Page images
PDF
EPUB

lead a man to be satisfied with measuring himself by lower standards of Christianity-such as may be found in a lukewarm age: and if he imagine that he excels these, he will congratulate himself, and be tempted to glory over others. But when we consider how decidedly and repeatedly all such glorying is discountenanced in Scripture, we shall be much afraid of a principle, which can hardly, in idea, be separated from it: They, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise."

In respect of living writers, some of whom have been mentioned in this argument, I shall leave them to defend, if they see good (which probably they will think needless), their own views and statements; but, as a writer in theology, I must say a few words, ere I conclude, in respect of the Baxters and others, who can say nothing for them selves.-I most humbly, and with shame, acknowledge, that I have never written a book, or done any thing else, in the cause of God, without feeling this desire of excelling others rising in my heart, (for it will work in men of slender genius, as well as in those of the brightest endowments): but from my inmost soul I disavow it, I abhor it; I deem my desire, in this respect, abominable in the sight of God. As to posthumous fame, it is so very a vanity, that I can hardly conceive of a true Christian deliberately allowing it. For, whether at death we go to heaven, or hell, or sink into nonentity, what can it avail us, whether men on earth adnire or execrate us? But if we can do any thing while we live, from which others may derive profit after our decease, love to God and man should prompt us to do it, as the salvation of a soul a thousand miles off, or a hundred years hence, is, in itself, of equal importance as the salvation of a contemporary and neigh. bour. I can conceive, that any good man, however eminent, may

feel the desire of honour from man, and the reputation of excelling others; but I cannot believe that he can allow himself to be influenced by it. And should I be forced by conscience to admit, that what I have written, or preached, was attempt ed from a prevailing and allowed principle of emulation; the emulation of surpassing others; I should conclude, that, whatever benefit men might derive from my labours, I should, after "having preached to others, be myself a cast-away." Simplicity of intention, in aiming singly at glorifying God by doing good to man, and at his approbation alone, and that of others, even the wisest and best of men, no further than it may be one way of the Lord's expressing his approbation, seems to me essential to the Christian's character, and to the labours of the approved minister and the writer in theology: and, though I have always found, and still do find, that I have not attained, yet this simpli city of intention ought to be sought by daily prayer, and by every possible means of attaining it. În respect of the labours of ministers, and of writers on theological subjects, the desire of that approbation which arises from genuine good derived by others from their labours, is the desire of the acceptance and approbation of God himself in one of the most evident ways in which we can in this life obtain it, and is merely a modification of the general holy emulation of that glory which cometh from God only: but the praise of surpassing other authors or preachers, even in accession to this, and much more when separate from it, is an unholy emulation, which I should think few approved characters ever allowed or acted on. He that speaketh of himself, "seeketh his own glory; but he that seeketh the glory of him that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him." John vii. 18. In respect of the sacred writers, can any man suppose that Peter wrote hisEpistles with a desire of excelling

his beloved brother Paul; or that Paul preached and wrote from the emulation of surpassing Peter, James, and John; and that the Holy Spirit of God inspired them, while in fluenced by this unholy emulation? St. Paul might surely remind the Corinthians, that he was their spiritual father, to whom they ought to attend, in preference to their plausi. ble but false teachers, without the

grovelling emulation of surpassing these false teachers, or the emulation of excelling any other persons.

But I did not purpose to notice the particular arguments of your correspondent: and having stated the outline of my views on this most important subject, I conclude my perhaps too copious a letter. Your constant reader,

T. S.

REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS.

Remarks upon the systematical Classification of Manuscripts adopted by Greisbach in his Edition of the Greek Testament. By RICHARD LAURENCE, LL. D., Rector of Mersham and of Stone, in the County of Kent. Oxford, Parker; London, Rivingtons. 1814. 8vo. pp. 135.

We embrace an early opportunity of calling the attention of our readers to the pamphlet which Dr. Laurence has lately published on the subject of Griesbach's systematical classification of MSS. in his late edition of the New Testament. We have no design of entering very deeply into a discussion of the various important questions connected with that classification; but we mean to detail the more striking features of the examination which Dr. Laurence has instituted, with the view of inducing such of our correspondents, as may be versed in this important but difficult branch of critical investigation, to favour the public with their sentiments on the whole question, which, we apprehend, is as yet very little understood. With the communications of our able but lamented correspondent, J. T. H., in our volumes for 1807 and 1809*, every biblical student

*See "the Question concerning the Authenticity of 1 John v. 7, briefly examined," vol for 1807, pp. 217, 281, and 349. Also,

among our readers is doubtless well. acquainted. They did not, indeed, touch, except incidentally, on the principal points which employ the pen of Dr. Laurence; but they very fully detailed the controversies which had taken place concerning several important passages, at the same time that they contained a general and lucid exposition of much of that preparatory history of manuscripts, versions, and readings in the Fathers, which is essential to the forming of any correct judgment on such questions. The opinion, likewise, which they expressed on the authenticity of the disputed passages, was evidently the result of calm and patient inquiry, and cannot but have materially contributed to assist our readers in their critical studies of the Sacred Volume. To these valuable papers the present article is no otherwise allied, than as it relates to the foundation on which the reasoning employed in them rests, and may therefore be considered as a continuation of the same subject; with this important difference, however, that the papers of J. T. H. were the original productions of a ripe and well-furnished scholar, replete with new and weighty deter"On the Various Readings in the principal Passages of the New Testament which relate to the Doctrine of the Trinity;" vol, for 1809, pp. 201, 269, and 341.

