approximation to absolute truth which will satisfy the Biblical Critic. Griesbach's real mode of judging of the age and the family of manuscripts, is lost sight of by the Remarker. If the editions to which Dr. L. refers, in the above quotation, consist of written copies (and we conclude, from the fact of his using the word transcribed, that he speaks of such), he has merely varied his statement, and not illustrated it. On the other hand, if he have in view printed "editions of the same work," the two cases are not quite parallel; the dif ferent readings of successive impressions of a volume neither equalling in number those of ancient manuscripts nor being imputable to exactly the same causes. Under what edition we should rank a copy of a printed book-what date we should assign to it may be determined sometimes negatively and sometimes positively. We shall give an example of each method, taken from English translations of the Bible. Archbishop Laud is said to have fined the company of Stationers, in the court of Star-chamber, for their inadvertent omission of the word not in one of the ten commandments. Here a single and cu rious circumstance enables us to ascertain whether or not copies of that impression of the Scriptures circulate among us? Another old edition presents a peculiarity in the ver sion of a clause in the third chapter of Genesis; which peculiarity characterises that specific impression, and bas even bestowed on it a name. Ancient manuscripts of the Greek text so far resemble such printed editions as these that we can in some measure distinguish them by important internal marks, which obviate the difficulty of judging whether copy" has been transcribed " from one of them." A previous discrimination of texts that have various shades of difference, would seem to be impracticable in the extent which Dr. Laurence has contemplated. 66 a We now arrive at his third chapter, of which the contents are, Griesbach's anode of classification. No standard text. Principles of classification fallacious. Inaccuracy of his calculations. Corrected statement. "The various readings of a manuscript," observes the Remarker," in it's departure from the received text, might afford the surest basis for a classification, were the received to be considered as the standard text, with which all manubut from scripts generally accorded, which they occasionally, and only occasionally, deviated." 29, 30, In other words, were it's correctness-it's title to be the received and standard text-assumed; a postulatum which, we might have thought, a Biblical Critic of the nineteenth century would hardly ask us to admit! "Upon this supposition," adds Dr. L. "the character of such occasional deviations would seem to form the sole object of investigation." The sole object of Griesbach's labours was the discovery of the ancient textthe formation of one more accurate than any which preceding critical editors had given to the world. To have made the received text his standard, would have been incongruous with his design; for he would thus have bestowed on that text a distinetion to which, in the judgment of the best scholars, it cannot substans tiate it's claim. "But Griesbach," continues the Remarker," allows the existence of no standard text, and argues that the received, as principally conformable with the Byzantine, is the worst of the three. When therefore he stepped out of the path trodden by preceding critics, and aunibilated the credit of the received text as a common standard, even asserting it's inferiority to every other, ought he not likewise to have departed from their accustomed mode of solely contenplating in manuscripts their variations from this; because the object of his research simply appears to have been, not the character of particular deviations from any individual text, but the general coincidencies of a manuscript with one text above another "" Ib. Griesbach's "" object of research," was A TEXT FORMED OF THE BESP READINGS OF THE BEST MANUSCRIPTS and it were difficult to shew how he could have executed his design more conveniently, im partially and effectually than by taking the received text as his basis, and noticing only the more memørable of the deviations from it. This, we presume, is the course 'almost invariably pursued by respectable philological editors of the Greek and Latin classics. Of the inferiority of the received text Griesbach was convinced not so much by the agreement of it's characteristic readings with those of the Byzantine manuscripts as by the history of its formation, which he has sketched, with great fidelity and care, in the first section of his Prolegomena. Nor, in the adjustment of his text, has he stepped out of the path trodden by preceding critics." Bowyer, we have already perceived, went before him in the same road. So, in part, did Harwood: and it has been trodden by Matthäi and by Alter.* Dr. L. maintains, 31, that had Griesbach "limited his observations to the various readings of another text, instead of the Byzantine, the result would have been very different. Let us try," says he, the experiment with the Alexandrine, which being in his [Griesbach's] judgment the most ancient and valuable, we might have presumed would have been originally selected for this purpose." Now Griesbach affirms of the Alex andrine and of the Western edition, Symbol. Crit. Vol. I. 119, neutrius recensionis codex ullus ad nos pervenit, quin plurimis locis interpolatas sit." He, accordingly, declares, in the next sentence, Nulli enim codici tantum deferimus honoris, ut lectiones ejus quascunque probemus." So judicious and upright was this incomparable editor! He knew that a pure text could not be formed merely from a single class of manuscripts. Let us attend however to his Oxford Censor: "The manuscript marked A [the Alex andrine] he [Griesbach] represents as belonging to the Alexandrine class in the Epistles of St. Paul, because out of one