SOCIETY FOR THE PROPAGATION OF THE GOSPEL. SIR,-Viewed in connexion with other passing events, which shew, to say the least of them, an indifference to the interests of the established church on the part of the government, the withdrawal of the grant, as it has been called, to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel has excited a deep interest in those who feel the value of that venerable society. In consequence of the remonstrances of the society, it appears that the government* has consented to continue its support to our ministers and missionaries in the North American settlements for the term of their lives; and thus far an advantage is gained, that time may be afforded for devising some other provision for those valuable persons, even if an alteration in their favour may not be expected from a future administration. But my object is to draw attention to the origin of the grant, and to suggest what appears to me to be the line of conduct for the society to pursue, both as regards its own interests and the welfare of the colonies. In the first place, it must be remembered that the society originally undertook the payment of the salaries of the ministers in North America as a matter of favour to the government, who found that considerable expense and delay was incurred by the passing of the money through the hands of the colonial agents. The society made what addition its funds could afford to these salaries, and thus, in course of time, this annual payment of 15,000l. came to be considered a grant from the nation to the society, instead of being recognised, as it really was, as a payment which, as a Christian nation, we were bound to make for the religious instruction of our colonies. Now, Sir, it occurs to me that, after her remonstrances have proved almost ineffectual, the society should say to the government, "Since you are determined gradually to abandon the religious improvement of your colonies, pray take the odium on yourselves; we decline any longer to make your annual payments for you; transmit, as heretofore, the salaries of your ministers through your own agents, and let the gradual withdrawal of them be your own act and deed." Why should the society be made the cat's-paw? Surely her means of doing good have been rather diminished than otherwise by this grant, for she has had the appearance of possessing a larger income than really belongs to her. Can it be credited that about 12,000l. per annum is the utmost income of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel? or that this would continue to be the case were the fact generally known? The addition of 15,000l. from government has given her the appearance of a larger income than she really possesses, and has thus, I am convinced, been a means of injuring her. It is not to my purpose to notice the vast beneficial results which have been accomplished by this society in proportion to its means; I have merely taken the opportunity of stating my views respecting the An announcement to this effect has just been made at a meeting of the District Committee of which I am a member. grant from government, if you should think them worthy of a place in your Magazine. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, A LAYMAN. CONTROL OF CLERGYMEN OVER THE SINGERS. MY DEAR SIR,-Observing a statement going the round of the public papers, giving an account of a disgraceful scene in a church, which arose from the misconduct of the singers, I think it may prove satisfactory to some of your clerical readers, who may perhaps be unacquainted with it, to learn what was the decision of Lord Stowel respecting the entire right of the minister to direct what shall be sung, and what shall not be sung, in the course of the church service, of course under the guidance of the rubrics. I give the decision below. I am yours very faithfully, D. I. E. " Church Singing.-Lord Stowel decided that 'the right of directing the service was in the minister, and that the obstructing him in the exercise of that right was an offence which might be proceeded against in the Ecclesiastical Court."-Hutchins v. Denziloe.