a multitude of Fathers and Greek Writers; and 5 ancient Versions. The four principal MSS. are written in uncial letters: these are, 1st, the celebrated Vatican MS. 1209, written as Montfaucon supposes, in the 5th or 6th century: in Dr. Holmes Work it is designated by the number 11. 2dly, the Alexandrian MS. preserved in the British Museum: this MS. according to Grabe, was written about the year of Christ, 396, or a little after Woidè assents to the same opinion: but Spohn, the Leipsic editor of Woide's Preface, is much inclined to doubt whether it may not have been written in the 5th, 6th, or even 7th century but he pronounces absolutely that it was not written so late as in the 10th century. "Certa igitur hæc solum sunt, Codicem antiquum, in Ægypto exaratum, nec seculo decimo, nec a monacho Acoemeta scriptum esse. De ceteris saltem probabiliter disputari potest, num sæculo quinto, sexto, vel septimo exaratus sit codex. The remaining uncial copies are; a MS. which belonged to Coislin; it then came to the Library of St. Germain des Prés; and has since been transferred to the National Library at Paris: in the opinion of Montfaucon it may have been written in the sixth century: Dr. Holmes, with Wetstein, refers it to the seventh century in the present work, it is denoted by the mark x. 2d, a MS. which was brought from Calabria; and was then placed in the Library of the Monastery of St. Basil, at Rome; and afterwards transferred to the Vatican, where it was marked 2106 it most probably is now in the Imperial Library at Paris : according to Montfaucon' it was written in the ninth century: it furnishes some remarkable lectiones singulares: in Dr. H.'s work it is denoted by x1. The other MSS. are too numerous to be particularly mentioned in this brief analysis of the work. The printed editions made use of are 4: the Complutensian, 1514; the Aldine, 1518; the Alexandrine, edited by Grabe, 1707; and the Catena of Nicephorus on the Octateuch, and the four books of Kings, printed at Leipsig, in 1772: the text of this edition is very similar to the Aldine. The Codex Paulino-Lipsiensis, published by Fischer in 1767, 68, contains only the Pentateuch, and that not entire. The versions collated in the book of Kings are 5: the Armenian, the Georgian, the Slavonic, the old Latin, and the Syriac of Bar-Hebræus. Respecting these Versions, especially the Arme nian, the Georgian and the Slavonic, much curious information may be found in the General Preface prefixed to the first volume; Vid. Diar. Ital. p. 277. 2 Vid. Grabe Proleg. ad Vet. T. Gr. Tom. i. Cap. 1. sec 5. Oxon. 1707. 8vo. 3 Vid. Notit. Cod. Alexand. sec. iv. sec. lviii. i. p. 109. edit. Spohn. 8vo. Lips. 1788. ✦ Vid. Spohn, not. ad loc. p. 109. edit. Lips. 1788. 8vo. Diar. Ital. p. 212. but it is not easy to make any instructive extracts from it; and the whole is too prolix to be transcribed. With respect to the Syriac Version of Bar-Hebræus, however, we must refer our readers to an excellent Paper printed in this Journal, for which we are indebted to an anonymous Correspondent, Of course our readers will not expect that we should at present enter into any critical examination of the value of the various readings the space dedicated to our notices of these publications is, necessarily, contracted. In the mean time, however, we must express our sincere wishes for the success of the work. It is surely high time that England should begin to rival other countries in the promotion of Sacred Literature. By one great work, the Hebrew Bible of Kennicott, she has already distinguished herself in the annals of literature: she will lay claim to still higher honors when the Oxford edition of the Septuagint shall be completed. At home peaceful, and abroad victorious, perfect in her constitution, and apostolic in her faith, she is already the envy and the wonder of surrounding nations: enjoying these blessings, she possesses the opportunity of becoming superior in literary excellence to all other countries: her natives in natural abilities are at least equal to the rest of mankind: their emulation is not repressed by tyranny; their minds are in general undistorted by prejudice, their intellect unshackled by superstition. Let not, therefore, these advantages be thrown away: let her become pre-eminent in sacred, as she has been acknowledged unrivalled in profane, literature. BIBLICAL CRITICISM, TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL. IN