head of the victim, which was observed in the undoubted sacrifices, did
not take place in the rite under consideration: and he notices the
statement of Philo, that the animal was slain, not by the priest, but by
the individual presenting it.[637] He considers Philo to have been
mistaken, however, in his assertion that this immolation by private hand
was peculiar to the passover; and cites the language of Lev. i. 4, 5;
iii. 2; iv. 24, to show that the burnt offering, the peace-offering, the
sin-offering, might all be slain by the offerer. Certainly these
passages appear to leave such permission open to the Israelitish
worshipper: but it seems more likely that the sacrifices here enumerated
were intended to be made by the hands of the priest: nor would it be
easy to reconcile the liberty of private sacrifice with the sacerdotal
duties and privileges defined in Num. xviii. 1-7. As to the actual
practice, it cannot be reasonably doubted that Philo was correct: and
his expressions seem to imply that, in the paschal rite, the priest
might be altogether dispensed with, and his intervention required for no
religious act. He says: “On the fourteenth day of this month, at the
coming of the full moon, is celebrated the public festival of the
passover, called in the Chaldee language the Pascha: when, instead of
the private citizen presenting his victim at the altar to be slain by
the priest, the whole nation officiates in sacred things, every one in
turn bringing and immolating his own victim with his own hands. The
whole people is festive and joyous, every one being entitled to the
dignity of priesthood.”[638] He uses similar expressions in his treatise
on the decalogue: The festival, “which the Hebrews in their language
call the Pascha,” is a time “when each and all of them slay their
victim, without waiting for the services of their priests: the law, on
an appointed day of every year, conceding to the whole people the
sacerdotal functions, to the extent of permitting them to officiate for
themselves at a sacrifice.”[639] This language evidently implies, that
_every essential part_ of the passover rites, every act necessary to
constitute and complete its character as a religious celebration, was
performed by private hand: so that the auxiliary operations of the
priests,—the pouring out of the blood and burning the inwards,—must be
regarded as non-essentials and accessaries; menial contributions to the
main act; and in the performance of which, therefore, the usual law,
forbidding to the non-official Jew all approach to the altar, came into
effect again. Had the paschal celebration required, as an indispensable
ingredient in it, any transactions at the altar, the private Israelite,
being temporarily invested with whatever sacerdotal privileges were
needful for the rite, would have gone himself to make his offering.
Philo indeed obviously conceived of the subsequent part of the ceremony,
in which the temple and the priest had no share,—the domestic meal which
took place in the several homes of the people,—as its peculiarly sacred
element: “Each house,” he says, “at that time put on the form and
sanctity of a temple, the victim that has been slain being made ready
for a suitable meal.”[640] Fond as this writer is of types, it is
impossible to express the retrospective and commemorative character of
the passover more emphatically than in his words: ὑπομνητικὴ τῆς
μεγίστης ἀποικίας ἐστὶν ἡ ἑορτὴ, καὶ χαριστήριος.[641]
In one passage of his note on the Passover, Archbishop Magee appears to
admit that the paschal lamb was not a “_sacrifice for sin_,” and affirms
that he “would not dispute with Dr. Priestley any conclusion he might
draw from so productive a premiss.”[642] Yet, a few pages further on, he
quotes with apparent approbation the arguments by which Cudworth sought
to prove the rite to be an _expiatory sacrifice_.[643] I cannot pretend
to reconcile these two portions of his Essay. But if the passover cannot
be shown to be an expiatory sacrifice, I do not see what the advocates
of the doctrine of atonement gain by proving it a sacrifice at all. If
the paschal lamb was not a _sin-offering_, to what class did it belong?
It must have been either of the eucharistic kind, or else unique and
simply commemorative; and so far as the death of Christ was analogous to
any _such_ offering, it was destitute of expiatory efficacy: and either
was an expression of thanksgiving, (which seems absurd) or, like the
blood of the lamb sprinkled on the lintel, a mere _sign_ of some
deliverance which it was not instrumental in effecting, but which,
simultaneously perhaps, yet independently occurred. Those, therefore,
who are disposed to strain the resemblance between the passover and the
cross, must either maintain the _expiatory_ nature of the Jewish right,
or admit the Lord’s Supper to be, not even the celebration of a real
deliverance, but the mere _commemoration of a sign_.