[ocr errors]

minations; whereas what we principally intend in this review, is to give a brief account of the labours of another, as detailed in a treatise already before the public.

The peculiar feature of Griesbach's plan, in deciding on the purity of the Greek text, consists in the arrangement of his MSS. under certain heads or classes. There are, indeed, other material divisions in his system, which Dr. Laurence will be found not to have overlooked; but the main point of all, is his plan of classification. Into the accuracy of this classification Dr. Laurence inquires; not with the design of invidiously lessening the reputation of a great name, but with the intention of cautioning the younger student from too confidently reposing on his authority, or concluding that his critical decisions have solidly determined all the points to which they have been applied. On the subject of the arrangement of MSS., Dr. Laurence does not argue against the general propriety of classifying them, if such a point be fairly attainable: on the contrary, he repeatedly acknowledges that it is a matter of high importance, and ardently to be desired: but then, he decidedly objects to the manner in which Griesbach has applied his own particular sy stem, and shews that more than ordinary circumspection is requisite in the practical application of it.

The first objection which Dr. Laurence makes to Griesbach's manner of arguing is, that, after he had laid down in his hypothesis that there are five or six classes of MSS., and in many of these classes two or more families, he confined himself, in his edition of the Testament, to three classes only; viz. the Alexandrine, the Occidental, and the Byzantine; and then hastened on to his conclusions with the same confidence as if he had brought forward all the data which his own supposition required. This is much the same, Dr. Laurence observes, as if we were to suppose the

publication of six different editions of the same work, all frequently varying in their readings from each other, and that a copy had been taken from one of them, but from which of them we are ignorant; and then should content ourselves with comparing this copy with three of the editions, neglecting altogether a comparison with the others. This objection has the greater weight, as Griesbach himself more than tacitly confesses, that, though the only solid method of investigating readings is to ascertain all the classes of MSS., yet he has found the difficulty of accurately fixing the true number of them to be so great, and has been so impeded by a deficiency of materials, that he has been compelled to take another path, shorter and less troublesome indeed, but less safe and satisfactory. This is, then, the first thing to be observed. Griesbach admits that there exists more than three principal texts, perhaps five or six; yet three only are brought by him under consideration.

Dr. Laurence proceeds, in the next place, to state, with expressions of marked disapprobation, that Griesbach, having only established what is at the best a comparative or proximate affinity of his MSS. to one out of three texts, and having ho sufficient data to determine precisely and definitively to which even of these three any particular MS. belonged, enumerates the readings of each MS. as evidences of the text to which he refers it, and employs these readings to supply the defect or augment the weight of more direct testimony. He thus assumes the proximate to be the real affinity; and from premises which would only warrant a probable inference, he draws an absolute conclusion. For if a given MS., as A, be considered, from the character of its various readings, as belonging to one out of the three texts admitted by Griesbach, surely it is no difficult matter to imagine that the same MS. might turn out to belong to quite a different

class, if the whole five or six texts, which are allowed to exist, were brought under consideration, instead of only three. So that, how ever harmless it might be to deter mine the proximate relation of a MS. to one out of three given texts, yet the case assumes a totally different character, if this comparative alliance be considered as its absolute and real one, and conjectural probability be silently allowed to usurp the place of legitimate reasoning and solid proof. We now no longer tread on firm ground. If obstacles to a complete investigation exist, we may indeed lament them, but shall surely gain little by shutting our eyes from beholding their fair character and importance. Dr. Laurence is not here to be understood as expressing any sentiment concerning the hypothesis of the five or six classes in itself; he merely argues with Griesbach on his own admissions.

