son for thinking it probable, that the ambiguous Ethiopick word here is a translation of Kupis rather than of 8, is this ;that the testimony of the Armenian and Coptick versions, with which the Ethiohick generally agrees, is in favour of Kup:8; and till something is produced to render this improbable,Griesbach's accuracy and impartiality are not in the least affected; although these reviewers, from some imperfect glimpses of the subject, seem disposed to suspect them.

There is then given a summary from the Christian Observer of the testimony of the Fathers, which summary we have mo inclination to examine; especially as we find at last, that, even in the opinion of the Panoplist reviewers, "the weight of evidence appears to be in favour of the Church of the Lord." Whether then the common reading of a text, which has the weight of evidence against it, ought to be quoted any more "as a proof passage by any honest and well instructed theolo gian," it will not take common men of honesty long to determine. How strongly the "weight of evidence" lies against the reading 8 in this verse may be understood by the following extract from Griesbach's note, which we are happy to offer in confirmation of the judgment of the Panoplist.

Griesb. vol. ii. p. 115. "From the preceding statement it clearly appears, that not a single manuscript can be produced in favour of the reading 8, which either from its antiquity, or its intrinsick excellence, deserves the character of a competent and uncorrupt witness. It is not found, except in modern MSS. and these, either thoroughly contemptible, or, in many places at least, wretchedly interpolated. Neither can it be defended by the authority of versions. For no translation has Os except the modern Vulgate,(disproved however by the more ancient copies of the Latin) and the Philoxenian Syriack version, made in the 6th century; which however still gives Kupi in the margin. In fine, neither are there any certain vestiges of this reading to be discovered in the Fathers before Epiphanius and Ambrose. How, therefore, the reading 8, so destily supposing, because the Ethiopick translator here uses the word which he commonly employs to express the supreme Jehovah, whether Kupios or eos in Greek, that he must therefore have read sos; whereas it only shows how he probably interpreted the passage.

VOL. X.

52

tute of all legitimate authority, is to be defended without a violation of the laws of criticism, I indeed do not understand.”

The reviewer proceeds to give us from the Christian Observer the authorities for the different readings Os, is and i, in the controverted text 1 Tim. iii. 16. In this statement, the words of the English magazine are sometimes altered, and phrases inserted or curtailed, as best suits the purpose of the reviewer, who ventures upon the whole to conclude, against Griesbach, that "Ons has a predominant claim to be admitted as the reading best supported ;"-a conclusion which his guide the Christian Observer does not venture to make.

In the course of this statement we expected to find some new proofs of the assertion confidently thrown out, that Griesbach "has made mistakes in citing his authorities ;" but this, instead of being "satisfactorily shewn," as was promised, is not so much as pretended. The reviewer only happens to be of opinion, that some of the MSS. which read Os are of more weight than Griesbach has allowed, when, in giving the result of his inquiries, he says that es "is supported only on the authority of the greater number of modern MSS. chiefly belonging to the Constantinopolitan edition." Griesb. vol. ii. p. 429.

Who is the best judge of the value of these MSS. our readers must determine for themselves; we only say that here ends the semblance of an attempt to show, that Griesbach has made some mistakes. That inaccuracies have crept into so large a work may be previously supposed; but that this writer has supported his charge, no one we imagine will believe but himself. It requires something more than a study of the Christian Observer to show this "satisfactorily ;" and it would not be amiss before attempting it again, to pay a little attention to Griesbach itself, which it is easier to praise or to blame, than to study.

In giving a summary of the authorities of the Fathers under the former text, the Panoplist reviewer had nothing to do but to transcribe from his original; but here not having the work done to his hands, he has undertaken to make the summary himself; in which there are about as many mistakes, or misrepresentations, as there are lines. He says the Apostolical Constitutions have clearly quoted the text in question with

Oos. Now any one who reads the extract either in Griesbach or the Christian Observer, may satisfy himself that fog is not quoted there at all. The same may be said of Lactantius. The reviewer does not seem to understand the difference between a clear quotation of a passage, and the use of some of the words contained in a passage.

