Page images
PDF
EPUB

thieves !) possessing a passage on their consecrated version which had nothing to answer to it in the original, should make no scruple of filling up the chasm by their own translation into Greek? We know that Tremellius did the very same in the Peshito Syriac: but he very honestly told us of the feat, or else, the occurrence of the passage in his edition would have been called a “demonstrative proof” of his having .. some very ancient and valuable inanuscripts in which it was read. In the case of the Complutensian, however, little is left to conjecture. When one of its editors, Lopez de Stunica, was pressed on this subject by Erasmus, did he maintain: the honour of the edition by affirming that the passage was inserted on the authority of Greek manuscripts, or of a single Greek manuscript Would he have omitted to do so, if he could have made such an appeal?-So far from this, he impugned the verity of the Greek Tect, and blazoned the supposed perfection of the Latin. “ Sciendum est Græcorum codices esse corruptos, nostros vero ipsam veritatem continere.” This single sentence at once suggests that not any known Greek copy contained the passage, and that it was taken into the text upon the sole authority of the currents, and, as we shall afterwards shew, interpolated Latin.

M. Martin has the courage to say of this passage, “I have shewn it to be in those (MSS.) of Erasmus!" The fact stands thus, Erasmus published his first and second editions faithfully according to his manuscripts, and of course without the passage. This brought on him violent reproaches from the bigoted adherents of the Romish Church, and its established Latin version. By them he was goaded into a promise, certainly not a very judicious one, to insert the passage in his next edition, provided one Greek manuscript could be discovered which contained it. Most opportunely, therefore, one was found in England; a transcript of the clause in question was made and sent to Erasmus in Switzerland ; and, in his third edition of 1522, he redeemed þis pledge by inserting the words so seasonably discovered. He consulted, however, his critical reputation by subjoining this note: “ To afford no occasion to calumny, we have inserted this passage, which was said to be a deficiency in our former editions, out of a British manuscript; which mà. nuscript, however, I suspect to have been corrected accord. ing to our copies," that is, those received in the church of Rome. The copy which was so admirably, convenient on this occasion, has been sufficiently ascertained to be the Codex Montfortianus, of which we have already treated.

Our redoubtable adversaries now lead out a mighty host, “ the manuscripts of Robert Stephens," of which M. Martin avers " that there were at least nine, besides the Coinplutensian copy, wherein the text of the seventh verse was found.” p. 81.

Really our readers have little motion of the claim we have on their commiseration. The old French gentleman has dragged our wearied attention through two tedious chapters, of such ignorance and confusion, positive assertion of untruths so gross, and silliness so exquisite, as we should despair of representing in any other way than by a transeript: but we have too much regard for their patience and their pockets, to disgust them with this miserable nonsense. We shall state the bare truth of the case, as concisely as possible, leaving the comparison of our statement with the ridiculous falsehoods which are so cleverly republished against us, to those who have self-denial enough for the task. In 1550, Robert Stephens printed at Paris his splendid folio Greek Testament, in the margin of which he professed to mark the various readings of sixteen very ancient MSS. (“ vetustissima scripta exemplaria :') but to shew us that this expression was not meant to be very exact, he soon, subjoins that the first in the list was the Complutensian printed text. Of the others, which were without doubt 'real manuscripts, he gives no history or description, according to the reprehensible but common practice of that day; , except that eight were borrowed from the King's Jibrary, six were procured from various quarters, and one was collated in. "Italy. They are designated in the margin by the Greek numerals, d. (the Compl.), B', y', &c. to is'. The Codex á he quotes throughout the whole N. T. because the Complutensian, like other printed editions, contains the whole. Of his 15 MS6. le quotes some in one part, some in another, and none throughout the whole N. T. for Greek MSS. in general are not like print

d editions, but contain commonly only parts of the N. T. In the catholic Epistles, Stephens has quoted only seven MSS. consequently, in these Epistles he collated only seven, These seven he denotes by the numerals 8, 6, 5, 6, 7, scd', sy', of, which the four markeds, 6,5',were from the king's li .brary, and the other three d', sá, by were among the six which he had procured elsewhere. In the margin opposite to i John v. 7. Stephens has quoted the seven MSS. just menfioned, with an obelus prefixed, which denotes that these seven MSS. agreed in omitting certain words contained in his own text. The number of words omitted in the quoted MSS. he determines by placing in his text an obelus bę.

sian printescripts, he givible but com

fore the first word, and a little crotchet, in the shape of a semicircle, after the last word,'* The place in question is distinguished thus + {y óupavü, denoting that only those three words, and not the whole disputed passage, are absent from the MSS, enumerated in the margin. Now the question comes on: Is this notation correct? Or has not this semicircle been misplaced, by an error of the compositor, or even of the collator, I after ovzavā, instead of after yñ ? This query was suggested in 1580, by Lucas Brugensis, and it has been since answered in the affirmative by the clear: est proofs. Father Simon examined all the MSS. containing this epistle in the royal library, and found them all to agree in rejecting the whole of the disputed passage. lu 1720, Father !e Long determined, by internal evidences, the very four MSS. in the library of the king of France which Stephens had used; and, as might be supposed, he found the disputed passage wholly absent froin them all. In 1793, Dr. Herbert Marsh had the happiness of discovering, in the Public Library of the university of Cambridge, the MS. which Stephens had noted oy', and in this also, the celebrated passage was entirely absent. Thus five out of the seven MSS. of the Catholic epistles, have been brought to light, and demonstrate the wrong position of the semicircle. It further evidence were needed, it offers itself in these two particulars: (1.) that many similar errors exist' in Stephens's margin, and (2.) that no known MS. ancient or modern, contains the reading which the actual notation signifres.

