with deference, though not implicitly, to the authority, of a scholar whose learning, time and faculties were principally bestowed on this depart inent of theology. "It seems," says Dr. L. p. 5, "that no new weapon of Unitarian warfare has been obtained from the critical armoury of Griesbach, which once glittered in the latitudinarian eye with So much promise; but that the integrity of the Trinitarian text, in every undisputed passage of Scripture, remains precisely in it's former state unattacked, and perhaps we must now presume unattackable." On the degree of taste in which this period is composed, we are silent. It is rather within our province to remark that Dr. L. misapprehends the nature and the state of the Unitarian controversy. In proof of there being only one God, even the Father, we appeal to the whole tenor of the Jewish and the Christian Scriptures. Our evidence is direct and palpable, level to plain understandings, and capable of being presented in the language of the Sacred volume. It is the Trinitarian doctrine which stands in need of new weapons of warfare;" while, in the eye of it's advocates, the instruments of attack and defence furnished by the critical armoury of Burgess and Middleton and Granville Sharpe, "glitter" with a "promise" which has been completely disappointed. From Griesbach's text of the New Testament "the Unitarians" derive no positive arguments for their characteristic tenet, in addition to those which they abundantly possessed before: in one respect, however, and that very obvious, it places them on much higher and, at the same time, more solid ground than their oppoments; inasmuch as Griesbach now removes from the text some important passages, which indeed he had already marked as exceedingly doubtful, yet which many Trinitarians have been in the habit of quoting with unqualified confidence. An edition of the writings of the New Covenant, thus published by an orthodox believer and a most eminent critical scholar, which, nevertheless, renders it impossible for the advocates of the Trinity to cite without shame those verses as genuine which such a man bas demonstrated so be spurious, is, It is true, the merely numerical addition "of another individual" were nothing. When however we consider what are the religious sentiments of this individual, and what his cri tical qualifications, the acquisition is really important: and in his suffrage on such a topic it cannot be arrogant to triumph. "All men," observes the Remarker, "are not critics; but all men, who feel a real attachment to the religion which they profess, are alike interested in the result of critical investigation, when applied to an object so important as the adjustment of Scriptural readings. It is natural therefore to expect that every novel mode of ascertaining the validity of a reading will be at first received with caution, and long watched with jealousy." P. 6. We object not to it's being so re ceived and so watched; for Truth will be a gainer by this care and vigilance. Yet why insinuate that Griesbach's mode of ascertaining the validity of a reading is characterized by novelty? This, beyond doubt, is Dr. L.'s meaning. But we shall soon perceive that he contradicts himself, and with wonderful inconsistency accuses the learned editor of treading in the footsteps of preceding critics. To Griesbach he even attributes other quali ties which are mutually irreconcilable. On what he calls this scholar's "par ticular hypothesis," we shall say little more till we proceed to Dr. Laurence's second chapter. We are at a loss however to imagine that it is more * Authors seldom misspell the names of those of their predecessors with whose literary productions they are familiar. We suspect that Dr. L. is a comparative stranger to the works of the highly and justly celebrated Rector of St. James's. REV. "readily convertible to party purposes" than any of those hypotheses which have been maintained or invented for the sake of upholding, in almost every point, the integrity of the received text. In an age of Biblical criticism, false theories on this subject will soon experience the fate which they de serve. This pamphlet of Dr. Laurence's, would have been improved by the omission of the first chapter, which does little credit to his candour and discernment. The greater part of the second, is more relevant to the design avowed in his title page, and treats of the following topics, Origin of Griesbach's theory. Bengel. Semler. Number of Classes. Remarks upon their limitation to three. Inadequacy of the result. It thus opens: "The critical talents of Griesbach have long ranked high in the estimation of the public; and an implicit confidence seems to be placed in the rectitude of his judgment and in the accuracy of his statements. If I do not however mistake the character of the man from his writings, he is himself the last to claim infallibility in the one case, or impeccability in the other. He certainly may be, and I believe he is, what Dr. Marsh denominates him, the most consummate critic that ever undertook an edition of the New Testament.'