« AnteriorContinuar »
believe invariably, is Cave in his Historia Literaria*. I may mention also, that I have not been always scrupulous to note whether the extract was from a genuine or spurious work; and I have introduced, for instance, under the name of Chrysostom, all that is usually published in the collection of his works. The precise date of a treatise, or its genuineness, in most cases to be attended to with superstitious scrupulousness, is in our argument, generally speaking, of
I do not know, Sir, that any thing farther is wanting in the way of previous explanation. In my next Letter, therefore, I shall begin immediately with the production of my authorities.
I am, Sir, &c.
* Oxford 1740, 2 vol. fol.
HE reading of the common printed editions in the text which you mention as your first exanıple (Acts xx. 28.) being merely Okou, and this also having been the reading which is followed by our translators, I was not willing to concern myself with that passage. If sou Kuglou nan sou can be proved to be the true reading, and my collections on all your other examples should be satisfactory, then could there be no doubt, I conceived, but that this text must follow the fortunes of the rest. But, to enquire into the evidence for that reading, would be the business of another kind of criticism from that which it was my present object to be employed in. I believe, Sir, however, that very few places would have occurred in the Fathers where I should have found the verse cited in that form. I soon neglected to search: but the only instances I have noted, are in Theophylact. Comment. in Act. p. 169 and p. 171.
Let us, therefore, proceed to the second example.
1. The earliest writer whom I find quoting this passage, is Clemens Alexandrinus: but the quotation being
solely for a moral purpose, nothing appears of the meaniing in which he would have interpreted the words in question. I shall therefore content myself with a bare transcript of the sentence. Eις κορακας και πορνεια Ευ γαρ τουτο ιστε, φησιν ο αποστολος, ότι πας πορνος, η ακαθαρτος, η πλεονεκτης, ός εστιν ειδωλολατρης, εκ εχει κληρονομίαν εν τη βασιλεία του Χριστού και Θεου. (Pedagog. lib. 3. c. 4. vol. i. p. 270.) Among the early Latin writers our verse is cited by Tertullian, and Cyprian; but for them, as their testimony also is, for the same reason, equally inapplicable to our present object, I shall beg leave to refer you to the first number of my Appendix. .
2. The next reference on my list is to St. Athanasius; or rather to a homily bearing his name, which betrays itself to be younger than the heresy of Nestorius, and which therefore must have been thrust down, perhaps a century or more, lower in our enumeration, had it been very necessary to pursue a strictly chronological arrangement. In compliance with our general rule, we will, if you please, give it admission here. You will observe, Sir, that we shall have occasion to recur to the passage again hereafter. .
Και Παυλος εν τη προς Τιτον επιστολη ούτως γραφει: επεφανη η χαρις του Θεου η σωτηριος πασιν ανθρωποις, παιδευουσα μας, ένα αρνησαμενοι την ασεβειαν και τας κοςμικας επιθυμίας, σωφρονως και δικαιως και ευσεβως ζησωμεν εν τω νυν αιωνι, προσδεχομενοι την μακαριαν ελπιδα και επιφανειας της δοξης του μεγαλου Θεού και σωτήρος ημων
Ιησου Χριστου. Ούτος ο τεχθεις εκ της αγιας παρθενου, ος
Και παλιν και αυτος Παυλος, πας πορνος και πλεονεκτης και μεθυσος και ακαθαρτος και ειδωλολατρης, ουκ εχει κληρονομίαν εν τη βασιλεια Κυριου και Θεου.
Ωστε αποδεδεικίαι τον Κυριον και Θεον ειναι, και Θεον τον Κυριον*. ει δε τουτων ουκ ανεσχη, &c. (Athanas. vol. ii. p. 413, 414.)
The text here, indeed, is not του Χριστου και Θεου, but Κυριου και Θεου. Yet, if we consider, that Kυριου is the reading (so far as is known) of no other Father, version, or manuscript, and call to mind how easily, in any single case, the abbreviated tou gü might be converted into κυρίου; moreover, when we observe, that this homily is edited by the Benedictines from a transcript (by Mill) of a single manuscript; and, most of all, that while, at first sight, the context might appear to require you κυριου, yet, in fact, του Χριστου is at least as suitable to the scope of the writer's argument, and the pertinency of his quotation (for he is encountering the dogma of the Nestorians, that our Saviour was trvo distinet persons, God and Man, and that Jesus, Christ, and Lord, were * Ought not the reading here, to be, και τον Θεον κυριον:
the names usually appropriated to the human being); there can, I think, be little doubt but that the reading which proceeded from the hand of this writer, was Tou XOITTOU not ©£ou: and, if this be granted, of the rest there can be no dispute. He evidently understood the passage agreeably to your explanation.
3. After this slight specimen of Grecian interpretation, we are in some degree prepared for the hearing of a body of opposite testimony; I mean from the Latin Fathers, whose ignorance of Greek, united with the infelicity of their
own language in the want of the article, is to be deemed, I am persuaded, the principal cause of all the trouble to which you, Sir, and I, are reduced on the present occasion. You will excuse me, therefore, if I introduce them without any very lively expressions of good-will.
In the Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles, among the works of St. Ambrose, the text and corresponding annotations on this passage, stand thus: “ Hoc enim scitote: quod omnis fornicator, aut immundus, aut avarus, quod est idololatriu, non habet hæreditatem in regno Dei et Christi. Quà causâ amovenda sint hæc ostendit, quia qui talis fuerit, partem in regno cælorum non habebit, quod est Patris et Filii.”
We will take no notice, Sir, of the unusual reading “ Dei et Christi,” but are willing to allow, that our text is here understood, as in the English translation, of two, persons, the Son, and the Father.