luze's note before referred to; That these books of Testimonies are very much interpolated, and that whereas he had one and twenty manuscript copies of them, five of those manuscripts wanted the third book. Moreover, in his note upon the passage just transcribed, he mentions one copy, where this passage, and what follows to the end of the third book, is wanting: so that this passage was wanting in six copies of the one and twenty. 6 I shall immediately observe a place in Irenæus, or rather in the Latin version of that father, where the texts of Acts xv. 20 and 29, are quoted very agreeably to the reading we have before us. In that place is recited Acts xv. from v. 7. to v. 29. There James in his speech says; Wherefore my 'sentence is, that we trouble not them which from among the 'Gentiles are turned to God: but that we command them to 'abstain from the vanity of idols, and from fornication, and 'from blood and that whatever things they would not have 'done unto them, neither should they do unto others.' And afterwards, reciting the epistle itself; For" it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater bur'den than these, which are necessary things: That ye abstain 'from things sacrificed to idols, and blood, and fornication : ' and that whatever things ye would not have done unto you, 'neither should ye do unto others: from which if ye keep 'yourselves, ye shall do well, walking in the Holy Ghost.' This Latin version of Irenæus was not published, according to Mr. Dodwell's computation, till some time after the year of Christ 385; though Massuet thinks it more ancient by a great deal; and Mill supposeth that it was made in Irenæus's life-time, or soon after his death, before the end of the second century: but I am apt to think that Dodwell's date of this translation is early enough; and possibly some readings of texts in this translation, as we now have it, were not in being till afterwards. Here the principal differences from our present reading may be reckoned two; an omission; and an addition. The omission is of that particular, "things strangled;" the ad Ista, et quae deinceps sequuntur usque ad finem libri, desunt in codice Gratianopolitano. Baluz. Not. p. 601. Propterea ego secundum me judico, non molestari eos, qui ex Gentibus convertuntur ad Deum; sed præcipiendum eis, uti abstineant a vanitatibus idolorum, et a fornicatione, et a sanguine: et quæcumque nolunt sibi fieri, aliis ne faciant. Iren. contr. Hær. lib. i. c. 12. p. 199. Massuet. Placuit enim Sancto Spiritui, et nobis, nullum amplius vobis pondus imponere, quam hæc, quæ sunt necessaria: ut abstineatis ab idolothytis, et sanguine, et fornicatione: et quæcumque non vultis fieri vobis, aliis ne faciatis: a quibus custodientes vos ipsos, bene agetis, ambulantes in Spiritu Sancto. Ibid. ▾ Vid. Diss. Iren. v. num. 9, 10. * Mill. Prol. n. 608. Massuet. Diss. in Iren. ii. num. 53, 54. dition is of a precept, or prohibition rather, "not to do to others what they would not have to be done to themselves." However, there are likewise some other variations that may require some notice as we go along. 1. To begin with the omission. Dr. Mill, in his notes upon Acts xv. 20, is by all means for retaining " and things strangled" in the text, as the right reading: but in his Prolegomena he expresseth himself as strongly on the other side that this particular is an interpolation of the original text. But let us see whether we cannot hold that learned writer to his first opinion. He owns that all the Greek manuscripts of the Acts of the Apostles have this article of the decree except one; and all versions, and likewise all the Greek fathers and commentators in general: and it is very observable, that among those Greek fathers there are two of great antiquity who have cited the decree as we now have it; I mean Clement of Alexandria, who has so cited it in two places, and Origen. After this, what good authority can there be for the omission? Let us attend. a The main thing seems to be this, that as Dr. Mill supposeth the Italic version, as it is called, (that is, the ancient Latin version, chiefly in use among the Latin christians before St. Jerom's time, and made, as Mill thinks, about y Kai T8 πVIKT8.] Omittunt Cant. Iren. 1. iii. c. 12. Tert. de Pud. c. 12. Cyprian. I. iii. ad Quirin. Hieron. Com. in Galat. v. (qui tamen in nonnullis exemplaribus scriptum dicit, et a suffocatis ;) Ambros. in Galat. ii. (qui additum vult a sophistis Græcorum quos vocat ;) Augustin. ut et Gaudentius ac Eucherius, quibus interpretamenti loco additum videtur Tо TVIKTOV. Per sanguinem enim hic sanguinem suffocatum intelligi putant. Cæterum retinent Græca quæ quidem vidimus omnia, (excepto uno Cant.) _Versiones omnes, etiam Vulgata Lat. Orig. lib. viii. Contra Celsum, Patres et Tractatores Græci universim; ut proinde minime solicitandum arbitrer. Mill. in Act. Ap. xv. 20. 