(6.) I suppose it then to be highly probable, that our present common reading of this text is right; as I believe the first Christians understood it right, when they took it to contain advice to abstain from eating the blood of animals. b a 2. We are now to take into consideration the addition to our common text: Acts xv. 20, and 29; which is, " And whatever things ye would not should be done unto you, neither do ye unto others." Of this I have already taken some notice in the chapter of Theophilus bishop of Antioch, about the year 181, because Dr. Mill had mentioned it as a conjecture of his, that that ancient father had referred to this reading in the Acts. But I then intimated, that I thought that conjecture to be entirely without foundation; and I gave some reasons, which I supposed might be satisfactory. I am now more fully confirmed in the same opinion, and think there is not any the least ground to suppose, that Theophilus referred to this additional reading in the Acts. For, first, there is no reason to believe that this prohibition, or precept, call it what you please, was then in any copy of the Acts, as shall be shewn more distinctly by and by. Secondly, allowing this prohibition to have been then in the Acts, yet Theophilus did not refer to it, but råther to some text of the gospels where this equitable rule is spoken of as the doctrine of the prophets; if indeed Theophilus referred at all to any part of the New Testament, and not solely to the writings of the prophets. And, since the publication of the forecited volume, I have observed that the learned Mr. Wolff, in his edition of Theophilus, (which I had not then seen) puts in the marginal note upon that passage of his author a reference to Luke vi. 31; which certainly is not improperly done; though I think it altogether as likely that Theophilus referred to Matt. vii. 12, or xxii. 40; if indeed he referred to any text of the New Testament. But, upon the whole, it appears to me somewhat probable, that Theophilus referred to the writings of the prophets themselves, and to them only; and I should think it must appear so to others likewise, who are pleased to read and consider his context. с Though Mill had a conjecture that Theophilus referred to this additional reading in the Acts, yet, with his wonted critical skill, he supposed this reading not to be genuine, but an interpolation, however ancient; which opinion I shall endeavour to support, except that I do not judge this interpolation to be very ancient, but very modern: nevertheless, that judicious critic has an observation upon this reading, as it stands in Acts xv. 29, which will not hold; for he says that this reading in that place disturbs the sense, and breaks the connection; which indeed it would do, if this rule were there delivered in a preceptive, positive form: but as they who had this reading, put that equitable rule here in negative terms, in the form of a prohibition, the sense is not disturbed; and it might be added after this, as well as after the foregoing particulars; "from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well." The authorities for this additional reading are represented by Mill in his notes upon Acts xv. 20 and 29. They consist of eight manuscripts, five of which have this additional clause at v. 20; and three more at v. 29; one version, and three Christian writers. All these authorities, especially the manuscripts, we shall observe particularly; and, as we examine their character and quality, we may possibly see reason to reduce their number. d The first manuscript alleged for this reading is that called Stephens's second manuscript. According to Mill himself, this manuscript is very much interpolated, especially in the Acts. He thinks this Greek manuscript agrees so much with the Latin vulgate, that he cannot but conclude it to have been corrected, or formed upon that translation, and even a corrupt and faulty copy of that translation. This judgment of our Mill upon this manuscript of Stephens is very observable; but Mr. Whetstein asserts, and proves it to be the same with that called Beza's manuscript, or the manuscript of Cambridge. The next is Stephens's tenth manuscript, which' Mill says likewise agrees mightily with the Latin vulgate. The third is the Cambridge manuscript. We formerly shewed sufficiently what is its character: and are here farther to take notice, that it has been just now observed to be the same with Stephens's second manuscript. Mill therefore, though without knowing it, has twice mentioned one and the same manuscript under different names. a See Vol. i. chap. xx. b Vid. Mill. ad Act. xv. 20. Vid. Theoph. ad autol. 1. ii. cap. 49. p. 228. Hamburg. 