POSTSCRIPT.
In the notes to the Sixth Lecture of this series (p. 89-92,) I have
adduced an example of Archbishop Magee’s misrepresentation of Mr.
Belsham, and stated that the Prelate had quoted his opponent falsely. In
comparing the two authors, I employed the latest editions of both their
works; not being able to procure a copy of the first edition of the Calm
Enquiry, which has been out of print for twenty-two years. At the same
time, I thought it only just to insert the following note: “There is a
possibility, which I think it right to suggest, of a difference between
the two editions of Mr. B.’s work; as, however, the accusation is still
found in the newest edition of the Archbishop’s book, I conclude that
this is not the case. Indeed, even if the Prelate’s quotation had been
_verbally_ true, it would _in spirit_ have been no less false; for, at
all events, Mr. B. cites the Vulgate, to give evidence as to the _text_,
not the _translation_; and had he used the word _renders_, it would only
have been because the term naturally occurs when a VERSION is adduced to
determine a READING.”
I have since obtained a copy of the first edition of the Calm Enquiry;
and I hasten to acknowledge that the Archbishop’s quotation _is_
“_verbally_ true,” as far as it goes. But I regret to say that this
makes only a formal difference in his favour; for by stopping short in
his citation, he accomplished the very same object, of leaving an
absolutely false impression, which I had supposed him to have effected,
in this as in other instances, by direct falsification of his author. He
wishes to make it appear, that Mr. Belsham (purposely mistranslating for
the occasion,) appeals to a certain verse in the Vulgate in evidence,
not of a READING, but of a RENDERING; and so he cites these words from
the Calm Enquiry: “The Vulgate renders the text, the first man was of
the earth, earthy; the second man was from heaven, heavenly;” but he
leaves out the very next words, in which _the point intended to be
proved_ by this testimony of the Vulgate is cited, “This is not
improbably the TRUE READING.” Doubtless it was one of Mr. Belsham’s
_incuriæ_ that he did not attend to his italics in his first edition:
but the charge of intentional mistranslation is simply injurious; except
indeed, that it is also absurd, seeing that Mr. Belsham has put the
Latin of his mistranslated passage at the bottom of the page;—a policy
which this heresiarch could scarcely have thought safe, unless he had
taken his Unitarian readers to be either more “dishonest critics,” or
more “defective scholars,” than even our learned opponents are prepared
to think them.
------------------------------------
Footnotes for Lecture XIII.
Footnote 607:
Ps. li. 16, 17.
Footnote 608:
Is. i. 13, 14, 16.
Footnote 609:
Conference with Fisher, § 15; quoted in Tracts for the Times, No. 76.
Catena Patrum, No. II. p. 18.
Footnote 610:
Of Persons dying without Baptism, p. 979; quoted in _loc. cit._ pp.
19, 20.
Footnote 611:
History of Popish Transubstantiation, ch. 4; printed in the Tracts for
the Times, No. 27, pp. 14, 15.
Footnote 612:
Bishop of Exeter’s charge, delivered at his Triennial Visitation in
August, September, and October, 1836, p. 44-47.
Footnote 613:
Tracts for the Times, No. 4, p. 5.
Footnote 614:
Ibid. No. 5, pp. 9, 10.
Footnote 615:
Luke iv. 18, 19.
Footnote 616:
Archbishop Whately, speaking of the word ἱερεὺς and its meaning,
says; “This is an office assigned to none under the gospel-scheme,
except the ONE great High Priest, of whom the Jewish Priests were
types.”[c] Of the “_gospel-scheme_,” this is quite true; of the
_Church-of-England scheme_, it is not. There lies before me Duport’s
Greek version of the Prayer-Book and Offices of the Anglican Church:
and turning to the Communion Service, I find the officiating
clergyman called ἱερεὺς throughout. The _absence_ of this word from
the records of the primitive Gospel, and its _presence_ in the
Prayer-Book, is perfectly expressive of the difference in the spirit
of the two systems;—the difference between the Church _with_, and
the “Christianity _without_ Priest.”
