hand, and with St. Paul's introduction and short conclusion on the

other.

Prov. xxv.

21. If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink :

22. For thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head, and the Lord shall reward thee.

Rom. xii.

19. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath for it is written, Vengeance is mine; will repay, saith the Lord.

20. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink; for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

21. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Now, does it not stand in sound reason that, as contained alike in the word of truth, the above common text, together with its adjuncts on each side, must hold, one with another, a perfect agreement and consistency: that is to say, that the act of "heaping coals" must agree with the "overcoming evil with good," and with that, likewise, be one which the Lord may approve and reward. For what purpose does the apostle employ the quotation but to enforce his dissuasion, equally affectionate and solemn, from every deed or thought of vengeance? Yet this he does, according to certain expositions, by instigating an act intentionally malignant, so that under the specious affectation of good, the person whom we may suppose aggrieved, draws down upon the aggressor that vengeance of Heaven, which he is forbidden to encroach upon, overcoming evil by accomplishing the destruction of the aggressor, and then looking for the promised reward of his unhallowed largess. On this view of the subject, and as in the person of those arguers with whom he was once disposed to agree, nothing can be more candid, in my opinion more convincing, than the Bishop's language, or more undeniable than the stated conclusion.

Let us proceed to examine what there is in the metaphor before us so appalling as to seem to militate against Christian goodness."

With those milder interpreters' who have recourse to the crucible, merely as typifying the desired result, I do not agree in merging the idea of pain. I would grant that the heaping of coals of fire on the head of the adversary denotes pain, but yet no other pain than what the true Christian need have no qualm in producing-the pain of a relenting heart, the pang of awakened generosity acting upon a wounded conscience. Supposing, then, the beneficent procedure successful, the text seems to furnish a triumphant argumentum ad hominem † in reply to any disciple of the world's school, who might have urged resentful measures of a very different kind. Tell me not of schemes of vengeance: the Christian's retaliation probes the deepest, and the victory it seeks to gain is of all the most complete. Nor is it necessary, in the explanation of proverbial language, to contemplate the occurrence of that impenetrable hardness of heart against all conciliation or repentance which,

The single inverted commas refer to words or expressions which occur in the Bishop of Chichester's sermon.

For argumentum ad hominem see Index to Hey's (Norrisian) Lectures.
VOL. III.-March, 1833.

20

however frequent, charity would forbid us in any given instance to take for granted. Thus whilst man in his responsibility fulfils the precept, not from enmity, but from love, (he being, however, an instrument in the hands of a superior ruler,) I have no objection to admit that the heaping coals of fire may always' denote 'infliction of punishment from the Almighty.' In the full acknowledgment of God's perpetual providence, be it so. But why, therefore, is it of necessity judicially destructive? why not simply corrective, as the furnace, Deut. iv. 20, Isa. xlviii. 10, Jer. xi. 4; and fire as that of the refiner, Malachi, iii. 10? See also Matt. iii. 11, Mark ix. 49. By whom else, in fact, is the pain of remorse and contrition inflicted upon sinning mortals, whoever may be the ostensible agent, but the invisible Disposer who alone ordereth all things, even to the unruly wills and affections of sinful men? But here we are all "of one mind."

Those who take their exposition from the laboratory might refer, perhaps, with advantage to the verse in Proverbs immediately preceding, as, from its proximity, seeming to indicate a continuation of thought, but surely with still greater advantage to the terrific imagery of Ezekiel, xxii. 18, and following verses, which, though in such vivid colours picturing the Divine wrath, no one would dare interpret as denoting utter extinction (for in the gathering, at Jerusalem, Israel evidently comprises Judah) without a remnant left. Had the "melting of the heart like wax" occupied the place of coals burning on the head, the passage, from the greater triteness of the simile, would scarcely have provoked discussion; yet, reduce both figures to reality, and the sufferer would have little to choose between them. But neither in the case of nation nor of individual would I lose sight of the destructiveness which we naturally attach to the element of fire. Only let it have its proper object, not (at least as far as human volition is concerned) the person of the offender, but the "dross," the inherent evil, the depraved affection. "Infectum exuratur scelus.”

