« PreviousContinue »
margin with the “vetustissima sedecim scripta exemplaria” from whence the text was taken “ superioribus diebus,” certain exceptions must be made ? When Crito Cantabrigiensis, professing to take Robert's words only, because the MSS. employed were then “all in sight,” (399), was he not right to leave out all consideration of the man's first boast ? Do you think that he would have been less racked by Robert's declaration, that he had printed every letter of the O mirificam after “plures et meliores e regiis,” than he and Wetsten were with Henry's and Beza's account of the ultimate stock of MSS. ? With the admitted record of this unmarked MS. “ regia bibliothecæ,” do not you think he might find himself a little puzzled, to invent a “ facile hæc cum veritate conciliari posse”? And above all, with respect to him who stands without a compeer, we have admired Mr. Porson's consummate skill in disposing of Stephanus's two boasts. The first of these, in the O mirificam, was as it was stated by Wetsten and Griesbach above, and by the Christian Observer, 1807, p. 224—“e codicibus quorum copiam bibliotheca regia suppeditaverat-recensuisse se profitetur.” Mr. Porson made this to be “the greater part of the better MSS."; and eight royal MSS. of the margin of the folio, with “cætera quæ undique corrogare licuit," will answer Stephanus's boast, when thus corrected, as well as the fifteen that he had received from the royal library. Happy, however, as this mode is for getting rid of Stephanus's first boast, when the great man could not “abide by” it,this would avail nothing if you leave his second boast respecting the amount of the MSS. that he had received from the royal library. And here, what can equal the ability with which the professor puts the part for the whole ? What can be more ingenious than his packing you off with eight, when the man himself bragged, and that before the Sorbonne, that they amounted to fifteen ? But what think you of both of these schemes, when the reading of this one unmarked MS. of the royal library is produced by the Docti et Prudentes themselves ? May I not still cling to the man's acknowledged words, that it was from the MS. of the royal library that the text of the O mirificam was taken? May I not say that you might as reasonably collate it with seven of the MSS, for the edition of one of the Greek classics, as with the seven, “quæ undique corrogare licuit” ?
Again, may I not ask on which side the “small inaccuracy” lieswho is it that makes the “ slight mistake?” Is it the man who distinctly said that he had received fifteen from the royal library (“qu'il n'y en auoit point ung tant seulment, mais quinze, qu'on auoit reportez en la libraire du Roy, lesquel i auoye eu par grand priere") and this at the very moment when he presented the folio, the preface of which said that he had taken no more than eight of them to oppose the text of that edition-or is it with his mighty accuser ? Was not Mr, Belsham right when he decided that it lay with Mr. Porson hiniself, and told us (Introduction to the improved, p. viii.) that Stephanus had“ permission granted by the King of France to collate fifteen MSS. in the royal library”? I am ready to stand upon the single concession of Wetsten and Bengel
, that there was “Stephani unus,"an unmarked MS.,“ bibliothecæ regie," which gave oibagkaloc at Matt. xxüi. 8; and if Griesbach does not
quote the unmarked royal MS. for the reading of his margin, let it be observed that he equally omits the marked MS. ε at No. 6. If any man then admits, as the great body of the Docti et Prudentes do admit, that Stephanus boasted to have given his O mirificam faithfully after the MS. from the royal library, and shall say(what we, Mr. Porson, will not venture to say) that the text of that edition was not actually taken “e Regiis, then this acknowledged MS. from the royal library stands to convict him of making a peremptory assertion, where he can know nothing. He can know only that this royal MS. has ĉičarkalos at Matt. xxiii
. 8; he cannot tell whether it did not give the reading of the () mirificam in any other passage ; and if there was this one MS. “ bibliothecæ regiæ" to give it, he cannot say why there might not be six others also. If any man says (what we also see Mr. Porson did not venture to say) that Stephanus had not the fifteen royal MS., which we should thus assume that he had, but that he had only eight from the King's library, then this MS. stands flatly to contradict him. “Unus Stephani,” when that one is “ bibliothecæ regiæ," if we could shew no more, retorts their own language, and says, “it is utterly false." If, however, Mr. Porson, by bis unrivalled skill, avoided any such retort; still, like another honest gentleman of whom we read, he said intelligibly enough to others, take thy bill and sit down quickly and write eight, when he knew “with what jealousy R. Stephens was watched by the Paris divines,” (55,) and saw that, even before them, he declared that the MSS. which he had received from the royal library amounted to fifteen ; of which they might, without much trouble, satisfy themselves, as he distinctly added that he had returned them. Mr. Porson, too, was hardy enough, as we have seen, to talk of “a sophisticated text,” of Stephanus's “ vicious complaisance,” of his “quitting all his MSS. to follow his printed guides," when he did not dare to commit himself by saying that the O mirificam did not follow the MSS. from the royal library, or that Stephanus had only eight MSS. from thence. Till those learned men who find such high-minded integrity in Mr. Porson (Quarterly Review, No. Ixv. p. 91) shall, with this one unmarked royal MS. before them, shew me “pure and inflexible love of truth” in such conduct, I shall call all this (to use the expression of the great man himself) the consummate “craft” of a critic, and that applied to the most