* But his perfection will still only be relative, upon a comparison with the merits of his predecessors in the same arduous department. Complete exemption from error either in hypothesis or in collation is surely what the vainest of verbal critics will scarcely venture to arrogate." After premising that infallibility and impeccability have never, as far as our knowledge extends, been claimed for Griesbach, we request our readers to keep in mind this attestation, by the Remarker, to the modest pretensions and unrivalled skill of the Professor. The acknowledgment indeed seems to be almost extorted from Dr. Laurence, whose aim is evidently to depreciate, rather than to raise, Griesbach in the estimation of the public. Yet he could not decently oppose the opinion of so exquisite a judge of these matters as the present Bishop of Llandaff With apparent reluctance therefore 628. Michaelis' Introd. &c. Vol. II. p. he adopts it as his own, and imme diately has the goodness to admonish us that Griesbach's perfection will still be nothing more than relative. All human perfection is so: if then Dr. L.'s observation convey any pertinent and appropriate meaning, it imports that the Professor is not, in point of time, the first editor of the text of the Greek Testament, that his merits, be they, in other views, what they may, are not original and novel. How this intimation agrees with the statement, in P. 6, concern ing "every novel mode of ascertaining the validity of a reading," Dr. Laurence has not judged proper to explain. Against Griesbach he does not prefer the accusation" of perinitting his theological prejudices to influence his criticism;" nor does he say of him that he was "the vainest of verbal critics." Both these charges he seems to level against Wetstein, whose name however, notwithstanding his faults, is entitled to great ho nour among the Editors of the New Testament. It were incorrect to pronounce of him and of Bengel that they were unbiassed by attachment to their respective doctrinal systems. Nothing is more to be desired than that the characters of the interpreter of the Bible and of the critical editor of it's text should be uniformly separated. Wetstein would have better consulted his usefulness and credit by this discrimination. Yet his merits have shone forth with a brighter lustre in proportion as his claims on our gratitude have been rigorously and impartially investigated: and Marsh with the candour and knowledge of in his annotations on Michaelis, has, a true scholar, done justice to the calumniated fame of the Remonstrants' Professor:† in his Lectures, ↑ too, he attests the accuracy and faithfulness of this eminently sagacious and learned person. The principal object, nevertheless, of Dr. Laurence in mentioning Bengel and Wetstein, appears to be that he might direct our attention to "the ma terials with which Griesbach erected the superstructure of his critical sys tem." Why has the Remarker thus wasted his time, and enlarged his pamphlet, by a detail of notorious and unquestioned facts? It is admitted that the first writer, who pointed out the utility of a" technical" classifica tion of MSS. was Bengel." Again, "That Bengel indeed was the original projector of the system alluded to, Griesbach himself was too candid either to deny or to conceal." Nor was Bengel his "only predecessor in the same path. The immediate author of apparently the precise plan adopted by him was Semler, one from whose public instructions he professes to have derived much useful information, and whose writings he held in the highest esteem; perhaps the more so, because that adventurous critic was certainly never saspected of treading in the beaten track of preconceived opinion."Pp. 14, 15. After Griesbach's frank and ingenuous acknowledgments of his obligations to former writers on the text of the New Testament, we needed "no ghost" to assure us that this illustrions man neither was nor claimed to be an unaided labourer in the field of criticism. Dr. Laurence's purpose however is to wound the fame of Griesbach through the side of Semler: and hence Semler is brought before us with some parade and much injustice. "That adventurous critic," says the Remarker, "was never suspected of treading in the beaten track of preconceived opinion," for which reason, as he is pleased to conjecture, Griesbach held his writings in the higher esteem! This insidious censure, too, the nigra succus loliginis, falls from the pen of a man who had before spoken of Griesbach's "patient hands" (6), and admitted that he was a" most consummate critic" (8), and who afterwards (30) declares, "Few writers express themselves more dispassionately than Griesbach, or more remarkably unite modesty of statement with confidence in opinion." And is it probable that an author possessing these qualities would be lightly enamoured with an "adventurous critic," solely because he is adventurous, and delights to leave the beaten road? Dr. Laurence confutes himself, and, in his zeal to detract from Griesbach's established and well-earned reputation, is guilty of inconsistencies. Nor should the memory of Semler be treated with contempt or his name pronounced with a sneer. Knowledge, virtue