. xv. 8. in another, than exists in the phrases," Dixit Dominus,"" Dominus ait,"-" dictum est." Our search in Ambrosiaster was even more fruitless. In p. 61. of the Benedictime edition of his works, to which we were referred by Sabatier, an opposition marked between the words of God in the Prophet, and of our Lord in the Gospel, clearly took away the disputed clause from St. Matthew, and appropriated it to Isaiah; and conformably to this representation we found the testimony of the former wholly disregarded in the editors' margin, while a reference was expressly made to the latter. It must be needless to prosecute investigation beyond this point. Whether as much accuracy has been used in adducing the testimony of St Jerome, as in quoting that of his predecessors, we are not much concerned in enquiring. The peculiar reading of his own version renders it probable that in one at least least of the two places referred to in his works, he may support the correction which Dr. Griesbach has made in his edition. But how unwarrantably this correction has been made, must be apparent from the meagre list of manuscripts, which has been cited in its justification; one only of the Egyptian and four of the Palestine text justifying the critic's temerity. And let it be observed, in the last place, that the testimony of the Versions cited ultimately resolves itself into that of those editions of the original; as they bear internal evidence of having been made from the text of Egypt, or Palestine: the Syriac only excepted, which has obviously suffered in the present instance, as in many others, by the influence of the Palestine edition *. We The farther we prosecute our enquiries into this curious and interesting subject the more we are convinced, that when the ob vious errors of transcribers are excepted, there is no various reading of any importance, of which in process of time a satisfactory ac count may not be rendered. A genuine copy of the Palestine edition of Isaiah existed in the Codex Marchalianus; but with respect to the passage before us, we are informed by the collator of that MS, ap. Walt. Bibll. Polyglott. Tom. VI. tr. xii. p. 126. «Es. xxix. 13. EV TW cóμati aità nai įv] desiderantur hæc omnia in Codice M.? On the subject of that Codex we are again informed, Ibid. p. 123. M. notat Marchali vitustissimum, ex Abbatis Apollinarii exemplari descriptum, quod Apollinarius cum Origenis Hexaplis in Bibliotheca Casariensi, et cum Tetraplis et aliis exemplaribus contulerat." Whatever contest may be raised about the phrase iv tŷ dóμarı autè xxì iv, forming part of St. Matthew's text, there is not a shadow of doubt that it forms part of Isaiah's. Here, therefore, the corrupter of the sacred text is detected in the very act. For, here we have not only an evidence that the revisers of the Palestine text expunged passages in that edition; but an irresistible proof, that they expunged the very clause in question. Will it be any longer doubted, that they, who would thus blot out in the text of Isaiah, would also blot out in the text of St. Matthew; more especially as they apparently possessed Origen's sanction for making the latter emendation? Let us now suppose, that the Syriac translator, whom we conceive to have been a Christian, and who must have known Greek, as it is the language that he turned into Syriac, did not happen to know Hebrew, as this was a language which was almost exclusively confined to the Jews;-let us even suppose, that one of his earliest transcribers, being no better linguist, and having met Origen's observation on the passage of St. Matthew before us, wished to verify it by the text of Isaiah, but on turning to one of the copies of the Septuagint current in Pa lestine, as the only copies within his reach, found this clause ab sent from the text of the prophet; we put the question to the objector i |