Footnote c:
Elements of Logic. Appendix: Note on the word “Priest.”
Footnote 617:
Matt. xviii. 18.
Footnote 618:
See Rom. vi. 2-4. “How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer
therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus
Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him
by baptism into death; that, like as Christ was raised up from the
dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in
newness of life.” Mr. Locke observes of “St. Paul’s argument,” that it
“is to show into what state of life we ought to be raised out of
baptism, in similitude and conformity to that state of life Christ was
raised into from the grave.” See also Col. ii. 12. “Ye are ... buried
with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the
faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” The
force of the image clearly depends on the sinking and rising in the
water.
Footnote 619:
See Note.
Footnote 620:
Compare Matt. xxvi. 26-28; Mark xiv. 22-24; Luke xxii. 19, 20, with
Exod. xii. 3-11, 14, 24-27, 43-49; Lev. xxiii. 5; Num. ix. 10-14;
xxviii. 16; Deut. xvi. 1, 4-7.
Footnote 621:
Compare Matt. xxvi. 17-21; Mark xiv. 12-17; Luke xxii. 7-17, with John
xiii. 1, seqq.; xviii. 28; xix. 14, 31, 42. See also 2nd Lecture, pp.
38, 39.
Footnote 622:
See 1 Cor. xi. 17-34.
Footnote 623:
Prov. ii. 4.
Footnote 624:
Mr. Dalton’s Lecture on the Eternity of Future Rewards and
Punishments, p. 760.
Footnote 625:
Mr. Dalton’s Lecture, p. 760.
Footnote 626:
Theological Repository, vol. i. p. 215, and Priestley’s Works, by
Rutt, vol. vii. pp. 243, 244.
Footnote 627:
Magee on the Atonement, vol. i. pp. 291, 292, 5th edit.
Footnote 628:
This is admitted by a learned writer, with whose work on sacrifices
Archbishop Magee was familiar, and who had anticipated most of his
arguments on the subject of the passover: “Cum ad Paschale sacrificium
etiam pecudes ex armento lectas in sacris literis imperatas legimus,
non designatur illa victima, quæ פסח proprie appellatur, sed alia
quædam sacrificia eidem victimæ adjungenda.”—_Outram de Sacrificiis_,
lib. i. ch. xiii. § 10.
Footnote 629:
Simonis describes the _verb_ זבח as meaning (1.) in genere _mactavit_;
(2.) in specie _mactavit ad sacrificandum_; and the _noun_, as proprie
_mactatio_; metonym. (1.) _caro mactatorum animalium_; (2.)
_sacrificium_.—_Lex. Hebr. et Chald. Ed. Eichhorn, in_ v.
Footnote 630:
The following passages constitute the whole passover-law: Exod. xii.
3-11, 14, 24-27, 43-49. Lev. xxiii. 5. Num. ix. 10-14; xxviii. 16.
Deut. xvi. 1, 4-7. We have here the original statutes provided for the
perpetual regulation of the rite: and in any discussion respecting its
character, the appeal should be to these alone. The advocates for its
sacrificial nature must be aware that this rule would destroy their
whole case.
I subjoin a list of the passages relating to the feast of unleavened
bread: Exod. xii. 15-20; xiii. 6-10; xxiii. 18, first clause; xxxiv.
25, first clause. Lev. xxiii. 6-14. Num. xxviii. 17-25. Deut. xvi.
2-4, 8.
Footnote 631:
Lightfoot’s Temple Service, ch. xii. Introd.
Footnote 632:
See Lightfoot’s Temple Service, ch. xii. sec. 5. “The Mishna says:
Mactat Israelita, excipit sanguinem sacerdos.”—The Treatise
_Pesachim_, in Surenhus. ii. 153.
