way, and the next year ano

ther.

The Reviewers assure us, that no mistake has been made, with respect to this passage, in copying the German original. Then to show that this edition, although dated a year before the critical edition, is really later as to compilation, they state the following facts: That the book of Acts, (crit. edit.) was printed in 1799; and that the Catholic Epistles had been sent to the printer, before Griesbach had received White's edition of the Philoxenian version, which was published in 1800.' Hence they conclude, "that the greater part of the 2nd vol. was printed long be fore the manual edition, and therefore the latter has every claim to be considered as containing the last results of Griesbach's studies." But the conclusion does not follow from the premises. It is far from certain, that Griesbach received White's edition as soon as it was published. The Reviewers are not quite accurate in saying, 'the Catholic Epistles had been sent to the printer;' though that is nothing to the present argument. Griesbach's words are "maxima etiam Catholicarum Epistolarum pars," &c. To be brief, all the satisfactory information which they have collected on this subject of dates, is contained in the passage which they have translated from the preface to the Cambridge edition; and what is said at the close of this passage strongly inçlines us to believe, that the text in question was actually printed later in the critical, than in the manual, edition. Griesbach says, "I have concluded to publish, in the mean while, the first volume

embracing the four Gospels, and the former section of the second volume, containing all Paul's Epistles; and the remainder will appear as soon as possible with the 2nd vol. of the Editio Halensis, and the rest of Goschen's splendid work." We think it pretty clear from what is here said, that the 2nd vol. of the critical edition was published after Paul's Epistles in the manual. Can it be credited for a moment, that, according to the supposition of the Reviewers, nearly the whole of the 2nd large vol. of the critical edition should have been printed six years, or thereabouts, before it was published? Can it be credited, we mean, without some direct evidence; for though it is very possible, it is still most improbable, and not to be believed upon mere conjecture. Whatever may be the fact, it is by no means proved as yet, that the small edition "has every claim to be considered as containing the last results of Griesbach's studies."

As to the examination which the Reviewers have given Mr. Butler's letter, we have only a word to say. It by no means follows, because this gentleman is a Catholic, and biassed in favor of the Vulgate, (of which, by the way, we have seen no proof,) that his arguments are of no value. Nor do the questions, proposed by the Reviewers, involve any other difficulties than attend the record of innumerable facts by the Fathers, and other ancient writers. If any one wishes to ascertain this, let him consult Dautè de usu Patrum, and Whitby's Examen.

With respect to the argument from the article, as stated by Dr.

Middleton, we are satisfied with the concessions of the Reviewers, that they "are by no means competent to judge of Middleton's theory."

As they have also conceded the correctness of that principle of the Greek language, which we had occasion to examine, when treating of the punctuation of Heb. i, 8, it is unnecessary to say any thing further on that subject.

They endeavor to excuse Griesbach's punctuation, in this place, by saying, that he pointed the passage according to the Septuagint, from which it is quoted, and in which it has never been made to appear in the vocative by means of commas. These gentlemen doubtless know, if they know any thing about the Septuagint, that neither the vocative of os, nor any other vocative, is separated by commas, in the older editions. At least we are not able to find a single instance of such separation, though a multitude of examples of the contrary occur on the slightest inspection. But lately it is the custom, we believe, of all correct European presses, to insulate the vocative; and Griesbach, by not inserting commas on each side of Oos, intended to represent this word as being in the nominative: so, at least, he was understood by these Reviewers, as appears in their number for February, p. 113. The excuse therefore amounts to nothing.

The Reviewers say, p. 411, "It is very easy to see, that all the solicitude is lest the texts should be given up;" and they have an insinuation to the same effect, in a Latin quotation, p.

416. Such things are said without much expense of invention or argument. How came these gentlemen to select these texts in the first instance, and to make them the subject of such decisive animadversion?

