ύπο του νους της σαρκός αυτου και ου (this word is omitted by mistake) κρατων την κεφαλην, εξ οὗ παν το σωμα, δια των αφων και συνδεσμων επιχορηγούμενον, και συμβιβαζομενον, αυξει την αύξησιν του Θεού.

1

Our author would read ελθων for θέλων, and, as it might be objected, that the next clause would be under the same regimen, and that ελθών εν θρησκεια would appear unintelligible to those who would admit ελθων εν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ, he answers, that, in his opinion, the word θρησκεια is not necessarily governed by the participle ελθων, but may still be supposed dependent upon the verb καταβραβευετω. He then gives the following arrangement: Μηδεις μας καταβραβευετω ελθών εν ταπεινοφροσυνη και (μηδεις ύμας καταβραβευετω της θρησκεια των Αγγελων. The learned writer will excuse us for saying, that his construction of the words seems to us very embarrassed; and that a substitution of ελθων for θελων, however ingenious, is, in our opinion, unnecessary; but, as the whole passage is very difficult, and has been the subject of much controversy among critics, we will lay before our readers the result of our inquiries into some of the most important words which occur in it.

E

Jerom, as quoted by Wetstein, charges St. Paul with provinciality in the word καταβραβευετω. "Multa sunt verba, quibus juxta morem urbis et provinciæ suæ familiarius Apostolus utitur. quibus, exempli causa, pauca ponenda sunt-μηδεις ύμας καταβραβενετω, i. e. Nullus hominum accipiat Bravium adversus nos. Quibus et aliis multis verbis usque hodie utuntur Cilices." Now Stolbergius, as we find from Wolfius (in Loc.) has vindicated St. Paul from the imputation of Cilicism, by one passage from Eustathius, Iliad i. ver. 39, and by another from the speech of Demosthenes, contra Midiam. We shall subjoin both.

Αλλα καταβραβευει αυτον, ὡς φασιν οἱ παλαιοι, του φυσικού θεσμού προθεμενος το δικαιον. Εustath. Επιστάμεθα Στρατωνα ύπο Μειδίον καταβραβευθέντα, και παρα παντα τα δικαια ατιμωθεντα. Demosth.

Stolbergius reasons thus: "Hoc verbum proprie notat in judiciis insidiose circumvenire atque opprimere: deinde transfertur ad quamvis deceptionem ac fraudationem. Quæ significatio ad hoc

sese deprimentes, forte dicebant. * «.. Et Balsamon, ad eundem Canonem, p. 841. Ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ ὁ πονηρὸς ἐκ τῶν δεξιῶν ἡμᾶς ὑποκλέπτει. Διά τοι τοῦτο καὶ ὑπερεβάλλετο ποτέ τινας μὴ ἐπικαλεῖσθαι τὸν Χριστὸν εἰς βοήθειαν, ἀλλὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους, κατὰ τρόπον δῆθεν εὐλαβείας, καὶ τῆς πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν τιμῆς. διὸ καὶ τὰς ἐντεύξεις οὐ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἐποίουν κατά τινα αἵρεσιν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τοὺς ἀγγέλους. Μalignus ille ut plurimum a dextris nos fallit. Propterea etiam olim quosdam vicit, ne vocarent Christum ad auxilium, sed Angelos, quadam quasi reverentia et erga Deum honore ducti. Hinc etiam preces non ad Deum dirigebant juxta hæresin quandum sed ad Angelos.

• Our own opinion entirely agrees with that of Rosenmuller, Vol. IV. page 583. ν. 18. cap. ii. of the Scholia on the 1 Epist. to the Colossians.

