5. In the first book of Testimonies: Likewise in the gospel according to John; « He came to his own, and his own received him not. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:" ch. i. 11, 12. In the next book of Testimonies he quotes the first five verses of this gospel. In one of his epistles: Let them imitate the Lord, who near the time of his passion was not more proud, but more humble; for then he washed his disciples' feet, saying: "If I your lord and master have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash the feet of others; for I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done;"' John xiii. 14, 15.

c

IV. The book of the Acts of the apostles is frequently quoted by St. Cyprian by that title; but he has no where, that I remember, mentioned the name of the writer. According to

f

⚫ what Peter says to the Jews in the Acts of the apostles; (ch. ii. 38.) "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall • receive the gift of the Holy Ghost," Again: As we read in the Acts of the apostles; (ch. iv. 32) " And the multitude of them that believed acted with one heart and soul. The same. text is expressly quoted in another place, as scripture: This is evident from the divine scripture, which says; "The multitude of them that believed acted with one heart and soul," that is, with great unanimity. Accordingly this book is cited by St. Cyprian for proof of what he asserts. Having quoted the book of Tobit, he adds: Nor do we so allege these things, my brethren, as not to prove what the angel Raphael says [in Tobit] by the testimony of truth. In the Acts of the apostles the truth of this is shewed; and that souls are delivered by alms not only from the second, but likewise from the first death, is made manifest by fact and experience. For this he alleges the history of Tabitha, Acts ix. 36...41.

I must add one quotation more. In the third book of Testimonies: Likewise in the Acts of the apostles, ch. xv. 28, 29, " It seemed good unto the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon. you no other burden than these things, which are of necessity, [or, these necessary things;] that ye abstain from idolatries, and effusion of blood, and fornication. And whatever things ye ⚫ would not should be done unto you, neither do ye unto others.". This is a very extraordinary reading, and requires some remarks.

We ought here to recollect the substance of Stephen Baluze'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.

us.

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: 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 for ⚫nication, 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* Item in evangelio cata Joannem: In sua propria venit, synis non tantum a secundâ, sed a primâ morte animæ liberen-, et sui eum non receperunt. Testim. 1. i. cap. 3. p. 21. tur, gestæ et impletæ rei probatione compertum est Tabitha b Lib. ii. cap. 3. p. 32. operationibus justis et eleemosynis præstandis plurimum dedita, &c. De Opere et Eleem. p. 199.

Imitentur Dominum, qui sub ipso tempore passionis non superbior, sed humilior fuit. Tunc enim apostolorum, [discipulorum, Baluz.] suorum pedes lavit, dicens: Si ego lavi pedes vestros magister et dominus, et vos debetis aliorum pedes Javare. Exemplum enim dedi vobis, ut, sicut ego feci, et vos faciatis. Ep. 14. [juxta Pamel. vi. Baluz. v.]. p. 32.

d Secundum quod in Actis apostolorum Petrus ad eos loquitur, et dicit: Pœnitemini, et baptizetur unusquisque vestrum in nomine Domini Jesu Christi... Ep. 73. p. 205.

• Sicut legimus in Actis apostolorum: Turba autem eorum qui crediderant, animâ et mente unâ agebant. De Opere et Eleemosynis, p. 208.

Probat scriptura divina, quæ dicit: De Unit. Eccl. p. 119. Nec sic, fratres carissimi, ista proferimus, ut non quod Raphaël angelus dixit veritatis testimonio comprobemus. In Actibus apostolorum facti fides posita est, et quod eleemo

h Item in Actibus apostolorum: Visum est Sancto Spiritui et nobis, nullam vobis imponere sarcinam, quam ista, quæ, ex necessitate sunt; abstinere vos ab idololatriis, et sanguinis effusione, et fornicatione. Et quæcumque vobis fieri non vultis, aliis ne feceritis. Testim. 1. iii. cap. 119

Ista, et quæ 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, utiabstineant a vanitatibus idolorum, et a fornicatione, et a sanguine: et quæcumque nolunt sibi fieri, aliis ne faciant. Iren. contr. Hær. lib. iii. 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

to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden 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.'

b

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 addition 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.

f

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 the end of the second century) had only three particularsı 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

quæcumque non vultis fieri vobis, aliis ne faciatis: a quibus custodientes vos ipsos, bene agetis ambulantes in Spiritu Sancto. ibid.