and human happiness owe much to writers whose aim has been the detection and exposure of error, wherever it was found. Of Semler's excellent services in Biblical criticism no man who is in any degree acquainted with the study can be ignorant. To his learning, cor rectness and sagacity, an honourable testimony is borne by Marsh :* and it is no mean praise that his inquiries afforded solid assistance to Griesbach's critical researches. We should be happy if some Correspondent of the Monthly Repository would favour us with a menioir of the life and writings of Semler: our knowledge of them is inperfect; but we perceive that, in the preface to his Apparatus ad liberalem. Novi Testamenti interpretationem, he asserts the principles of a consistent Protestant, and solemnly disclaims selfconfidence and a love of novelty———— nulli levitati aut temeritati meæ obsecutus. The present censor of Griesbach objects that this editor (20) "confines himself solely to the triple division of an Alexandrine, a Western, and a Byzantine, text," while (18) "he admits the propriety of a more extended division.' Now the obvious reply is that Griesbach has done what he could, and has done it well: he has accomplished all that his materials enabled him to accomplish. In laying before the world the result of his examination into the oldest and most important of the "editions" of the Greek text, he has enabled us to ascertain this text with far greater precision than was before attainable. "No man," according to Michaelis, † has deserved so highly of the public in regard to the arrangement of the manuscripts of the Greek Testament under their respective editions, as Griesbach." Michaelis however was of opinion" that there have existed four principal editions: the Western, or that formerly used in countries where 1 the Latin language was spoken; the Alexandrine, or Egyptian; the Edessene, which comprehends those manuscripts from which the old Syriac version was made," of which edition, adds Michaelis," we have at present no manuscripts ;" and "the Byzantine edition." Now this eminently learned critic admits with readiness the general accuracy of Grieshach's text; though himself believes in the existence of four, instead of three principal editions. On this fact we lay considerable stress, because no man was more competent than Michaelis to pronounce such an opinion. The truth seems to be that the discovery and collation of a greater number of manuscripts may indeed assist future editors in improving on Griesbach's plan; while even at present we are in possession of the oldest and the best. Practicable and not ideal good, was the object of the labours of the late Professor of Divinity at Jena. We scarcely know what the Remarker means when he says (24), in effect, that Griesbach employs the readings of particular manuscripts either to supply the want of “more direct testimony," or to augment its weight. In adjusting the text of any ancient writer, what " more direct testimony" can we have than that of manuscripts? If this be a loose line of proceeding, criticism is an empty name. In a future Number we hope to resume the consideration of this point, and to examine the remainder of Dr. L.'s pamphlet. to Mr. Southey, the Poet Laurcate, who began his career as a violent reformer, but who for some time past has been said to employ his great powers of writing in the abuse of all those who are now what he formerly was, excepting his violence. Mr. Southey is thus consigned to his own lash; his self-castigation will we hope subdue his angry spirit: if it should have this effect, we would recommend to him, as a work equally fitted to his literary researches and his experience, a new History of the Flagellants. The following extract will give the reader a pretty fair idea of this production of the Poet Laureate's youthful and uncourtly muse: "ACT II. SCENE-BLACKHEATH. TYLER, HOB, &c. While the peasant works-to sleep; Be he villain, be he fool, When Adam delv'd, and Eve span, HOB. Why do we fear those animals called lords? What is there in the name to frighten us? Is not my arm as mighty as a Baron's? Enter PIERS and JOHN BALL. PIERS (to TYLER). Have I done well, my father?—I remember'd This good man lay in prison. TYLER. My dear child, Most well; the people rise for liberty, And their first deed should be to break the chains Lowly in heart, the man of Nazareth Preach'd mercy, justice, love: "Woe unto ye, Ye that are rich :-if that ye would be saved, Have ye not felt the strong indignant throb That gave him on the couch of luxury That bind the virtuous:0 thou honest To pillow his head, and pass the festive day priest→→ How much hast thou endured! Englishmen met in arms to advocate In sportive feasts, and ease, and revelry? Have you not often in your conscience ask'd Why is the difference, wherefore should that man No worthier than myself, thus lord it over me, And bid me labour, and enjoy the fruits? The God within your breasts has argued thus! The voice of truth has murmur'd; came ye not As helpless to the world?-shines not the TOM MILLER. The cause of freedom! hear me! pause This is something like a sermon. awhile |