If our readers, however, should be curious to know what M. Martin, and his late rival in Quixotism Mr. Archdeacon Travis, had to say to these facts, we must tell them as briefly and as gravely as we can. A hideous outcry is raised about the cruelty to R. Stephens of imagining that his semicircle is not infallibly placed, or that, if wrong, he should not have given public notice of the erratum : though there are hundreds of other errors in the edition referred to, which, 'so far as depended on the editor, remain to this hour uncorrected. While they hang the integrity, probity, accuracy, and all the fine characteristics, of R. Stephens on this portentous semicircle, they scruple not to make him a thief and a traitor ; for they stify maintain

*The passages marked with single inverted commas we have taken the liberty of borrowing from Dr. Marsh's valuable Letters to Archdeacon Travis, pref. p, 20, 22. Leipzig, 1795.

The collation was, in fact, made by Henry, Stephens, then a youth of eighteen, in a very imperfect manner.

[ocr errors]

that he possessed the royal MSS. in bis exile at Geneva, after he had, by his own account, restored them to his sovereign's library. Again, these false friends deny that Henry Stephens was the collator of the MSS. in the teeth of his deposition and that of his friend Beza. Finally, those precious manuscripts, nine " at least,” or, by “a very solid conjecture” of Martin, fourteen, or by the arithmetic of Travis (for a man may as well lie largely, who has made up his conscience to lie at all,) sixteen, are all LOST!! What ALL? Have all those wondrous creatures, whose fellows had never before been heard of, so completely disappeared as not to leave their like bebind them, por a trace of where they lived or how they died? Yes," they are lost. Either they have been burned, or have, been eaten by the worms, or been gnawed in pieces by the rats, or been rotted with the damps, or been destroyed by those pestilent fellows the Arians; which was very feasible; for

they had only to get into their power all the MSS. of, the 1. N. T. in the world, and to mutilate or destroy those which

contained un des plus beaux passages dans l'Ecriture Sainte." (Professor Porson's Letters, p. 23.)

But what shall we say to another lusty witness, whom Martin brings up with all due ceremony? " Father Amelotte has assured us,&c. Erasmus has said this verse was wanting in a Greek manuscript of the Vatican, but I find it in the most ancient manuscript of that library.p. 93. By this description Amelotte could only mean the celebrated No. 1209, (Codex B. in Wetstein and Griesbach) usually called the Vatican MS. by way of eminence. But the man who affirms that this contested passage is in that, or in any other Greek MS. of the Catholic epistles in the Vatican library, must either take refuge under the plea of profoundest ignorance, or accept the retort courteous. So Zacagni published, in 1698, a collation of a Greek MS. of the Acts, Epistles, and Revelation, in the Vatican; and being obliged to state its omission of the celebrated, passage, he boldly : adds that it is found in the Alexandrive MS, in the British Museum. Probably Amelotte, as well as he, with true Romish morality, sacrificed his veracity to his fears; but did either of them expect, or wish, to be believed ? : '.

It is truly mortifying to us to be compelled to draw out this article to so great a length. We have laboured to be brief, and have therefore omitted many facts and observations in our favour ; and yet we have only got through the first head of the argument. The questions of the Ancient Versions and the Fathers remain to be considered. Our lot is truly deplorable. In a short paragragh we stated the plain truth in one of the plainest cases in the whole range of Biblical Criticism. We well

knew that those who really understood the subject would acquiesce in what we had written ; and, such was our simplicity, we hoped that those who had not thoroughly studied it would honestly read the authors to whom we referred, and deliver a verdict according to the evidence. “ At last, up starts a grave and reverend gentleman, and tells us, with a serious face, that it is not day at noon. And this trash we are expected to res fute, or the Mumpsinius regiment will boasť hereafter that we have not accepted their leader's challenge," Porson, p. 61.

. (To be concluded in the next Number:) Art. VIII. Sermons principally designed to illustrate and to enforce Chris tian Morality. By the Rev. Thomas Gisborne, M. A. 8vo. pp. 430.

price 8s. Cadell and Co. 1809. . W have read these sermons with so much satisfaction, that

were it in our power to aid their circulation by any testimony of our approbation, we should be almost at a loss for terms sufficiently strong and emphatic. Though the excellent author is possessed already of a large share of the public esteem, we are persuaded these discourses will make a great ac. cession to his celebrity. Less distinguished by any predominant quality, than by an assemblage of the chief excellences in pulpit composition, they turn on subjects not very commonly handled, and discuss them with a copiousness, de licacy, and force, which evince the powers of a master. They are almost entirely upon moral subjects, yet equally remote from the superficiality and dryness with which these subjects aré too often treated. The morality of Mr. Gisborne is array: ed in all the majesty of truth, and all the beauties of holiness. In perusing these sermons, the reader is continually reminded of real life, and beholds human nature under its inost unsophisticated aspect, without ever being tempted to suppose himself in the schools of pagan philosophy. We cannot better explain the professed scope and object of the author, than by copying a few sentences from his preface...

Of late years it has been loudly asserted that, among clergymen who have shewed themselves very earnest in doctrinal points, adequate regard has not been evinced to moral instruction. The charge has perhaps been urged with the greatest vehemence by persons, who have employed little trouble in examininig into its truth. In many cases it has been groundless; in many, exaggerated. In some instances there has been reason, I fear, for a degree of complaint; and in more, a colourable pretext for the imputation. I believe that some preachers, shocked on beholding examples, real or supposed, of congregations starving on mere morality substituted for the bread of life; eager to lay broad and deep the foundations of the gospel; and ultimately apprehensive lest their own hearers should suspect them of reverting towards legality; have not given to morals, as fruits of faith, the station and the amplitude to which they have a scriptural claim. Anxious legt

« PreviousContinue »