Acts xvii. 27: N. T. Tòv feóv; D Tò fcîóv čσrw; Ir. illud quod est divinum. Acts xvii. 27: N. T. aúróv ; D avτó; Ir. illud. Acts xvii. 27: N. T. κaí; D; Ir. aut. Acts xvii. 27: N. T. iπáрxovrа; D ov; Ir. sit (cf. v. 24, Ir. renders, vπápɣwv, existens). Acts xvii. 28: D Ir. om. Totŵv. Acts xvii. 28: N. T. TOû; D TOÚTOV; Ir. hujus. Acts xvii. 29: N. T. κaí; D; Ir. aut. Acts xvii. 31: N. T. év ÿ μéλλei κpivelv; D κpîvai; Ir. judicari. Acts xvii. 31: D Ir. add 'Ino, Jesu. Acts xx. 28: D Ir. add avr. Acts xx. 30: N. T. åñоσπâvν; D åñoστρépei; Ir. convertant. We have here sixty instances of variae lectiones common to D and Irenaeus. It may be worth while to call particular attention to some of these instances of the remarkable agreement of Codex Bezae and Irenaeus, over against the critical text-in peculiar changes of words, Acts ii. 24; iii. 14; xvii. 26, 27; xx. 30; in marked omissions, iv. 12; xv. 20, 29; xvii. 28, and in curious interpolations - the chief characteristic of Codex Bezac-iii. 13, 17, 22; xv. 18, 20, 29. These parallels are of such strength as to prove a common source, and the weakness of the Syriac analogies we have considered is salient in contrast with them. Let us notice, further, a few cases of similarity in the order of words. Acts ii. 26: N. T. μov κapdía; D † κapdía μov; Ir. cor meum. Acts ii. 33 : Ν. Τ. τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου; D τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος; Ir. sancti spiritus. Acts ii. 36: N. T. étoínσev å leós; D ò feòs éπoíŋoev; Ir. deus fecit. Acts ii. 38 : Ν. Τ. μετανοήσατέ φησιν ; D φησίν μετανοήσατε; Ir. ait poenitentiam agite. Acts iii. 7: N. T. ai ẞáσes avrov; D avтoû ai ẞáσes; Ir. ejus... gressus. Acts iii. 19 : Ν. Τ. ὑμῶν τὰς ἁμαρτίας; D τὰς ἁμαρτίας ὑμῶν; Ir peccata vestra. Acts iii. 25: N. T. diéleтo 8 Oeós; D 8 beòs diéfero; Ir. deus disposuit. Acts iii. 26: ἀναστήσας ὁ θεός; D ὁ θεὸς ἀναστήσας; Ir. deus excitans. Acts iv. 33 : Ν. Τ. Ἰησοῦ ... τοῦ κυρίου; D τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ; Ir. domini Jesu. Acts vii. 60 : Ν.Τ. τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ταύτην ; D ταύτην τὴν ἁμαρτίαν; Ir. hoc peccatum. Acts x. 28: Ν. Τ. ἔδειξεν ὁ θεός; D ὁ θεὸς ἔδειξεν ; Ir. deus ostendit. Acts x. 47 : Ν. Τ. δύναται κωλύσαί τις; D κολῦσαί τις δύναται; Ir. quis... vetare potest. Acts xv. 7 : Ν. Τ. ἐξελέξατο ὁ θεός; D ὁ θεὸς ἐξελέξατο; Ir. deus elegit. Acts xv. 28 : Ν. Τ. τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ; D τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι; Ir. sancto spiritu. Acts xvii. 24: N. T. vñáруwν κúρios; D kúριos vжápɣw; Ir. dominus existens. Acts xvii. 27 : Ν. Τ. μακρὰν ἀπὸ ἑνὸς ἑκάστου ἡμῶν ὑπάρχονται ; D μακρὰν ὂν κ. τ. λ. ; Ir. non longe sit, etc. These sixteen parallels of order would not otherwise merit so much attention as they now deserve, being supported by sixty verbal parallels and a strong historical probability. Of course the argument from Codex Bezae does not exactly overthrow Mr. Harvey's supposition of Syriac readings retained in the memory. Yet, in conjunction with the foregoing examination of those Syriac readings, it shows that the traces of the Peschito in Irenaeus are infinitesimal compared with those of Codex Bezae, and so, that the argument from the Scripture citations in the Adversus Haereses, is in favor of that manuscript of the New Testament which was procured by Beza from the monastery of S. Irenaeus. But the case for Codex Bezae may be made still stronger. It will have been observed that almost all of Mr. Harvey's Syriac analogies were from the Latin text, so that they (if from Irenaeus) had survived embodiment in Greek and translation into Latin, while there is really no evidence that they might not have emanated from the last transcriber, or any other, as probably as from Irenaeus or his immediate translator. But with these seventy-six parallels the case is different; they are taken directly from the Greek of Codex Bezae, and, from their style, seem to have been translated from it by the translator of the whole of Irenaeus. It is evident at a single glance that they have nothing to do with the Latin of Codex Bezae. Not only do they differ from d wherever synonymes will permit,1 but the translator of Irenaeus often remains faithful to the Greek when d varies from it, and follows some Latin version. Their habits of translation are entirely different, and the interpreter of Irenaeus is generally the better scholar.3 The translator of Irenaeus was probably almost (if not quite1) contemporaneous with that Father, so that few, if any, Greek scribes intervened. Hence it seems most natural that the quotations evidently made directly from the Greek of Codex Bezae were cited by Irenaeus himself, and as incorporated with the context were translated by his interpreter. Thus we reach the probability that the older form of Codex Bezae, including the Epistles,5 was the New Testament of Irenaeus." This foundation-text was probably far more visible even in the first translator than now, because of the mutilation of Codex Bezae and the loss of its Epistles. Add to these causes the alterations of the Latin scribes, who from different Latin versions remodelled the ancient readings, and we reach the present state of the Bible text in Irenaeus. But while this theory for