Footnote 633:
P. 294.
Footnote 634:
See Lightfoot’s Temple Service, xii. 5, and the Treatise _Pesachim_,
Surenh. ii. 135.
Footnote 635:
Exod. xii. 9, 10. The phrase “_the purtenance thereof_,” in the common
version, means “_the entrails thereof_,” קרבו.
Footnote 636:
See Lev. i. 9, 13, 17; vi. 15-18, 26, 29; vii. 3, 6-10, 14, 15, 30-36.
Footnote 637:
Pp. 295, 296.
Footnote 638:
De vitâ Mosis, p. 686. E.
Footnote 639:
De decalogo, p. 766. D.
Footnote 640:
De sept. et fest. p. 1190. B.
Footnote 641:
_loc. cit._ After the remarks which have been made on the word זבח as
an epithet of the passover, it is hardly necessary to notice the
application to the same rite of the word θυσία by Philo and Josephus.
It must be clear to any one who will open Trommius or Biel at the
word, that it will not bear the stress laid upon it by Archbishop
Magee. No one denies that the paschal lamb was slain and eaten, in
observance of a religious celebration, in obedience to a religious
law, and in expression of religious feeling; and this surely is enough
to attract to it the word θυσία. In itself, however, the term,
according to Biel, does not necessarily denote even so much as this.
He defines it _hostia_, _sacrificium_, etiam _epulum_ ac _profana
manducatio_: and he exemplifies this latter meaning by reference to
Judg. vi. 18. Biel’s Thesaurus, Ed. Schleusner in v.
Footnote 642:
P. 292.
Footnote 643:
Pp. 298, 299.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INDEX OF TEXTS.
EXPLAINED OR REFERRED TO IN LECTURES II. V. VI. XI. XIII.
Lect. & Page.
Genesis.
ii. 17 VI. 17
iii. 1 XI. 16
— 14-19 — 17
— 15 — 19
xviii. 1, 2 V. 18
— 22 — —
xix. 10 — —
— 15 — —
Exodus.
xii. 3-11 XIII. 35 - 59
— 14 — — - 59
— 15-20 — 59
— 21-27 — 35, 59
— 27 — 55
— 43-49 — 35, 59
xiii. 6-10 — 59
xxiii. 18 — 56, 57, 59, 61
xxx. 10 VI. 58
xxxiv. 25 XIII. 56, 59, 61
Leviticus.
i. 5 XIII. 61
— 9 — 63
— 11 — 61
— 13 — 63
— 15 — 61
— 17 — 63
iii. 2 — 61
— 8 — —
— 13 — —
iv. 5-7 — —
— 16-18 — —
v. 11-19 VI. 57
vi. 15-18 XIII. 63
— 26 — —
— 29 — —
vii. 2 — 61
— 3 — 63
— 6-10 — —
— 14, 15 — —
— 30-36 — —
xii. 1-8 VI. 57
xiv. — —
xvi. — 58
xx. 25, 26 — 57
xxiii. 5 XIII. 35, 59
— 6-14 — 59
— 26-32 — 58
Numbers.
vi. 9-12 VI. 57
ix. 7 XIII. 58
— 10-14 — 35, 59
— 13 — 58
xiv. 19, 20 VI. 23
xviii. 1-7 XIII. 64
xix. 11-20 VI. 57
xxii. 22 XI. 21
xxviii. 1-6 XIII. 59
— 17-25 — —
xxix. 7-11 VI. 58
Deuteronomy.
xii. 5, 6 XIII. 59
— 11 — —
— 14 — —
xvi. 1 — 35, 59
xvi. 2 XIII. 56, 57, 59
— 4-7 — 35, 59
— 5, 6 — 59
— 8 — —
xxix. 1-6 VI. iii
— 2-6 V. 18
Judges.