2 Kai Tηs Topvilaç, Kaι т8 aipaтoç.] Act. xv. 20, 29. Cant. Irenæi interpres, Tert. Cyprian. Pacian. Ambr. Gaudentius, Eucherius, Fulgentius, Hieron. alii. Certe medium, kaι 78 πvikт8, ipsius Lucæ non est, sed Christianorum veterum, qui cum in hac epistolâ synodicâ omnem sanguinis esum sibi interdictum vidissent? eosque decretum extendebant, ut etiam a morticinis eo ipso sibi abstinendum fuisse censuerint; ne quo modo scilicet sanguine contaminarentur, vel inter viscera sepulto; ut loquitur Tertullianus. Ex hac, ecclesiæ praxi adscripsit quispiam, haud dubito, scholion, т8 πvive, ad marginem codicis: quo ostenderetur in præcepto de abstinentiâ a sanguine, includi etiam abstinentiam a morticino, adeoque a quolibet suffocato. Hoc autem, ceu partem textûs genuinam, transtulerunt scribæ in corpus epistolæ hujus synodicæ, jam ante tempora Clementis Alexandrini. Mill. Proleg. n. 441, 442. ed Kuster, vid. etiam n. 641. * Εδοξεν, έφασαν, τῷ πνεύματι τω άγιῳ και ήμιν, μηδεν πλεον επιθεσθαι ύμιν βαρος, πλην των επαναγκες" απέχεσθαι ειδολοθυτων, και αίματος, και πνικτών, και της πορνείας εξ ών διατηρεντες εαυτές, EV TρаžεTE. Clem. Al. Pæd. 1. ii. cap. 7. p. 172. B. C. Paris. Vid. etiam Strom. lib. iv. p. 512. D. 513. A. b See of this work Vol. ii. ch. 38. Vid. Mill. Proleg. num. 377, &c. Jum. 28. the end of the second century,) had only three particulars in the decree, omitting "things strangled." But allowing this, it would not prove that to be the right reading; for, that" things strangled" were in some ancient Greek copies, and those good copies, is apparent from Clement and Origen: therefore it is probable that the ancient Latin version, if it wanted that article, was corrupted in this place; as, it is not unlikely, it might be also in many other. But I see no certain nor probable evidence that the most ancient Latin version, or any Latin version whatever, before the end of the second century, wanted this particular. Indeed, Jerom informs us, that in his time some Latin copies had " things strangled," others not: but he does not say that they which wanted that particular were the best or the most exact. It is highly probable that he preferred those which had it; inserting it in the Latin New Testament published by him, corrected by the Greek; as it is now also the reading of the Latin Vulgate. Having thus considered this passage of Jerom, which I take to be one of Mill's main authorities for his supposition that the ancient Italic version wanted this particular, I shall now take things in the order of time: but we have no occasion to review the Greek writers, their sentiment having been already sufficiently owned. I would only just observe, that we have no way of knowing how Irenæus read this portion of scripture; his Greek being lost, and his Latin interpreter not strictly following his Greek original, but putting texts of scripture according to the Latin version in use in his time, as is fairly owned by Mill himself; and possibly sometimes altering and corrupting even that according to his own sentiments, or the prevailing sentiments of the time in which he lived, As for Tertullian, one would be apt to conclude, from his h d In Actibus apostolorum narrat historia- -Seniores, qui Ierosolymis erant, et apostolos, pariter congregatos, statuisse per literas, ne superponeretur eis jugum legis, nec amplius observarent, nisi ut custodierent se ab idolothytis, et sanguine, et fornicatione; sive ut in nonnullis exemplaribus scriptum est, et a suffocatis. Hieron. Comm. in Ep. al. Gal. cap. v. 2. e Vid. Mill. Proleg. num. 849. Novum Testamentum Græcæ fidei reddidi. Hieron. De V. I. cap. 135. 8 In Latinis autem, [Irenæi] Interpreti id unum curæ erat, ut scripturæ testimonia, quæ in hoc opere occurrunt, exprimerentur verbis interpretationis, quæ Celtis suis, totique occidenti jam in usu erat, Italicæ, sive vulgatæ. Unde factum, ut paucis in locis, nec nisi ex contextu orationis, certo satis assequi possis, quænam fuerit codicis Irenæani lectio Mill. Pr. n. 368. h Erubescat error vester Christianis, qui ne ani. malium quidem sanguinem in epulis esculentis habemus ; qui propterea quoque suffocatis et morticinis abstinemus, ne quo sanguine contaminemur, vel intra viscera sepulto, &c. Apol. cap. 9. p. 10. D. Apology, written about the year 200, that he read all four things as we do. He then plainly understood the decree of the council at Jerusalem, to prohibit" things strangled :" and it is supposed that at that time, and for some while afterwards, all christians in general understood the decree to prohibit the eating the blood of brute animals. There are remaining passages of ancient writings that seem to put this matter beyond all dispute. Nevertheless, Tertullian, in his treatise De Pudicitiâ, written after his Apology, though the time is not exactly known, quotes the decree, as if he read only three things: but then it is observable that he there seems disposed to understand the prohibition of "blood" concerning murder or homicide; at least, he would bring in this by way of consequence. And besides, there is too much reason to suspect that this interpretation is given or hinted by him to serve a particular purpose, and increase the malignity and scandal