After having thus dealt with the holy sacrament, Mr. Abbott proceeds to treat the form of baptism in a similar manner. But I spare your readers any further discussion upon points of this nature. They have perhaps had enough already.

It would surely be well if Mr. Abbott would reconsider these tainted pages, and blot them from his valuable book. I confess, however, that I can scarcely hope for such a consummation. Feeling his strength increase as he goes on "Caput inter nubila condit." Scarcely has he concluded his observations on the sacraments, when Mr. Abbott finds out that it was a mere matter of accident that the rainbow was appointed as a sign that God would never again visit the earth with a flood. We read in the book of Genesis that "God set his bow in the clouds" for that purpose; and so strong is the expression, that some persons have doubted whether the conformation of the elements previously to the flood was such as to have produced that phenomenon. But what says our author, p. 222? "It reminds

us of a transaction that occurred twenty-five centuries before, when Jehovah, after the flood, wishing to quiet the fears which clouds and storms might awaken in human breasts, just takes the rainbow, the object most obvious on the occasion when it is wanted, as the token of his promised protection."

Once more, I lament the necessity for making these observations. There is much good to be derived from Mr. Abbott's works-much awakening virtue in them; but I doubt the prudence of putting publications, which contain such passages as have been quoted above, into the hands of young or uninformed persons without a sufficient caution.* I am, Sir, &c. &c., CAURUS.

PARISIAN GREEK PRESS.

My Dear Sir,—If you will be so good as to admit this into the " British Magazine" for January, you shall not be troubled with anything farther from me on the Vindication of the Early Parisian Greek Press. I have been told by a few persons-but those, men whose

Every judicious reader of Mr. Abbott's works will be ready to offer his warmest thanks to the author of this excellent letter for its salutary and most necessary caution. We are apt in England to let everything go by fashion, and there happens just now to be a fashion of admiring Mr. Abbott. That he is an acute, shrewd, and vigorous writer is very true; but his popularity will be short. There is very little or nothing of original thought about him. What is original is his extreme familiarity in treating the most sacred subjects, which, with his natural vigour in writing, surprises and awakens the reader at first, but will not charm when it has ceased to surprise. To talk of our Lord as the only boy who never gave his parents uneasiness, and to say that he would have been more admired if, with the common faults of man, he had been occupied in improving his own estate, &c. &c., is, in point of fact, only expressing very common thoughts in a very vulgar and improper tone and manner. The representing all the most awful institutions as mere every-day household matters, is only part of the same system, which is not the system of a man of either large, just, or accurate views. Mr. Abbott works for effect, and occasionally produces it. His chapter on the terrible vengeance of God is of this kind, but his picture is not that of the Gospel.-ED.

decision it is impossible for me to controvert-that it is my duty to reprint the papers that have appeared in the "British Magazine." If this be done, I think that I ought to give an index, and two appendixes--one to meet distinctly the accusation that Stephanus, in his folio, followed the fifth edition of Eramus, implicitly, with blind zeal; the other, to examine the text which Stephanus gave in all his editions at the two disputed verses, John v. 7, 8, which has been purposely kept as much as possible out of sight in the previous discussion. When, however, I shew my readiness to obey the injunction of these excellent men, by sitting down to write the appendixes, I must be clearly understood to make one stipulation. They must, I think, go on the supposition that the reprint would not be left to incumber Messrs. Rivingtons' ware-room. They will not, then, think me unreasonable in desiring to have a previous assurance that one hundred copies will be taken. Messrs. Rivingtons will kindly receive the names at Waterloo-place; or they may be transmitted by post to me, directed to me at Talaton, near Honiton. It is calculated that the book would cost about half-a-guinea.*

Nov. 26th, 1834.

I remain yours, FRANCIS HUYSHE.

HEAVENLY WITNESSES.

SIR,-The disquisition of Mr. Huyshe on the merits of the Stephanic text of the New Testament appears at last to be brought to a conclusion. Since you have had the liberality to say that the pages of your Magazine are open to any refutation of the statements of Mr. Huyshe, I shall not, I am sure, have miscalculated on your candour in forwarding for insertion a few remarks in reply to your correspondent, especially as both my name and my language have been introduced by him in such a way as necessarily to require from me a

short vindication.

