papers of your correspondent referring to that question, I shall deem myself bound candidly to consider. The chaff must be scattered to the winds.

The main argument or hypothesis of your correspondent, as detailed by himself, may be reduced to this:-That Robert Stephens, for the formation of the Greek text of his first and second edition of the New Testament, in which the passage of the heavenly witnesses, as we now have it, first appeared, had in all sixteen MSS., fifteen of which were from the royal library at Paris, but the remaining one was private property; and, as he has solemnly declared, that he had not admitted into the text a single letter which was not sanctioned by the better part of his MSS. we are bound to believe, if we can rely on his veracity, that the disputed text also had the sanction of the better part of his MSS., at least of those MSS. which contained that portion of the catholic epistles. That the other sixteen MSS., or Greek authorities, of which the various lections were collated and placed in the margin of the folio, or third edition, were only the same MSS. in part, eight of which had been selected from the royal MSS. of the first set, whilst the remaining seven, together with the Complutensian edition, were obtained from other quarters. The whole argument of the hypothesis is adapted to establish the point, that though the disputed passage might stand opposed by all the MSS. cited in the margin of the folio edition; yet it must have been properly inserted in its place on the authority of at least one or more of the original set of MSS. which had been used for forming the text of the first edition, How many or which of those MSS. actually contained the passage Mr. Huyshe does not presume to decide, as these are secrets not now, if ever, to be disclosed. It appears, however, as though he would be perfectly content if it should be allowed to be contained in any one of them. In the very opening of the examination or specimen, the author's declaration is, "I claim nothing here but the authority of one of Stephanus's unmarked MSS." The Bishop of Salisbury also adds, in one of his notes, "It is sufficient for Mr. Huyshe's theory, that any one of Stephanus's unmarked MSS. may have had the verse.' In rearing his critical hypothesis, I can easily imagine how many anxious peeps the author must have taken at its giddy altitude, and how careful he must have been to provide the necessary buttresses to prevent it from being overturned by the very first assault that should put its strength to the test. I shall now proceed, with your permission, to explore its foundations.

First of all it is to be observed, that neither Robert Stephens himself, nor his son Henry, nor Beza, nor any other voucher, has thrown out the least hint whatever about a selection having been made of the MSS. for the margin of the folio, a circumstance which could not easily have happened had there been any truth in the supposition. So important a fact in the history of that edition could never have been left to be discovered, for the first time, by the sagacity of Mr. Huyshe, in the middle of the nineteenth century. If, on publishing the folio, the editor had possessed, besides the sixteen specified, other seven MSS. from the royal library, he would never have limited his remarks to the sixteen, but have boasted of the twenty-three, and have assigned

some reason why he had determined to select only eight out of the fifteen royal MSS. then in his possession, at least at his service, for the various sections of the margin. To have publicly acknowledged the use of so vast a treasure of Greek MSS. would have been no more than an act of justice due to his own editorial fame; and to have given the reason why he had been induced to make such a selection, would have been only an act of common courtesy due to the consideration of the Christian reader.

But again. Robert Stephens should seem to pretend, that his text of the Greek Testament was based, not on that of any previous edition, but entirely on the authority of his own MSS., and Mr. Huyshe stands forth as his champion to support that pretension. Now, if he printed his text wholly from the MSS., he must either have taken one of those MSS. as the basis, and only have departed from it, if ever, occasionally, or he must have given the preference to no individual MS., but have published an elective text, taken partly from one MS. and partly from another, according to the exercise of his own judgment. In either case, the whole fifteen or sixteen MSS. must frequently have stood opposed to the printed text, as no two independent MSS. can be found which do not differ from each other, more or less, in every section of their contents. Here, then, a question naturally arises, why Robert Stephens should be induced to make a partial selection to furnish opposing readings to the margin of the folio, and not rather to use the whole fifteen, which he was so fortunate as to have at the time, and which he could only have been permitted to retain as an act of special favour. Could any editor, in his sober senses, have neglected the favourable opportunity of enhancing the value of his impression by furnishing the various lections of not less than other seven Greek MSS.? If I should be told that these eight were selected to oppose the text on account of their superior value and antiquity, then I beg to ask, in what esteem we ought to hold the text if based only on the inferior MSS., and what is to become of the disputed passage when opposed and condemned by these marginal authorities? Or, if the seven MSS. kept back were actually more ancient and valuable than the selected eight, then why did he not furnish their various lections, since they must have contained many such as the more weighty and important? But, if they were all much alike, and the one set quite as good as the other, then why should the editor have been led to make so arbitrary a selection ? Surely either the hypothesis or the conduct of Robert Stephens must have been a little foolish.