of fornication. The next author cited by Mill is St. Cyprian. I have transcribed the passage above! at length. It is the passage that gives occasion to our present inquiry: but it has been shown that we have no good reason to look upon it as Cyprian's. Indeed it is highly probable that the reading we have now in this work is very late. In that passage every thing is to be understood as of a moral nature: instead of "blood" is put " effusion of blood," that it might be the more certainly understood of murder, or homicide: for that this is what we are here to understand by "effusion of blood,” I think cannot be questioned. I am sure Dr. Hammond m took this passage, or this writer, whoever he is, in that sense. The next author is Ambrosiaster, author of the Commentary upon St. Paul's thirteen epistles, placed by Cave as flourishing about the year 354, who supposeth" the real author to be Hilary, deacon of Rome, and that this work was written i Πως αν παιδια φαγοιεν οι τοιώτοι, οις μηδε αλόγων ζωων αιμα φαγείν εξον ; Epist. Eccles. Vienn. et Lugd. ap. Euseb. H. E. 1. v. cap. 1. p. 159. A. Vid. etiam Clem. Al. Pæd. lib. ii. cap. 7. p. 172. B. C. Strom. 1. iv. p. 512, 513. A. et Pæd. l. iii. cap. 3. p. 228. B. C. Tertullian ut supra, Ap. cap. 9. Vid. etiam Origenem, ut laudatum supra, p. 24, note 1. Tantumque ab humano sanguine cavemus, ut nec edulium pecorum in cibis sanguinem noverimus. Minuc. Fel. cap. 30. * Visum est, inquiunt, Spiritui Sancto et nobis, nullum amplius vobis adjicere pondus, quam eorum, a quibus necesse est abstineri, a sacrificiis, et a fornicationibus, et sanguine, a quibus observando recte agitis, vectante vos Spiritu Sancto. Sufficit et hic servatum esse mochiæ et fornicationis locum honoris sui inter idololatriam et homicidium. Interdictum enim sanguinis multo magis humani intelligemus. de Pud. c. 12. 1 See m Vid. Hammond, Annot. in Act. xv. 29. about the year 384. Richard Simon° is of the same opinion concerning the author of these Commentaries: but the Benedictine editors of St. Ambrose are not so clear upon this point. This writer, whoever he be, probably however of the fourth or fifth century, omits "things strangled." He even contends that that clause ought to be left out, and that it is an interpolation of the Greek writers, or Greek sophists, as he calls them with much scorn and indignation. Her understands the prohibition" from blood," of the blood of animals, not of homicide. We are obliged to him for one thing, the assurance be gives us that the Greek manuscripts of his time universally agreed in this clause," and from things strangled." If he had known of any Greek writers or Greek copies of the New Testament, that had favoured his omission, he would not have been quite so angry with the Greeks. Pacian, bishop of Barcelona, about the year 370, is another writer who omits "things strangled." He understands "from blood," to mean homicide; and says, that the direction given by the council to abstain from these three crimes; things sacrificed to idols," or idolatry; "from blood," or from murder; and "from fornication;" is the sum and substance of the whole gospel, or christian revelation. 66 The next writer alleged by Mill is Gaudentius, placed by Cave at the year 387. Het seems to have read only three • Hist. Crit. des Commentateurs du Neuf Testament, Ch. ix. p. 133, &c. P Vid. Admonit. in Commentaria in 13. Ep. Beati Pauli. Ed. Bened. ¶ Denique tria hæc mandata ab apostolis et senioribus data reperiuntur, quæ ignorant leges Romanæ, id est, ut abstineant se ab idololatria, et sanguine, sicut Noë, et fornicatione. Que sophistæ Græcorum non intelligentes, scientes tamen a sanguine abstinendum, adulterârunt scripturam, quartum mandatum addentes, et a suffocato abstinendum. Ambrosiast. in Gal. cap. 2. p. 215. Ed. Bened. Ergo hæc illicita esse ostensa sunt gentibus, quæ putabant licere: ac per hoc non utique ab homicidio prohibiti sunt, cum jubentur a sanguine observare. Sed hoc acceperunt, quod Noë a Deo didicerat, ut observarent se a sanguine edendo cum carne. Id. ibid. p. 214. F. • Visum est enim Sancto Spiritui, et nobis, nullum amplius imponi vobis pondus, præterquam hæc: Necesse est, ut abstineatis vos ab idolothytis, et sanguine, et fornicatione; a quibus observantes, bene agetis. Valete. Hæc est Novi Testamenti tota conclusio. Despectis in multis Spiritus Sanctus hæc nobis, capitalis periculi conditione, legavit. Reliqua peccata meliorum operum compensatione curantur. Hæc vero tria crimina,-ut veneni calix, ut lethalis arundo metuenda sunt-Quid vero faciet contemptor Dei? Quid aget sanguinarius ? Quod remedium capiet fornicator? Numquid aut placare Dominum desertor ipsius poterit? aut conservare sanguinem suum, qui fudit alienum ? aut redintegrare Dei templum, qui illud fornicando violavit? Ista sunt capitalia, fratres, ista mortalia. Pacian. Paræn. ad pœnit. T. iv. p. 315. H. Bibl. Patr. Et idcirco Beatus Jacobus cum cæteris apostolis decretum tale constituit in ecclesiis observandum: "ut abstineatis vos," inquit," ab immolatis, et a san |