therefore, are the moft convincing proof, that the Holy Scriptures have not been altered in any point of doctrine or morality, or other matter of importance; because they are found perfectly concordant in all manuscripts of the originals and of the versions, which have been written and compofed in Europe, Afia, and Africa. So far therefore from being hoftile to the uncorrupted prefervation of the books of our New Teftament, (as fome enemies of Chriftianity have afferted from ignorance or wicked motives, and as many Christians have likewise apprehended from groundless fear) these variations afford us, on the contrary, an additional and moft convincing proof, that they exift at prefent, in all effential matters, as they left the hands of their authors

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 tranf

lation

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 confequences. 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 present day find still unaltered in our New Teftament.-If we add to these circumftances, that the ecclefiaftical fathers of the first centuries have quoted almoft every verfe of the New Testament, and, in regard to effential points, exactly agreeably to our prefent 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 Testament, of which the fcriptural text exactly coincides with our printed copies,-we muft 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 shadow 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

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

་