glish stand thus: "Of the best (MSS.) none, of others, which here and there exhibit good and ancient readings, very few (as 26. 27. &c.) read Kupis na 18, (the Lord and God.) No version favors this reading, except the Arabic of the Polyglot." What room there is here for the absolute assertion, that Griesbach "does not quote it" [the Arab. Pol.] for the reading Kup 8, and what occasion there is for the triumph manifested in the succeeding interrogatory, "Who is here in an error?"the public may now judge. An obscure notice, introduced by way of note in this place, informs the reader, that these Reviewers "do not know how to reconcile" Griesbach's authorities with a certain passage beginning with "Versio nulla, &c," and, at the same time, exhibits the straits to which they were reduced to maintain their assertion, and to defend the immaculate correctness of Griesbach. On the one hand, after having more than once insinuated that we had never read Griesbach, it would not do to neglect this unlucky passage of Versio nulla, as such a neglect would subject themselves to a similar imputation. On the other, it would not do to produce the passage at length, because this would directly contradict the affirmation which had been made, and wipe away the contempt which they meant to fix upon us by their triumphant question. What remained but to steer dexterously between Scylla and Charybdis? Who among their readers would take the pains to turn over Griesbach, and see what that obscure versio nulla, &c. meant, when they, with all their critical pers

picacity, were not able to reconcile the passage with the authorities? And who would not credit their triumphant declaration, that the Panoplist had erred in this matter?

We see no way in which the Reviewers will escape from this transaction without disgrace. They may allege their affirmation to have been, that Griesbach has not quoted erroneously. If they place any emphasis on the technical meaning of this word, it does not meet the allegation of the Panoplist, which is, "Griesbach says &c." After all, we grant that Griesbach has "quoted" the Arabic (Polyglot) for the reading Kupte 8, (Lord God) in page 113. And what does this prove? that our charge against him of inaccuracy in some instances is not substantiated? The very reverse. It proves, that in the very same discussion, and at the distance of no more than two pages, he has quoted an authority in favor of one reading, which in an important argument he produces in favor of a diverse reading. Whoever can vindicate this from er. ror will do wonders.

The second charge against us is as follows:

"The next attempt to convince Griesbach of a mistake is found in this passage "Among the versions, which have the Church of the Lord, Griesbach is disposed to rank the Ethiopic, because that version generally agrees with the Armenian and the Coptic, which exhibit this reading; and because the Ethiopic word here used (egziabeher) is employed to express both Kupios and Oeos. Gries bach says, that this word is always employed in rendering both these

and the conclusion built upon it may Greek words. But this is a mistake; therefore be unsound." " p. 407.

Respecting this statement, the Reviewers observe,

"He (Griesbach) does not say, that the Ethiopic always employs the same word in rendering both Kupics and : i. e. as these gentlemen would make him say, that this version invariably renders Kupos, wherever it occurs, by egziabeher." p. 408.

Our dispute here will not be long. Speaking of Acts xx, 28, Griesbach, after having referred to MSS. and versions, which support the reading of the Church of God, says, "Ethiops habet vocabulum, quo SEMPER utitur, sive Ous in Græca veritate legatur, sive Kuptos:" i. e. "The Ethiopic (translator) has the word (egziabeher) which he always uses, whether OS (God) or Kopies (Lord) be the reading of the original Greek." The Latin sentence above quoted the Reviewers themselves have laid before their readers. The whole controversy, on this point, is simply whether semper means always, or not. Now we assert, that the phrase quo semper utitur is correctly translated which he always uses; which, indeed, the Reviewers admit in the following very curious sentence:

"All that Griesbach says is, that the Ethiopic translator has, in this verse, a word which he continually employs (quo semper utitur) in rendering both Kupios and Oos: that is, as we understand him, not every where and without exception, but (according to a natural and common meaning of semper) perpetually, usually, in the same way we use the adverb, always, in English." p.408.

We represented Griesbach as in an error, when he affirms of the Ethiopic version, that it al

ways employs the same word in translating both Θεος and Κύριος. The Reviewers have conceded, that this version does not unjformly employ the same word in translating these two Greek words. They have then attempted to convict us of misrepresentation; and, in this attempt, they have stated, that Griesbach does say, that the Ethiopic "perpetually, always," employs the same word. We are not yet able to see how we have erred in this matter.

One thing is clear; whatever sense the word semper may occasionally have, on account of its peculiar connexion, the natural, usual, and almost (if not quite) universal meaning, is that which we have attached to it. The least that can possibly be said, then, is, that Griesbach, in a plain case, where pressed by no difficulty of composition or construction, has used a Latin word liable to be universally misunderstood, and, according to the best Latin authorities, necessarily conveying a meaning different from what he intended to express. This is a charge which these Reviewers would be as little disposed to admit, as the other. However, we are under no apprehensions, that any man, after a fair statement, will understand Griesbach differently from what we did; nor do we suppose that the Reviewers themselves can doubt, or ever could, that we correctly understood, and faithfully translated, his assertion.

