the Latin version, where they differ from the peculiar readings of the other two classes, he denominated the Western MSS.

But to the so called Alexandrine MSS. Griesbach ascribed the highest rank; making a very few of them outweigh a multitude of the Byzantine MSS. Thus the peculiar readings which he selected from the Alexandrine MSS., and which were confirmed by the Fathers, and versions, he pronounced "genuine and authentic." These he introduced into his emended text; giving unreasonable authority to Origen, and distressing the minds of many Christians. "For if the foundations be destroyed, what shall the righteous do?"

But they may dismiss all such unnecessary fears. For the subject of various readings, which have been set forth in great capitals as fifty thousand, may be brought into a very small compass, so far as the doctrinal purity of the Greek text is concerned. For most of the various readings are slight and unimportant, relating to punctuation or orthography. It is indeed marvellous that the doctrines of the New Testament are touched but little, if we make the exception of the three texts under consideration. In the first of these Griesbach has "church of the Lord" instead of "church of God"; in the second he has os for Θεός ; "who was manifest in the flesh"; and he expunges 1 John v. 7, 8, as an interpolation.

Let all this be borne in mind while we proceed to examine the work of Griesbach. For, while we concede much honor to him for learned and patient labor in collating Mss. versions and the fathers; and also in directing us to the sources of evidence; we dissent entirely from his classification of мss., and also from his decision that the Alexandrine outweigh both the Byzantine and the Western MSS.

Thus Dr. Nolin, in his "Inquiry into the integrity of the Greek Vulgate," says of Griesbach :

"In his predilection for the Alexandrine text, which he conceives that he has discovered in the works of Origen, I am far from acquiescing; for I cannot see that M. Griesbach has evinced that the text used by Origen was the Alexandrine rather than the Byzantine. The fact is that Origen lived and died in a state of excommunication from that church, in which his principles were execrated, and his writings condemned. And the principal part of his commentaries

were published in Palestine instead of Alexandria. In adopting a text the Alexandrine church was not influenced by him, nor was he influenced by their text. But he followed the copies of the country in which his writings were published and dispersed."

There is great force in this testimony of Dr. Nolin. Besides, we are assured by Jerome that "Palestine adopted the text of Origen"; while "Alexandria adopted that of Hesychius." Thus we discover that Griesbach made a most stupendous mistake at the threshold in his classification of MSS.

Still further; by Griesbach's own showing, the Alexandrine MSS. were not worthy of being considered as authoritative; for he says; "They are fouled and corrupted in almost every page."

And is it not amazing, that while the Byzantine and the Western are to be reckoned by hundreds, and while they are remarkably coincident with each other, Griesbach should have made the Alexandrine Mss. the basis with which to compare MSS., the fathers and versions; while he admits that they were so corrupted; and that he should make the very few of these to outweigh hundreds of the other MSS.? For, it must be remarked in passing, that Matthæi has collated about six hundred

MSS.

We may, therefore, and we should conclude, that Griesbach is fundamentally erroneous.

We next proceed to show that the Byzantine text should be the basis with which to compare all the rest. For it is admitted on all hands that the Byzantine text can be traced through more than fourteen centuries without interruption; and during that long period there is a remarkable agreement in the MSS.

Besides, when we attempt to go back beyond these fourteen centuries, the first thing that interrupts the series is the ascendancy of the Arians for about forty years; in which period Eusebius of Cæsarea made a revision of the text. We shall hereafter show how Eusebius might have let drop the celebrated text of the three witnesses. But our design now is to carry up the Byzantine text beyond that period of forty years. Jerome's testimony helps us through the difficulty. For he says that the text which prevailed at Byzantium was not the one edited by Eusebius, but the one that was edited by Lucianus." And

thus is it made clear that the Byzantine text is the one that prevailed within two hundred years of the apostles. Surely, then, that should be the basis of comparison in all attempts at emending the Greek text.

But it is next necessary to go into the subject of the earliest revisions of the sacred text, to discover if possible what other interruptions there were in the series of MSS. in reaching the very age of the apostles.

There is evidence that no attempts were made to amend the text before the time of Origen. We may here advert to what was done by Hesychius and Lucianus to remove the objections which had been made to the text of Origen. Both of these fathers attempted to remove errors. Lucianus directed his attention to the Old Testament; and Hesychius to the New. But their one great design was to remove the errors which had arisen from transcribers and from the criticisms of Origen. Here Jerome comes to our aid; showing that Lucianus and Hesychius published the vulgar Greek text, the common edition: "Quæ Gracie kon dicitur, et in toto orbe diversa est."

Thus it will be seen that we carry up our Greek vulgate, the Received Text, to the very age of the apostles. For we before carried it around the forty years of the Arian heresy; and here we carry it beyond the tampering of Origen.

We now ask biblical scholars if the Byzantine text does not stand on a platform far above that of the Alexandrine Mss., which are "fouled and corrupted on almost every page"?

