his rule of conduct. It was, perhaps, a bold act in Lawes at such a time to publish such a book. Milton would respect this fearlessness in his friend, and he would not hesitate-he did not hesitate to express it. He respected Lawes's honesty, he admired his talents, and under no circumstances did he hesitate to say so, adding to Lawes's name the enviable prefix of "my friend," (no words of compliment with Milton,) and affixing to this testimony his name. During the Protectorate, the friendship of Milton and Lawes suffered no abatement. The latter (most probably through his friend's influence) was permitted to hold his situation in the Chapel-no longer "Royal," and he continued to occupy it till his death in 1662, his name appearing in the list of the "Gentlemen" of the Chapel at the Restoration, together with those of Henry and Thomas Purcell, the father and uncle of the unrivalled Henry Purcell. A word more respecting Milton's Sonnet; of which I would say that it is the language of simple truth and sound and discriminating criticism conveyed in the dress of poetry. Milton sees, knows, describes his friend's peculiar excellence. He is the exception to the general rule. Other writers, ancient or modern, in prose or in poetry, rarely speak of music without betraying their ignorance of it. They deal in vague generalities, or, if they attempt any thing more, blunder. Milton, whenever he speaks of music, (and how often does the divine art present itself to his mind!) is always strictly, technically correct. Whoever is acquainted with Henry Lawes's music, and especially whoever compares it with the compositions of his predecessors, will see the truth and discrimination of Milton's commendation. Lawes was one of the earliest of the English melodists-the father of that style of writing which was successively cultivated by Purcell, Eccles, Weldon, Howard, Boyce, Battishill, Arnold and Shield; and, in that department of his art, was in no respect behind his Italian contemporaries, Cesti, Caccini and Cavalli. In this Sonnet, Milton alludes to Lawes's Cantata, "Theseus and Ariadne;" for as a marginal note (not preserved in modern editions of it) to the eleventh line, these words are added—" The story of Ariadne, by him (Lawes) set to Musick." This composition Milton must have seen in MS., for it was not published till 1653, seven years after he wrote his Sonnet. I mention this as an accidental proof of the intimacy that continued between Lawes and Milton. We may picture to ourselves (what no doubt happened) the two friends trying this composition over-Lawes inviting and Milton giving his opinion on its merits previous to its publication. I will only refer to one other circumstance, incidentally connected with the foregoing narrative. I have had to mention the name of Humphrey Moseley as the publisher of Milton's minor Poems, and of "Thy justice execute on lawless men, Thine own preserve from their pursuit." "How hath Jehovah's wrath, O Sion, spread From heaven to earth thy beauty, Israel, is thrown, "How long wilt thou hide thy face from me, How long shall mine enemies triumph over me?" Lawes's Psalms. This gentleman was the patron of the living of Ousden, in Suffolk, (at least dates, times and other circumstances lead to the conclusion that the Humphrey Moseley to whom I have referred and the patron of Ousden were the same person,) and of this living my honest and venerable ancestor, John Meadows (the brother of Cromwell's ambassador, Sir Philip Meadows), was the incumbent, until he earned for himself the distinguished honour of being numbered among "the immortal Two Thousand," to whose memories we have already paid our accustomed tribute of respect. Mr. Moseley undoubtedly continued to be a steady and consistent friend to those principles which had induced him to give to the world Milton's first productions, and which he predicted to be "ever-green, and not to be blasted laurels." In 1662 (the year of ejection), Mr. Meadows and his family found an asylum, on quitting the parsonage, in the hospitable mansion of his patron. From this digression I return to our standing toast-to which every member of this Club will, I am sure, do glad honour-JOHN MILTON. THE WRONGS OF HOLY SONG. O LORDS of Holy Song, ye souls most high! That senseless, soulless ingrates should forbear They set the fabric of their impotence O! must His praise be rescued from the wrong Too glorious is your strength, too full your harmony? But this exceeding foolishness must die; No more shall men Heaven's very lyre unstring. O Holy Fire of Heaven, come down, burn bright! And treasure all thy warmth, and grow from all thy might! T. H. G. THOUGHTS ON THE TRUE READING OF ROM. vii. 25. the Science of Sacred Criticism-investigates what are the true words of any single text: it examines all the varieties which may exist therein; and, weighing the arguments in favour of each, decides which reading the commentator or translator should prefer.