1724. d quae haud concordarent cum versione vulgata, et quidem codice ejus corrupto, glossematibusque, et subinde in tegris Epixonais satis prolixis, in Actis præsertim apostolorum interpolato. Mill. Proleg. n. 1160. e Vid. Proleg. ad Nov. Test. Gr. edit. accuratissimam, cap. 4. p. 22....27. f Mill. Prol, n. 1171. The fourth is a Geneva manuscript, of which Mill gives a good character, though he thinks "the scribe to have been careless and ignorant. b The fifth is that called Covel's fourth manuscript, which Mill says is a modern, or late manuscript. These are all the manuscripts, which are put by Mill in his notes upon Acts xv. 20, as having this additional reading. At v. 29 some more are mentioned, as having it there. с The first of these, and the sixth in our order, is that which Mill calls Stephens's first manuscript; by which Mill means the Complutensian edition, as he has himself informed us. Therefore this is not a manuscript, but a printed copy. The next, or seventh, is Laud's second. It agrees mightily with that in the Vatican, as d Mill says. с The last, and eighth, is the Seidelian manuscript, mentioned by Kuster, supposed to be about seven hundred years old, or written in the tenth century. These are all the manuscripts said to have this additional clause. As placed in Mill's New Testament, they appear to be eight in number; but are really six only; Stephens's second manuscript being the same with that at Cambridge; and Stephens's first manuscript, as is it called, being no manuscript, but a printed copy. The only version that has this reading is the Ethiopic, a very inaccurate version, as some think, and of little value; by some others, however, it is judged not to be contemptible: I may not stay to examine its merit particularly; I therefore refer to divers learned writers upon this head, who may be consulted by such as have leisure. I shall only observe, that it very seldom can be reasonable to follow one single version, where it differs from all others, especially when that version has no evidences of early antiquity, neither internal nor external, but what are very doubtful and uncertain. The Christian writers mentioned by Mill are, St. Irenæus, St. Cyprian, and Rabanus in the ninth century; for as for Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, Mill does not place him with these three. That learned critic mentioned it only as a conjecture, that possibly Theophilus might refer to this reading in the Acts. But I have already shewn that conjecture to be without foundation; because, even allowing this clause to have been then in the copies of the Acts of the apostles, there is no reason to think Theophilus referred to this text, but rather to some text in the gospels, if he refers to any place at all of the New Testament; and likewise because there is no reason to suppose that this clause was then in the Acts, as we have now shewn in part, and proceed to shew still farther. The only Christian writers, then, who favour this reading are the three above mentioned: but by Irenæus we are to understand only his Latin interpreter, whose age we do not certainly know; and possibly that translation has been interpolated in some places since it was first made. Nor are we by St. Cyprian to understand St. Cyprian himself, but the interpolator of his third book of Testimonies, whose age we do not know, but possibly he lived as late as Rabanus, or since. The very few, and those late quotations of this place in the Acts, according to this reading, shew it to be an interpolation, and that it never was in many copies of that book of scripture, and those only late copies. Beside that we do not find this reading in the most ancient writers, nor in any one Greek writer whatever, there is positive evidence as to divers of the most ancient Christian writers, both Greek and Latin, that they had not this clause in their copies. This appears from their citations of the whole decree of the council at Jerusalem, together with the last farewell, or the concluding words of the decree of the apostles and elders, or for some remarks made by those writers upon the decree. I mean Clement of Alexandria, who has twice cited this text; Tertullian, Ambro siaster, Pacian, Gaudentius, Augustine. I have above cited their passages very much at length, in considering that particular, "things strangled," that every one might perceive as much. those passages therefore, transcribed at the bottom of the page, I refer such as are pleased to examine them: and to those writers might be added Jerom. This shews, that in the fourth, as To 2, 3, et ejusd. Hist. Æthiop. lib. iii. cap. 4. Ri. Simon. Hist. Crit. des Vers. du Nov. Test. Ch. xvii. p. 193, &c. Mill. Proleg. num. 1188, 1189. Beausobre et Lenfant Préf. générale sur le Nov. Test. page 213. well as more early centuries, this clause was wanting in most, and those the best, if not in all copies. There is one thing more, which may deserve to be mentioned here: I do not perceive that this clause is found at Acts xxi. 25. in any manuscript copy of that book, or in any version, or writer whatever. This is an argument, that neither was it originally in Acts xv. 20. and 29: for if it had been