vi. 18 XIII. 65
1 Samuel.
xxviii. 24 XIII. 58
xxix. 4 XI. 21
2 Samuel.
xxiv. 1 XI . 22
1 Kings.
xi. 25 XI. 21
xviii. 21 V. 77
xix. 21 XIII. 58
2 Kings.
xv. 29 V. 28
xix. 21 — 67
1 Chronicles.
v. 26 V. 28
xxi. 1 XI. 22
2 Chronicles.
xxx. XIII. 60
— 15, 16 — 61
xxxv. — 60
— 9 — 57
— 11 — 61
Job.
i. 6-12 XI. 22
ii. 1-7 — —
Psalms.
xiv. V. 37
li. 16, 17 VI. 25
— — XIII. 9
cxix. 6 XI. 22
Proverbs.
viii. 22 V. 73
— 30 — —
xvii. 1 XIII. 58
Isaiah.
i. 13, 14 XIII. 10
i. 16 XIII. 10
— 16-18 VI. 25
v. 18-20 XI. 3
vii. 14-16 V. 25
— — — 66
viii. 23 — 68
— — IX. 4
viii. 8 V. 67
— 18 — —
ix. 5, 6 — 28
— 6 — 68
xxiii. 12 — 67
Jeremiah.
xiv. 17 V. 27
xxxi. 4 — 66
— 13 — 67
Lamentations.
i. 15 V. 67
Ezekiel.
xxxiii. 14-16 VI. 25
Amos.
v. 2 V. 27
Jonah.
iii. 5-10 VI. 23, 24
iv. 10, 11 — 24
Micah.
iv. 8, 9 V. 27
Zachariah.
iii. 1, 2 XI. 22
Matthew.
i. 23 V. 24
ii. 15 II. 55
— 23 — —
— — V. 68
iv. 1-11 XI. 27
— 12-22 II. 36
xii. 3 — 29
xiii. 58 — 25
xv. 24 VI. 36
xviii. 18 XIII. 30
xix. 16-21 VI. 25
xxvi. 17-21 XIII. 35
— 26-28 — —
xxvi. 28 VI. 40
— 69 seqq. II. 37
xxvii. 32 — —
— 37 — —
— 44 — —
xxviii. 19 V. 50
— — VI. iv
Mark.
i. 12, 13 XI. 27
— 16-20 II. 36
x. 45 VI. 40
xiii. 32 V. 50
xiv. 12-17 XIII. 35
— 22-24 — —
xv. 26 II. 37
— 32 — —
Luke.
i. 2 II. 28
— 15 — —
iv. 1-13 XI. 27
— 18, 19 XIII. 28
v. 10, 11 II. 36
vii. 47 VI. 30
x. 17 II. 26
xxii. 7-17 XIII. 35
— 19, 20 — —
— 56-62 II. 37
xxiii. 26 — —
— 38 — —
— 39-43 — —
John.
i. 1-14 V. 28, 69
— 12 VI. 71
— 29 — 40
— 35-51 II. 36
iii. 13 V. 51
iv. 23, 24 — 48
— 48 II. 25
v. 19 V. 49
— 29, 30 — 53
— 30 — 49
— 36 — —
vi. 44 II. 8
— — XI. 47
vi. 57 V. 49
— 62 — 51
vii. 17 II. 9
viii. 42 XI. 46
— 47 — —
x. 14 — 47
— 16, 17 VI. 36
— 18 V. 52
— 27 II. 9
— — XI. 47
x. 29 V. 49
— 32 II. 25
— 37 — 9, 25
xii. 23, 24 VI. 35
— 32 — —
xiii. 1 seqq. XIII. 35
xiv. 10 V. 49
— 16, 17 II. 30
— 23 — 7
— 26 — 30
xvii. 3 V. 47
— 5 — 51
xviii. 15-25 II. 37
— 28 XIII. 35
— 37 II. 9, 25
xix. 14 XIII. 35
— 17 II. 37
— 19 — —
— 31 XIII. 35
— 35 II. 28
— 42 XIII. 35
xxi. 24 II. 28
Acts.