hundred and seventy deviations from the received text, it agrees one hundred and ten times with Origen, and differs from him only sixty. Now let us turn the scale, and substitute a comparison founded upon it's variations, not from the received text, He but from the Alexandrine, or the quotations of Origen. Griesbach states that the manuscript A differs both from Origen and from the received text sixty times. also informs us, that it differs from Origen alone, when it agrees with the received text, ninety-six times. Adding therefore these numbers together, we perceive that the deviations of A from Origen, or the Nov. Test. Griesb. Pref. sub init.. Alexandrine text, amount to one hundred and fifty-six in all. But is it not evident, that out of these it agrees with the received or Byzantine text, when it differs from Origen, ninety-six times, and dissents from it only sixty? The conclusion therefore is unavoidable, and we seem compelled upon this calculation to class the manuscript under the Byzantine text, as we were upon the other calculation under the Alexandrine; so that a diametrically op posite result takes place." 31, 32, 33. As the same cause produces the same again, the result of his misappreheneffect, Dr. Laurence's argument is, here Griesbach was determined solely by sion. He erroneously imagines that MS. A to "the Alexandrine class in numerical calculations in assigning the the Epistles of St. Paul." But Griesbach uniformly kept in view the internal quality of the readings: and his judgment of the MS. before us was it's structure and genius with those of formed on a deliberate comparison of manuscripts and versions of the same or a higher age. The true question or not with the Byzantine edition in therefore is, Does the Codex A agree the most important passages? In a vast instances, a conformity may subsist number, and even in the majority, of between them; while such, neverthe less, may be the dissonance in the more testably that the editions are not one memorable readings as to shew inconand the same. Of this clear distinction the Remarker has been unmindful. Nor is it merely from the agreement of a MS. with Origen, that Griesbach ranks it under the Alexandrine text.t These remarks apply with equal or greater force to Dr. L.'s observations on the learned editor's arrangement of the Ephrem manuscript. 34. The principle of classification "can" then' when we forget that Griesbach weighed only lead to a fallacious conclusion". his readings, and considered their excellence rather than their number. His own language in Symb. Crit. Vol. II. 135, far from shewing that he was not perfectly satisfied" with his manner of computation, illustrates his See, in particular, Symb. Crit. Vol 11. 621-where the rule is perspicuouslystated and fully exemplified, + Symbol. Crit. I. 26. Ths, too, in 135. Griesbach says, "laudantur lectiones, &c."; a proof that he was not governed by simply, numerical compotas. tions. steady adherence to the soundest rules of Biblical Criticism. Nor does he there hint that it would perhaps be proper to subjoin the differences of a natuscript, when it reads with the received text against the Alexandrine, to it's differences when it reads against both." His words are," Atqui [not atque, as in Dr. L's Remarks, &c. p. 35,] si posterioribus vel maxine addas lectiones cum vulgari textu contra Alexandrinos consentientes, nibilo tamen minus Alexandrinarum lectionarum multo major est, quam dissentium ab Alexandrinis, numerus." To us the expression vel maxime is declaratory of Griesbach's firm persuasion that the classification of manuscripts depends on a higher principle than attention to numerical excesses and defects. But the "accuracy of his calculations" is disputed. 37: "A circumstance upon which he seems to lay considerable stress, printing his account of it in italics, is the union of the manuscripts A. C. with Origen in seventyfive out of eighty places; but here he is indisputably inaccurate. His words are these: Inter lectiones illas 88 codicibus A et C communes, sunt 75, quibus suffragatur Origenes, et 13 tantum a quibus abhorret.' The thirteen differences alluded to he gives in detail; but besides these, seventeen more at least appear to have escaped his eye, which I have subjoined in a note: so that instead of only thirteen instances of discordance he should have given thirty " Having examined "the seventeen readings" said to be omitted by him, we are satisfied that something might be alleged in abatement of the charge. Griesbach, after all, neither was nor publications to which we have made a reference in the margin. That Griesbach deserves the thanks of every Biblical Critic for his quotations from Origen, is undoubted. At the same time, these extracts are neither so complete nor so accurate. as to supersede further investigation. Dr. Laurence has shewn this to be the fact, 41--49, and Appendix. Perhaps he makes an excessive estimate of the honour of his triumph: perhaps greater modesty would have become him; and his own reputation might not have suffered had he suppressed the exclamation, 44, "Now could a writer of Griesbach's talent and diligence blunder so egregiously!" Sure we are that Griesbach's censor, whose Remarks, &c. begin, proceed and conclude on the false supposition that the number rather than the quality of readings should govern our classification of manuscripts ought not to have hazarded this sentence. Hitherto he has not destroyed, or injured, the critical system of the Professor. It is with reluctance that we must now divert our attention Other engagefrom his attacks. ments demand our time and thoughts: and we hope to continue and finish this article of Review in the Monthly Repository for May. ART. III.-Sermons by the late John Simpson. Printed, by Combe, at Leicester. Published, in London, by Hunter. 1816. 