a pamphlet lately published by the Bishop of St. David's, and intitled a Brief Memorial," &c. some pages are devoted to the Doc trine of the Trinity, and to the arguments by which it is supported. At page 22, the learned and excellent author speaks of Titus, ch. ii. v. 13. as containing an unequivocal proof of the Divinity of Christ. He then subjoins a note containing the following assertion: "This interpretation of Tit. ii. 13. is required by the idiom of the original, and is supported by all the ancient Greek Fathers of the Church, and by all the Latin with one exception." Vid. Class. Journ. vol. vii. p. 196. & seq. (No. xiii.) The verse is silently passed over by two of the most learned as well as orthodox of the Fathers; I mean Gregory Nazianzen and Basil. Among the works of Gregory, there are two very elaborate discourses on the nature of the Son of God. In these discourses he gathers together from every part of Scripture not only those texts which directly prove, but those which have an indirect bearing on, the subject; yet neither here, nor in any other of his Orations, nor in his Epistles, nor in his Poems, does he quote or refer to Titus, ch. ii. v. 13. Į am also justified in saying, that it is not quoted by St. Basil. It occurs indeed in the fourth book against Eunomius; but that book is considered as spurious, or at least as doubtful, by Garnerius, who being an orthodox Trinitarian, a sound Critic, and an Editor of Basil, was of all men most competent to decide. It is also the opinion of Cave, our learned countryman, that the three first books only against Eunomius are genuine. I have stated this important fact, not merely to correct the statement of his Lordship, but because it answers, in my opinion, an argument which has been brought forward by those who reject the celebrated verse, John, ch. v. v. 7. Those who account this verse a forgery are of opinion that the following circumstances are decisive on the subject: First, it is not found in any ancient manuscript; secondly, it is not extant in any ancient version; thirdly, it is not cited by any of the Fathers. I acknowledge my incompetency to propose an answer to the two first objections; but with respect to the third, I think that something may be offered. All persons, who possess a competent knowledge of the Greek language, must clearly see that Titus, ch. ii. v. 13. Ephesians, ch. v. v. 5. and 2 Peter, ch. i. v. 1. (not to mention a few more instances) contain a perfect demonstration of the Divinity of Christ. Yet the two first of these texts are unnoticed and unappealed to by Gregory and Basil, even when they are in search of arguments to defend their cause. And the third text is disregarded, not only by Gregory and Basil, but likewise by Chrysostom, Athanasius, Cyril, and Gregory Nyssen, though all of these appeal to Titus, ch. ii. v. 13. and Ephesians, ch. v. v. 5. Since then two most important passages have been wholly passed over by two of the most zealous Fathers; and since a third passage, equally important, has been passed over, not only by six the most eminent, but, I believe, by all the Fathers, it is equally possible, though equally strange, that 1 John, ch. v. v. 7. may have existed in their time, and yet have been overlooked. Let it not be imagined, that I come forward boldly to maintain that the verse is genuine. I am aware that little can be offered in its defence. It occurred to me, however, that one of the objections which are brought against it might be obviated, and I felt it incumbent on me to make the idea public. Few circumstances would afford me a higher gratification, than to be informed that an ancient manuscript was discovered, containing the disputed verse; but unless such an event arise, I dare not maintain its authenticity. Whether it be, or be not a part of the inspired volume, will probably never be ascertained, until the day when all things hidden shall be revealed. May the impiety of him who cancelled it, if genuine, or the presumption of him who interpolated it, if spurious, be pardoned by that Saviour, whose divinity could not be shaken in the one case, and could scarcely be corroborated in the other! April 21, 1814. H. S. BOYD. ON THE GREEK ARTICLE. TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL. IN the Appendix to my Select Passages from St. Chrysostom, &c. I stated my opinion of the doctrine of the Greek Article, as