In entering on this task, I beg to avow, once for all, that it forms no part of my design to argue the general merits of Robert Stephens, either as a critic or as a printer, nor yet of any one of his three editions of the Greek Testament. The real conflict between myself and Mr. Huyshe, or any other that may choose to follow in the rear, relates to the authenticity or spuriousness of the text of the heavenly witnesses. Therefore, whatever there may be of argument in the

*The Editor begs leave to express his hope that Mr. Huyshe will not consider himself as having given any pledge not to write any more in the "British Magazine" on the important subject on which he has bestowed so much labour and time. It is very true, indeed, that the subject requires too much accuracy and too much learning to be interesting to careless or unlearned readers. But the English church must indeed have "lost her cunning" when her sons at large can be careless or indifferent about so vital a question as the Greek text of the New Testament. This work, at all events, will always be open to him, and to others who display the same learning and the same zeal on so important a point. When such subjects deter readers or purchasers, it will be time for this and every respectable publication to cease.

papers of your correspondent referring to that question, I shall deem myself bound candidly to consider. The chaff must be scattered to the winds.

The main argument or hypothesis of your correspondent, as detailed by himself, may be reduced to this:-That Robert Stephens, for the formation of the Greek text of his first and second edition of the New Testament, in which the passage of the heavenly witnesses, as we now have it, first appeared, had in all sixteen MSS., fifteen of which were from the royal library at Paris, but the remaining one was private property; and, as he has solemnly declared, that he had not admitted into the text a single letter which was not sanctioned by the better part of his MSS. we are bound to believe, if we can rely on his veracity, that the disputed text also had the sanction of the better part of his MSS., at least of those MSS. which contained that portion of the catholic epistles. That the other sixteen MSS., or Greek authorities, of which the various lections were collated and placed in the margin of the folio, or third edition, were only the same MSS. in part, eight of which had been selected from the royal MSS. of the first set, whilst the remaining seven, together with the Complutensian edition, were obtained from other quarters. The whole argument of the hypothesis is adapted to establish the point, that though the disputed passage might stand opposed by all the MSS. cited in the margin of the folio edition; yet it must have been properly inserted in its place on the authority of at least one or more of the original set of MSS. which had been used for forming the text of the first edition. How many or which of those MSS. actually contained the passage Mr. Huyshe does not presume to decide, as these are secrets not now, if ever, to be disclosed. It appears, however, as though he would be perfectly content if it should be allowed to be contained in any one of them. In the very opening of the examination or specimen, the author's declaration is, "I claim nothing here but the authority of one of Stephanus's unmarked MSS." The Bishop of Salisbury also adds, in one of his notes, "It is sufficient for Mr. Huyshe's theory, that any one of Stephanus's unmarked MSS. may have had the verse.' In rearing his critical hypothesis, I can easily imagine how many anxious peeps the author must have taken at its giddy altitude, and how careful he must have been to provide the necessary buttresses to prevent it from being overturned by the very first assault that should put its strength to the test. I shall now proceed, with your permission, to explore its foundations.

First of all it is to be observed, that neither Robert Stephens himself, nor his son Henry, nor Beza, nor any other voucher, has thrown out the least hint whatever about a selection having been made of the MSS. for the margin of the folio, a circumstance which could not easily have happened had there been any truth in the supposition. So important a fact in the history of that edition could never have been left to be discovered, for the first time, by the sagacity of Mr. Huyshe, in the middle of the nineteenth century. If, on publishing the folio, the editor had possessed, besides the sixteen specified, other seven MSS. from the royal library, he would never have limited his remarks to the sixteen, but have boasted of the twenty-three, and have assigned

some reason why he had determined to select only eight out of the fifteen royal MSS. then in his possession, at least at his service, for the various sections of the margin. To have publicly acknowledged the use of so vast a treasure of Greek MSS. would have been no more than an act of justice due to his own editorial fame; and to have given the reason why he had been induced to make such a selection, would have been only an act of common courtesy due to the consideration of the Christian reader.