originally in both those places, it would have appeared here likewise, I think, then, that there is not any reason to suppose this precept, or prohibition, to have been originally put in their epistle by the apostles and elders assembled at Jerusalem: but, on the other hand, there is very good evidence, that it is an interpolation, probably inserted some time near the end of the fourth century, or afterwards, by some Latin Christian, in order to render the whole decree of the council agreeable to the sentiments and practices that prevailed in the age and place in which he lived; for the few manuscripts that have this reading are of small weight against the much greater number that want it. One version, corrupt too and inaccurate, as it seems, is of no authority against all others. The Christian writers that have followed this reading are so few, that they scarce deserve to be mentioned; especially considering, that the only one of them whose name we know is Rabanus, of the ninth century; for who was Irenæus's interpreter, and when he lived, and who was the interpolator of Cyprian's Testi, monies, and when he lived, are things altogether uncertain and unknown. I conclude, then, that the present readings of Acts xv. 20. and 29. in our ordinary copies of the New Testament are the true and genuine original readings: or, to be a little more particular and distinct, in proportion to the evidence of things, I reckon it highly probable, that the clause, "and from things strangled," was originally in the decree; and certain that, according to the most ancient interpretation of the decree, it was understood by all Christians in general to forbid eating the blood of brute animals. As for the additional article, which we have just now considered, it is plainly an interpolation; and, unless there be some other evidence for it, which I am unacquainted with, I do not see how it can be received as a part of the apostolical decree by any Christian critic, who is duly concerned for the integrity and purity of the sacred scriptures. I have insisted thus long upon the reading of this portion of scripture, not only because Mill himself had pronounced a wrong judgment upon it in his Prolegomena, as I conceive, but because there is an agreement to the like purpose in Curcellæus, for leaving out the clause of "things strangled." And I am apprehensive that unless we retain the true reading of this place, for the main part at least, we shall not rightly understand it; nor shall we, unless we have the true sense and design of this decree, maintain, as we ought to do, the dignity of the apostolical character and commission. Finally, the misunderstanding of this decree must be to the prejudice of the Christian revelation itself, in the esteem of many. 2 Having now, as I hope, settled the true reading of the determination of the apostles and elders upon the point in controversy at that time, I wish I were likewise able to explain that determination to the satisfaction of the scrupulous and the judicious: but such a performance, even supposing that ability, would require a longer digression than could be allowed of in this place; for which reason that attempt must be deferred. V. We are in the next place to consider St. Cyprian's testimony to the epistles of the apostle Paul. b с d 1. According to what the blessed apostle writes in his epistle to the Romans; "Every one ⚫ shall give an account of himself: therefore let us not judge one another:" ch. xiv. 12. 13. 2. He quotes the latter part of the first chapter of the epistle to the Romans very agreeably to the reading we saw formerly in Clement of Rome, ver. 32. Who," says he, "when they knew the righteousness of God, did not consider, that they who do such things are worthy of death; nor only they who commit them, but they also who consent to them that do them.' The meaning of the text, according to this reading, is, that not only they who actually commit the sins before-mentioned, are liable to punishment, but they also who approve of, and consent. ⚫ Vid. Curcellæi Diatr. de Esu sanguinis inter Christianos. 11. cap. Secundum quod beatus apostolus Paulus in epistola sua ad Romanos scribit et dicit; Unusquisque nostrum pro se rationem dabit; non ergo nos invicem judicemus. Cypr. Ep. 69. al. 76. p. 188. See Vol. i. p. 296. Sed et hoc idem Paulus apostolus scribit et dicit:.: qui cum justitiam Dei cognovissent, non intellexerunt, quoniam qui talia agunt, morte sunt digni: non tantum qui faciunt ea, sed et qui consentiunt eis qui hæc agunt, Ep. 67. al. 68. p. 175. 碗 to such evil things. So it is said of Paul, that he was "consenting to Stephen's death," Acts viii. 1. 