IV.-From the agreement of the old verfions, and quotations found in the ecclefiaftical fathers.

AFTER all, fhould any one entertain a doubt concerning the uncorrupted prefervation of our books of the New Teftament, it must perfectly vanifh, if we confider the wonderful agreement of all the old verfions, and of all the quotations and extracts found in the ecclefiaftical fathers.There is still extant a Syriac translation of all the books of the New Teftament (the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter, the fecond and third Epiftles of St. John, the Epiftle of St. Jude, and the Revelation of St. John, alone excepted), which, in all probability, was made in the first century. In the fame period exifted in the Western church Latin verfions, of which confiderable fragments ftill remain. The Latin tranflation

$ 2

lation of Jerom (which is generally called the Vulgate), the Coptic, different Arabic, the Ethiopic, Armenian, Perfic, and Gothic, verfions are indeed in part much more modern, and therefore not confidered by critics on the New Teftament as of equal confequence. Yet they prove thus much, that in all communities of Chriftians, both in the Eaft and Weft, the fame writings have ever been regarded as genuine works of the Evangelifts and Apoftles, which we in the prefent day find still unaltered in our New Teftament.-If we add to thefe circumftances, that the ecclefiaftical fathers of the first centuries have quoted almoft every verfe of the New Teftament, and, in regard to effential points, exactly agreeably to our present text; alfo, that many of them (for inftance, Origen, Chryfoftom, Jerom, Augustin,

• Michaelis has given very ample information concerning these verfions in his Introduction to the N. T.

Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, and Ecumenius,) have left us commentaries either on all, or on individual books of the New Teftament, of which the fcriptural text exactly coincides with our printed copies, we must without hesitation confefs, that the books which are now extant in our editions of the New Teftament are the uncorrupted writings of the Evangelifts and Apostles.

The enemies of Chriftianity notwithstanding, continually pretend that they have been corrupted!-No one indeed, who poffeffes the leaft knowledge of the principles of criticism, will readily affert, that the Various Readings are corruptions.-But on this fubject we meet with Collins, who appeals to an alteration of the Gospels, which, according to the information of ecclefiaftical history, is faid to have taken place in the fixth century under the Emperour Anaftafius.

$ 3

Victor,

Bishop

Bishop of Tunis in Africa, relates in his Chronicon, that the Emperour Anaftafius, confidering that the Gofpels were written by illiterate men, ordered them to be improved at Conftantinople. This Victor is the only evidence that can be brought forward for this event; for Ifidore of Seville relates it merely on his authority. He lived in Africa; confequently far diftant from the fcene where the alteration is faid to have taken place. All the other writers make not the leaft mention of this circumftance: which, without doubt, would have excited bitter and unanimous complaints against the Emperour, already an object of general hatred. Moreover, Victor offers not the fhadow of a proof in fupport of his narration: he names no immediate witneffes on whofe authority he relates the ftory. Now, from a relation fo

a Ad. A. 506. See Scaligeri Thefaurus temporum.

very incredible, Collins, in oppofition to the unanimous affertions of fo many and fuch credible witneffes, attempts to prove the corruption of the New Teftament. But, even if we should grant, that this information delivered by an African Bishop of an event which is faid to have happened at Conftantinople, is deferving of credit; yet the alteration would not have taken place in all the manufcripts which existed in the Eastern church; for, according to his own information, it is faid to have been made only in the manufcripts at Conftantinople. And if it had been actually put in execution in all

In his Difcourfe of free-thinking,' p. 69-73. In order to prove that the Scriptures of the New Teftament are perfectly uncertain, he introduces the following arguments:-1. Because the Canon of the New Teftament was not made until fixty years after the death of Chrift.-(But it could not have been formed earlier, for before that time all the Holy Scriptures had not been compofed)..-2. From the thirty thousand different readings in Mill.-And 3. From the paffage of Victor, alluded to above.