ii. 1-4 II. 27, 28
— 24 VI. 27
— 32 V. 52
iii. 15 VI. 27
— 19-21 V. 39
iv. 2 VI. 27
— 10 — —
— 12 — 70
v. 30 — 27
vi. 1-4 II. 28
x. 34-44 VI. 26
xiii. 30 VI. 28
— 30-34 V. 40
— 33-37 — 39
xiv. 15 — 44
xvii. 18 VI. 28
— 31 V. 40, 53
— — VI. 28
xx. 28 — 40, 84
xxi. 20 II. 52
xxiv. 21 VI. 27
xxvi. 6-8 V. 39
— 26 II. 6
Romans.
i. 4. V. 40
— 6 XI. 18
ii. 25 VI. 49
— 29 XI. 18
iii. 9-23 — —
— 22-26 VI. 45
— 25 — 28
iv. 24, 25 — —
v. 6 — 37
— 10 — 38
— 11 — —
— 12-20 XI. 18
vi. 2-4 XIII. 32
vii. 1-4 VI. 37
viii. 6 V. 45
— 19 — —
— 23 — —
— 34 VI. 28
ix. 4 VI. 38
— 22, 23 — 51
x. 9 — 28
xiii. 11, 12 V. 40
1 Corinthians.
v. 7 VI. 44
— — XIII. 55
vii. 29 — 51
viii. 5, 6 V. 4
— 6 — 47
x. 11 — 39
xi. 3 — 77
xi. 17-34 XIII. 36
xii. 8-10 II. 28
xiv. 4, 5 — —
— 13 — —
— 19 — —
— 23 — —
xv. 21, 22 XI. 18
— 24 V. 45
— 47 VI. 89
— — XIII. 66
— 51 V. 45
2 Corinthians.
iii. 17 V. 77
v. 15-18 VI. 36
— 17 V. 44
— 21 VI. 43
viii. 9 V. 41
Galatians.
i. 1 V. 52
ii. 15 VI. 37
iii. 13 — 50
— 24 II. 4
iv. 47 VI. 38
Ephesians.
i. 3-5 VI. 38
— 7 — —
— 10 — —
— 20-23 V. 43
ii. 11-18 VI. 39
iii. 19 V. 44
iv. 13 VI. 71
v. 16 — 51
Philippians.
ii. 5-8 V. 41
— 6 — 78
— 9-11 — 43
— 10 — 45
iii. 15 VI. 71
iv. 5 V. 39
— — VI. 51
Colossians.
i. 15-19 V. 44
— 19 VI. 38
ii. 12 XIII. 32
— 13 VI. 38
iii. 3 — —
iv. 5 — 51
1 Thessalonians.
iv. 14 V. 45
— 17 — —
v. 10 — —
2 Thessalonians.
i. 7-10 VI. 50
— 9 V. 45
ii. 2 — 39
1 Timothy.
i. 20 XI. 21
ii. 1-8 VI. 40
— 14 XI. 18
iii. 16 V. 35
iv. 1 — 39
2 Timothy.
ii. 12 V. 45
iii. 16 II. 31
Titus.
ii. 12, 13 V. 39
Hebrews.
i. 1-9 V. 36
— 3 — 40
— 5 — —
— 6 — 45
ii. 5 — 39
— 17 VI. 53
vii. 16 — 59
— 17 — 61
— 24-28 — —
— 25 — 60
viii. 1 — 59
— 2, 3 — —
— 5 — —
ix. 1 VI. 59
— 7 — 60
— 8 — 61
— 12 — 60
— 13, 14 — 62
ix. 15 VI. 60
— 23, 24 — 59
— 25-27 — 60
x. 3, 4 — —
— 12-14 — —
— 16 — 63
— 19, 20 — —
— 24 — —
xii. 28 V. 45
James.
v. 3 V. 39
— 7, 8 — —
— 8 — 51
1 Peter.
i. 5 V. 45
— 18, 19 VI. 41
ii. 4, 5 XIII. 3
— 23-25 VI. 41
iii. 17 — 42
— 20-22 — 51
— 20 V. 39
iv. 3 VI. 42
— 7 — 51
2 Peter.
i. 21 II. 31
ii. 1-18 XI. 63, 64
— 4 XI. 24
— 5 VI. 51
iii. 9 V. 40
— — VI. 51
— 13 V. 39
1 John.
i. 7 VI. 47
— 8 — 48
ii. 1, 2 — —
— 18 — 51
iii. 4 V. 77
— 16 VI. 48
iv. 2 — 47
— 9, 10 — 48
v. 6 V. 77
— 20 — 41
v. 21 VI. 48
2 John.
7 V. 41
Jude.