a Vid. Diss. Iren. v. num. 9, 10. in Iren. ii. num. 53. 54.

b Massuet. Diss.

c Mill. Prol. n. 608.

d Kai T8 TVINTE.] Omittunt Cant. Iren. 1. iii. c. 12. Tert. de Pud. c. 12. Cyprian. 1. iii. ad Quirin. Hieron. Com. in Galat. v. (qui tamen in nonnuliis 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 ro πνι κτον. Per sanguinem enim hic sanguinem suffocatum intelligi putant. Caeterum retinent Græca quæ quiden vidimus omnia, (excepto uno Cant.) Versiones omnes, etiam Vulgata Lat. Orig. lib. viii. Contra Celsum, Patres et Tracta tores Græci universim; ut proinde minime solicitandum arbitrer. Mill. in Act. Ap. 15, 20.

- Και της πορνειας, και το αίματος] Act. xv. 20, 29. Cant. Irenæi interpres, Tert. Cyprian. Pacian. Ambr. Gaudentius, Eucherius, Fulgentius, Hieron. alii. Certe medium, xai Te TUINT8, ipsius Lucæ non est, sed Christianorum veterum, qui cum in hac epistolâ synodicâ omnem sanguinis esum sibi inter dictum 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, 78 VIXT8, 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 scribe in corpus epistolæ hujus synodicæ, jam ante tempora Clementis Alexandrini. Mill. Proleg. n. 441," 442. ed. Kuster. vid. etiam n. 641.

f

* Έδοξεν, έφασαν, τῳ πνευματι τω άγιῳ και ήμιν, μηδεν πλέον επίθεσθαι ύμιν βαρος, πλην των επαναγκες απέχεσθαι ειδολοθυ των, και αίματος, και πνίκτων, και της πορνείας εξ ών διατηρείν τες, ἑαυτες, ευ πράξετε. Clem. Αl. Pad. l. ii. cap. 7. p. 172. B. C. Paris. Vid. etiam Strom. lib. iv. p. 512. D. 513. A. 5 See of this work Vol. i. ch. 38. num. 28.

h Vid. Mill. Proleg. num. 377, &c.

In Actibus apostolorum narrat bistoria :.... Seniores, qui Jerosolymis 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-

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 authori ties 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 sentiments 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.

f

d

year

As for Tertullian, one would be apt to conclude, from his Apology, written about the 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 Pudicitia, 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 conse quence. 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 forni

cation.

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 shewn 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 to understand by "effu sion of blood," I think cannot be questioned. I am sure Dr. Hammond " 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 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

a Vid. Mill. Proleg. num. 849.

66

Novum Testamentum Græcæ fidei reddidi. Hieron. De V. I. cap. 135.

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. 369.

.

d Erubescat error vester Christianis, qui ne animalium 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.

ο πως αν παιδία φαγοιεν οἱ τοιυτοι, οἷς μηδε αλόγων ζωων aipa payen etov; 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. 1. iii. cap. 3. p. 228. B. C. Tertullian ut supra, Ap. cap 9. Vid. etiam Origenem, ut laudatum supra p. 153. notes. Tantum

1

que ab humano sanguine cavemus, ut nec edulium pecorum in cibis sanguinem noverimus. Minuc. Fel. cap. 30.

f 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 hurnani intelligemus. de Pud. c. 12. See p. 13. h Vid. Hammond. Annot. in Act. xv. 29.

i Hist. Lit. P. i. p. 168.

k Hist. Crit. des Commentateurs du Neuf Testament, Ch. ix. p. 133, &c.

1 Vid. Admonit. in Commentaria in 13. Ep. Beati Pauli. Ed. Bened.

Im Denique tria hæc mandata ab apostolis et senioribus data reperiuntur, quæ ignorant leges Romane, id est, ut abstineant se ab idololatriâ, et sanguine, sicut Noë, et fornicatione. Quæ 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.

a

them with much scorn and indignation. He understands the prohibition "from blood," of the blood of animals, not of homicide. We are obliged to him for one thing, the assurance he 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.

b

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.

