fays may certainly be referred ad Auguftorum priora fæcula.' It appears therefore, from comparing the Codex Beza with Greek infcriptions of different ages, that it cannot have been written later than the fixth century, and that it may have been written two or three centuries earlier. We muft in the next place therefore examine, whether this poffibility may amount to a probability. The tawny colour of the ink difcovers indeed the highest antiquity; but, if two manuscripts were written with the fame ink, the one in the fourth, the other in the fixth century, they would probably be faded at prefent in a nearly equal degree, and the difference between twelve and fourteen hundred years would hardly be fufficient to enable us to discover at prefent any difference in the colour. Befides, as fome inks are more durable than others, the letters of a modern manufcript may be more faded than thofe of a more ancient manufcript. But a probable argument may be derived from the chapters and fections, into which the antient manufcripts of the Greek Teftament were ufually divided. This argument I do not mean to produce as a new one, for it has been applied by Grabe, Cafley, and Woide, to the Codex Alexandrinus, and by Hichtel to the Codex Vaticanus. It is well known to those who are converfant in manufcripts of the Greek Testament, that the four Gofpels are divided into greater and fmaller portions, the one called Tho, the other pahat, in the fame manner, though in different proportions as we divide them into chapters and verfes. The rr, or the larger portions, were generally marked in the upper margin; the xpxha, or, as they are frequently called, the Ammonian fections, were always marked at the fide, and to these fections Eufebius adapted his ten tables, or harmony of the Gospels, to which he referred by writing, under each of the Greek letters or numbers expreffive of the Ammonian fections, letters which denoted that part of each table, where the section was to be fought. Those who have not accefs to Greek manufcripts, will And this very clearly reprefented, either in Stephens's edition of 1550, or in Küfter's edition of Mill's Greek Teftament. The Acts of the Apoftles, and the Epiftles, were likewife divided into fections, which are called from the inventor the sections of Euthalius; and they were noted in the margin by letters, in the fame manner as the Ammonian fections in the Gofpels. Now as the Euthalian fections are not marked in the margin of the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epiftles, in the Codex Alexandrinus, though the Tr and pahaa are noted in the Gospels, Grabe in his Prolegomena to the Septuagint, Cafley in his Catalogue of the King's manufcripts, and Woide in his Preface to the Codex Alexandrinus, contend that the Codex Alexandrinus was written before Euthalius had introduced those sections, that is before the year 396. But this is much too hafty a conclufion, fince a confiderable time might have elapfed after the year 396, before thofe fections were brought into general ufe. Befides, though no fections are marked in the margin of the Codex Alexandrinus, in the Acts and the Epifles, yet the text itfelf is very diftin&ly divided into fections, by blank spaces at the end of each fection, and by large letters written in the margin at the beginning of each fection. These sections amount in the Codex. Alex. in the Acts of the Apostles, to 427, as REV. SEPT. 1795.

Ꭰ

may

may be seen on counting them in Woide's edition. It appears from the lift of xanta, prefixed to the Acts of the Apoftles, in Stephens's edition of 1550, and Küster's edition of Mill, that the common Greek chapters, or Euthalian fections, amounted only to 40 in the Acts of the Apostles. Now the divifion into fmaller portions, was probably later than the divifion, into larger portions; and the portions into which the Acts of the Apostles are divided in the Codex Alexandrinus, appears to be nothing more than a fub-divifion of the Euthalian fections, for I have compared them in nearly one half of the book, and found, in every inftance, that where an Euthalian fection begins, a new fection begins in the Codex Alexandrinus, except in one inftance, which is of little importance, namely, Acts viii. 20. where an Euthalian fection ends, whereas the correfponding fection in the Codex Alex. ends with the next verfe. Upon the whole, however, the writer of the Codex. Alex. appears to have been acquainted with the Euthalian divifion, and Woide's argument is inconclufive.

