ing the degrees of probability. A hasty inspection has furnished us with the following, some of which are precisely parallel to the one in Timothy; Rom. ii. 17. vi. 1. x. 1. xi. 19. 1 Cor.i. 29. iv. 2. v. 13. 2 Cor. ix. 10. xii. 19. Philip. ii. 30. iii. 12. 1 Thess. ii. 14. Several hundreds no doubt may be found of these minute variations in the course of the work.

In this text where every little circumstance is made of importance, we should be glad to know Griesbach's final judgment of the probability attached to the reading Os. But to ascertain this, the circumstance that the preface of the manual edition bears date April 1805, and that of the critical edition April 1806, is nothing to the purpose. For it appears from the preface to the 2d vol. of the critical edition, (p. iv.) that this volume had been begun in the year 1799, and in that year the book of Acts was printed. From p. vi. it appears also, that the catholick epistles, which constitute the latter part of this 2d vol. had been sent to the printer, before Griesbach had received White's edition of the Philoxenian version, which was published in the year 1800. It appears therefore that the greater part of the 2d vol. was printed long before this manual edition, and therefore the latter has every claim to be considered as containing the last results of Griesbach's studies. The reason of the delay in completing the 2d vol. of the large edition is explained in the preface.

If the reviewers in the Panoplist had carefully read even the preface to the manual edition, they might have explained this difference of dates. It there appears that the manual edition, with its preface bearing date 1805, was then first published in Germany incomplete, i. e. without the Catholick Epistles and the Apocalypse. "Although," says Griesbach, (p. viii. Ed. Cant.) "this edition is not yet finished, but I am still employed in revising and forming the text of the Catholick Epistles and Apocalypse, yet, as I have poor health and bad eyes, and should not be able within many months to bring this troublesome labour to a close, I have concluded to publish in the mean while the first volume embracing the four gospels, and the former section of the 2d volume, containing all Paul's epistles; and the remainder will appear as soon as possible, with the 2d vol. of the Editio Halensis, and the rest of Göschens' splendid work."

Thus it appears that the text of the manual edition, through the greater part of the volume, is really subsequent to the critical edition; which was many years in passing through the press; and that the dates of the two prefaces differ in consequence of one's being written when the work to which it is prefixed was unfinished, and the other's being delayed till the large edition was completed, ready for publication, and all printed off. As to the reading which has given rise to all this suspicion, it may be fairly conjectured, even from the large critical edition, that Griesbach considered the reading Oos as less probable than he has intimated this by placing first in the inner margin, though Oss was the received reading, and therefore entitled to the first place, if it had been equally probable with the other in the opinion of the editor.-Now if, as we conjecture, he considered eos less probable than ỏ, he had no method of marking this shade of difference in the manual edition, but by the position of 5 among the various readings; after with the same mark of probability; or before i, without any mark, as he had none signifying less to prefix. He has adopted the latter method; and we presume for sufficient reasons. The only errour in the case is, we suspect, our own want of attention to the subject.

Before we leave this topick, however, we would hint to those who use the manual edition, not to be surprised at finding its text occasionally differing from that of the large. Griesbach, whose caution is worthy of all praise, sometimes retained words in the text of his critical edition, which in his opinion ought rather to be referred to the inner margin; at the same time printing the words, which he really preferred upon the whole, with a particular mark in the inner margin. Speaking of the contents of this margin, he says (vol. 1. p. xciii.) "quicquid minusculo charactere expressum est, lectioni vulgo receptae a nobis vel praefertur, vel aequiparatur, vel ulteriori saltim examine dignum judicatur." Now in many of these cases, where the authorities are very nicely balanced, Griesbach has in this manual edition followed more decidedly his own preference, and taken the reading of the inner margin into the text:-so that the text of the manual edition is not verbatim the same with that of the Editio Halensis. We have before observed that slight shades of probability appear to be

differently marked in the two editions in many cases. The only effect of this should be to induce the reader, where he finds any difficulty, to consult the large edition for the authori

ties.

Here we hoped to close our remarks, as far as relates to the vindication of Griesbach ; but the Panoplist, in another number, has called our attention to the verse of the three heavenly witnesses, and thinks, indeed, "that it is worse than rashness to speak so contemptuously on this subject as we have done." In reading the remarks of the reviewer on this, as well as the other texts, we have been often reminded of a passage quoted by Marsh from Bengel; "male strenuos ii se praebent in bellis Domini, qui ita animum inducunt : Dogmati elenchoque meo opportunus est hic textus: ergo me ipse cogam ad eum protinus pro vero habendum, et omnia quae pro eo corradi possunt obnixe defendam.

It seems that these gentlemen think, that the controversy on the authenticity of this verse is not yet settled; and particularly, that the "matter is brought anew upon the tapis," by some late "investigations" of Mr. Butler and Dr. Middleton.