dictum maxime videtur quadrare. Bene vulgatus, qui non temere rejiciendus: Nemo vos supplantet." But Wolfius says, that Elsner, upon the authority of the passage from Demosthenes, interprets Karaßpaßeve pervertere; that he quotes from Hesychius and Suidas, karakρiveiv, and from Phavorinus, rapaλoyi2eolai, as the explanations of Karaßpaßever; that he resists the interpretation, quæ ad Brabeum interversum respicit, because Spaßeveiv nunquam adhibeatur de certantibus, sed de judicibus sacris ludis præcedentibus; and because "Proprie significet in genere dirigere, moderari, præesse alicere rei, unde translatum est ad Judices, Certamina, βραβεύοντας, moderantes; ut proinde καταβραβεύειν idem si, quod pervertere, seu, ita rem judiciumve sive artibus, sive Gubernatore, 'ut contra alium feratur sententia." "Hæc," says Wolfius, "recte monet Elsnerus," and then he adds, "Interim non negaverim, ex his consequi, ut is, qui ex perverso illo judicio pendeat, vel pendere debeat, ipsius brabei jacturam faciat." To Elsner's interpretation we prefer that of Krebsius, in page 338 of his Observations in Nov. Test. è Josepho, Spaßevw, says he, is Certaminis Moderator et Arbiter sum, et Præmia Certaminis distribuo; and for this seuse he quotes one passage from Josephus. Then it is applied, says he, de Judicibus in universum suum cuique tribuentibus, and for this he quotes a passage from Josephus. He goes on κατα Spaßeve proprie est, Sententiam adversus quempiam fero, quá eum Brabeo, seu Præmio Certaminis indignum pronuncio, quum alioquin dignus sit; ut omnium optime vim hujus vocis exposuit Stephanus Thes. Gr. L. t. i. p. 785. Sæpe in Compositis rns Kara ea significatio, v. c. in ro karappovei, invenitur, quod præter usitatam Significationem, denotet contra aliquem sentire, s., insidiare, alicui imponere, decipere aliquem. Vid. 10, Pearsonii Præfat. Parænet. ad LXX Interpretes. Inde Karaßpaßevery in universum denotat, aliquem insidiose et injuste circumvenire et decipere; quem significatum accommodatiorem Apostoli Menti esse putem, quam eum, quem Elsnerus tribuit, qui interpretatur, pervertere, ut indicetur perversum judicium arrogantis revera hominis, sed modestiam prætendentis. Sensus est, Nemo vos insidiose et injuste circumveniat et decipiat."

66

Having declared our assent to the opinion of Krebsius, we have only to add, that Karaßpaßeveiv Tiva are interpreted by Reiske, nequam Artibus aliquem circumventum evertere." v. Index Græcitat. Demosthen. p. 436.

The word beλwv has perplexed many interpreters. Le Clerc, as appears from Wetstein, would read Oeλywv; and Wolfius tells us, that, finding no authority from the manuscripts, Le Clerc would not venture to change the reading. The author of the Observations conjectures eλowv, and, in his conjecture, he has been anticipated by two other Critics. Wetstein quotes eλ0wv from P. Junius, and Toup, on the words καθιγμένος, θέλων, φθάσας, in Suidas, pro

poses exowy, and then extends the same emendation to this very passage in the Colossians. He supposes Paul to allude to the words of Christ, in Matt. xxiv. ver. 5. Iloλλoı yap eλevoovтaL ERI το ονοματι μου. V. Emendat. in Suidam, page 63 of the edition published in London, 1764, and page 302 of the Oxford edition, 1790.

We are confident that Toup had not seen the conjecture of Junius, and that the author of the Observations was equally unacquainted with Toup; but if this conjecture should be admitted, still we could not accede to the construction which the author of the Observations had laid before his readers. EXOwv ev Opnokelą, doubtless, is harsh, when considered by itself; but it is very common with the best writers, after using a word in its proper and scientific sense, in one part of a sentence, to give it only a more lax and general signification in the other. Vid. D'Orville ad Charit. p. 395.