flagitious purpose-the condemnation of the innocent, and the consequent subversion of the faith of millions in the most sure word of God, upon which alone depend all their hopes of salvation, as protestants, as Bishop Marsh so well expresses it (Lect. vi. p. 112), “ that work which is the source of religious faith.” Yes ; substantiate the charge of his quitting all his MSS. to follow printed guides, and I again and again say that it ought “ to be made the ground of the most severe reflections." But, as Othello says, “ Be sure of it: give me the ocular proof.” And when the Docti et Prudentes, unable to “abide by" either of Stephanus's boasts, turn to the god of their idolatry, and swear by his substitutions,—all-glorious as he is, I meet them with my“ labor improbus;" I collect their own concessions, and whom they ignorantly wor: ship, him declare I unto you,-yes, I say ignorantly worship, and
some future age will entertain a different opinion of us, from that which we hold of ourselves and of our “march of intellect,” if it is to be said, of such a man as myself, μονος ισχυσε των αλλων κρυψιναν οντα kai amatnov owpagai tov av@pwnov (Euseb. Hist. vii. 29, end.) When the Christian Evidence Society avail themselves of the slanders that are thrown on Stephanus and Beza, and turning them upon their authors, exult in their Manifesto, upon “ the admissions of the most learned critics, as to the infinitely suspicious origination of the present received text," what wonder is it that these learned critics, who have only child's play, in dealing with Mr. Taylor's own arguments, should sink under the pressure of the work of their own hands (Dr. Pye Smith's Answer, sect. viii.), nec lex est justior ulla, &c. I may feel shame,“ bæc opprobria nobis dici potuisse;" but, thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift, we do not lie under the “non potuisse refelli.”' It is not “ with consent or connivance of all parties,” (Manifesto note,) but only of all parties of Docti et Prudentes, that the foul charges are taken for granted. When they and their idol are laid prostrate by this single reading of this single unmarked MS., “ bibliothecæ regiæ," from their own pages; the argumentum ad hominem, so well pushed by the “Orator of the Areopagus," falls with them in one common overthrow. It is not, then, from enemies that I entertain any dread ; papists, critics, infidels, “ come one, come all,” as the poet says, for the fearless Scotch monarch. We have only to join in the prayer of being delivered from our friends; and I have my moments of humiliation and dismay, when the historian and admirer of Stephanus can join “in the admissions of the most learned critics," of his "adopting readings, whether from MSS. or from printed copies;” and, in defiance of all proof and all testimony, can allege that “he attributed the authority of MSS.” to these printed copies, in the formation of his own text. The cause, however, is with the God of truth, and I will not despair of the truth ultimately prevailing. May He of his mercy direct those, whose bounden duty it is to examine, no longer to take the assumptions of those who, more or less openly, are banded together to inculcate “ the infinitely suspicious origination of the present Received Text;” but fairly to look at the immense body of evidence that supports its claims, and to give their verdict accordingly, so that they may assure those, whose happiness here and hereafter depends
upon their being assured, that there never did nor could exist the slightest ground for an honest doubt of Stephanus and Beza haying actually taken their text, according to their most solemn professions, wholly and solely from valid Greek MSS., and that every discovery of new facts, bearing upon the question, only adds to the irresistible evidence, by which this important truth is established.
ON THE PATRIARCHAL SABBATI.
The design and economy of a church, as the means of communication between the creature and the Creator, arose out of the necessities of
man and the mercies of his Maker. Its ordinances, therefore, have ever been founded on an express revelation of the Divine will. Immediately upon the fall, we meet with the fundamental article of faith in a Redeemer, the ordinance of sacrifice expressive of that belief, and a stated time for religious observances. Articles of faith, stated modes and periods of worship, embrace all the essentials of a church; and these had existence in the world from the time of Adam,
The Book of Genesis contains the history of the six days of creation, and the sanctifying of the seventh day to rest. These particulars concerning the creation were revealed, not merely to gratify a laudable curiosity, but to produce a specific moral effect on the heart. God foresaw, and we may learn from the records of our race, that crude conceptions concerning the creative power give rise to absurdity of worship and shamelessness of living. In the words of Scripture, which attributes natural effects to the immediate agency of God—“ Men worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator; for this cause, God gave them up to vile affections.”—Rom. i. 25. It was therefore worthy of the moral Governor of the world to reveal himself distinctly as the Almighty Creator, and to institute a memorial of the order and process of creation. Reason, then, yields a ready assent to the announcement of revelation, that God, in the beginning, did appoint a solemn ordinance for a continual remembrance of his power and goodness : “ God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.” Days, inonths, and years, are visibly marked out by the Creator as natural divisions of time for our physical wants; a week is 110 such natural division, but a positive ordinance of the Lord for the moral well-being of man. Let us now see what traces we can discover of this weekly division under the patriarchal dispensation.
