tionné, ou n'a pas vu, ou l'ayant vue, ne l'a pas citée, comme peu importante.

2, 1. (2, 6, p. 3.) Exacto. Ainsi que M. Gail, M. Bekker dit, "Exaoros Dionys. p. 872." Mais, pourquoi M. Bekker n'at-il pas vu, avec M. Gail, que neuf manuscrits donnoient exaoTos et s'il l'a vu, comment, averti par la leçon de Denys d'Halicarnasse, n'a-t-il pas senti l'importance, 1° de dire que la leçon de Denys d'Halicarnasse se trouvoit fortifiée par celle de neuf manuscrits? 2° Comment ensuite n'a-t-il pas réfléchi que ἕκαστος, malgré le ἀπολείποντες qui suit, étoit évidemment la bonne leçon ? et ici, reproche à faire à M. Gail qui, trop timide, n'a inséré cet exaσTos dans son texte. Au reste 1, 7, 1, Thucydide donne ἕκαστοι et non ἕκαστος.

pas

3, 1. (3, 1. p. 6.) aσtéveιav. M. Bekker remarque avec M. Gail que G. omet dolévelav, et de plus l'insère dans son texte.

13, 2. (13, 7. p. 24.) τριήρεις ἐν Κορίνθῳ πρῶτον τῆς Ελλαδος. Ici M. Bekker, renonçant à la leçon de Duker, Bauer, Gail, donne τριήρεις πρῶτον ἐν Κορίνθῳ τῆς Ελλαδος ; mais pourquoi omet-il et la legon difficile πρῶτον τῆς Ελλαδος et la note de M. Gail, à qui je reprocherai ici, lorsqu'il approuve la leçon gτv Tis "Exλados, de ne pas dire à quel manuscrit il la doit.

ky

15, 2. (15, 13, p. 23.) [πολὺ ἀπὸ τῆς ἑαυτῶν ἐπ ̓ ἄλλων κατὰ Orgoon] Ici M. Gail donne une bonne note omise, à tort, par M. Bekker. Je penserois avec M. Gail que ces cinq mots sont une glose de excuous de Thucydide, laquelle aura passé dans le

texte.

ἀπαγ

22, 1. (22, 8, p. 36.) Tolev omis, Gail et Bekk.-Ib. άяayyéλovo. Ici M. Gail donne Tayyéλovom d'après A. M. Beck ne cite pas ce manuscrit A. Sa réponse sera inspexi, non pertractavi.—Ib. ἐμοὶ (et non μοι) ἕκαστοι Gail et Beck.Ib. μάAOT' SITEV. Cinq manuscrits donnoient cette variante à M. Gail.

M. Bekker ne citant aucun des manuscrits de Paris, ni aucun manuscrit, renonce à la leçon ordinaire μáλiota eiπeïv, et sans rien dire, met dans son texte, la leçon des cinq manuscrits A, C, D, E, 1, de Gail. M. Gail, qui pense (p. 15 et 28 de son excellent mémoire sur Thucydide) qu'ici l'intention de Thucydide est d'employer un rhythme grave et lent, n'admet pas l'élision; et je croirois que ce savant judicieux très a bien fait.

Voyez dans son mémoire sur Thucydide p. 90, 91, ses remarques sur oute, sur πapà, qui selon M. Gail seroit à tort remplacé par our', nag', comme quelques-uns l'ont voulu. On verra 1, 141, 3, où M. Bekker a profité, en silence, d'une remarque de même genre faite par M. Gail.

Ib. Evμrάons Tns, A, Gail et Bekk.

22, Νο. 3. ἀλλ' ὡς ἑκατέρων τίς. Ici M. Bekker cite la tree bonne legon ἀλλ' ὡς ἑκατέρῳ τις εὐνοίας ή μνήμης ἔχοι, et de plus il l'adopte et fait bien. Mais, je remarquerai qu'avant M. Bekker, M. Gail a donné, d'après A, F, G, cette même leçon.

22, Νο. 4. τὸ (μή om.) μυθῶδες Gail, Bekker.—τῶν (τε om.) γεγενημένων, Gail et Beck.—κατὰ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον, et non ἀνθρώ TELOV fort approuvé par Wass. A, B, C, D, E: Gail et Beck.Ib. τοιούτων (ὄντων) Α, Β, C, D, E, F.

Ib. No. 22, 4. ὅσοι δε βουλήσονται τῶν τε γενομένων τὸ σαφές, σκου πεῖν, καὶ τῶν μελλόντων ποτὲ αὖθις, κατὰ τὸ ἀνθρώπειον, τοιούτων [ὄντων] xai τagaπλŋσíæv osobaι etc. Ici M. Bekker cite les manuscrits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, qui omettent ovrov. Cependant, comme tous les manuscrits ne le suppriment pas; comme quelques-uns le donnent, M. Gail l'a conservé quoiqu'avec le signe de doute.