As we wish to retain Oɛλwr, we shall bring forward some interpretations, which we think worthy of attention. Wolfius mentions Vatablus, Castalio, Capellus, Casaubonus, Elsnerus, Alberti, and others, who understand eλw in the sense evdorw, for so it is explained by Hesychius and Phavorinus, and such is the sense it bears in the Septuagint Translation of the 10th verse of the 146th Psalm: ovK EV τῇ δυναστεία του ἱππου θελησει. This interpretation is by no means improbable, though Wolfius admits it not. We shall endeavor to fortify it, by the words of Biel, in his Novus Thesaurus Philologicus, p. 29, vol. ii. “ ren, 1 Reg. xviii. 22. θελει εν σοι ὁ βασιλευς, rex te delectatur. Vid. et 2 Reg. xv. 26. 3 Reg. x. 8. 2 Par. ix. 8. Ps. xvii. 22. ῥυσεται με, ότι εθελησε με, liberabit me, quia me delectatur. Vid. et Psalm xxi. 8. et conf. Matt. xxvii. 43. Ps. xl. 12. оti тeßeλnkas ue." Mr. Parkhurst, after stating the Hellenistiὅτι τεθεληκας cal sense of Ocλw with an accusative, which is often thus applied by the Seventy, on, to have intense delight in, writes under the next interpretation thus, "Oeλw ev, to delight, take delight in, to be delighted with, occ. Col. ii. 18. This phrase is also Hellenistical, used by the LXX. in the same sense, 1 Sam. xviii. 22. 2 Sam. xv. 26. 1 Kings, x. 8. 2 Chron. ix. 8. Ps. cxlvii. 10. for the Hebrew

”.חפץ בך

To many of our readers, the explanation immediately preceding may appear satisfactory; but we confess ourselves inclined to prefer that which follows. Scaliger, as quoted by Wolfius, says, "Oeλwy apud Apostolum absolute ponitur tanquam Nomen, e0eλοντης, ἑκουσιαζόμενος. Wolfius then quotes from Elsner a passage of Herodotus, lib. ix. cap. 14. πυθόμενος δε ταυτα εβουλευετω θελων, είκως τούτους πρωτον ἑλοι.” We are of the same opinion with Elsner, and have the satisfaction to find that Wesseling understands Ocλwv in the same manner. We will quote his words: « Θέλων, damnatum a Brit. et docto viro, geminum habere videtur S. Pauli.

Epis. ad Colos. c. xi. 18. μηδεις ύμας καταβραβευετο ΘΕΛΩΝ, i. e. cupide. Oelar sane Cupiditatem et Lubentiam quandam in Æschyli Fabulis ostentat sæpenumero : Θελων δε τωνδε πεύσεται λοyov, cupide libenterque audiet, Choeph. v. 791." Mr. Toup, in a note subjoined to the last edition of his Emendations, page 302, would read eλowr, in Herodotus, for Oeλwv, but we think differently from Mr. Toup, and hope to confirm our opinion by the authority of Krebsius, which we have reserved for this place: "Nemo vos insidiose et injuste circumveniat et decipiat, ejus rei cupidus : ita enim eλwv interpretandum puto, ut indicet summum eorum Hominum Studium alios decipiendi. Habet enim Oeλw, alii Verbo junctum, hanc vim, ut denotet, cupidus sum; vide exquisitissimæ doctrinæ Virum Jer. Marklandum, in Conjectur. Lysiacis, c. xix. p. 579."

We are always happy to support the reading generally received in the text of the scriptures, and we believe that the greater part of our readers will be disposed to admit some one or other of the preceding interpretations, in preference to the conjectural reading οι ελθων.

Upon the word Opηokela we shall say a little. It is thus explained by Constantine: "Vox, ut autumant, a Thracibus deducta; quod apud hos Orpheus multa de Diis confinxerit, traditis Ceremoniis quibus colerentur. Θρησκεια παρα την των Θρακών επιμελειαν την προς το θείον, και την Ορφεως ἱερουργίαν. Ούτοι γαρ πρωτον εξευρεν την περι των θεων εννοιαν.” Plutarch gives the same account of the word θρησκεύειν, in the life of Alexander: “ Πολλα ταις Ηδωνισιν και ταις περι τον Αιμον Θρῃσσαις ὁμοια δρωσιν, αφ ὧν δοκει και το θρησκεύειν ονομα ταις κατακοροις γενεσθαι και περιεργοις ἱερουρ yiais." V. page 665, Vol. i. Edit. Xyland. In producing these two passages, we do not mean to make a display of any recondite erudition, for our readers will find the words of Plutarch in Wetstein's Testament, and the Lexicon of H. Stephens, by the latter of whom we were led to consult the Etymologicum Magnum: but we thought it worth while to give some explanation of so important a word. Upon the sense which it bears in the Epistle to the Colossians, joined with rwv Ayyeλov, the commentators are divided. Wolfius writes thus: "Verti hæc possunt; et cultu Angelorum, qui scilicet illis exhibeatur; vel, et Cultu Angelico, b. e. tali cultu et habitu, quo Angeli instructi sint, et qui Angelos præferat et mentiatur."