We have now discussed all the charges brought against us by these Reviewers in their last critique on Griesbach, and all the prominent considerations they have offered in his vindication; with what success others must determine. Of this we are sure, that with respect to the present controversy, and every other which we have had with these gentlemen, we feel no apprehension from the sentence of those who consider temperately, and decide conscientiously. This article has been made longer than we could have wished, partly by the variety of subjects drawn into dispute, and partly by the quotations from the Anthology, which were deemed necessary to give a fair view of what had been said by our opponents.

There are two short passages, in the critique we are examining, which demand a moment's distinct consideration. We have already quoted them both; but in company with so many other things, that they may not have exited much attention.

After stating that their 'meaning was not that the same might be said of the degree of authority of the texts in Acts and Timothy which could be said of the text in John,' they add; "This would have been too gross a misrepresentation of facts to have been swallowed even by our friends." p. 404. Are we to infer from this, that, according to the calculation of these gentlemen,

"a mirepresentation of facts," may be expected to 'be swallowed by their friends,' and even a gross misrepresentation,' provided it be not "too gross?" This is a question to be settled between themselves and their friends; and as we shall not be allowed to rank among the latter, we shall decline giving an opinion. Should the inference be legitimate, however, it will assist in accounting for certain confident assertions to be found in their pages.

The remaining passage is as follows: "The unfortunate ambiguity of a passage in our review gave so fair an opportunity for the attack and the mode of attack in the Panoplist, that we have forborne to retaliate reproaches; and have neglected to notice all the occasions of cen sure and cavil, with which their attempt at criticism would have furnished us." p. 421. Wonderful forbearance, indeed, that must be, which a consideration of their own gross blunder, (to use the mildest name,) has induced them to exercise, and which consists simply in not 'retaliating reproaches! But further. They "have neglected to

notice all the occasions of censure and cavil, with which" they had been furnished. It seems, then, that they have noticed some of these occasions. We should have been glad if they had desig nated those parts of their last review which come under the head of "censure," and those which, in their own opinion, are "false or frivolous objections," as Dr. Johnson defines "cavil.” It might have saved us some trouble; as it would not have been expected, that we should refute those things, which the objectors themselves had described as no better than cavil. Though they have not done this, we are still under obligations to them which ought to be acknowledged. On account of 'the unfortunate ambiguity of a passage in their review,' an ambiguity which they begin their reply by "lamenting," p. 404, they are willing, as a generous set-off, not to use against us all the occasions of censure and cavil, of which they would otherwise have availed themselves. We must be very ungrateful not to feel the generosity of such forbearance from reproaches, and such abstinence from censure and cavil!

SCARCELY any occasion can be conceived more solemn and momentous, than that of an ordination. The office of a Minister directly involves the interests of the Christian Church on earth, and has a near relation to the scene of final judgment. Sermons on such occasions ought to correspond with the nature and object of the sacred office. Equally distant from the warnith and rancor of controversy, the abstraction of metaphysical discussion, and the coldness of moral essay, they should be adapted to affect the hearts of ministers with the magnitude of their duties, and to rouse them to every effort of pastoral love and fidelity. Though ordination sermons may comprise a great variety of topics, they ought to have a tendency to this great end. Such a tendency the sermon before us obviously has. The disclosure of evangelical truth and ministerial duty, which it contains, must have been interesting both to ministers and people. The author's design is to show, what the Gospel is, who are set for its defence, and by what means it is to be defended. Viewing this sermon in the light of criticism merely, we think that simplicity and unity would

have been better preserved by the omission of the second head. To describe the nature of the Gospel and the proper means of defending it may consist with unity of design; especially if one of these be made the grand object, and the other subservient to it. But when, in addition to the nature of the Gospel, and the various means proper to be used in its defence, the preacher undertakes distinctly to point out the necessary qualifications of ministers, he plainly passes over the line of simplicity. But while we say this, we duly ap preciate the weight and pertinency of what the preacher advances under each head, the ability of his discussions, the perspicuity and purity of his language, and the seriousness and fervency of spirit apparent in every part.

As a happy specimen of the preacher's views and manner of writing, we quote the following passage: p. 21.