But again. Robert Stephens should seem to pretend, that his text of the Greek Testament was based, not on that of any previous edition, but entirely on the authority of his own MSS., and Mr. Huyshe stands forth as his champion to support that pretension. Now, if he printed his text wholly from the MSS., he must either have taken one of those MSS. as the basis, and only have departed from it, if ever, occasionally, or he must have given the preference to no individual MS., but have published an elective text, taken partly from one MS. and partly from another, according to the exercise of his own judgment. În either case, the whole fifteen or sixteen MSS. must frequently have stood opposed to the printed text, as no two independent MSS. can be found which do not differ from each other, more or less, in every section of their contents. Here, then, a question naturally arises, why Robert Stephens should be induced to make a partial selection to furnish opposing readings to the margin of the folio, and not rather to use the whole fifteen, which he was so fortunate as to have at the time, and which he could only have been permitted to retain as an act of special favour. Could any editor, in his sober senses, have neglected the favourable opportunity of enhancing the value of his impression by furnishing the various lections of not less than other seven Greek MSS.? If I should be told that these eight were selected to oppose the text on account of their superior value and antiquity, then I beg to ask, in what esteem we ought to hold the text if based only on the inferior MSS., and what is to become of the disputed passage when opposed and condemned by these marginal authorities? Or, if the seven MSS. kept back were actually more ancient and valuable than the selected eight, then why did he not furnish their various lections, since they must have contained many such as the more weighty and important? But, if they were all much alike, and the one set quite as good as the other, then why should the editor have been led to make so arbitrary a selection? Surely either the hypothesis or the conduct of Robert Stephens must have been a little foolish.

But further. It is the solemn attestation of Robert Stephens, reiterated by Mr. Huyshe, that he had not admitted into the text a single letter which was not justly warranted by the greater number and better part of his MSS. Now, of his unmarked MSS. we cannot reckon more than seven; Mr. Huyshe himself talks of five, which he must have had in his possession at the time of printing the folio. Of these, if we make an average calculation, not more than two or three, at the most, could have contained that portion of the catholic epistles at all, much less the passage under dispute; but there is the evidence of Robert Stephens himself that eight of his MSS., namely, seven adduced in the margin, and another which he omitted to use for that

purpose, gave the context without the passage, and so bare witness to the interpretation. What, then, I would ask, becomes of the splendid boast, even with the assumption of the hypothesis to save his honour, that he had not admitted into his text a single letter which was not fully authorized by the majority of his MSS.? I can easily conceive how nice a point it must have been for Mr. Huyshe prudently to suggest what number of the unmarked MSS. might safely be reckoned upon as containing the verse. The more astounding the assertion from the number assigned, the more glaring the falsehood from the impossibility of finding them, and from the increasing belief that they could never have existed. Some happy medium, therefore, was to be upon between too many and none at all, and that happy hit Mr. Huyshe has determined for himself to be number one, a truly modest and mannerly claim. The dupes-a favourite term with your correspondent-are left to claim two or three at their own peril; but the author of the Specimen, having an eye no doubt to the safety of his position, appears to sit down perfectly content and satisfied with the authority of one MS. for the disputed text. He does not condescend

hit

to tell us which of these MSS. it was, nor where it is now, nor whoever has seen it, as these are all irrelevant and futile questions, which do not fall within the broad line of his argument; but that the editor ought to have had, nay, must have had, at least the authority of one of the unmarked MSS. for every letter of the disputed passage he firmly maintains, and believes that he has proved it. Here, then, by embracing the hypothesis, we have a most triumphant and satisfactory vindication, yea, the very best imaginable, of the honesty of Robert Stephens. In the preface to the first edition we are solemnly assured that every letter of the text, and, consequently, every letter of the disputed verse, was strictly warranted by a majority of his MSS. The objectors, however, complain that the verse stands positively contradicted by no less than eight of his own MSS., and that it is wholly unsupported by any of the authorities which he made use of at the time, except the Complutensian edition. But that, replies Mr. Huyshe, is no argument at all; for though eight of the marked MSS. might be brought against it, yet there must have been one of the unmarked MSS. for it; and since, according to every principle of arithmetic, one must always give a majority of number over seven or eight, that, surely, ought to be received as a sufficient proof, not only of the authenticity of the passage, but of the correctness of the editor's veracity!

How far the published specimen of Mr. Huyshe's efforts can conduce either to establish the authenticity of the disputed passage, or to vindicate the veracity of Robert Stephens, I have briefly demonstrated, and others can judge. In a future communication, perhaps, I may make a few remarks on the manner in which the argument has been conducted by your correspondent, as well as on some other points connected with this controversy.

I have the honour to remain

your obedient servant,

JOHN OXLEE.

Stonegrave, Oct. 25th, 1834.