We now proceed to show that Griesbach transgressed his own rules. And what were those rules?

९९

Every emendation should be made by the weight of authority of MSS., the Christian fathers, and versions of the New Testament." Yet, while he admitted that the Alexandrine were fouled and corrupted in almost every page," he allowed them a weight of authority above both the Byzantine and the Western when they agree, and he accounted a few MSS., two or three in one passage, of the Alexandrine Mss. to outweigh hundreds of both the Byzantine and the Western. And, before we are through, we shall endeavor to make it apparent that the Alexandrine Mss. on which he depended have been affected by the revision of Eusebius; for they have his divisions and sec

tions.

Besides, the versions by which Griesbach would confirm the authority of the Alexandrine against both the Byzantine and the Western MSS. give no additional weight of testimony; for they also have the divisions and sections of Eusebius, and of course they are either the descendants of the text of Eusebius, or else have been accommodated to it. In either case they add nothing to the authority of the Alexandrine text. These versions are the Sahidic, the Coptic, the Armenian, the later Syriac, and the Erpenian Arabic. But they are not independent witnesses because they have the sections and divisions above referred to.

We come now to the real weight of authority for Griesbach's emendations.

Upon Acts xx. 28, for ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ κυρίου instead of Θεοῦ, there are ten Mss., and these are confirmed only by those versions that have the divisions of Eusebius.

But against the adoption of Kupiov for ecoù all the Latin Mss. without a single exception have Deus; and they thus support the Byzantine or Received Greek text. There are also fifteen Greek Mss. that have eco, and fifty Greek Mss. that have κυρίου Θεοῦ. And therefore it might be assumed that Kuρiov ftov was the true text; that oɛou had happened to be dropped out of the ten MSS. and Kupiov out of the fifteen by the carelessness of transcribers. If we now appeal to the quotations of the Christian fathers, who lived anterior to the date of any of the Greek MSS. that have come down to us; we shall find that the term "church of God which he purchased with his own blood" was in both the Latin and Greek texts before the revision of Eusebius.

Thus Ignatius speaks of our being saved ἐν αἵματι Θεοῦ. And he went on to reason from it thus ; Εἰς ἰατρός ἐστιν σαρκικός τέ καί πνευματικός, γεννητός και αγέννητος, ἐν σαρκί γενόμενος Θεός.

Tertullian, Lib. II. says; "Quod sciam, non sumus nostri; sed pretio empti; et quali pretio? Sanguine Dei." Can any one question whether Tertullian here referred to Acts xx. 28?

Athanasius, one hundred years later than Tertullian, writes: Ο δέ Παῦλος ἐν ᾧ ἡμας τό πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἔθετο ἐπίσκοπους ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἦν περιεποιήσατο διά τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος.

Basil also quotes the text in nearly the same words. Epiphanius also quotes it precisely after the form adopted by Athan

asius. Ambrose thus writes; "Dixit enim Paulus; adtendite vobis et omni gregi in quo posuit vos Spiritus Sanctus Episcopos regere ecclesiam Dei," etc.

Chrysostom in his forty-fourth Homily, ninth book, quotes the Greek Vulgate as has been mentioned concerning Athanasius and Epiphanius. And great numbers of both Greek and Latin fathers quoted this text in the age that followed that of Eusebius; as Ibas, Coelestinus, Fulgentius, Primasius, Etherius, Antiochus, Ecumenius and Theophylact.

If it were necessary to add to this amount of evidence, we would "church of the Lord" is no where the usus that say loquendi of scriptural writers; while "the church of God" occurs eleven times.

Now we ask if Griesbach's authority for substituting Kupiov for eɛov in Acts xx. 28, be not reduced to a very slight foundation?

He had still less authority for his reading in 1 Tim. iii. 16: ὃς ἐφανερώθε ἐν σαρκὶ. For none of the versions made before the fourth century have s; while the old Italic version, the first probably that ever was made, has Deus; plainly showing what was the original text. Besides, all the versions that have is instead of Ocós have either been accommodated to the text of Eusebius, or copied from it; for they have his sections and divisions.

Still further; Griesbach had only three MSS. in favor of amending this text by inserting ös, instead of eɛóc; while all known Mss. both Greek and Latin from the East and the West, give the Received Text, "God was manifest in the flesh "; and still further, the Received Text was quoted and reasoned upon by no less than eight of the most eminent of the fathers of the church; viz., Ignatius, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Gregory Nyssa, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Cyril of Alexandria, and Euthalius. Ignatius wrote in the apostolic age, being a disciple and companion of the apostles, and Hippolitus in the age that followed. In the next age we have Athanasius, Gregory Nyssa and Chrysostom; and in the next, Euthalius, Theodoret and Cyril of Alexandria.

Besides, if it were shown that is instead of eeós were the true text, what is the antecedent to which it refers? It cannot be μvorýρov; for the gender will not allow it. But, if it would,