8vo. pp. 460. THE subjects of the discourses contained in this volume, are claimed to be exempted from "inac- the following: Contentment (Heb. curacy." Error is more or less unavoid-xii. 5), Hazael's ambition (2Kings alle in these investigations. Such is vii. 13), Forgiveness of injuries (Matt. Dr. L.'s opinion: and he avows a vi. 14, 15), Brotherly love (Heb. xiii. persuasion that Griesbach's error has !), The house of mourning and of feastnot been intentional! 48. In a note ing (Eecles. vii. 2), The government of however to p. 42, the Remarker un- the heart (Prov. iv. 23), Fortitude handsomely accuses him of not having (1 Cor. xvi. 13), Haman's pride (Esther v. 13), The loss of the soul not_compencollated a MS. with which he professes to have been acquainted. We sated by the gain of the world (Matt. employ the epithet unhandsomely, be- xvi. 26), Redeeming the time Coloss. cause the truth of the case might iv. 5), Against following the multitude easily have been known from the to do evil (Exod, xxiii, 2), Zcal explained and recommended (Rev. iii. 19), Parable of the talents (Matt xxv. 14, 15. 19), Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap (Gal. vi. 7), * G. Prolegomena to Nov. Test. Griesb. 102. See, further, Symb. Crit. I. 64-66 and Michaelis' lutrød. &c. Vol. II. 360. VOL. XII. 21 242 Poetry.-Lines occasioned by reading “ Dr. Smith on the Divine Government.” Youth warned of a future judgment (Eccles. xi. 9), Repentance (Matt. iv. 17), The fear of God (Ps. xxxiii. 8), Prayer (Philipp. iv. 6), Public wor ship (Ps. lxxxiv. 1), The ways of virtue ways of pleasantness (Prov. iii. 17), False signs of a good and a bad character, and the true test of both (Matt. vii. 20), Rich and Poor mutually related: their reciprocal duties (Prov. xxii. 2), The year crowned with God's goodness (Ps. Ixv. 11), Whatsoever things are true, &c. (Philipp. iv. 8). It thus appears that these Sermons treat of topics which, as the editor observes, are miscellaneous, and "entirely of a practical tendency:" we further agree with him that perspicuity" marks the preacher's illustrations; and we consider it as highly honourable to Mr. Simpson's memory that he inculcated from the pulpit, in a plain and serious manner, the great duties of religion-while, from the press, he favoured the world with his admirable Essays on the language of the Scriptures. An extract from the discourse on brotherly love, which was preached, in 1804, for the benefit of some charity schools, will be a good specimen of the writer's style of address, and will shew the state of his judgment on those institutions which maintain as well as instruct the offspring of the poor: "In the institution which you have established, by giving children some present accommodations of food, habitation, and raiment, good instruction is rendered more impressive and effectual. The bounty that is felt by the immediate relief which it affords to bodily wants, attaches sensible minds to their benefactors, and disposes them to regard their counsel and advice. Being taught the arts of reading, they are early inured to habits of industry, writing, arithmetic, and needle-work, and are better enabled to provide for their future permanent support and comfort in the world. This will eminently contribute to preserve their morals, and to secure that constant application to their proper business and duties, which is necessary to preserve habitual tranquillity, contentment, and cheerfulness in their own minds, and to render them respectable and useful members of society; for in order to prevent, as well as to cure, evil habits, persons must be accustomed to regular employment, and the outward condition must be rendered comfortable." 76, 77. The inaccuracies" which occur in this volume, are evidently owing to the difficulty of decyphering the author's short-hand "with correctness." But the pious attention of the editor to his father's memory, claims our respect and to those who had the happiness of witnessing the "meekness of wisdom" which characterised the late Mr. Simpson these posthumous Sermons will be particularly acceptable. POETRY. Lines occasioned by reading "Dr. Smith on the Divine Government." Brightly dawn'd the Christian morning, Passing reason's purest ray, Evil passions unconfin'd, From their warp'd and sickly mind. Yes-children of the same great God, But hope again is dawning bright, 'Tis thine to chase those clouds away, 'Tis thine once more with reason's light, To harbinger the sun of day. Before thy nervous pen they fall, Before thy breath the phantoms fly, Were for thy pen a sunbeam giv'n, Drawn from his own refulgent glory; Hadst thou the azure field of heav'n, On which to trace the blissful storyYet would some envious wretch be found, In bigotry's dark mantle brooding, To wrap his vest more closely round, The golden scroll of life excluding. Tho' from his shroud false light'nings dart, And envy's serpents hiss around thee; Vain is each insidious art, That seeks to battle or confound thee. For thou-propp'd on th' eternal arm, With mercy's wings about thee bov'ring, Shalt every latent foe disarm Meekness and truth thy shield and cov'ring. VERSES, Occasioned by reading Southey's Carmen Triumphale. BY THE LATE EDWARD RUSHTON. [From the Liverpool Mercury.] When man's great curse, despotic sway, mind, Here glares the state's red arm, and there an endless hell. Whether of home or foreign growth, May desolate a world, but never free mankind. If proof be wanting, France may shew, In man's great cause how monarchs glow: Thou know'st, when stroke one immortal Her lacerating shackles broke; swarms Flew, like infuriate fiends, to arms; To quench a never-dying flame; "Glory to God," he cries, "deliv'rance Eared her resistless arm, and crush'd for mankind!" Ah, Southey, if thy boyish brood Why then, if ruthless havock lord it Should bigot rage exult, and God be glorified? I grieve when earth is drench'd with gore, And realms with woe are cover'd o'er; Tis man-high-minded man must liberate mankind. th' aggressing foes. |