In support of his opinion, he says, « Vocem Θρησκεια nusquam video adhiberi cum Voce v. c. Ocov aut alia, quæ Objectum inferat, in quod Cultus tendat, sed simpliciter de religioso Cultu, nunc quidem vero, nunc superstitioso ponitur. Id probatum dedit Suicerus, tom. i. page 1405, et Elsnerus, page 263. Ita Paulus Act. xxvi. 5. ait: κατα την ακριβεστατην αίρεσιν της ἡμετέρας θρησκείας έζησα Φαρίσαιος : et Jac. i. 27. legis, θρησκεια καθαρα και αμιαντος

яаρа тy Оey Kαι warpi avrη eori." St. James, chap. i. ver. 26. uses, τουτου ματαιος ἡ θρησκεια. Thus far Wolfius.

Now, in the foregoing passages, there is no instance of the object of worship. The word occurs only four times in the New Testament. We have θρησκεια καθαρα, and ἡμετερα θρησκεια, aud TOUTOV Opηokela, all of which correspond to the criticism of Wolfius; and θρησκεια των Αγγελων, which is a doubtful passage; we must, therefore, have recourse to the Septuagint, where Opηokela occurs twice, and in one place is compatible with the criticism of Wolfius, but in the other opposite to it. In Wisdom, xiv. v. 18, we read eis emiraniv de Opηoreias; but, in the 27th v. of the same chapter, we have ἡ γαρ των ανωνυμων ειδώλων θρησκεια," where the object is specified. Krebsius, page 339 of his observations, produces five or six passages from Josephus, where θρησκεια is used with του Θεου ; but, while he rejects, as we do, this argument employed by Wolfius, he admits, as we also do, Wolfius's interpretation of the words θρησκεια των Αγγέλων. “ Nihil igitur ex Linguæ Ratione, ut Wolfius putat, contra eos peti potest, qui Opηokelav Ayyeλwv de Cultu Angelis exhibendo exponunt. Nihilo tamen minus eorum interpretationem et ipse rejiciendam puto, cum ob alias rationes, a Wolfio allatas, tum ob Vocem additam, raπelvoppoσvvýv; quæ uti Humilitatem affectatam, et ad alios, Sanctitatis egregia Specie, decipiendos compositam denotat, ita conveniens est Opnakеlay TWY Ayyelov interpretari talem Cultum et Habitum, talem reverentiam, quali Angeli ornati sunt." Vid. page 340. We would here observe that we are the more inclined to retain Oeдwv in verse 18, because, in verse 23, we read these words: 'A tiva eσti λoyov per έχοντα σοφιας εν εθελοθρησκεια και ταπεινοφροσύνῃ, κ. τ. λ. & μη εωρακεν εμβατεύων. If our readers will look into Wetstein or Gries. bach, they will find that the important word un is wanting in several manuscripts, and in some scriptural passages cited by the Fathers; and Tertullian contra Marcion, as quoted by Bengelius, evidently did not read un: "Ex Visionibus Angelicis dicebant cibis abstinendum:" but the most numerous, and the most authoritative manuscripts, would induce us to retain μη. Curcellæus says that some would read keveμßarevel, and is by Wolfius supposedt o refer to Alexander More, who mentions, indeed, keveμBareve (a Platonic word), but prefers the received reading eußaτεύειν. There is another various lection, stated by Wetstein, from one of the Colbert MSS. and by Griesbach, page 317 of Symbol. Critic.: but, here again, we are unwilling to part with ewpakev, the common reading. About the word eußareve, there is some

εωρακεν,

Wetstein quotes from Herodian a passage where the object is joined with Ognoxia.

Τη ἱερωσική και θρησκεία σχολάζειν του Θεον. . Herodian, V. vii. 3,