by the zeal and ability of Stephanus's enemies, has passed current during the 18th and the 19th century, if not earlier, makes him to have had the opposing documents of the margin for the formation of all his editions, and nothing else. I have never been able to discover any reason for this hypothesis, but that it serves to convict him of the most gross violation of the sacred text. It goes on the assumption that he could not select any documents, printed or manuscript, to oppose the text of his folio of 1550, but what he had used for forming that of the 16mo of 1546. And this involves another assumption, viz. that he could not have added one single copy to his original stock during those four years. Moreover it carries falsehood upon its face: the very first document of the set selected for the margin was the newly-printed Complutensian, whilst that from which the text of the "O mirificam had been compiled, consisted of 16 very old written

copies.

Mr. Porson, however, proceeds upon this hypothesis in the heavy charge, which Mr. Gresswell records, p. 328-" Another instance of this management, says our learned professor, may be seen in the preface to the first edition of Robert Stephens's Nov. Test. Gr. (anni 1546, in 18mo), where he says, that he has not suffered a letter to be printed, but what the greater part of the better MSS., like so many witnesses, unanimously approved. This boast (adds Mr. Porson) is indeed utterly false, as all critics agree, who have taken any pains in comparing Stephens's editions. They know that Stephens has not observed this rule constantly, because his editions often vary from one another, and his third edition often from all his MSS., even by his own confession." p. 57.

"As all critics agree," says Mr. Porson. Yes; all our modern critics do agree that the solemn profession of Stephanus, of Erasmus, of the Complutensians, of all those who published the old critical editions, shall be utterly false." They cannot decide precisely what degree of authority is due to each of these editions, in their calculations of evidence for their own texts; so they solve the difficulty by determining to give none to any one. All critics agree that the boast of all the early editors is "utterly false." I do not hesitate to say that the world never saw a more atrocious conspiracy than this; and I did hope that the historian of the early Parisian Greek Press would have enabled me to add-nor a more infamous one. How does he rebut it in the case of Stephanus ?

"Now an advocate of Robert's may be permitted to ask in reply, Can it then be fairly deduced, from the above cited words of that preface, that he either boasts, or pledges himself to a resolution never to vary at all in any successive edition from the first? Those words cannot surely be so understood." p. 329.

Can an advocate of Robert content himself with this mere negative? When Robert pledges himself to a resolution "not to give a letter that is not sanctioned by the greater part of his best MSS., did he not pledge himself to vary whensoever the preponderance of his increasing evidence varied in favour of a different reading from that which he gave at first? Might not the advocate have said, with perfect

justice, that in any case except that of old critical editions of the Greek Testament, the simple circumstance that the editions often vary from one another" would have been held to be sufficient proof that the materials from whence they were formed had varied? Yes; the editions themselves say, that the hypothesis of the identity of the materials "is utterly false."

Your's faithfully,

FRANCIS HUYSHE.

Talaton, near Honiton, Feb. 11, 1833.

(To be continued.)

PROMETHEUS VINCTUS.

To the Editor of the British Magazine.

SIR,-An awful responsibility attaches to those who are engaged in the tuition of youth. If the pupil be not at an early age duly imbued with reverence for the Holy Scriptures,-if he be allowed or encouraged to look upon them only as he would upon any merely human production, and not as an inspired work, as the word of GOD, directing him in the way of salvation, and furnishing him with the principles of his faith and practice, the loss of an immortal soul may be the result of his preceptor's negligence, and severe will be the account demanded at the hands of him who has so unfaithfully discharged his important trust!

I have been led into these reflections by having lately read an edition of the Prometheus of Æschylus, forming part of the "School Classics." I am well aware that to review editions of classical works forms no part of the design of your excellent miscellany; but I conceive the following remarks will not be inconsistent with your plan of supporting the principles of Christian faith and Christian morality in general, no less than the doctrine and discipline of the United Church of England and Ireland in particular.

That many of the fables of pagan mythology are nothing more than perversions of scriptural truth is evident to all who are acquainted with the elaborate works of Grotius, Dickinson, Gale, Bryant, and Ireland. Perhaps in some of these the inclination to trace the resemblance has been occasionally carried too far. These perversions it is advantageous to the pupil to be called upon to deduce, or for the master to point out. But this should be done with that reverence which is due to the truth, and particularly to revealed truth. That this is not the case in the "Prometheus, designed for the use of Schools and Colleges," I now proceed to shew; and am sorry that I have to point out a levity and flippancy in some of the remarks which render the intentions of the writer (to use the mildest term) very equivocal.