—Phillimore's Report, Vol. II. p. 91. VINDICATION OF THE EARLY PARISIAN GREEK PRESS. I WILL not join Hottinger in the praises by which he offends Wetsten-Prot. 147, Seml. 378, 379; I will not follow him in deprecating all attempts to improve upon Stephanus and Beza. I am ready to admit Wetsten's demand, when he says, "necesse est locum aliquem relinquant etiam aliis editionibus, prioribus illis correctionibus"-1st ed. p. 167, 2nd, ii. p. 852, iii. 2. I only deprecate their never-ceasing, cuckoo-like exertions, when once admitted into the nest, to eject the old little native proprietors. And if I do not follow Hottinger, I am still less to be carried away by the "communi eruditorum consensu," for rendering the boasts of these two men " utterly false," and making us say that they have given the world a "sophisticated text." And particularly with respect to Stephanus's editions, when Hottinger here can point out men, quorum in crisi et antiquitatis studio magnum est nomen," who certainly did attack credit to the pretensions of the editor on the formation of the text of his folio, it is a little too extraordinary for me to believe that it requires only a superficial view of the edition itself to perceive that" Stephens himself has openly contradicted his own declarations." When these men, and Du Pin, since their time, saw it stated, in a multiplicity of places in the margin, that "the MSS. cited by Robert Stephens" were all against his text, I conceive they would conclude that he must have had MSS. which he did not cite in those places, that might have furnished his text there; and I think it is not difficult to imagine what opinion they would have entertained of us, when, in these enlightened days, as we call them, we can be duped by the old popish trick which makes all "the MSS. cited by Robert Stephens," in any place, to be "all his authorities." And what if such a man as he, of whom it is said, "O doctiorum quicquid est assurgite, Huic tam colendo nomini," and who probably himself saw the book of collations, (“ Admonuit me tamen collega meus quem honoris causâ hic nomino, et cui non pauca etiam alia debeo D. Isaacus Casaubonus," Beza, note in his last ed. on Marc, v. 38,) could have heard our " railing accusations" against Stephanus, which resound in this ་ our day from all quarters, and could have been told that they are grounded on the non-existence of MSS., the readings of which are placed before our eyes by the very men who have taught us this parrot cry,-if he could have heard us asserting that Stephanus, after four years' exertions in France and Italy, had only fifteen MSS., when he declared that he began with sixteen,if he had heard us asserting that Beza only quoted the sixteen documents (printed and written) of the margin of the folio, when he gives us repeatedly the readings of seventeen written copies of the gospels, besides all those of the other three divisions,-I ask, could he have esteemed the self-glorious race as any thing better than "brute beasts, made to be taken, and speaking evil of the things that we understand not." This is not worshiping Stephanus as "a Protestant Pope;" it is not maintaining "that printer's infallibility as zealously as an evangelist's or an apostle's." His text does not stand with me" as if an apostle was his compositor." I will never extol the common printed text as if the editors themselves had been inspired (Mich. ii. 495); but I do" entertain sublime notions of Stephanus's morality" (Porson, 175). I do esteem him an honest man, who felt the sacredness of the task that he undertook, and began by declaring, "quo quidem in opere excudendo eandem qua in cæteris uti solemus diligentiam, majorem ut par erat religionem præstitimus," who accordingly was able to boast of the MS. stores which he obtained from his royal patron, and his own scrupulous fidelity in the use of them, and could silence his Sorbonne persecutors afterwards, by his second boast, in which he states the amount of this "copia,"-a man who, not content with these fifteen and what his own private interest could procure in France, sent his son to search out the treasures of Italy. And against the unequalled body of evidence for his editions, external and internal-the cloud of witnesses from the concessions of the Docti et Prudentes themselves-from facts and from the concurring state of the text of the different editions-what is it that they oppose? They depend, as we have seen, upon the assumptionthe tacit assumption by him whose judgment ever excites my admiration, but the avowed assumption by Mr. Travis's other mighty correspondent, and his follower, Dr. Pye Smith-that an editor, if he gives opposing readings, must take for that purpose all the materials from whence his text is formed, so that he cannot possibly, in any passage, have more MSS. for the formation of his text than those which are cited in the division where it occurs. This assumption, that it was impossible for an editor to make a selection for giving opposing readings is, as we have observed, in the face of the actual acknowledged selection* by Stephanus in the case of printed copies; it being admitted that I believe it is now universally admitted that Stephanus did collate more printed editions than what he took to oppose the folio. I am aware that the first of the Docti et Prudentes said otherwise-" Licet autem codices sedecim tantum comparaverit, nec omnes varietates collegerit," Morin, Exer. 2, cap. ii. 2, p. 80, ed. 1633. But perpetually as his followers are using the