Concerning Noah we read, “Come thou and all thy house into the ark...for yet seven days and I will cause it to rain, &c.; and it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.” Again : “ Noah sent forth a dove ... And he staid yet other seven days, and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark ...And he staid yet other seven days, and sent forth the dove which returned not again unto him any more.' With this transaction I would compare another in the New Testament, accompanied with the remarks of Paley—“The same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst of them.”—John, xx. 19. This, for any thing that appears in the account, might, as to the day, have been accidental; but, in the 26th verse of the same chapter, we read that “after eight days (that is, on the first day of the week following) again the disciples were within,” which second meeting upon the same day of the week looks like an appointment and design to meet on that particular day.-(Mor, Phil. c. vii.) This inference of Paley's, no one, I think, will feel inclined to controvert; but his reasoning appears to be equally, if not more, applicable to the case of Noah. Both incidents prove the existence of weeks, and render probable a religious observance of the respective days. Indeed, it has
been thought that all the principal Divine communications were made to the Patriarchs during their religious services on the seventh day; and Noah, in the case of the dove, seems to have expected a particular blessing on that day.
We come now to the time of Abraham. Circumcision, as the sign of God's covenant with himn, was appointed in these words—“He that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you ;” that is, when a man child is born, he shall be circumcised that day week. This inference is sufficiently probable in itself, but it rises into certainty when it is viewed in connexion with the Levitical rites which were added to the original command—“If a woman have born a map child, then she shall be unclean seven days, and in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised; but if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks.”—Lev. xii. 2.-See also xxii. 27. Afterwards, when the aged patriarch sent the eldest servant of his house to take a wife of his own kindred for his son Isaac, and God prospered the commission, “ the servant rose up in the morning, and he said, Send me away unto my master; and Rebekah's mother and brother said, Let the damsel abide with us a week or ten days, after that she shall go.”—Gen. xxiv. 55. With this expression compare Acts, xxv.6, (marginal reading,) “ And when he had tarried among them no more than eight (a week*) or ten days.” When Jacob had fraudulently obtained his brother's blessing, his mother's advice was—“ Arise, flee thou to Laban, my brother, to Haran, and tarry with him a week, until thy brother's fury turn away.”—xxvii. 43. “ And Jacob served seven years for Rachel, and they seemed unto him as a single se'nnight,ť for the love he had to her;" or the week of years appeared unto him as a week of days.”—xxix. 20. And afterwards, when he was imposed upon by the substitution of Leah, Laban said unto him, “Fulfil'her week," which was the customary period of a marriage feast, as appears from the instance of Sampson.-Judg. xiv. 12. I add the case of a death in a family—“ Joseph made a mourning for his father seven days.”—Gen. I. 10; “And they mourned for Saul seven days.”— 1 Samuel, xxxi. 13. In both instances, the weekly division of
• In the New Testament, eight days signifies a week—“ It came to pass about an eight days after.”—Luke, ix. 28. “ After eight days again his disciples were within."-John, xx.26.
+ Besides ypp, the Hebrews used the word O'q; (days) in the sense of a week. It certainly means a definite period : either that of a year, as in the common expression from year to year- Exod. xiii. 10-or that of a week, as in the above passages from Genesis and elsewhere. Both senses occur in Num. ix. 22—" Whether it were a week, or a month, or a year.” Compare Dan. viii. 27 (“ I, Daniel, fainted and was sick (certain] days (a week), and I was astonished at the vision") with Ezek. iii. 15~“ The hand of the Lord was strong upon me,
and came to them of the captivity and remained there astonished seven days.” “In those days I, Daniel, was mourning three full weeks." -X. 2, and Nehem. i. 4. In the singular number Tx Dj is one day, but in the plural of both O'tni o'p is one week ; similarly one word in the plural of both signifies “one language.”—Gen. xi. 1. The same idiom prevails in Latin : una littera, one letter of the alphabet ; in the plural, una littera, one epistle.