Note on ver. 4-" While Vulcan was said by some to be the son of Juno alone, there were certain ἀστεῖοι, οἱ μὴ τῆς "Ηρας μόνης υἱὸν αὐτὸν ποιοῦντες, ἀλλὰ ὁμοῦ μὲν Ἥρας καὶ Διὸς, πλὴν ἀπὸ κλεψιγαμίας, ὅτε φίλους λήθοντε τοκῆας εἰς εὐνὴν ἐφοίτων : a solution similar to that which

has been given by some who deny the divinity of Christ." And in the Additions, p. 128, "To the instances of Vulcan and Typho, both said to be born of Juno alone, may be added the tradition respecting Servius Tullius and Ancus Martius, the former of whom, says Seneca, had no father,—the latter, no mother. In like manner, Melchisedec is said to be ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ, ἀγενεαλόγητος, in Heb. vii. 3."

Ver. 258, "The truth is, we have here a lacuna, arising from another act of pious fraud on the part of a person anxious to conceal the fact, that Prometheus did, before Christ, tell man not to think of his death, by teaching him the existence of another and a better world." Ver. 295, "And, he might have added, as the gates of heaven possessed, when they opened, of their own accord, to let a deity pass through, as sung respectively by Homer, IX. E. 749, and David, Lift up your heads, ye everlasting doors, and the King of Glory shall come in; and as the sea was said to part, of its own accord, when Neptune, IX. N. 29, or Moses, wished to pass through it."

Ver. 367, "Places struck by lightning were considered holy, and consecrated by the sacrifice of a young ram. Such probably was the spot chosen by Abraham for the sacrifice of Isaac."

Ver. 608, "At the very first appearance of Io, Prometheus gives a proof of his miraculous powers by mentioning, not only the father of Îo, whose name she had not stated, but also a part of the story relating to Juno's hatred, which Io had not even indirectly hinted at. In like manner Christ gave a proof of his superhuman power, when he told the woman, whom he had never seen before, how often she had been married."

act.

Ver. 874, "'Erapur, touching. This was a religious and medical

Hence persons are confirmed by the imposition of the hands of a bishop, and people touched by a king as a cure for the evil." Ver. 902. 'EXEλe. This, like the Allelu-jah, is generally the shout of joy; here of pain."

Ver. 959, "For thus the three rulers of things above, round, and under the earth, the Trinity in Unity of the Pagan creed, are threatened with destruction at the appearance of a future Redeemer."

Ver. 1057, "This account of Prometheus going down to hell, and rising again, bears a remarkable resemblance of the descent of Christ into hell; an event, which, as it is nowhere mentioned in gospel history, is a subject, as Butler observes, of extreme obscurity to Christians."

I make no comment on these extracts. I merely ask, whether the book that contains them is fit to be admitted into any seminary of sound learning and religious education ?

I am, Sir,

January 21, 1833.

Your obedient servant,

T. E.

SIR,-You have often admitted into your Magazine extracts from the writings of Dissenters; it remains to be seen whether you will admit a Dissenter's direct communication.

I request the insertion of this letter as an act of justice. The manner in which you treat it will shew whether your "notions of justice" are" exactly like those of other people."

In an article on Dissenting Journals, published in your Magazine for January, you notice the works of a Dissenter who has, you say, lately been publishing several pamphlets, under the name of Fiat Justitia; you accuse him of having " unhesitatingly stated that Socinianism was common among the clergy;" and you add, that "when pressed for proof, he does not venture to say that he ever knew a Socinian clergyman, but tells us of a nameless M.P. who has heard of such things, but says that he has only heard of them, and knows nothing about them!" Well may you add, "this is Christian and

candid indeed."

Now, will you allow me to ask, 1. What pamphlets has Fiat Justitia published? I have seen two,-the first a letter to Mr. Noel, and the second, "Two Letters' in reply to criticisms upon the former one; but as you state there are several, and as I have been unable to find any statement, in either of the two I have mentioned, which at all amounts to any thing like an unhesitating assertion that Socinianism is common among the clergy, I am induced to think that you must have attributed to Fiat Justitia some publication of which he is perfectly innocent. It would certainly be unchristian and uncandid, without further proof, to accuse you either of invention, or of wilful or careless misrepresentation.