2

M. Bekker, moins timide, supprime la leçon TV. M. Gail, dans ses observations sur Thucydide, donne pour la conserver, de mauvaises raisons,' auxquelles il auroit pu (dans son systême de justifier siva osoba par l'adjonction du participe v, ὄντος) joindre le ὄντων εἶναι que donnent ses variantes de Xenophon. Mais il a fait mieux dans son 3 Vol. du Philologue, p. 133. où il propose cette version: il me suffira que cette histoire soit jugée utile par ceux qui voudront méditer sur le certain des évènements passés et de ceux qui doivent, à l'avenir, suivant la nature des choses humaines, être à-peu-près les mêmes, des causes ou des circonstances semblables venant à se représenter, τοιούτων ὄντων.

Si cette version est exacte, comme je le pense fortement, il* s'en suivra que MM. Schaffer, Bauer, Coray, Kistemaker, Wyttenbach, Hermann, Wolf, et M. Poppo, se sont tous trompés, et que M. Bekker aura eu tort de supprimer un mot que donnent des manuscrits, et que représentoient toutes les éditions antérieures à la sienne.

Plein de vénération pour les talens et l'urbanité de M. Gail dans plusieurs genres, je continuerai peut-être dans un prochain No. mon examen des éditions de Thucydide, et je donnerai de nouvelles preuves qu'il existe une grande conformité entre la collation de M. Gail et celle de M. Bekker lorsqu'il cite les manuscrits de Paris.

à Paris, le 3 Mars.

P.

Voy. son Xenoph. Var. tome 7. Hellen. 2, 1, 28, et non 2, 2, 28 comme M. Gail le dit fautivement dans ses observat. sur Thucydide.

Tome 7. des Var. Hellen. 1, 4, 16, p. 346.

OBSERVATIONS ON

A controverted Passage in JUSTIN MARTYR; also on the Worship of Angels.

THE following critique was sent to our Journal by an illustrious scholar, whose well-founded respect for the Rev. Mr. Nares, and whose kindness to the late Mr. Beloe (afterwards not well requited) had induced him to communicate it to the conductors of the British Critic. It forms the sixth article of the Review for March, 1794, and the writer has lately given permission for it to be introduced into our Journal. He has also furnished us with a valuable article from the Bibliotheca Literaria, which was conducted by the learned Dr. Jebb and the yet more learned Mr. Wasse, and of which the first number appeared in 1722, and the tenth and last in 1724. In Number 8. there is "Locus Justini Martyris emendatus," by Dr. Ashton (formerly Master of Jesus College, Cambridge), well-known as the literary and political opponent of Dr. Bentley, and the auxiliary of Thirlby in his edition of Justin Martyr, and supposed to have been the adviser, and almost the ally, of Dr. Middleton in his Remarks upon the "Proposals published by Dr. Bentley for a New Edition of the Greek Testament and Latin Version." Our Correspondent highly approves of the transposition recommended by Ashton on the passage in Justin Martyr, which Bryant had discussed; and it appeared to him, that Ashton's Dissertation would be a very proper companion for his own critique on Jacob. Bryant's work.

The passage which our author quotes, from page 47 of the Benedictine edition, occurs in page 11 of Thirlby's, and runs thus: Ενθενδε και Αθεοι κεκλημεθα και όμολογούμεν των τοιούτων νομιζομε νων θεων Αθεοι ειναι, αλλ' ουχι του αληθέστατου, και πατρος δικαιοσυνης και σωφροσυνης, και των αλλων αρετών, ανεπιμικτου τε κακίας Θεον. Αλλ' εκεινον τε, και τον παρ' αυτου υἱον ελθοντα, και διδαξαντα ἡμας ταυτα, και τον των αλλων ἑπομένων και εξομοιουμένων αγαθων Αγγελων στρατον, Πνευμα τε το προφητικον σεβομεθα, και προσκυνουμεν, λόγῳ και αληθεια τιμωντες, και παντι βουλομενῳ μαθεῖν, ὡς εδιδάχθημεν, αφθόνως παραδίδοντες.

The learned Benedictine, from whom our author takes the passage, contends for the following translation: " Atque Atheos quidem nos esse, confitemur, si de opinatis ejusmodi Diis agatur: secus vero, si de verissimo illo, et Justitiæ, ac Temperantiæ, ac cæterarum VOL. XXVII.

CI. J.

NO. LIV.

S

virtutum, patre, nullâ admixto vitiositate, Deo. Sed eum et Filium, qui ab eo venit, ac nos ista docuit, et cæterorum, qui illum assectantur, eique assimilati sunt, bonorum Angelorum exercitum, et Spiritum propheticum colimus, et adoramus, ratione et veritate venerantes, et ut quisque discere voluerit, citra invidiam ut edocti sumus, impertientes."

