128 
whom seem to have quoted from the 
Italic version. The construction, as it 
now stands, is awkward and ungram- 
matical; even if «s+ were inserted be- 
tween yerdn and Oromvvsos it would 
make the apostle write an absurdity; for 
the whole body of scripture is never 
expressed, or alluded to, without the 
article; either a yeaa: or 7 year.” 
These arguments Dr. Findlay very 
fully and very candidly examines. 
He allows that the copulative xa: is 
wanting in all the ancient versions ex- 
cept the /Ethiopic, and that there is no 
indication in these versions that it exist- 
ed in their Greek copy; but it cannot 
hence, he thinks, be argued, that it was 
not really in the Greek copies that they 
used, since translators: and interpreters 
are known, and generally allowed to 
use great liberty with such small parti- 
cles, sometimes omitting and sometimes 
interpolating them. Dr.. Findlay also 
acknowledges that Dr. .Geddes is accu- 
rate with respect to Cyprian, Cassiodo- 
rus, Ambrose, and Theodorus ; but he 
contends that Clement and: TertuHian 
cannot be provediot toshave read xa: : 
and that it is not clear-that the Latin 
fathers did all follow the same Latin 
translation as their guide. Ofthe Greek 
copies, only one is found to want the 
article, and that is comparatively of a 
recent date, and of no authority. .'The 
Christian fathers, who have written 
Greek commentaries, ought not,, Dr, 
Findlay owns, to decide ; yet itis worthy 
of remark, that Theodoret, Chrysostom; 
and others, have manifestly read xa 
Concerning the proper position of the 
word «si, he observes, that there are 
several instances where it is introduced 
with unquestionable propriety, by our 
translators, before the first of two ad- 
jectives, between which the same par- 
ticle x: intervenes, ‘as here.’ “T'wo pas- 
sages occur in the former epistle to 
Tim. ii. 3. and iv. 4.° The omission of 
the causal particle yae, the professor 
‘shews to be much in the apostle’s man- 
ner; and that yeagn without the article 
may properly denote the Jewish scrip- 
tures: he argues from the apostle’s men- 
tion of them in the preceding verse ; 
from the occurrence of the term in 
other passages, in which it evidently 
bears that sense, particulasly 2 Pet. 1. 
20, 21, and John xix, $7. ; from the au- 
thority of Josephus ; and from the use of 
many words in the Greek language, such 
AS youes, Aoyos, &c. Without the article. Dr. 
THEOLOGY AND ECCLESIASTICAL AFFAIRS. 
_ 
Findlay then adds some observations f@ 
prove that xa: ought not to be render 
also, and that the construction whic 
others besides Dr. Geddes would give 
the words, making @rorvveres not a part 
of the subject of St. Paul’s positi 
but the predicate, is neither natural nor — 
just. He then proceeds to shew more 
fully, that the Greek fathers and coms 
mentators agree, in giving to the passage 
the sense which is commonly ascribed to” 
it; and that the majority of later inter=_ 
preters are of the same opinion. The 
doctor then advances one step further, 
and maintains that if it were allowed 
that the ancient copies did not read xaq 
they might nevertheless bear the mean. 
ing which is usually aseribed to the pass 
sage ; and that there is reason to believe 
they were so understood by the fathers: 
the Latin or western church, and by the — 
Syriac writers Ephrem and Ebed-jesu. 
He concludes the whole with some argue 
ments to prove that zas should be here 
explained in the collective, not in the 
distributive sense. 
Such is the substance of the little 
work which is here presented to the 
world, by a scholar, a gentleman, and a 
christian. Though not in every instanee’ 
convinced by the author’s reasoning, we 
have received from it much satisfaction, 
and we regret that he who was 
cause of its being produced, is far from 
the reach of the professor’s arguments, 
and alike incapable of acknowledging 
their validity, or attempting their refu- 
tation. & 
As we were examining this tract, a few 
observations occurred to us, which we 
shall beg leave here to state. It is true, 
that neither Clement nor Tertullian can 
be proved to have had xa: in their copies 
of the Greek Testament, neither.can it be 
conjectured from the passages produce 
from their writings, that it was inserted 
inthem. ‘To us, they appear to deter- 
mine little. It is, however, worthy off 
remark, that by both these fathers, the 
divine inspiration of the scriptures seems 
to be drawn as a consequence of their 
utility ; and soto throw some light upon 
the position of es. We understand Cle- 
ment as saying: “ The Scriptures com- 
posed of these holy letters, he (Paul 
calls divinely inspired, because they are 
profitable ; wesAjes eoas’?: and the La 
tin interpreter appears to have under- 
stood these words in the same sens 
when he rendered them, * ut que 
utiles.” 