If we apply the fame argument to the Codex Beza, we fhall meet with the fame objection. For though no fections are noted in the margin, yet the text itself is divided into fections, which are denoted, not by blank spaces, as in the Codex Alexandrinus, but by the firft word of each fection being fo written, that the first letter ftands in the margin, which is sometimes greater, but in general of the fame fize with the other letters. Now thefe fections are not the fame as thofe in the Codex Alexandrinus, but the number of them is nearly the fame in both manufcripts; and, as I have found on examining the Codex Beza, that wherever an Euthalian fection commences, a new fection begins in the Codex Beza, it appears that the sections of these two manufcripts in the Acts of the Apoftles, are only different fubdivifions of the Euthalian fections. This argument therefore, instead of being favourable to the Codex Alexandrinus, and the Codex Beza, is rather an argument that neither of them were written before the fifth century.'

Mr. Marsh proceeds to other remarks on this MS.: but, as we cannot conveniently continue the extract, we must refer the learned divine to the work itself. Admitting the reafoning in favour of the antiquity and excellence of the Cambridge MS. to be conclufive, the fac fimile of it published not long ago by Dr. Kipling is an important acquifition to the theological world.

Profeffor Michaelis recommends fimilar impreffions to be taken of several of the most antient manuscripts, before they have farther experienced the corrofions of time, and before the ftrokes of the pen, now very pale, are become quite illegible. He wishes that fome fcheme of this kind was fet on foot in England, as he is perfuaded that it is the only country in which it is likely to be executed. On this occafion, we cannot more effectually gratify our readers than by tranfcribing his own words: See Rev. N. S. vol. xii. p. 241.

• A very

A very valuable library might be compofed of the impreffions of ancient manufcripts, which, though too expensive for a private perfon, fhould be admitted into every University collection, especially the Alexandrine and Cambridge manufcripts, to which I would add, if it were now poffible to procure it, Hearne's edition of the Codex Laudianus 3. A plan of this fort could be executed only in England, by a private fubfcription, where a zeal is frequently difplayed in literary undertakings, that is unknown in other countries; and it were to be wifhed that the project were begun, before length of time have rendered the manufcripts illegible, and the attempt therefore fruitless, Ten thousand pounds would go a great way toward the fulfilling of this request, if the learned themfelves did not augment the difficulty of the undertaking, by adding their own critical remarks, and endeavouring thereby to recommend their publications, rather than by prefenting to the public a faithful copy of the original. Should pofterity be put in poffeffion of faithful impreffions of important manufcripts, it would render the highest service to facred criticism.'

Great ufe, no doubt, may be made of the antient ecclefiaftical writers, in afcertaining the genuine text of fcripture. In chapter 9, the Profeffor propofes to the learned clergy, (who, retired in the country, often languifh through the want of a proper object of ftudy,) an attentive inveftigation of the quotations made by the Fathers from the New Teftament,→ marks out the path which they should purfue,- and endeavours to impress them with a fenfe of the importance of the undertaking.

He proceeds in the next chapter to difcufs the question whether critical conjecture fhould be employed in the correction of the facred text? Here, notwithstanding the arguments urged by fome against its admiffion, the Profeffor is of opinion that in certain inftances it is an auxiliary which he cannot refrain from calling in.-Recourfe, we think, ought not to be had to it, except in cafes of abfolute neceffity. As the tranflator remarks, conjectural emendation is only matter of opinion, and fhould be propofed with modefty and received with doubt; yet we cannot fee the neceffity of wholly interdicting its ufe.

The Profeffor, having carefully investigated the fources whence.... various readings are drawn, advances in the 11th chapter to examine the ufe to which the feveral editors of the New Testament have applied them in furnishing the world with a corrected text. The editions of Mill and Wetstein are particularly noticed; with the labours of the former of whom M. Michaelis conceived the manhood of criticism, as it refpects the New Teftament, to have commenced, On Wetstein he is extremely fevere. This learned editor of the Greek Teftament has found, however, a ftrenuous apologift in Mr. Marfh; who very properly remarks that, when he has difcovered in the prefent work

of M. Michaelis fuch a number of mistakes in making three or four thousand quotations, fome allowance ought furely to be made for Wetstein, who, in his most laborious edition of the New Teftament, has produced a million of quotations. At the fame time, it should be remembered that the feverity of the Profeffor's ftrictures on Wetftein and others, in this chapter, does not proceed from the acrimony of criticifm; they are merely offered with a view of demonftrating the want of a new and accurate critical edition of the Greek Teftament. He particularly enumerates the qualifications for this undertaking; and, as it must be a work of vaft labour, too much for the greatest Hercules in literature, he recommends a junction of learned men: but, when he obferves that the learned in general are not of a focial difpofition, he could have cherished no very fanguine hopes of its execution.

