matters were so changed, that at one time the orthodox would rather that the expressions could have borne another signification; and lastly, suppose that all along the same expressions as those in question, and others like them, were used perpetually, and by all parties, in that one constant meaning-this, I imagine, Sir, would be satisfactory; there could be no longer any doubt respecting the required translation; and if, in the ignorance of all this evidence, a different one had been adopted, or a notion entertained, that the texts might, from some supposed ambiguity in the expression, admit of two interpretations, no one would deny but that either of those errors must be renounced, and men's ideas be reformed according to the standard of the primitive authorities. And now, if after having proceeded thus far, we were struck with a philological peculiarity, appearing not only in our few original texts, but also in all those similar expressions which we had before remarked for another purpose; and not only there, but we saw also, that through the whole language, the same peculiarity was preserved wherever two personal nouns were applied to the same individual, and there only, then, at last, we should have reached your rule, the fountain-head of all those interpretations; then might we boldly declare, that the idiom was not ambiguous; seeing that it was utterly impossible, but that such a circumstance must have been detected amid all this evidence. However, However, if any confirmation of our conclusion were still wanting, this would be a confirmation of it, if we should find, first, that in another language (the Latin) which did not, from its natural constitution, admit of the idiom which we had discovered, the translation of those very verses that were the subject of our original enquiries, and other verses like them, had been often confounded, and was used by different authors in different significations, according to their particular purposes, or different apprehensions of its meaning: if, again, we found, that in the translation of several compositions, from the Latin into the Greek language, by contemporary writers, this property of the article was invariably observed, so that the very same Latin words should be rendered differently, accordingly as it appeared to be the mind of the author, that they should be expressive of one, or two persons; and lastly, if besides we discovered, that among modern writers, when the idea of an ambiguity in the original was once started, it had never after been suffered to sleep again, but had been taken advantage of, and pleaded continually by the interested. from the sixteenth till the nineteenth century. It is obvious, Sir, that all this we speak of, at present, merely as an ideal picture. Whether or no we shall have been able to realize any one of its features, may be a subject of future consideration. It is time to proceed to the mention of a few other particulars, As it will no doubt be desirable to know to what extent my researches have been carried, I have subjoined a catalogue of authors, and of the editions which I made use of*. My examination was not conducted carelessly; but that no passage has escaped me in all the ground I have gone over, where one or other of our texts may be quoted, I am very far from pretending to assume. All the Greek authorities, I have thought it right, for several reasons, to transcribe at length, though many of them, as might be expected, contain nothing upon the words which are the immediate objects of our consideration. It is plain, that in an argument like ours, it is of considerable importance, if in addition to that which is on our side, we can accumulate evidence that conveys nothing against us. I had also many reasons, too obvious to need explaining, why I should not confine my enquiries exclusively to Greek authorities. My Latin catalogue, however, will not be found comparatively so copious as the Greek; neither, probably, did I always exert there precisely the same degree of vigilance. In producing my authorities on each particular verse, the order which I follow is the chronological: and the writer by whose chronology I have regulated myself, I * See Appendix, No. 6. believe 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 very inconsiderable importance. 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. LETTER LETTER II. THE reading of the common printed editions in the text which you mention as your first example (Acts xx. 28.) being merely cou, and this also having been the reading which is followed by our translators, I was not willing to concern myself with that passage. If Tov Kugio naι ɛou 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 |