Dr. Laurence has, however, further observations to offer on our critic's manner of proceeding. Griesbach refers all MSS., Versions, and Fathers to the three texts which he calls Alexandrine, Western, and Byzantine. Under the Byzantine he ranks the received text, which he considers as the most recent and least valuable of the three. In deciding on the class of a MS., he is guided by its various readings or departures from the Byzantine text. These departures he compares with those of the Alexandrine and the Western; and in whichsoever of the two he finds the sum of the agreements to exceed the sum of the differences, to that he assigns the MS., pronouncing it to be either Alexandrine or Western accordingly. If the readings of the MS. are few, and not generally coincident with either the Alexandrine or Western text, he considers it as remaining with the Byzantine. The Alexandrine text he supposes to exist m the quotations of Origen. The Western he thinks he discovers in the Latin Version, and several Greek

MSS. evidently conformable to it. Under the Byzantine he classes the common Greek text, or that adopted by the Elzevirs in their edition of 1624, and now known by the name of the Received Text. This is a fundamental part of his system. But to this Dr. Laurence decidedly objects. He conceives that a prodigious error of reasoning infects the whole. Griesbach, he thinks, having first degraded the received text from its station as an authoritative standard, and having branded it as the most recent and inaccurate of the three classes, was certainly no longer entitled to retain it as the text to which he might refer all his various readings. Had he trodden the pattı of his predecessors, and allowed the credit of the received text as a common standard, the case would have been different: but the fundamental principle which stripped it of all its superiority, and even condemned it as inferior to every other, required him to bring it down at least to the same level with the Alexandrine and Western; and thus, having no text in his eye as authoritative, to form to himself a new standard text from the comparison of the readings of all his MSS. with all his classes. In other terms, Dr. Laurence maintains that Griesbach's hypothesis obviously demanded, that, in examining the readings of a MS. his object should have been, not the character of particular deviations from the Byzantine text, but the general coincidences of a MS. with any one of the three texts above the other two; and that this would have been effected by considering the separate sums of its agreements or disagreements with all the three texts, each contrasted with the other. To this objection it may indeed be replied, that the result would have been precisely the same if Griesbach had Laken any other text, instead of the received one, as his standard. But Dr. L. silences this reply, by shewing, that such an alteration in the authoritative text would most essen

tially have altered the whole process of classification. The Doctor makes the experiment by supposing the Alexandrine to be taken as a standard. The celebrated MS. marked A varies, by Griesbach's calculation, 170 times, in the Epistles of St. Paul, from the received text; of which 170 variations, 110 agree with the quotations of Origen, or the Alexandrine text, and 60 differ from it; accordingly it is classed with the Alexandrine text in the Epistles of St. Paul. But let now the Alexandrine text be the standard, instead of the Byzantine. From the Alexandrine text the MS. A differs 156 times; of which 156 variations, 96 agree with the Byzantine or received text, and 60 differ. A must therefore now be ranked, not as an Alexandrine, but as a Byzantine MS. In other words (for it is difficult to make statements of this nature sufficiently clear), if the received text be our standard, we find in A 170 va riations; if the Alexandrine, 156: in the first case, of the 170 differences, the majority agree with the Alexandrine text and determine the MS. in question to belong to the Alexandrine class of MSS.; in the second case, of the 156 differences, the majority agree with the Byzantine text, and fix the MS. as one of the Byzantine class. The result differs, as might be expected, according to the standard of reference. Dr. L. proves the case to be similar with another celebrated MS. marked C. If the received text be the authority with which its readings are compared, it is an Alexandrine MS.; if the Alexandrine, however, be the standard text, it becomes a Byzantine. Let it not, further, be forgotten, that these very MSS. which we have called A and C, are no other than the celebrated Alexandrian and Ephrem MSS. which are considered by Griesbach as the principal and least adulterated MSS. of the Alexandrine class in the Epistles of St. Paul, and by the degree of conformity with which he regu

lates the character of other MSSTo strengthen yet more this statement, Dr. Laurence adds, that Griesbach himself, apparently little satisfied with this part of his theory, suggests an additional mode of calculation in examining the Colbert MS. marked 17, which, though it makes no difference in the character of that particular MS., yet, if applied to A and C, would dismiss them both, on his own principles, from the Alexandrine class.

Nor is this all, formidable as the case already appears. Dr. Laurence has hitherto supposed his author to be correct in the number of various readings which he assigns. But the fact turns out to be, that very serious inaccuracies have escaped him. A circumstance on which Griesbach lays much stress, is the union of the Alexandrian and Ephrem MSS. (A and C) with Origen in seventyfive out of eighty-eight places, leaving only thirteen differences. These differences, however, Dr. Laurence, by a diligent investigation, finds to amount to the number of thirty. One or two other examples of surprising incorrectness are then produced in other parts of Griesbach's edition, which tend to prove that we must not place too much confidence in the supposed accuracy of his calculations. Dr. Laurence, on making these discoveries, determined himself to go through the tedious work of comparing the various readings of the MS. A with the text of Origen published in the second volume of the Symbola Criticæ. The result is, that, even refering to the received text as a standard, the agréements of the MS. A with Origen or the Alexandrine text are, not as Griesbach calculates, one hundred and ten, and the disagreements sixty; but the agreements one hundred and fifty-four, and the disagreements one hundred and forty; leaving little or no preponderance in favour of that class, the Alexandrine, to which Griesbach · assigns it. But if the Alexandrine text be taken as the standard in

« PreviousContinue »