C

The next writer alleged by Mill is Gaudentius, placed by Cave at the year 387. He seems to have read only three things, and understands "blood" of the blood of animals; for he explains it to mean "things strangled:" or, as Mill expresseth it, Gaudentius and Eucherius thought this clause added by way of interpretation.

St. Augustine likewise, placed by Cave at the year 396, is alledged upon this occasion by Dr. Mill: and, if the passage in the Speculum be his, he read only three prohibitions; "from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, and from fornication." From this passage

f

g

it appears, that by many at that time all these prohibitions were understood to be of a moral kind. Their explication of them is idolatry, murder, and fornication, which they therefore thought to be the only three mortal sins. In another place, Acts xxi. 25, is cited by Augustine, where things strangled" are wanting. There is yet another place, where Augustine speaks of this matter, and somewhat largely. Here again is mention made of the interpretation, which some gave of blood, meaning thereby murder; which sense Augustine himself rejects here, as he did before. Thence we learn likewise, that in St. Augustine's time the decree of the council in its ancient sense and interpretation was regarded by very few Christians among the Latins, who thought all wholesome food generally eaten by men, to be lawful; or, that they were under no obligation to observe a distinction of meats.

a

h

Beside these writers, Mill refers also to Eucherius of the fifth, and Fulgentius of the sixth:

Ergo hæc illicita esse estensa 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.

b Visum est enim Sancto Spiritui, et nobis, nullum amplius imponi vobis pondus, præterquam hæc: Necesse est, ut ab stineatis 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 sanguine." id est," a suffocatis." Prætermiserunt homicidium, adulterium, et veneficia; quoniam nec nominari ea in ecclesiis oporteret, quæ legibus etiam gentilium punirentur. Prætermiserunt quoque illas omnes minutias observationum legalium, et sola hæc, quæ prædiximus, custodienda sanxerunt; ne vel sacrificatis diabolo cibis profanemur immundis, vel ne mortuos [f. " mortuo"] per viscera suffocatorum animalium sanguine polluamur, vel ne in immunditiis fornicationum corpora nostra, quæ templa Dei sunt, violemus. Gaudent. de Maccabæis. Tract. xv. Bibl. Patr. Max. Tom. v. p. 967. F. G.

Ut et Gaudentius ac Eucherius, quibus interpretamenti loco additum videtur. Mill. ad Act. xv. 20.

e Ubi videmus apostolos, eis qui ex gentibus crediderunt, nulla voluisse onera veteris legis imponere, quantum adtinet ad corporalis abstinentiam voluptatis; "nisi ut observarent ab his tribus, id est, ab eis quæ idolis immolarentur, et a sanguine, et a fornicatione." Unde nonnulli putant tria tantum crimina esse mortalia, idololatriam, et homicidium, et fornicationem; ubi utique et adulterium, et omnis præter uxorem concubitus intelligitur: quasi non sint mortifera crimina quæcumque alia sunt præter hæc tria, quæ a regno Dei separant, aut inaniter et fallaciter dictum sit: "Neque fures, neque avari, neque ebriosi, neque maledici, neque rapaces, regnum Dei possidebunt." [1 Cor. vi. 10.] August. Specul. de Libro Act. Apost. Tom, iii. Bened.

De gentibus autem qui crediderunt, nos mandavimus, judicantes, nihil ejusmodi servare illos," nisi ut se observent ab idolis immolato, et a sanguine, et a fornicatione. Aug. Ep. 82. n. 9. Bened. al. Ep. 19.

& Et in actibus apostolorum hoc lege præceptum ab apostolis, ut abstinerent gentes tantum "a fornicatione, et ab immolatis, et a sanguine;" id est, ne quidquam ederent carnis, cujus sanguis non esset effusus. Quod alii non sic intelligunt, sed a sanguine præceptum esse abstinendum, ne quis homicidio se contaminet. Aug. Con. Faust. lib. xxxii. cap. 13.

h... quis jam hoc Christianus observat, ut turdos vel minutiores aviculas non adtingat, nisi quarum sanguis effusus est, aut leporem non edat, si manu a cervice percussus, nullo cruento vulnere occisus est? Et qui forte pauci adhuc tangere ista formidant, a cæteris irridentur: ita omnium animos in hac re tenuit illa sententia veritatis, Non quod intrat in os vestrum, vos coinquinat, sed quod exit; nullam cibi naturam, quam societas admittit humana, sed quæ iniquitas committit, peccata condemnans, Id. ibid.

century, as favouring the omission of the particular in dispute. But I do not think it needful to go any lower.