If these remarks are just, their application will be extended to other passages, which, though not canonical, are very properly referred to as illustrative. But the 17th and 18th verses of Prov. xxiv., from the manner of his Lordship's appeal to them, require a more particular examination. 66 Rejoice not when thy enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth, lest the Lord see it and it displease him, and he turn away his wrath from him." The acknowledged difficulty of the latter verse seems to hang upon the particle lest, and may, perhaps, be entirely removed by restricting it to one of its common senses, as the only one admissible in the place. The use of it, as of its representatives in different languages, is surely not at all uncommon, when a contingence is denoted of importance to mention, but in nowise produced by any beforementioned act, real or supposed. To say, then, that it is here introductory to any consequence, as of effect from cause, may be found to be a gratuitous assumption. I advise a young friend to remain at home on a certain day lest his father be displeased, and something happen which, though not at all depending upon his absence, yet, if then occurring, would cause him mortification too obvious to require stating. The following, then, I would venture

to propose as a paraphrase of the passage-"Rejoice not, &c.," for times may alter; yourself as well as your enemy are in the hands of God; his prosperity may be restored; yours, through the justly incurred displeasure of the Almighty may be removed, and then what will become of your short-lived triumph? with what shame and confusion of face when you see him shall you then be covered? That this would be the thought which would instantly occur to Jewish readers, may, I think, be inferred from Micah vii. 10, confirmed by a great variety of other texts with more or less of parallelism, which any concordance may supply, e. g. Job viii. 22; Psalm lxxxvi. 17, cxii. 10.

That either King Solomon, or an apostle when he inculcated the best course of action, should suggest, amongst others, motives' not exactly the best,' considering the very different modes of instruction in which the spirit of truth has condescended to make its appeal to the human heart, may readily be allowed; but that in any instance the same spirit should suggest one essentially, however slightly, corrupt, would imply a contradiction in terms to suppose. And more particularly with regard to the personal character of St. Paul; that under any inducement he should be content to compromise for the reservation of a single corner of the heart, where an evil affection might yet linger, is what I cannot imagine. Would he not think it compromising that universal law of love, which no writer has ever more energetically enforced? Or can we suppose him at variance with James ii. 10? Not only when he is directly exhorting or giving precepts, but when even yielding to a weaker brother, when waving non-essentials, when becoming all things to all men, or when speaking after the manner of men, is not this principle in his own language, "the fulfilling of the law," virtually always avowed, always inculcated, always acted upon? With a mind thus affected, and so strongly evidenced in his writings, I can no more than the self-named Amathes conceive any qualification' of the Divine precept, which forms the very burden of the paragraph he is writing, under any circumstances compatible.

I am, Sir,

Your grateful reader,

S. S.

VINDICATION OF THE EARLY PARISIAN GREEK PRESS.

To the Editor of the British Magazine.

SIR, Mr. Greswell's view of the Early Parisian Greek Press, in my opinion, makes a most valuable addition to English literature. The press, when it was first applied to Greek and Latin, had an effect, naturally to be expected, but very little attended to-the destruction of the documents which it followed.

The multiplication of the printed copies took away the value of those written ones; and when future editions wanted them, they were many of them no longer to be found; they existed only in the printed copies.

Hence the high value of early editions, and the absolute necessity of a full investigation of the character and circumstances of the persons who superintended these editions. The learned have not been without this aid; but it has hitherto been confined to them, and has been made such a matter of dry detail, that few will make further use of such works than mere books of reference. Mr. Greswell, by mingling the history of the times, which really belongs to the subject, has the high merit of producing a book that will inform and please every reader.