word " tantum," with respect to Stephanus's authorities, I am not aware that they ever apply it thus to the whole of the documents of the margin. They can then distinguish between "editio quæ fuit excusa” and “vetustissima scripta exemplaria” as decidedly as Stephanus himself did. Though we hear of various readings derived from sixteen manuscripts, with the understanding that " one of them was print," (Crito, 389) we never hear now that the sixteen of both sorts were the whole that Stephanus consulted, that "codices sedecim tantum comparaverit." As to the manuscripts with the understanding that they are print, Stephanus is now, I believe, invariably spoken of as " aiant conferé un plus grand nombre d'exemplaires, (as Du Pin said with respect to Beza and the other sort.) My argument, then, is this:-The Docti et Prudentes never follow their leader in applying "tantum" to the whole of the documents of the margin; they never say, in general, that Stephanus "codices sedecim tantum comparaverit ;' for they are aware that his having taken only one manuscript, with the understanding that it was print, to oppose the folio, was no ground for saying that he examined no the Complutensian was taken out of "omnibus pæne impressis:" it was in the face of the man's own declarations that he set out with sixteen MSS. for his first edition, viz. one more than all that he took, first and last, to oppose the folio,-in the face of both his boasts, the first, in his O mirificam, of his having given every letter of it according to the royal MSS., and the second, made formally before the Paris divines, respecting the amount of them, when he declared that they amounted to fifteen, while only eight of these royal MSS. were taken to oppose the folio that he presented to them. It is, moreover, in the face of their own avowal, that in this their assumption they cannot “abide by" the man's distinct expressions in the statements that he made, as well as their own distinct avowal, that when they identify the opposing materials of the margin with the MSS. from which the text of the O mirificam was formed, there must be an exception, by their own theory. And the imposture is, if possible, still more evident, when the learned critics come to any particular division, and above all, where they triumph most, in that of the Acts and Catholic Epistles, which was contained only in seven of the first thirteen MSS. of the margin, and where, in conformity with their assumption, their assertions are the most strong and reiterated, of Stephanus having deserted all his MSS. to follow printed guides, in any passage that is contained in none of these seven cited MSS. But as the first thirteen MSS. of the margin all failed in the Revelations, Stephanus, as we have noticed, to give any various readings in his margin, was obliged to take others, and he did take two, (1, 15,) from which, although he has given a reading or two in former divisions, there is not one single reading noted in the Acts and Cath. Ep. For this division, then, let it be remembered, nothing more is wanted than to open the folio itself in the Revelations, to see the falsity of the audacious assumption, that "if he had collated more, he would of course have quoted more." "Wetstein and Griesbach," as we are told, Letters, p. 138, note 20, "contend that Stephens collated only seven MSS. of the Cath. Ep., for this cogent reason, that Stephens has quoted only seven MSS. in the Catholic Epistles." There is not a single page in the Revelations which will not shew you the value of this cogent reason," by setting before you two MSS. that he collated, but never once quoted throughout that division of the Acts and Cath. Ep. And, to make assurance double sure-to convict them from their own mouth-one of the two fresh-selected MSS. (u), as we have seen, is that which they have identified with far the greatest certainty of all Stephanus's MSS., and which they themselves quote as containing the Acts and Cath. Ep. in different places, and (what might seem incredible) at the very moment when they are asserting, in the strongest possible manner, (" extra omnem dubitationem positum jam est") that Stephanus had only the seven cited MSS. No one, therefore, will wonder at their being fairly told by the greatest man among them—the acutest disputant the world ever saw-that they were just assuming the guilt of Stephanus ("Mr. Griesbach took this point for granted;" Porson, 58). Nor is there any great wonder that, when they were told this from such a quarter, they should cast about for some other means to accomplish their object. And to whom could they apply better, on such an occasion, than to the acute Papist who first taught the world to say that Beza's book contained the collation of only the marked MSS. of Stephanus's margin; Exer. 2, c. ii. 2, p. 80the passage