the formation of our Latin text of this Father is suggested, not proved, yet we trust it will hardly be dis 1 E.g. Acts i. 20, d accipiet alter, Ir. sumat alius; ii. 24, d suscitavit, Ir. excitavit; d amitibus, Ir. doloribus; d deteneri, Ir. teneri; ii. 26, d inhabitabit in spem, Ir. requiescat in spe; ii. 30, d collocare super thronum, Ir. sedere in throno - and so on, ad lib. 2 E.g. Acts iv. 22, d hoc signum, Ir. om. hoc ; xvii. 26, d et, Ir. secundum; xvii. 28, d et, Ir. aut; xvii. 30, d abstrahant, Ir. convertant, d se ipsos, Ir. sc. 8 E.g. always d quia (or quod), Ir. quoniam (Gr. 871); often d suscito, Ir. excito; d puts enim and autem in the third place, e.g. Acts vii. 37, ii. 38; x. 28, d's use of aliquis; ii. 30, d inhabitabit in spem; xv. 8, d super eos (Ir. eis); xv. 16, ipsius (Ir. ejus); x. 29, d ferentes, Ir. ambulantes. * Horne's Introd. Vol. iv. p. 333. $ Ibid. p. 170. Cf. Scrivener, Codex Bezae, Introd. p. xlv. 'If Dodwell was right in supposing (Diss. in Iren. (Oxon. 1689) Diss. v. §§ vi. vii. x.), that Tertullian did not have the Latin translation of Irenaeus before puted by one who has followed the course of this essay that Irenaeus was an Asiatic Greek by birth, by name, by education, in style, in the absence of Hebrew and Syriac attainments, and in the New Testament he read from his childhood. ARTICLE V. STRICTURES ON REVIVALS OF RELIGION. BY REV. W. H. H. MARSH, PASTOR OF THE CENTRAL BAPTIST CHURCH, SALEM, MASS. ONE of the prominent evangelical agencies of our time for the promotion of vital piety and the salvation of men is best defined by the current phrase which the agency has coined as descriptive of itself, "revival effort." Such effort is now nearly universally accepted as indispensable to the growth of existing churches and the planting of new ones. So general is this recognition that to submit any criticisms on the theory or method of such efforts is to invoke on ourselves the severe censure of those who set themselves up as the special champions and promoters of religious awakenings. To do so often incurs the charge of frigid conservatism, or a want of zeal for the Lord, or a want of interest in the salvation of sinners. If pastors or churches raise any question as to the scripturalness, or even the expediency, of measures employed, they are assumed to have no sympathy with the thing itself. If they institute an earnest, scriptural inquiry into the theory and objects proposed by the special advocates of revivals and revival measures, they are assumed to be influenced more by excessive caution than by love for souls; more by indifference to the end sought than by sincere revhim, and that we have no trace of it before Augustine (§ viii), this lessens the improbability of alterations in the Greek text of biblical passages made subsequent to Irenaeus and incorporating readings of the Codex Bezae. Even then, the boldness of such interpolations, unless from the hand of Irenaeus himself, is only surpassed by that exhibited in Codex Bezae itself. So if Dodwell be right, our theory is weakened, but not rendered improbable. Cf. Massuet, Diss. ii. § 53, Harvey's Irenaeus, i. p. clxiv, Sanday,Gospels in 2d. Cent. pp. 320, 332. erence for the biblical and evangelical character of the means employed. It seems never to be surmised by those who assert themselves the special advocates and promoters of revivals, that they are fallible; may possibly have more zeal than knowledge; or, that in the eagerness with which they press their "one idea" they become reckless respecting the means they employ, or virtually adopt the Jesuitical maxim, that "the end sanctifies the means." Evangelists must not be criticized. Measures proposed must be neither questioned nor sifted. We must accept with subservient meekness, and without any doubt, as an ordained agency of God whatever labels itself evangelical effort, and avows as its object the promotion of revivals of religion, however sentimental or sensational it may be. It is necessarily wise, expedient and scriptural, because the end it proposes is in itself good. To examine into its nature or its essential tendencies or probable results is an impertinence; to object is a proof of want of sympathy with the thing itself; and to withhold co-operation is disobedience to the plain indications of Divine Providence. But notwithstanding all this, there is a conviction, widespread and growing, among our wisest and most devoted pastors and our best churches, some of whom have reached their conclusions by the way of bitter experience in spurious revivals and reckless measures for their promotion, that there is something radically wrong in our theory of revivals and methods of promoting them, or else we should not witness such lamentable results as often follow them. For it is a fact, that with the converts thus added to the church the desire for novelty and excitement is far stronger than the desire for the sincere milk of the word. A church trained to rely on such effort is in a state of chronic dissatisfaction, or of death-like inactivity, until by some sort of revival measure it is again galvanized into spasmodic vivification, while pastors are cheerless and discouraged if they are not having a "revival season"; just as though the whole of religion consisted in feeling very happy; or the noise of |