In the "View," however, "of the Greek Parisian Press," there is one point which ought most deeply to interest all-viz., its editions of the Greek Testament. And this concerns not only those who read the received Greek text, but all who accept the authorized version as the Word of God. I was pleased, therefore, at observing so large a portion of Mr. Greswell's work employed in the lives of Robert Estienne and his son Henry; to whom sacred criticism is under such deep obligations; but to whom such a measure of black ingratitude and foul aspersion has been repaid. In this work of unceasing defamation, it is with feelings of deep shame I say it, England has been pre-eminent. The prince of critics, who once dreamt of taking an incomparably higher place in sacred criticism than even that which he obtained in classical, could say (Phileleutherus Lipsiensis, xxxii) "The present text was first settled, almost 200 years ago, out of several MSS., by Robert Stephens, a printer and bookseller, at Paris," and in his celebrated letter to Archbishop Wake, April 1716, "After the Complutenses and Erasmus, who had but very ordinary MSS., it has become the property of booksellers. Robert Stephens's edition, set out and regulated by himself alone, is now become the standard. That text stands as if an apostle was his compositor," (p. 232, Burney.) The last and still greater Richard, can talk of "the craft of printer and editor," Letters to Travis, p. 56; and again, p. 58, of editors and printers practising, "the tricks of their profession." His Vindicator, Crito Cantabrigiensis, p. 396, speaks of "the old printer." Bishop Marsh, also, (Lectures, vi. p. 106) of the editions of Robert Stephens, "a learned bookseller and printer at Paris." I have no more wish for " a protestant pope" in sacred criticism, than any of these great men. I have no more desire for "Prescription" than Wetsten had, vol. ii. p. 852, 1st ed. p. 166; but I deprecate the wilful rejection of any one of the means of obtaining the true text; and I feel deep obligations to Mr. Greswell for letting the world see "what a printer and editor" was in 1546-1550; by which, perhaps, they may be induced to examine on which side the tricks of trade actually lie; and when I observed Mr. G.'s undertaking, in the contents of his thirteenth chapter, I turned to it in high hopes that his commendation of the Parisian Greek Press would be no longer confined to classical literature, when he so justly says, (Preface, p. v.) " Many of its primary productions commend themselves to the learned of our times, as the representatives of MSS. now no longer found." When I was told that we should have the "honesty of Robert vindicated from the imputations of Mr. Porson," I expected to see the fact distinctly

shewn that more than one half of the MSS. out of which "the printer and bookseller" "settled the present text, almost three hundred years ago, have never yet been ascertained." Such I distinctly and fearlessly say is the fact; for the story of Stephanus's editions is simply this: Upon his petition to his high-minded patron, Francis I., he was accommodated with the use of fifteen MSS. from the royal library; out of these, and some one private MS., he formed the text of the "O mirificam," of 1546. This stock he nearly doubled while he was preparing for the glory of his life, the folio of 1550; and when the text of that splendid edition had been formed from it, he selected seven of the fifteen royal MSS. and six of the private, numbered 2-14, to give opposing readings to his first volume (the Gospels and the Acts) which together with those of one of the previous editions, No. 1, are given in the inner margin. As a sufficient number of these thirteen MSS. contained the epistles of St. Paul, and the remainder of the third part of the sacred text (the catholic epistles) there was no alteration made in the opposing materials for giving various readings thus far, in the second volume. But in the Revelations (the 4th part of the sacred text) all the thirteen of the first selection failed. A new selection then became necessary, and No. 15 was taken out of the royal MSS., and No 16 out of the private MSS., with the printed edition, to furnish opposing readings to the new text, there. A reading or two was given from each of the two last selected MSS., in the previous part of the work, probably (as I have imagined) to shew that the royal MS., No. 15, contained the whole of this second volume; and that the private one, No. 16, contained the whole New Testament. The original set of MSS. then amounted to little more than half of what were obtained in the whole, for the text of the folio; and exactly half of that set, (viz., eight of the royal MSS.) and about one half of those that were obtained afterwards, together with the Complutensian print, made up the set that was taken first and last to oppose the text of the folio in the marginal readings. Such was the theory of a pamphlet entitled "Specimen of an intended publication &c.," namely, that Stephanus had fifteen MSS. from the royal library, but that he had, in all, 16 MSS., "posterioribus diebus," for the first edition of 1546; that these were increased, as might naturally be expected, by his keeping his son so long searching the libraries of Italy, to thirty, and more, for the folio; and that a selection was made out of the whole, to furnish opposing readings in the margin. This was so natural in itself-it so perfectly accorded with every fact that had been obtained from every source-it so perfectly corresponded with the internal evidence of the editions themselves, that Crito Cantabrigiensis and the rest of the families of the Critos, had no means of meeting the pamphlet, but by representing its theory to be that Stephanus had only two sets of documents, and that the documents of the one were wholly different from those of the other, one of these sets being for the margin of the folio, the other to furnish the varying text of all the editions. And it was easy for them to knock down this monstrous fiction of their own when they had set it up.

No critical reader can need to be told that the hypothesis which,