quoted by Wetsten, 145, Seml. 373? Father Morin is your man: a happy insertion of his does the business. Where Stephens says "all," add the word "his;" where he says "his MSS.," in the last division, add the " more of that sort of written copies. I argue, then, that such acute men must have been equally aware that his taking only fifteen in all of the other sort of MSS. (MSS. with the understanding that they are MSS.) to oppose the folio, could give no ground for their assertion, “codices manuscriptos eum consuluisse sed quindecim tantum.” Griesbach, second ed. xvi. 3, xxviii. Lond. " word "all," and you get what they themselves so justly call "glaring evidence :" you make the man tell you more than a hundred times over, in his work itself, that he had been cheating, and giving a sophisticated text," contrary to all his MSS.; and this when they know perfectly that Stephanus could, in no case whatever, speak of more than all those of the first thirteen marked MSS. that happened to have the division in which the passage occurs. Upon these two pleas Robert and Henry and Beza are to be condemned as falsifiers and cheats, where they have pledged themselves, in the most solemn manner, to act with religious fidelity, and where they could have no motive for acting otherwise. And upon these, every Protestant in the united kingdom, except those who apply to the Imp., are to deliver up their New Testaments to the Orator of the Areopagus, for a holocaust to the Christian Evidence Society. If, however, reflecting on the firmness of primitive believers, who delivered their own bodies, rather than the sacred text, to the flames, I refuse to become a traditor to the " risus Doctorum et Prudentium," let it be observed that I feel due gratitude for the great exertions of modern editors; and as soon as you shall have ascertained the seven royal MSS. and those "in Italicis," which came into neither of the selections for the margin, and shall have ascertained that they have not become "mutilati aut laceri❞ since they were collated, you may say, with truth, "perquam exiguum esse beneficium quod textui Nov. Test. per Stephanum contigit" (Griesbach xv. Lond. xxviii.); then the learned will have some ground for the decision in which Mr. Porson tells us (p. 88) they now are agreed, that scarcely any critical benefit can be derived from" Stephanus's editions. But till all these MSS. shall have been "diligentissime collati," as Henry did collate them, a capite ad calcem," I shall say, that Bengel's decision to admit no modern collation ("ne syllabam quidem etiamsi mille MSS., mille critici juberent, antehac non receptam, adducar ut recipiam”), much, and perhaps deservedly, as it has been scorned,* is not one whit worse than that of the other Docti et Prudentes, to reject all the productions of the Early Greek Press, and the collations on which they were formed, knowing, as they do, that so large a portion of the MSS. " are at present lost, or buried in obscurity." I shall not accede to Dr. Lardner's calm decision, 1st P.S. to Letter on the Logos, §. 3, No. 24 (Works, p. 163), that the "printed copies deserve not any regard.' Fortified by the admission of one of Mr. Travis's illustrious correspondents, I shall protest against the assertion of the other, that "the early editions of the N. T. owe their chief value either to their scarcity or their splendour" (Porson, 95). Since they are" the representatives of MSS. now no longer found," but which were searched out at the time, with zeal worthy of the work that was to be edited, I shall say, that he who refuses every syllable, " antehac non receptam," and they who avow that they give their text, "nulla anteriorum editionem ratione habita," (Griesbach, xxxvi. Lond. xliv.) each wilfully reject some part of the genuine materials that exist before their eyes. And I ask, which is it that "falsarius deprehenditur"-the ancient or the modern editor? on which side is the "punica fides" that De Missy talks of in his manuscript notes on Mill, (ed. Kuster, 1723, p. 581, col. ii.) where Stephanus's conduct in his first edition is discussed? Bishop Marsh says of Stephanus's editions (Let. vi. p. 106) that "the critical pretensions which were assumed by the editor seemed to stamp on them an indelible value;" and these pretensions are verified in the most wonderful manner. The first mighty Richard of criticism says to the Archbishop (Letters, p. 232, Burney), no heathen author has had such ill fortune." But what heathen author had a twentieth part of the pains bestowed upon him, in passing through the Early Greek Press, that " Though I contend so strongly against setting aside all print and all old collations for print, I say, with Wetsten, for existing MSS., "debebat eos etiam consulere in textu omnium N. T. librorum formundo -" 157, 2, Seml. 402. |