He says that Gregory Nyssen quotes os in the text in question "very clearly." Griesbach asserts the very contrary. “Atque huc referendus (that is, to the class of those who have been improperly or doubtfully quoted for Oos) esse videtur Gregorius Nyss. cui editores quidem attribuunt EOS εavepwon, qui vero, &c. Itaque legisse videtur, aut etiam is." (Griesb. vol. ii. p. 431.) The reviewer then proceeds to mention Ignatius, Hypolitus, and Basil, as having "probably❞ quoted os in this controverted text; a representation which is not justified even by the statements of his great authority, the Christian Observer. Griesbach after giving the extracts which have been supposed to justify this representation, very properly remarks; "e talibus igitur phrasibus et e locutionum in commate hoc extantium ad Christum applicatione neutiquam colli. gere licet, patres hosce legisse og." Griesb. p. 430. And so much for the "trembling solicitude which becomes us" in a question of such high importance. It is very easy to see, that all the solicitude is lest the texts should be given up.

We have said that the Christian Observer is made use of with such omissions and alterations as suit the purpose of the reviewer. Take the following amusing specimens.

much altered as to excite a doubt about its primitive reading.”

"Abp. Newcome thinks that a different construction may be allowed: Great is the mystery of godliness he who was manifested in the flesh was justified by the Spirit,' &c. whereas the incarnation itself is the mystery."

mitive reading very doubtful.

"Newcome thinks a different construction may be allowed. He would translate it: Great is the mystery of godliness: he who was manifested in the flesh, was justified by the Spirit, &c.' A conclusive objection in our minds, against this construction is, that it represents the mystery of godliness, as consisting of justification by the Spirit, &c. whereas the incarnation itself is the great mystery.

After shewing the difficulties that attend the interpretation of the passage if read with is or i, the reviewer undertakes to say, after the Christian Observer, that the common reading Oos "is encompassed by no such difficulties; the construction is grammatical; the MEANING PERSPICUOUS." The proof of its perspicuity is found in the following attempt to tell what it is. "Christ, who is God over all, was manifested to us in the human nature; [or the Word, who was God, was made flesh ;*] justified by the Spirit, &c. &c." And these are the criticks who think, forsooth, that every other construction is harsh and uncouth!

That Osos is not the true reading in this verse, we think every attentive reader either of Griesbach, the Christian Observer, or even of the Panoplist, may satisfy himself. Griesbach says, that, to be consistent with himself, he has taken s instead of

Os into the text, ("salvo tamen uniuscujusque lectoris judicandi facultate pollentis judicio,") for the rules of criticism require it. Now, though appears to us to have greater claims than Griesbach has allowed it, yet here, as every where else, we would take Griesbach's text for a standard, and give the reading, which we may individually happen to think preferable, in the margin. But we should never think of making use of this text with either eos, ds, or o, as a "proof passage" in any theological controversy.

The strong impression left upon our minds by reading Sir Isaac Newton's letter on this verse, was altogether in favour of the

* Added by the Panoplist.

reading. The fact, that the Latin fathers without exception have constantly read QUOD, is not to be explained in any other way, than that they found in their Greek MSS. and Sir Isaac Newton says, to read, and interpret it of Christ, as the ancient Christians did, without restraining it to his divinity, makes the sense very easy. For the promised and long expected Messias, the hope of Israel, is to us the great mystery of godliness. And this mystery was at length manifested to the Jews from the time of his baptism, and justified to be the person whom they expected." The same thing is said by Griesbach. "Ad Christum referri potuit hoc dictum a Patribus [Graecis] sive ¿ legerent sive is, ut a Latinis factum hoc esse jam notavimus. Hinc Christum ipsum nonnullis nominare solebant," for which he quotes several fathers—and, whether is it easier to say, GoD was manifest in the flesh, GoD was justified by the spirit, GoD was seen by angels, GoD was taken up into glory, or to adopt the interpretation of Sir Isaac Newton, and of almost all the ancient fathers, referring mysterium to Christ; or even that of Grotius, who supposes the gospel to have been the mystery, hid from ages, which was made known by frail and mortal men, confirmed by spiritual gifts, into which the angels were desirous to look, preached to the Gentiles, credited in the world, and gloriously exalted?

There is another subject relating to this text, on which the reviewer in the Panoplist demands an explanation. It seems, that Griesbach, in the edition which has been reprinted at Cambridge, and which is the subject of our review, and which we shall call the manual edition, puts Osos in his margin, among the various readings but leaves it without any mark expressive even of the lowest degree of probability; though in his large critical edition (or editio Halensis) he had given it the same mark of probability which he had affixed to . This variation we pointed out; and, for the satisfaction of the Panoplist, we have carefully ascertained, that no mistake has been committed in copying the German original. Now the question is, which edition is to be considered as expressing Griesbach's ultimate opinion of the probability of the reading Θεος ?

Several instances of the same kind, we have found, of apparent differences between the large and small editions, in mark