3. In the first book of Testimonies: In the first epistle of Paul to the Corinthians; "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were ' under the cloud." Likewise in the second epistle to the Corinthians; "Their minds are blinded unto this day:" see 1 Cor. x. i. and 2 Cor. iii. 13, 14. is 4. In one of his epistles, The blessed apostle Paul also chosen and sent of the Lord, and appointed preacher of the gospel, says the same thing in his epistle; "The Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread; and, giving thanks, broke it, and said, This my body, which will be given for you: this do in remembrance of me:" 1 Cor. xi. 23, 24. 5. In one of his tracts: Likewise the blessed apostle Paul, full of the inspiration of the Lord; "Now he that ministereth," says he, " seed to the sower, will both minister bread for your food, and multiply your seed sown, and increase the fruits of your righteousness, that ye may be enriched in all things;' 2 Cor. ix. 10, 11. d 6. In the first book of Testimonies, Likewise Paul to the Galatians; "But when the ful'ness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman..." Gal. iv. 4. In another work, The apostle Paul, admonishing and saying, Therefore, whilst we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, especially to them who are of the household of faith. And let us not be weary in well doing; for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not:" so he transposeth the words of these two verses, Gal. vi. 10. 9. h 7. St. Cyprian expressly quotes, the epistle to the Ephesians, not only in the third book of Testimonies, but likewise in one of his epistles, after this manner: But the apostle Paul, speaking of the same thing more clearly and plainly, writes to the Ephesians and says; "Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water;" Eph. v. 25, 26. The text cited in the Testimonies is, ch. iv. 30, " And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye were sealed in the day of redemption:" which is a remarkable and uncommon reading. However, it is found again in St. Augustine. i 8. In the third book of Testimonies, Likewise Paul to the Philippians; "Who being appointed in the form of God, did not earnestly affect to be equal to God, but made himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of man, and found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross: Philip. ii. 6, 7, 8. The same passage is likewise found in the second book of Cyprian's' Testimonies, and plainly in the same sense. I have already quoted this passage from some Greek writers, who interpret this text according to the translation just given. It is likewise found again, and plainly in the same sense, in" Novatus, or Novatian, as he is usually called, a Latin author, and contemporary with St. Cyprian. Mr. Marshall translates the first words of the passage above quoted from the third book of Cyprian's Testimonies in this manner: That though he was appointed to appear in the form of God, he did not boast of his equality with God, but emptied himself. And besides, Mr. Marshall has a long and judicious note upon this citation of our author: he says, he 2 Σαύλος δε ην συνευδοκών τη αναιρέσει αυτό. b In epistolâ Pauli ad Corinthios primâ: Nolo enim vos ignorare, fratres, quia patres nostri omnes sub nube fuerunt. Item in epistola ad Corinthios secunda: Obtusi sunt sensus eorum, &c. Testim, lib. i. cap. 4. p. 22, Beatus quoque apostolus Paulus, a domino electus et missus, et prædicator veritatis evangelicæ constitutus, hæc eadem in epistolâ suâ ponit, dicens; Dominus Jesus, in quâ nocte tradebatur, accepit panem, et gratias agens [egit et Baluz.] fregit, et dixit; hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem, &c. Ep. 63. p. 152. Item beatus apostolus Paulus, dominicæ inspirationis gratiâ plenus: Qui administrat, inquit, &c. De Op. et Eleem. Item Paulus ad Galatas: at ubi advenit impletio temporis, misit Deus filium suum natum de muliere. Testim. 1. i. c. 8. p. 37.. Paulo apostolo admonente et dicente; Ergo, dum tempus habemus, &c. De Op. et Eleem. p. 208. Paulus ad Ephesios: Nolite contristare Spiritum Sanctum Dei, in quo signati estis in die redemtionis. Test. 1. iii. cap. 7. P. 64. 1 Ex hoc locutionis modo arbitror dictum illud ab apostolo: Nolite contristare Spiritum Sanctum Dei, in quo signati estis in die redemtionis. Aug. de Gen. ad lit. 1. iv. n. 18. p. 166. B. Tom. iii. P. i. Bened. * Item Paulus ad Philippenses: Qui. in figurâ Dei constitutus, non rapinam arbitratus est esse se æqualem Deo, sed se exinanivit, formam servi accipiens, in similitudinem hominis factus, et habitu inventus ut homo. Humiliavit se, factus obediens usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis. Test. I. iii. c. 39. p. 76. 