We were not ignorant of what had been said on this text, by both these modern scholars; but notwithstanding the opinion of the Quarterly Reviewers, and of the Panoplist itself, we are not sure, that any increase of probability has been gained for this interpolation. It has been the fate of this memorable verse, to have its advocates successively driven from all the intrenchments, in which they hoped to make a final stand; and we are much inclined to suspect that the argument from the African Confession, and from the use of the Greek article, which Messrs. Butler and Middleton seem disposed to maintain, will share the same fate with Stephens' semicircle, the MSS. of Valla, the Codex Ravianus, and other auxiliaries, which have successively been put to flight, or have been turned against their employers.

Charles Butler, Esq. whose letter to Professor Marsh the reviewers in the Panoplist have printed as containing a new view of the argument for the controverted verse, drawn from the Confession of African Bishops, is an English Roman Catholick, of learning and candour; but it is easy to see, that his reluctance to give up the text is in a great measure owing to

the bias of his communion in favour of the Vulgate which contains it, and of which it is, if the expression may be allowed, a favourite child. What reply Dr. Marsh may choose to make to his letter, we know not. We have not yet heard of his having given it any publick notice; but any man who is acquainted with the controversy will perceive, that Butler has brought forward no new facts; nor, as we can discover, has he presented the old ones in any stronger light. He professes, indeed, to give the arguments of the opposers of the verse, against the fact in question; but any one who reads Porson's and Griesbach's observations on it, will see, that he has stated their arguments neither fully nor fairly. Proceeding as he does upon the presumption, that the catholick bishops without doubt actually read, signed, and presented the confession containing a quotation of the disputed verse, according to the relation of Victor Vitensis, he asks triumphantly, "now, is it probable the catholick bishops would have exposed themselves to such indelible infamy ?" i. e. as to quote the verse if it were really spurious,

There is not a single argument in Mr. Butler's letter, which had not been already brought forward by Travis, and considered by Porson and Griesbach—and it would really be tedious to transcribe, or to abridge the replies of these learned men on this article. We will only observe, that, before this African confession can be offered as good authority for the existence of the verse in the Latin copies at the end of the 5th century, the advocates for the verse must give some answer to the following questions, 1. Is the authority of Victor, whose history is full of absurdities, to be depended on, especially as he contradicts himself and the edict of Hunneric in his statement of this very transaction? 2. Who was the author of this confession? Victor does not say. Gennadius attributes it to Eugenius, the head of the bishops; but internal evidence makes it probable to have been a forgery of Vigilius Thapsensis, a famous fabricator of treatises under fictitious names, and the suspected forger of the Athanasian creed about the beginning of the sixth century. 3. What proof is there that the confession which has been published as that of the African bishops, was subscribed by them? Victor, the author of the rest of the story, is entirely silent on the subject of subscription. (See

Griesbach's Diatribe on the 1 John. v. 7. p. 20.) Lastly: how is it possible, if the text of the three heavenly witnesses was at that time truly quoted from John's epistle, that Eucherius was ignorant of it fifty years before, and Facundus equally ignorant of it fifty years after? When all or any of these question's are fairly answered by the Panoplist, we doubt not that we shall be ready to answer Mr. Butler's to the satisfaction of these reviewers; and till this be done we shall continue to speak as contemptuously as we have done" on the subject of this verse, without any trembling solicitude" for our own reputation.

But it seems that the cause is not yet to be given up; fór Dr. Middleton, "in his masterly essay on the Greek article, has proved that it is an established rule of construction in the Greek language, that the article must subserve the purpose of reference or hypothesis; and as hypothesis is here out of the question, it remains to inquire, to what in the 8th verse refers. If it does not refer to in the 7th verse, and thus come under the rule respecting renewed mention, above described, we acknowledge ourselves unable to divine to what it does refer." And what then? Does this render it any more probable that the 7th verse is authentick? Does it prove any thing more than that Middleton has found an example which he cannot fairly reconcile with his theory of the article?

We have read (we do not profess to have made ourselves thoroughly masters of) the elaborate work of Dr. Middleton on the Greek article. The application of his theory to some passages of the New Testament promised some new aid to the cause of orthodoxy, at which, as well as at Mr. Sharpe's rule about the article, its friends have eagerly caught. We are by no means competent to judge of Middleton's theory. This only we know; that it wants one characteristick of truth, that is, simplicity. But if the reviewer in the Panoplist will take any recommendation from us, we entreat him, before he leans on this new reed, to ponder well an examination of Middleton's work on the article, contained in the Monthly Review for May, June, July, and August, of the last year. It is written by one of the first Greek scholars in England, who has other requisites for criticism than mere research; a perspicacious and philosophical mind. If this criticisin should not diminish