4-16 XI. 63, 64
6 — 24
Revelations.
v. 9, 10 VI. 40
Transcriber’s Notes.
Obvious typographical errors were silently corrected.
Unusual or older spellings were retained. Many of the substitutions
shown were made after researching other later editions or the cited
quotations.
Each lecture has its own page numbers which do not show. Links above do
work in the html version.
The following changes were made:
'allcreated' to 'all created' in page 38 of the Correspondence.
'ἐπὼνυμοι' (a typo) to 'ἐπώνυμοί' in Footnote 116 in Lec. 2 and
similar corrections in the next few footnotes.
'αἰῶυες' corrected to αἰῶνες' on p. 30 of Lec. 3.
'comformably' to 'conformably' in Appendix, p. 44 of Lec. 3.
'even' to 'every' on p. 17 of Lecture 4.
'is link' to 'is to link' on p. 34 of Lecture 5.
'θεός ἔστιν' to 'θεός ἐστιν', footnote on page 35 of lecture 5, to
agree with other copies of Ignatius's work.
'Δἰ οὗ, not ὑφ’ οὗ' to 'Δι’ οὗ, not ὑφ’ οὗ', footnote on page 37 of
lecture 5.
'prinpalities' to 'principalities', p. 44, Lec. 5.
'docrine' to 'doctrine', p. 59, in Notes to Lec. 5.
'incompatability' to 'incompatibility', p. 60, Notes to Lec. 5.
'ἄλλα' to 'ἀλλά', 3rd footnote on p. 73, Notes to Lec. 5.
period to colon to agree with both lower-case theta and punct. in
several editions of Philo in 3rd footnote on p. 73 to Notes to
Lec. 5.
'ἐννοήσις' to 'ἐννόησις', p. 74, Notes to Lec. 5.
'δὶ' to 'δι’', p. 75, Notes to Lec. 5.
'2 Tim. ii. xii' to '2 Tim. ii. 12' Footnote 234 of Lec. 5.
'that guilt is be estimated' to 'that guilt be estimated' on p. 20
of Lec. 6.
'justifying faith in' to 'justifying faith is' on p. 28 of Lecture
6.
deletion of duplicate ‘the’ on p. 54 of Lec. 6.
'scructure' to 'structure', p. 59 of Lec. 6.
'sacifice' to 'sacrifice', p. 61 of lecture 6.
'or' to 'for' and 'aditional' to 'additional' in last footnote on
page 61 of lecture 6.
'Archishop’s' to 'Archbishop’s' on page 89 in Notes to lecture 6.
'hear' to 'here' on p. 17 of lecture 8.
insertion of ” after 'theology' on p. 39 of lecture 8.
'commuications' to 'communications' on p. 52 of lecture 9.
' is is said', to ' it is said,' on p. 5 of Lecture 10.
'adamat' to 'adamant' on p. 8 of Lecture 10.
'Laies' to 'Laics' on page 39 of Lecture 10.
'Apotles' to 'Apostles' on p. 40 of lecture 10.
'othodox' to 'orthodox' on p. 41 of lecture 10.
'frustate' to 'frustrate' on p. 5 of lecture 11.
'origin of of evil' to 'origin of evil' on p. 32 of lecture 11.
comma between 'feeling' and 'that man' on page 7 of lecture 13 was
deleted.
The open and close quotes were rendered as printed on page 61 of
lecture 6 even though they are not balanced.