1 Test. 1. ii. cap. 13. m See Vol. i. ch. 16. n. 7. ch. 38. n. 28. "Qui cum in formâ Dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus est æqualem se Deo esse; sed semetipsum exinanivit, formam servi accipiens, in similitudine hominum factus, &c. Novat. de Reg. Fid. cap. 22. [al. 17.] p. 174. edit. Jo. Jacks. "cannot acquiesce in our common construction of the words, "thought it no robbery," &c. as if they intimated any thing like to his claiming an equality; because the apostle here is speaking of our Saviour's humility and condescension, and rather represents him as receding from his just rights, than as insisting on them. Though he received so much honour from his Father, and was appointed to represent his person, yet when he came to suffer, he did not insist on ⚫ his first pretensions; did not seem (then) to think he had any claim to the divinity, or might assume it; boasted not (then) of his near alliance to the Deity; but, instead of it, emptied ⚫ himself, behaved and acted like a person void of any such powers. Novatian, in his book De Trinitate, cap. 17, understands our apostle in this sense; which I must acknowledge, with Mr. Le Clerc, seems to me the most natural and easy. See Mr. Le Clerc upon the place in his Supplement to Dr. Hammond; and Dr. Whitby, who gives instances out of Heliodorus, wherein the words apnayμa nyeιтo, which we translate, "thinking a robbery," plainly signify catching at an opportunity, embracing any thing as extremely desirable.' So writes Mr. Marshall. Mr. Wolff has discoursed largely of this matter, and deserves to be consulted. b a 9. That passage, as was observed, is in Cyprian's books of Testimonies. In another work, Mindful of which the blessed apostle Paul says in his epistle [or in one of his epistles:] "For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain :" Philip. i. 21. 999 10. In the third book of Testimonies; In the epistle of Paul to the Colossians; "Continue in prayer, watching in the same: ''Coloss. iv. 2. In another work: Likewise the blessed apostle Paul, full of the Holy Ghost, and sent to call and convert the Gentiles, warns and teaches; "Beware, lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the < tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ: for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead." Col. ii. 8. с 11. In the books of Testimonies the first and second epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians are expressly cited; and in other works also passages of both these epistles are cited by Cyprian as words of the apostle Paul. h 12. For if the apostle Paul writing to Timothy, said, "Let no man despise thy youth, how much more may it be said to you by your colleagues, Let no man despise thy age?' 1 Tim. iv. 12. i 13. Therefore the apostle Paul writes to Timothy, and directs,. "That a bishop should not strive, but be gentle, and apt to teach ;"' 2 Tim. ii. 24. 14. In the books of Testimonies these two epistles are quoted by Cyprian distinctly, as the first and second to Timothy. 15. In the third book of Testimonies: To Titus, [that is, in the epistle to Titus, as appears from what there precedes :] "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second • admonition, reject; knowing that such an one is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of * himself." Tit. iii. 10, 11. In a synodical epistle of Cyprian, and other bishops in Africa, sent to some of their brethren in Spain; Forasmuch as the apostle directs, that a " bishop ⚫ must be blameless, as the steward of God." Tit. i. 7. n m Mr. Hallet, in his " learned Discourse of Heresy and Schism, explaining the forecited difficult text to Titus, expresseth himself in this manner: What I take to be the true interpretation of the character, self-condemned, has been often published, and yet has been strangely ' overlooked of late years. The oldest writer that I have found it in is Jerom, who in his comment upon the place says, "A heretic is said to be condemned of himself, because, (while a 'fornicator, an adulterer, a murderer, and other vicious persons, are cast out of the church by the priests) heretics pass sentence upon themselves, and of their own accord depart from the 2 Vid. Wolff. Curæ in Ep. ad Philip. cap. 2. 6....8. b Cujus rei memor beatus apostolus Paulus in epistolâ suâ ponit et dicit: Mihi vivere Christus, et mori lucrum. De mortal. p. 158. In epistolâ Pauli ad Colossenses: Instate orationi, vigilantes in eâ. Test. 1. iii. cap. 120. dItem beatus apostolus Paulus, plenus Spiritu Sancto, et vocandis formandisque gentibus missus, contestetur et instruat, dicens: videte ne quis vos deprædetur,... quia in ipso habitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis. De bono Patient. p. 210. Test. 1. iii. cap. 88. f Test. 1. iii. cap. 68. De mort. p. 164. Ep. 14. [al. 5.] p. 32. h Nam si apostolus Paulus, ad Timotheum scribens, dixit: Juventutem tuam nemo despiciat: &c. Ep. 3. [al. 65.] p. 6. iCui rei prospiciens beatus Paulus apostolus ad Timotheum scribit et monet, episcopum non litigiosum, sed mitem et docibilem esse debere. Ep. 74. p. 215. k Testim. lib. iii. cap. 67. 76. 77. et passim. Ad Titum: Hæreticum hominem post unam aut secundam, &c. Test. I. iii. c. 78. m .. quando et apostolus moneat ac dicat: Episcopum oportet esse sine crimine, quasi Dei dispensatorem. Ep. 67. [al.. 68.] p. 173. See Mr. Hallett's Notes and Discourses, Vol. iii. p. 377,&c. |