Aitut. P

ps Because Origen says, de Diabolo & Angelis ejus contrariifque virtutibus Eccle- See Effay fiaftica Prædicatio docuit quoniam funt qui- on the Condem, fed quid fint, aut quomodo fint, non 409,410 - fatis clarè expofuit. Apud plurimos tamen ifta habetur opinio quod Angelus fuerit ifte Diabolus; & Apoftata effectus quamplurimos Angelorum fecum declinare perfuaferit : qui & nunc ufque Angeli ipfius nuncupantur. But then not to fay that Origen affirms only, that the Apoftolick Preaching, or Conftitutions of Chrift by the Apostles, does not fay the Devil was ever an Angel, as indeed this Place does rather fay he was an Archangel, which is an higher Order; and that 'tis only in his Latin Works, and fo we are not fo fure of his very Words as we are in the Greek; I dare not reckon this for an Interpolation, because this Appendix to the Sixth Book, wherein these Words are, do not pretend to be direct Conftitutions or Doctrines from Chrift, as we have already obferv'd but barely Apoftolical Exhortations and Directions; and fo feem to be esteem'd by Origen of not much greater Authority than the Second of Peter and Jude; 2 Pet. 2,4, which tho' they have the Doctrine he here fud. v. 6 feems to doubt about, yet not by him efteem'd of equal indifputable Authority with the Original Doctrine and Conftitutions of the Apoftles, deliver'd from Chrift himself in the Y y 3 other

L. vii,

6.41,P.380

other Branches of this Book. So that I cannot own this to be any Interpolation at all. The next Interpolation, and that a moft grofs and fcandalous one, and made by a true Antichriftian Corrupter of Books, is in the Original Baptifmal Creed it felf, yve Defen/ vnderly & Eva Begotten, not created. Fid. Ni This Bishop Bull triumphs in, as decretory 5.6, p. 51, against the Arians. Yet does Cotelerius own Not. In loc. that it feems to have crept out of the MarVid. Edit. gin into the Text. And indeed it is fo plainly Interpolation, that Bovius and Turrianuş are highly to blame in putting &

can, Sect. 2.

Explan.

P. 207

into the Text at all, and much more to blame in not putting a various Reading into the Margin: Whereas in the Notes they do not pretend that it was in more than one Manufcript, that from Calabria, and directly own that thofe Words were not in the much more valuable from Crete, by which they printed their Copy almoft every-where else; and of the Two Vienna Manufcripts they are not in that ineftimable one, which is fcarce inferior to the Crete Copy, but only in that Copy which is very much interpolated by the Orthodox. But that these Words are Interpolation none can doubt, who confider that not one of the Antient Creeds, how much foever alter'd or difguis'd, has the leaft Sign of fuch Words, that the most Antient Chriftians do frequently fay, that

our Saviour was created; and that but a very few Pages before. the fame Conftitutions even in all the Manufcripts affirm that he was created; when in a folemn Pray-36, 376 er put up to God the Father, the Supplicant is directed to fay of Chriftus eis permules Ερχόμεθα [ερχομία] το από το κτι πείσης σοφίας ὡς δι' ἡμᾶς λύεσιν υπέση, ν διά γυναικός. This is an Interpolation which I fuppofe will not be charg'd upon the Arians. And indeed how the Orthodox will get off the Charge; or how they can juftify the like pernicious Addition to the Doctrine of Christianity, Begotten not Made, in the prefent Nicene Creed, I cannot tell. But am well aflur'd, that they are utterly contrary to the Chriftian Revelation in this Matter; and accordingly ought to be omitted by every one who more regards the Authority of Chrift and his Apoftles, than that of Councils and Synods in these Matters. Ears by wey's Apoc. 22, τατα, Επιθεσει ὁ Θεὸς ἐπ ̓ αυτόν τας πληγάς τους 18, 49 γεγραμμένας ἐν βιβλίῳ τέτῳ, καὶ ἐάν τις αφαιρῇ ἀπὸ τ λόγων βίβλο η προφητείας ταύτης, ἀφαιρήσει ὁ Θεὸς τὸ μέρος αυτό ἀπὸ βίβλο τῆς ζωῆς, καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας, και της κεραμμυρίων ἐν βι Chi TET. But to proceed: Whether the Two fhort Prayers or Hymns, together with the Grace at Meals, now standing at the end of the Seventh Book be additional or original, I have nothing farther to add 38; Y y 4

~

See p. 233

prins.

P. 390

See p.531,

priùs

236,priùs,

way

to what has been already faid upon that occafion. However, the Third finall Chapter of the Eighth Book which is added, by of Connection of the Apoftolical Tradition equator to the like Traditions or Conftitutions wei Herov, and is wanting in fome feparate Manuscripts, and as it seems in the Ethiopick Extracts, may perhaps be Interpolation. If fo, it may be the Addition of Hippolytus, who had certainly fome Concern about this Eighth Book See p. 235, in a peculiar manner; tho' it be now hard to determine what it was, or of the Apanafians long afterward. However, the Repetition of the diftinct Names of the Apoftles here, and that in fo odd and aukward a manner, and as afcribing fo many distinct Conftitutions to diftinct Apostles, feems to be most plain and grofs Interpolation. 'Tis in the fame Order of the Names that is in Matthew, and in the Sixth Book before, James the Brother of John is made the Author of the chief part of the Liturgy, which plainly belongs to James Bishop of Jerufalem, or to Clement himself, by the Antient Teftimonies; particularly by the express Affirmation of the Sixth General Council; of which before, and this at a time when in all probability he had been above 20 Years dead. Nay, neither the Oxford nor Vienna diftinct Manufcript of this Book commonly acknowledge thefe Names in the

Text, but only in the Titles of the Chapters: Whence probably they crept into our prefent Text; as is ufual in fuch Cafes. So that, I need ufe no more Arguments to fhew that all this is Interpolation. The next Interpolation, and that a pernicious one alfo, is that in the Original Doxology of the Church; from in the Holy Ghoft, as was the Apoftolical Direction, and the Churches Antient Practice every-where; to and the Holy Ghoft. Altho' it is obfervable that neither the firft Seven Books of these Conftitutions, nor the former part of the Eighth in the best Copies have any other par ticle than in; and that in that latter part of the Eighth Book, where and is now frequently inferted, yet is the Antient Form in frequently retain'd alfo, even in our prefent Appendix Copies. But of this I have more largely to the 4th difcourfed elsewhere, upon another occafion. V Whither I refer the Reader. I need here fay no more of the Feafts of the Nativity_and the Epiphany in the Conftitutions of Peter and Paul, fince they will eafily be own'd Interpolations here as well as in the Fifth Book foregoing; as will alfo the Days of the Apoftles and of Stephen, the laft of which is omitted in Anaftafius's Citation. Since there does not, that I know of, appear any Teftimonies truly primitive for fuch their Obfervation. Perhaps each Church at first celebrated the Day when any Apostle

or

L. viii.

C.33,P.41%