The sense of the passage evidently depends on the words Sidaξαντα and σεβομεθα, i. e. whether στρατον is governed by the one or the other. The Protestant writers say, and we think justly, that Αγγελων στρατον is to be joined with διδαξαντα, but the Roman Catholics maintain that it should be joined with ceßopela. The learned author of the observations, after much pertinent reasoning on various parts of the sentence, proposes the following translation: "In consequence of this, we are called Atheists; and we fairly confess that we are so, in respect to those pretended divinities; but far otherwise, in respect to that most true GOD, the Father of all Righteousness and Wisdom, and of every Virtue, without the least mixture of depravity; for we reverence and worship both Him and his Son, who proceeded from him, and who afforded us this knowlege (of GOD and Christ) and afforded the same to the whole host of his other excellent messengers, the good angels, who minister to him, and are made like him; we likewise reverence and adore that Spirit, from whence proceeded all prophecy, affording towards it a true and rational worship; and we are ready to impart freely to all, who are willing to be instructed, the same information that we have received."

We agree with Robert Stephens, and the generality of Protestant writers, that no stop should be put after ravra, but we find those writers at variance about the sense which ravra bears, and we will lay before our readers the words of Thirlby: Atque ita hæc (Protestantes) vulgo interpretantur: qui docuit nos tum hæc (nimirum quæ ante dixerat de Dæmonibus) tum etiam quæ de bonis Angelis scimus, quæ (says Thirlby) dura sane interpretatio est. Aliam dedit Grabius. Justini verba (inquit) id volunt, Christum ista quæ de Deo Patre, justitiæ, temperantiæ, aliarumque virtutum amatore, et omnis malitiæ experte, dixerat, in oppositione falsorum Deorum (quos impudicitiæ, violentiæ, aliorumque vitiorum paulo ante reos intimaverat) ista, inquam, tam hominibus quam angelis bonis patefecisse.' Hæc ille, eademque in sententia fuisse videtur Langus.

We prefer the explanation given by the author of the observations, "who afforded us this knowledge of GOD and Christ;" and we could wish that Thirlby had favored us with some interpretation of his own, or with some opinion upon the comparative merits of the interpretations which he has produced from other authors. Such a discharge of his editorial office would, surely, not have been ⚫ inconsistent with his determination, "Controversias. Theologicas non attingere."

The author, whose work is now under consideration, has entered very fully into the sense of των αλλων Αγγέλων. After showing that the word Ayyeλos is applied to the Prophet Haggai, chap. i. ver. 13.; to John the Baptist, Matt. xi. ver. 12.; and to the High Priest of the Jews, Malachi, chap. ii. ver. 7., he says: "Thus the Christians were esteemed angels or messengers upon earth, whom Christ is said to have instructed; and the aλλoi Ayyeλoɩ, the other messengers, were the angels in Heaven, who had the like instruction from the power that formed them."

Now to us it appears strange, that, without any preparatory expression, the sense of ayyeλos should be involved in μas, and should be inferred only from the subsequent words Twv aλdwv αγγελων. In the passages quoted by our learned writer, some person is definitely referred to, e. g. "Thus spake Haggai, the angel or messenger of the Lord." John the Baptist is called " my Angel." The High Priest is called "the Angel of the Almighty." But, in Justin Martyr, uas seems to be spoken of Christians at large, and not, as our author of Christian messengers and ministers, exclusively. To us it seems not improbable, that the Στρατος των αλλων επομένων και εξομοιουμένων αγαθών Αγγελων, are opposed by Justin Martyr to the κακοι και ανοσιοι Δαίμονες, whom he had mentioned in the sentence immediately preceding the controverted passage.

supposes,

After commenting on the words of Justin Martyr, our author examines the well-known distinction which the Roman Catholics maintain, between Aovλevery and Aarpeve. He observes, very properly, that these are not the words used by Justin, and produces several passages, in which we are plainly "admonished to pay our worship and adoration to GOD alone." His language is perspicuous, his quotations are apposite, and his reasoning is, to us,. satisfactory.

To the remarks on Justin Martyr succeed some observations on a celebrated passage in the second chapter of the epistle to the Colossians. Μηδεις ύμας καταβραβευετω θελων εν ταπεινοφροσυνη και θρησκεια των Αγγέλων, ἃ μη εωρακεν εμβατεύων, εικη φυσιούμενος

å

On this word it may, perhaps, not be improper to add a few words from Suicer. Under the word ayyoharpía he gives an account of some Christians, who, on a false principle of humility, supposed themselves unworthy to worship God or Christ, and therefore paid adoration to angels. Zonaras upon Canon 35. Concil. Laodiceni, pag. 351., writes thus: Αἵρεσις ἦν παλαιὰ λεγόντων τινῶν, ὅτι οὐ δεῖ τὸν Χριστὸν ἐπικαλεῖσθαι εἰς βοήθειαν, ἢ εἰς προσαγωγὴν τὴν τὸν Θεὸν, ἀλλὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους ὡς τάχα τοῦ τὸν Χριστὸν ἐπικαλεῖσθαι πρὸς τὰ εἰρημένα μείζονος ὄντος τῆς ἡμετέρας ἀξίας. τοῦτο δὲ τάχα ταπεινούμLEVOL REYOV. Vetus erat hæresis quorundam, qui dicebant, non esse invocandum Christum, ut nos juvet, aut ad Deum adducat, sed Angelos, quòd fortasse Christum propter dicta invocare, nostram superet dignitatem. Illud autem