-WISEMAN. THE received text of the former part of Rom. vii. 25, is, EuxapoTË TY Θεῷ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν [I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord]. For the word xapior there is at least an ostensible prevalence of authorities. The Critical Editions, however, notice other readings, that merit our attention. Such is, Xápis T eg [Thanks (be) to God], which, under a different form, conveys the same thought with the common reading, and, as far as regards the apostle's subject, is not less admissible. A second various reading presents itself: Χάρις [or ἡ Χάρις] Ιησοῦ Χριστ TOU, K. T. λ. [the Grace (Favour) of, &c.]. This involves no uninteresting change of sense, without doing injury to Paul's reasoning. Still, our first question is, whether it has preponderating support from ancient versions, manuscripts and quotations? Beyond a doubt, there is respectable external testimony in its favour.* What may be wanting in the number of the witnesses, is greatly compensated by their age and character. Giving these, nevertheless, all the advantage which they can in justice claim, we must not leave the question here. Let me, for argument's sake, allow that this kind of evidence, on each side, is nicely balanced: we have further to examine internal probabilities. Is it more likely that the received text grew out of the reading, xápis Tou, K. T. λ., or that this was framed-perhaps designedly, perhaps by inadvertence-from one or other of the readings, Exapor TY Oε× Χάρις τῷ Θεῷ ? We have examples of both forms in this very Epistle.t Some variations, therefore, might be readily and plausibly introduced. The inquiry recurs, where shall we discern it; in the printed text of the editions, or in the margin? On the principle of the lectio durior, as well as from a regard to the appearance of certain letters and the terminations of certain words, I conclude that εὐχαριστῶ, κ. τ. λ., οι Χάρις τῷ Θεῷ, is the original reading; not Χάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ. A man familiar with these things, will at once perceive how easily the latter of the two first readings might arise from what stands in the text. Here we meet with no diversity of meaning, and with only the slightest transformation of words and letters. Is this the case of the third reading? How faint the probability that Xápis To Oεou would suggest either εὐχαριστῶ, κ. τ. λ., or Χάρις τῷ Θεῷ ! On the other hand, how naturally, how rationally, may we presume on its having been itself suggested by one or both of these two readings! In the sentiment which it expresses it is preferable to them. It gives so lively and suitable a meaning, that, had it come from the apostle's pen, we could *This will be seen in Griesbach's edition of the N. T. scarcely account for its being displaced, to make room for a less animated reading. Let us attend to a further consideration: there are minute corrections of the various readings, Χάρις τῷ Θεῷ, and Χάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ,* which make me suspect that these and the accompanying diversities flow from εὐχαριστῶ. Such emendations (so they would be accounted) afford presumptive evidence of their derivation from a received and current text, which it was attempted, however, to improve. From uxapioT would come Χάρις τῳ ; and then the genitive τοῦ Θεοῦ would be readily substituted for the dative. Mr. Locke mentions this reading with great approbation: he has been swayed far more by his feeling of its intrinsic merit than by the external witnesses in its behalf. In adopting the words, "The Grace of God," &c., he follows "the reading of the Clermont and other Greek manuscripts." He adds, "Nor can it be doubted which of the two readings [viz., that of the R. T. and that of the Vulgate] should be followed by one who considers, not only that the apostle makes it his business to shew that the Jews stood in need of Grace for salvation, as much as the Gentiles; but also that the Grace of God is a direct and apposite answer to, Who shall deliver me? which if we read it, I thank God, has no answer at all; an omission the like whereof I do not remember any where in St. Paul's way of writing. This I am sure, it renders the passage obscure and imperfect in itself; but much more disturbs the sense, if we observe the illative therefore, which begins the next verse, and introduces a conclusion easy and natural, if the