applied. to the criticism of the New Testament, and tending to confirm the divinity of Christ. The extracts, which I there gave from St. Chrysostom's Homilies on the Epistles, are of considerable importance; for they clearly show that Ephesians, ch. v. ver. 5. and Titus, ch. ii. ver. 13. were understood by him in the sense for which Mr. Granville Sharp contends. There is, however, another passage in the writings of that learned father, more absolute and conclusive than those which are already before the public. The original may be found in the 4th vol. of Sir Henry Savile's edition, page 32. It is in English as follows: "He that is small cannot be God: for every where in the Scripture God is denominated Great. Great is the Lord, says David, and greatly to be praised. (Mark, he also speaks of the Son, for every where he calls him Lord.) And again: Great art thou, and doing wonders: thou art God alone. And again: Great is our Lord, and mighty is his power.-But these things, you will say, are spoken of the Father; but the son is small. You say this, but the Scripture asserts the contrary; for as it speaks of the Father, so likewise does it of the Son. Listen to Paul, who says, Expecting the blessed hope and glorious appearance of the Great God. Surely he could not apply the word appearance to the Father. And that he may refute you more completely, he adds, of the Great God. Must not then, this have been spoken of the Father? Certainly not; for the words which follow will not admit it, The appearance of the Great God and Saviour of us Jesus Christ. You perceive that the Son also is denominated Great. Away then with your idle talk about Small and Great! Listen also to the prophet, who calls him the Angel of great council. The Angel of great council, is he not Great? The Mighty God, is he not Great? How then can these obstinate and shameless wretches assert that he is a lesser God? I often repeat their words, that you may the more detest them." CI. JI. Suppl. NO. XVIII. VOL. IX. 2 G The thirteenth verse of the second chapter of Titus is also cited by the holy Athanasius, to prove that Christ is denominated in the Scripture the Great God. See his book De Communi Essentia Patris, Filii, et Spiritus, tom. ii. p. 16. edit. Bened. In the same place he also quotes 1st John, ch. v. ver. 20. to show that Christ is also called in Scripture, the True God. The thirteenth verse of the second chapter of Titus is cited in various parts of their works by Gregory Nyssen, and Cyril of Alexandria, who plainly understand it of Christ, and of him alone. A reader, wholly impartial, would confess that, as far as we can attain to certainty in any thing, we may be certified from the above extract, that the canon laid down by Mr. Sharp is correct and genuine. Chrysostom supposes an adversary to address him thus: I see that in this sentence God is spoken of, and not merely spoken of, but likewise styled The Great God. Surely such an expression as this must refer to The Father. No, replies our Saint, that is impossible; for the phrase zal Σwrgos, which follows, shows at once that Θεός and Σωτήρ mean the same person; and Σωτήρ in this place is spoken of Jesus Christ. If these brief remarks should appear to you of sufficient interest, I shall be gratified by their insertion. H. S. BOYD. April, 1814. BIBLICAL CRITICISM. TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOUrnal. Ir is with infinite concern I observe in many biblical critics of estimation and character a culpable disposition to give to the most celebrated passages of holy writ an import and signification which were unknown to former ages; and to interpret afresh those popular texts of the Old T. of which the sense has been so unanimously fixed by the Jewish as well as the Christian church. In this light I cannot but regard the recent attempt of Sir W. Drummond to discard the generally received mode of interpreting the dying words of the patriarch Jacob to his twelve sons, by denying that they can be intelligibly explained but with a reference to the twelve signs of the zodiac. That the Jewish theologists regard the twelve sons of Jacob as corresponding to the twelve signs, I readily grant, as this, together with many other notions of a similar complexion, the reader may find inculcated and maintained in the Conciliator of R. Menasseh ben Israel; but that they ever applied this doctrine to the elucidation of chap. 49. Genesis, |