However, we ought not to pass by the one single manuscript on that side the question: it is the famous Cambridge manuscript, which Mill owns, with Simon, to have been written in the western part of the world by a Latin scribe, and to be interpolated and corrupted to a great degree. I put in the margin the character which Mr. Wetstein has lately given, in a few words, of this, and some other manuscripts, in his preface to the late edition of Curcellæus's New Testament with various readings. That character will have a good deal of weight with those who are acquainted with the author's exact skill in this part of learning.

I think it may not be amiss for us now to collect the evidence we have had before us, in a few propositions.

(1.) All the Greek writers read this text as we now have it in our Greek copies; and some of those Greek writers are very ancient, having flourished in the second century, or the begin ning of the third.

(2.) All Christians in general, all over the world, Greeks and Latins, in the second century, and probably in the third likewise, understood the decree of the council at Jerusalem to forbid the eating of the blood of brute animals.

(3.) There is no clear proof, that in any Latin version, or any copies of the New Testament, of the second or third century, the reading of this text was different from ours; for the passages in the version of Irenæus, and in the testimonies of Cyptian are not to be relied upon as genuine. And Tertullian may be reckoned to afford as much evidence for the common reading as against it. Jerom bears witness only for the reading of some Latin copies in his time, without saying that they who wanted this particular were ancient; and the other writers alleged by Mill, who cite the text without "things strangled," are likewise of the fourth century, or later.

(4.) We see a probable rise and occasion of omitting "things strangled," in some Latin copies about that time; I mean the fourth century, or towards the end of it: among the Christians of the western part of the Roman empire, where the Latin tongue chiefly obtained, the decree of the council of Jerusalem ceased to be observed according to its original intent and meaning, and most ancient interpretation. As they no longer observed a distinction of meats, and often eat things strangled without any scruple, some took an unwarrantable liberty with the text, and left that particular out of their copies; that their conduct might not seem to be expressly condemned by a command or advice given by apostles and elders in council assembled. Now also it became a common thing, though not universal, to interpret that particular, "from blood," as a prohibition of homicide. These two things at least are extremely manifest; that at the end of the fourth century, and the beginning of the fifth, many among the Latin Christians neglected the distinction of meats, and likewise understood that prohibition in the sense just mentioned. And I think it may be hence collected with probability, that this gave occasion for leaving out" things strangled" in some copies; for that clause appeared unsuitable to the general practice, and was a strong objection to a common interpretation of another article in the decree. In the passage, as it stands in the version of Irenæus, and in Cyprian's Testimonies, every thing in the proposal of James, and in the epistle of the council, is of a moral nature. This affords ground for suspicion of an undue liberty taken with the text, to make it agree with the prevailing sentiments and practices of some Christians of later times. The passage in Cyprian's third book of Testimonies is absolutely unjustifiable in two particulars; "from idolatries," and "from effusion of blood;" which are readings altogether unsupported by good authorities, and I suppose will not now be defended by any man of sense.

(5.) As for the Cambridge manuscript, it deserves no farther notice here. One single manuscript, and that corrupted and interpolated, can never be equal to many, to all other; no more than one witness, and he a suspected one, ought to be credited against forty others, and

more.

a Certe textus ipse codicis, Græcus pariter ac Latinus, est Latini scribæ: quod ostendit Simonius Hist. Text. Nov. Test. cap. 30 Mill. Proleg. n. 1271.

b Et jam quidem ad ipsius codicis partes accedimus: Latina translationem Italicam exhibet, qualis tum temporis. interpolata ferebatur, ante castigationem Hieronymi: Græca vero, textum mirifice corruptum, &c. Id. ib. num. 1272.

VOL. II.

• Inter Bodleianos codices ille qui Acta apostolorum continet, item Cantabrigiensis, et Claromontanus,... a librario Latino scripti, et ad Versionem Italicam corruptam tam inepte atque imperite deformati atque depravati sunt, ut risum moveant, qui illis locum dignitatemque genuinorum codicum Græcorum conciliare studuerunt. Præfat. in Noy. Test, Amstel. 1735.

D