dicatum Deo habitum (the veil) detrahere potuerunt!"-meaning his readers to infer that Tertullian found habitus in the verse in question; but omitting to inform them that it is 133 twice quoted by Tertullian in this very Tract, and that in both instances the reading is potestas. That the omission proceeded, not from inadvertence, but design, is, we think, rendered certain by the still more extraordinary solution subjoined by the author, that vestitus was the original reading; which, when pronounced by a Jew, might easily be confounded with potestas. It is impossible that the author could be serious in throwing out either of these conjectures.

We will mention one other argument of a more plausible character, alleged by the author in support of his theory. 134 The author contends that the very titles of the existing Greek gospels, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθαῖον, κατὰ Aoûkav, prove them to be translations. The Version of the Septuagint was called κaTà τοὺς ̔Εβδομήκοντα, that of Aquila κατὰ ̓Ακυλάν. But why does he stop short in his inference? If the argument proves any thing, it proves, not merely that the existing Greek gospels

133 cc. 7. 17.

134 Supplement to Palæoromaica, p. 3. note 2.

were translations, but also that Matthew, Luke, &c. were the translators. The true answer however is, that the force of the preposition Kaтa depends entirely upon the word with which it is connected. The title To evayyédiov κατὰ Ματθαῖον means "the glad tidings of salvation as delivered by St. Matthew:" or as paraphrased by Hammond, "That story of Christ which Matthew compiled and set down." For though the word evayyéov was employed at a very early period to signify 155 a written book, yet it continued to be used in its primitive meaning; as by Tertullian, when he calls 136 St. Matthew, fidelissimus Evangelii commentator, the most faithful expositor of the life and doctrine of Christ. We will take this opportunity of remarking, that our author, in speaking of the Scriptures, sometimes calls them 157 Instrumentum, sometimes Testamentum; one occasion that the latter

but says on

138

135 See de Res. Carnis, c. 33. De Carne Christi, c. 7. Adv. Marcionem, L. i. c. 1. L. iv. cc. 1. 3. L. v. c. 1. Scorpiace,

C. 2.

136 De Carne Christi, c. 22. See also de Res. Carnis, c. 33. The word commentator is similarly used adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 2.

137 Vetus Instrumentum. Apology, c. 47. divinarum Scripturarum. Adv. Judæos, c. 1. are joined together adv. Praxeam, c. 20. utriusque testamenti.

Ex instrumento

The two words

Instrumentum

138 Alterum alterius instrumenti, vel (quod magis usui est dicere) testamenti. Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 1.

term was in more general use. He calls them also 139 Digesta.

142 in

Some 140 learned men have contended that the Epistle, which in our Bibles is inscribed to the Ephesians, should be entitled to the Laodiceans. Tertullian 14 in one place says, that the Heretics alone gave it that title; another, that Marcion had at one time manifested an intention to alter the title of the Epistle. Semler's inference is that some of the Epistles were without inscriptions, and received in consequence a variety of titles.

There are in Tertullian, as well as in the other Fathers, quotations purporting to be taken from Scripture, but which cannot be found in our present copies. Thus in the Tract de Idololatriâ, c. 20. Nam sicut scriptum est ecce homo et facta ejus, ita,

143

ex ore tuo

139 Et inde sunt nostra digesta. Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 3. Si quid in sanctis offenderunt digestis. Apology, c. 47. 140 Lardner. History of the Apostles and Evangelists,

c. 13.

141 Præterea hic et de aliâ epistolâ, quam nos ad Ephesios perscriptam habemus; Hæretici vero ad Laodicenos. Adv. Marcionem, L. v. c. 11.

142 Ecclesiæ quidem veritate, Epistolam istam ad Ephesios habemus emissam, non ad Laodicenos: sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit, quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator. Adv. Marcionem, L. v. c. 17.

143 Matthew xii. 37.

justificaberis. The commentators have not been able to trace the former of the two quotations, and some suppose it to have been taken from the book of Enoch. 144 On three different occasions Tertullian quotes the words Dominus regnavit a ligno as a portion of the tenth verse of the 95th (or 96th) Psalm; from which, according to Justin Martyr, the words corresponding to a ligno had been erased by the Jews. In the Tract de Carne Christi, c. 23. we find the following sentence: Legimus quidem apud Ezechielem de vaccâ illâ, quæ peperit et non peperit," the words are also quoted by 145 Clemens Alexandrinus, but he does not refer to any particular portion of Scripture. In the 146 Tract de Exhortatione Castitatis, Tertullian says, Cautum in Levitico, Sacerdotes mei non plus nubent; but the 147 prohibition, as it stands in our Bibles, is that a Priest shall not marry a widow or divorced female. Tertullian's writings afford many exemplifications of the justice of Porson's remarks respecting the want of correctness and precision observable in the quotations of the

66

144 Adv. Judæos, cc. 10. 13. Adv. Marcionem, L. iii. c. 19. See Thirlby's note on Justin Martyr against Trypho, p. 298. D. 145 Strom. L. vii. p. 756. See Porson's Letters to Travis,

p. 275.

146 c. 7. Compare de Monogamiâ, c. 7.
147 Leviticus xxi. 7. 13, 14.

148 He sometimes

Fathers from the Scriptures. refers his readers to one part of Scripture for passages which belong to another; and he so mixes up the quotations with his own words, that it is difficult to distinguish between them. The 149 consequence has been that his inferences and explanations have been mistaken for various readings; and have in some instances found their way into the text of the Sacred Volume.

We proceed to the seventh Article; on which it will be sufficient to remark that—as the Heretical opinions of Marcion were founded on the notion that the God, who created the world and gave the law, was opposed to the Supreme God-he maintained as a necessary consequence, that the Old Testament was contrary to the New:-our author, therefore, who undertakes to confute him, 150 must have held that the two Testaments were not at variance.

148 Thus in the Scorpiace, c. 13. a passage extant in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Philippians, is quoted as from the Epistles to the Thessalonians.

149 See an instance in Porson's Letters to Travis, p. 273. or in Semler's Dissertation, Sect. 9.

150 See particularly adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 11. where are some judicious observations respecting the relation in which the Law stands to the Gospel.