2. As the following quotation from Fiat Justitia's letters is so directly opposed to your statement, that he makes insinuations only upon hearsay evidence, I can only hope that it escaped your notice. It would neither be Christian nor candid to suspect that you purposely omitted it :

"This statement seemed to me to be warranted by my knowledge of books published by clergymen, in which Socinian and Arian errors were insinuated or avowed; and by my recollection of individuals who had been known to hold those errors, one of whom I particularly remembered as having been, while he lived, not only a professed Socinian, but an annual subscriber to a Socinian association."

3. Allow me to remind you, that Fiat Justitia's pamphlets are not unprovoked attacks upon the church, but simply appeals to certain parties "clamorous about their consciences," founded on facts which are notorious enough to all who have even a tolerable acquaintance with books and men.

To affect ignorance of these things cannot serve the church of England; to be angry with those who bring them forward, is neither wise nor courteous; to attempt evasion or denial, is neither candid nor VOL. III.-March, 1833.

2 P

Christian. Truth is not the exclusive possession of any sect or party. Fiat Justitia has fearlessly and faithfully animadverted on the practices of his own party, and in so doing he has acted wisely in his generation. The best friends of the church of England are those who will go and do likewise.

I am, Sir, yours, &c.

A DISSENTER.*

The

There can, of course, be no doubt from what quarter this letter comes. kind and charitable tone in which it is written does peculiar honour to the writer. With respect to its contents, the Editor would only say, that having read a Letter to Mr. Noel, a Reply to a Churchman, and a Reply to a Dissenter, all by Fiat Justitia, he had forgotten or overlooked the important fact, that the last two were published together, and therefore spoke of several tracts, when, in compliance with that strict accuracy required of him, he should have said three, two being published together. Next, as to the charge of overstating what Fiat Justitia says about Socinianism in the church-F. J. calls on Mr. Noel, if he would act in consistence with his determination to leave the Bible Society because there are Socinians in it, to leave the church for the same reason. The terms in which Fiat Justitia speaks are these, among others (p. 13), "You are a minister of what is usually denominated the Church of England" (the phrase is worth notice); "by being so, I mean to affirm that you are associated with Socinians, and acknowledge them as brethren, in a way which far more deserves your attention than your union with them in the Bible Society." (p. 14) "There are such (Socinians) among its members; and, what is worse, among its ministers too. You are associated with these men as functionaries and fellow workers together in the same body," &c. "So long as you continue in the church, you, by that act, sanction their Socinianism; you do what you can to support and substantiate their ministerial pretensions," &c. "Why do you not come out of it? Why do you not flee from a confederacy with those that are disloyal to your Lord," &c. Unquestionably these expressions (and there are many more of exactly the same strength) do not, when an artful disputant turns round on those who complain of them, enable the complainant to say that the disputant has said that half or one-fourth of the clergy are Socinians. But no two honest men will probably differ as to the effect which such expressions would have, and were meant to have. Did they mean to convey only the impression that there may be half a dozen covert Socinians among the ten or twelve thousand ministers of the church of England? Afterwards, too, one finds this very scrupulous and exact gentleman protesting that his conscience would not allow him to go into the church of England, as he should be compelled to acknowledge, as ministers of God, "hundreds of others who are utterly ignorant of the gospel, or who habitually pervert it, and whose influence on the piety of the people is like a blight and a curse." So that Fiat Justitia, notwithstanding his extreme mildness, and meekness, and candour, can speak in tolerably general language, and in what we "of the usually denominated church of England" should call rather strong terms. Altogether, however, let it be said that Fiat Justitia writes far more like a gentleman, and with more power than any one whose works the Editor has happened to see on that side of the question. But, still, he is to be viewed with extreme suspicion. The pamphlets are worth reading, as shewing the feelings of persons extremely dissatisfied with dissent, and yet hating the church. He tells the Evangelical clergy that their professions of catholic love to the dissenters are viewed with distrust by the dissenters. He wishes all the Evangelical clergy to secede in a body; is very angry that the church is so schismatical as not to admit all ministers to preach in her pulpits; and hints that, in his opinion, a division of church property among all sects would be good. By the way, one who is so very desirous of exactness, should not have perverted an opponent's words so utterly as to make him say he should not object to a Socinian joining in prayer with him, when he really said that he should not object if a Socinian would join in His prayer.