We do not, as seems to be intimated, assert, that the conclusion made by Griesbach, from the agreement of the Coptic and Armenian versions, and from the

the Mediator's incarnation. He had just been saying, "Fuit igitur et Deus et homo, inter Deum atque hominem medius constitutus, ut hominem perducere ad Deum posset;quia si Deus tantum fuisset, exempla virtutis homini præbere non posset; si homo tantum, non posset homines ad justitiam cogere, &c. After two sentences of further explanation, he adds, "Idcirco Mediator advenit, id est, Deus in carne." For the sake of the English reader we translate the passage: "He was, therefore, both God and man, a constituted medium between God and man, that he might bring man to God; for if he had been God only, he could not have exhibited examples of virtue to man; if he had been man only, he could not have brought men to a state of justification, &c. Therefore he came as Mediator, that is, God in the flesh.”

We believe, that Lactantius clearly referred here to the form of expression in 1 Tim. iii, 6; the Reviewers do not; let the reader judge.

The next proof, that we have made "about as many mistakes,or misrepresentations as there are lines," is thus brought forward:

"He says, that Gregory Nyssen quotes One "very clearly." Griesbach asserts the very contrary. “Atque huc referendus (that is, to the class of those who have been improp erly or doubtfully quoted for Osos) esse videtur Gregorius Nyss. cui editores quidem attribuunt es savepada, qui vero, &c. Itaque legisse videtur, aut etium is." p. 411.

Let us consider the testimony. We have not the original at hand; but give the exact translation of it from the Christian Ob

VOL. IV. New Series.

server. In book 10th against Eunomius, Gregory Nyssen says of Paul; "He not only calls Christ God, but also the great God, and God over all; saying in his Epistle to the Romans, 'Whose are the fathers, and of whom Christ came according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed for ever;' and to Titus, "Waiting for the blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ'; and to Timothy expressly, 'God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit!'' This we all call a very clear quotation by Gregory Nyssen.

What, then, if 'Griesbach does assert the very contrary?' It only furnishes an additional demonstrative proof of the charges we have brought against him. For we presume, that no man who reads the above quotation will doubt, that Gregory quotes the passage in question. There is not a more decisive quotation, in all the Fathers from Clemens Romanus down to. Theophylact

From the representation of the Reviewers, it would appear that Griesbach had made his assertion, with regard to the same passage in Gregory which is brought forward in the Christian Observer. It escaped our cen sors, however, that Griesbach pronounces his judgment on a his Antirrhet. adv. Apollinar. sentence of Gregory quoted from p. 138; which passage is TO μυστηριον εν σαρκι εφανερώθη; and that the Christian Observer quotes Gregory's tenth book against Eunomius. . We say it escaped them; for if it did not, there is a dishonesty in what they have done, which it is not necessary for us to characterize.

17

But what becomes of the accuracy of Griesbach, in this view of the matter? He has placed Gregory Nyssen, and that without the least notice that his works any where contain any thing decided on the subject, among that class of writers, whose reference to the passage in question is doubtful. The fact is altogether the reverse. Thus much for this "misrepresentation." The remaining proofs of "misrepresentation" are thus expressed:

"The reviewer then proceeds to mention Ignatius, Hyppolitus, and Basil, as having "probably" quoted os in this controverted text; a representation which is not justified even by the statements of his great author. ity, the Christian Observer." p. 411.

The quotations are these: Ignatius, Epist. ad Ephes. §19, says, “Θεδ ανθρωπίνως φανερόμενος εἰς KaivoTHTα aidis (ans-God being manifested in the human form for the renovation of everlasting life."

Hyppolitus, c. Noet. 17, "OUTOS προελθών εις κοςμον, Θεος εν σωματι εφανερώθη-He who came into the world was manifested God in a body."

Basil, Epist. 65. “T8 mɛya28 μυστηριε, ότι ο Κύριος εφανερώθη εν cape Of the great mystery, that the Lord was manifested in the flesh."

Our readers will see, that, with respect to Basil, we were mistaken. From his quotation it cannot be determined how he read

the passage. The mistake occurred in the haste of compilation; and we gladly correct it. Our opinion of the two former quotations has by no means changed.

The Reviewers say, that we do 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." If this means, that we do not in every instance judge as they do, we have nothing to reply.

With respect to the use we made of the Christian Observer, it is only necessary to add to what has been said above, that we made no professions of following it in every, the minutest, particular; nor can any thing be produced, in which we did not act agreeably to our professions, and to the practice of respectable writers, when they are professedly abridging and compiling from the materials of others.

We have read "even the preface to the manual edition,” (Anthol. p. 414) and carefully examined the attempt made by the Reviewers to explain away difficulties; but are not yet satisfied respecting the manner of printing Oos in this edition.

We stated in our number for April, that the American edition had no mark prefixed to Θεος indicating the value of that reading. This raised a doubt whether it were accurate here; for Griesbach had, in 1806, published his critical edition, in which he has prefixed a mark to this word shewing that it is a probable reading; whereas the manual, from which the Cambridge edition is copied, bears date in 1805. The conclusion we drew from these circumstances, was, either that an important mark had been omitted in reprinting the manual edition, or that Griesbach himself had been in a vacillating state, deciding one year in ons