question, Who shall deliver me? has for answer, The Grace of God. Otherwise it will be hard to find premises from whence it can be drawn. For thus stands the argument plain and easy. The Law cannot deliver from the body of Death, i. e. from those carnal appetites which produce Sin and so bring Death. But the Grace of God through Jesus Christ, which pardons lapses, where there is sincere endeavour after righteousness, delivers us from this body that it doth not destroy us. From whence naturally results this conclusion, There is therefore now no condemnation, &c. But what it is grounded on in the other reading, I confess I do not see." † These remarks of Mr. Locke's have been fully copied out by me, on account of the importance which is attributed to them. In my own judgment, and as I shall hope to shew hereafter, he unduly magnifies the external testimony for the reading in the Vulgate, and, in the same proportion, depreciates the common reading, as inapposite to the apostle's subject and reasonings. Dr. Taylor's note ‡ on the words, "I thank God," &c., is the following: "Mr. Locke, I conceive very truly, reads here, The Grace of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ,' which reading is supported by the Vulgate and some Greek manuscripts. Certainly, it makes the best answer to the question, Who shall deliver? &c. Answ. The V. g. † Xápis Kupiov gratia Jesu Christi, Domini nostri. Iren. Griesbach. Also his Symbolæ Critic., Tom. II. 9. † On some of Paul's Epistles [in loc.]. On the Romans [Notes in loc.]. Grace of God. And thus Grace, or Favour, may be considered as a Person or Deliverer; in the same manner as Sin is considered as a Person or Destroyer." Taylor's last observations are, in themselves, very good, yet quite insufficient for proving that Xápis Toũ Oɛou should be admitted into the text. No doubt, this reading "makes the best sense." However, it is not on any such principle, taken alone, that CRITICISM frames its decisions. Mr. Wakefield contents himself with expressing his decided preference of the reading in the Vulgate. He does not tell us why; but must be considered as adopting it, in the main, for its internal value. It has been embraced with the same cordiality by Mr. Belsham,† who, nevertheless, treats of it more fully. He speaks of " the reading of the Clermont and other manuscripts, and of the Latin Vulgate," as being "ably supported by Mr. Locke," and as "best suiting the connection. The miserable slave cries, Who can help me? A voice answers, Grace: the gracious gift of God: the Gospel. This introduces a new person, who rescues the prisoner, by slaying his adversary, Sin. The common reading is comparatively tame: 'I thank God,' &c. Archbishop Newcome's note, however, is very pertinent: I am delivered through, or by means of Jesus Christ, by whom we have greater assistances, stronger motives, clearer discoveries, and more gracious terms of final acceptance." Mr. B.'s paraphrase is, "q. d. Hark! what tidings do I hear? A voice from Heaven, proclaiming deliverance! It is GRACE, the Favour of God through Jesus Christ our Lord: it is the Gospel of Peace, which is revealed through Jesus Christ, which announces liberty to the captive, and a free pardon to the penitent. I am now inspired with a glorious hope, and can yield a cheerful and sincere obedience." I shall next apply myself to a brief review of the evidence for the reading-The Grace of God. The Clermont and other Greek manuscripts and the Latin Vulgate are cited for it: this is very good authority. Not, however, that it preponderates. The Clermont may claim antiquity and intrinsic excellence. So, but in a lower degree, may the San Germanensis; and, though this latter codex is looked upon by some critics as a transcript of the Clermont, I will not now controvert its independence. No other manuscripts, of account, can be quoted affirmatively. The merits of the Vulgate are confessed. Still, we should recollect that there are ancient versions which do not contain this reading. Nor, again, is it so frequently or so decidedly quoted by the Fathers as to justify us in making it a part of the R. T. Mill [in loc.] quotes Xápis To Op, and records the conjecture that such was originally the reading in the Vulgate; and that afterwards a scribe changed Deo into Dei. In his Prolegomena [No. 679] we meet with the sentence, "nostrum εixaαpιotā, K. T. λ., est genuinæ lectionis explicatio." But in the Excerpta from the copy of his N. T. in the Bodleian Library, which copy has his own manuscript notes,§ he simply Transl. of N. T., Note. + Transl., &c. of Paul's Epistles. This may appear from what Grotius says. See below, § Griesbach, Symb. Critic., Tom. I. 264. |