The laft chapter, on the marks of diftinction and divifions of the New Teftament, equally evinces the unwearied attention which the Profeffor has paid to every part of his subject.

Long as our account has been of this work, we quit it with the conscioufnefs of not having done it the justice which it merits. It will be found a very valuable library or ftock book for Divines, opening a fpacious field for ftudy, and containing many important hints and references. Whoever takes the pains to compare this 4th with the firft edition will be fenfible of its far fuperior excellence; and, while he notices the Profeffor's change of opinion in feveral inftances, he will regard this as an almost neceflary confequence of a real advancement in science. Ignorance is generally obftinate and pertinacious: but he who purfues his inquiries in the fields of literature will often be forced to abandon, as error, that which he once embraced for truth. He who paffes through life with the fame sentiments can have made no great additions to the ftock of his knowlege.

As to the English editor, he has executed his talk with fo much ability, that the church in this country will no doubt prepare for him fome diftinguished reward; while scholars on the continent will deem the University of Cambridge honoured by fuch a member, and will combine his fame with that of the learned German Profeffor.

ART. VI. Major Cartwright's" Commonwealth in Danger.??

[Art. concluded from the laft Review, page 465.]

N fome parts of this work, our author makes diftinctions of interefts between different claffes of fociety, which in our opinion are as ill-founded in theory as they are in practice: his error, however, is amiable, for it flows from his philan

thropy ;

thropy; he feels for the diftreffes of men in the humbler walks of life, and wishes to give them a weight and a confequence which ought to belong to them as fellow men. On this principle, he thus exclaims, p. 89.

What would be the condition of political fociety if the husbandman and the artizan were not members of it? Where would be the wealth, the strength, or grandeur of the state, if these persons were abstracted? Would not grafs grow in our streets, and the country be a defart? Strip things of their outfide fhew, and men of external advantages, and then tell me whether he who weaves, or he who wears, the broad cloth, is the most useful member of political fociety; or whether those whose productive labour actually create the wealth of the flate, and all the means of revenue, or those whofe only merit, like that of the hog in the ftie, is to confume, and to live on the labour of others, most deserve the title of citizens.'

Inftead of afking which is the more useful member of fociety, the weaver or the wearer of broad cloth, we think that the author would have done better if, without depreciating either, he had contended that they were both neceffary to and dependant on each other. The wearer muft certainly go naked, if there were no weaver; and the latter, who now lives exclufively by weaving, muft look out for fome other means of fubfiftence, if he had to manufacture cloth only for his own confumption. We all have wants which all cannot fupply; the fense of those wants ought to make us feel that we are all neceffary to each other, and fhould convince us that no class of men in the ftate can be truly called independent. The author will eafily fee to what we point our objection; and he will have candour enough to believe that we can have no wish but to fecond him in his efforts to fecure to every defcription of men, who are not criminals, nor ideots, the full enjoyment of those civil rights which make their liberty and property as fecure under the law, as even the highest and most favoured prerogative of the crown. What we principally would discountenance is that mode of reasoning, which feems to perceive no other way of bringing men to a level than by pulling down the clafs that is high we think it would be more worthy of an enlightened mind to make the level by raifing the depreffed fet to the height of the other.

Major Cartwright, it feems, would not reft perfectly fatisfied with merely the adoption of his own plan of arming all taxed housekeepers, and granting the right of universal fuffrage. There are other reforms which, in his opinion, ought also to take place: but then he appears to think that they would affect rather the forms than the effence of our conftitution. He does not like that the king fhould be confidered as the fountain of legiflation;

D 3

nor