But further. It is the solemn attestation of Robert Stephens, reiterated by Mr. Huyshe, that he had not admitted into the text a single letter which was not justly warranted by the greater number and better part of his MSS. Now, of his unmarked MSS. we cannot reckon more than seven; Mr. Huyshe himself talks of five, which he must have had in his possession at the time of printing the folio. Of these, if we make an average calculation, not more than two or three, at the most, could have contained that portion of the catholic epistles at all, much less the passage under dispute; but there is the evidence of Robert Stephens himself that eight of his MSS., namely, seven adduced in the margin, and another which he omitted to use for that

purpose, gave the context without the passage, and so bare witness to the interpretation. What, then, I would ask, becomes of the splendid boast, even with the assumption of the hypothesis to save his honour, that he had not admitted into his text a single letter which was not fully authorized by the majority of his MSS.? I can easily conceive how nice a point it must have been for Mr. Huyshe prudently to suggest what number of the unmarked MSS. might safely be reckoned upon as containing the verse. The more astounding the assertion from the number assigned, the more glaring the falsehood from the impossibility of finding them, and from the increasing belief that they could never have existed. Some happy medium, therefore, was to be hit upon between too many and none at all, and that happy hit Mr. Huyshe has determined for himself to be number one, a truly modest and mannerly claim. The dupes—a favourite term with your correspondent-are left to claim two or three at their own peril; but the author of the Specimen, having an eye no doubt to the safety of his position, appears to sit down perfectly content and satisfied with the authority of one MS. for the disputed text. He does not condescend to tell us which of these MSS. it was, nor where it is now, nor whoever has seen it, as these are all irrelevant and futile questions, which do not fall within the broad line of his argument; but that the editor ought to have had, nay, must have had, at least the authority of one of the unmarked MSS. for every letter of the disputed passage he firmly maintains, and believes that he has proved it. Here, then, by embracing the hypothesis, we have a most triumphant and satisfactory vindication, yea, the very best imaginable, of the honesty of Robert Stephens. In the preface to the first edition we are solemnly assured that every letter of the text, and, consequently, every letter of the disputed verse, was strictly warranted by a majority of his MSS. The objectors, however, complain that the verse stands positively contradicted by no less than eight of his own MSS., and that it is wholly unsupported by any of the authorities which he made use of at the time, except the Complutensian edition. But that, replies Mr. Huyshe, is no argument at all; for though eight of the marked MSS. might be brought against it, yet there must have been one of the unmarked MSS. for it; and since, according to every principle of arithmetic, one must always give a majority of number over seven or eight, that, surely, ought to be received as a sufficient proof, not only of the authenticity of the passage, but of the correctness of the editor's veracity!

How far the published specimen of Mr. Huyshe's efforts can conduce either to establish the authenticity of the disputed passage, or to vindicate the veracity of Robert Stephens, I have briefly demonstrated, and others can judge. In a future communication, perhaps, I may make a few remarks on the manner in which the argument has been conducted by your correspondent, as well as on some other points connected with this controversy.

I have the honour to remain your obedient servant,
JOHN OXLEE.

Stonegrave, Oct. 25th, 1834.

MR. EDITOR,-Your insertion of the following letter will not injure the Society for Propagating the Gospel, as it will be published elsewhere if it do not find a place in your Magazine. My wish is

Without questioning the motives which dictated this letter, can it be justified that an anonymous writer should, without hesitation, cast a general and severe censure on all the managers of a society, the reasons and plans of whose conduct it does not appear that he has had any means whatever of judging? They have not done what he thinks they ought to have done, and therefore no censure can be too severe for them! The writer will excuse some animadversions on the rest of the letter. The great charge against the society is, that they do not appeal to the public by sufficiently amusing and interesting preachers; and, above all, that when they have their missionaries in this country, they do not send them to itinerate and preach, or rather, for that is the plain fact, to excite attention by the relation of moving accidents by fell and flood, and then receive the proper payment for the half-hour's amusement they have given by a large contribution at the church-door. Whereas the Church Missionary Society does take these means, and had three thousand of these amusing sermons preached on its behalf in the course of one year. The Satirist thought that he made a bitter remark when he described men as saying

"Recte, si possis, si non, quocunque modo, rem;"

but he does not go so far as to describe those who, like us, think that quocunque modo is a synonyme for recte. This matter is, in truth, a most serious one. No reflection whatever on the Church Missionary Society is intended; that, and every other Society, will pursue such modes as their judgment and conscience dictate. But, without disrespect to them, a mode of proceeding, which they have adopted, may be discussed when others are blamed for not adopting it too. What one society does, other societies both may do and do. A copious enumeration of societies, indeed, could easily be made whose agents itinerate and preach these amusing sermons. Not three, but many, thousands of them must now be preached every year. And what must be the effect of this? What other effect can it have, when these exhibitions are so frequent, but that of indisposing the hearers to everything like calm and sober instruction, and of making them not only look (as we protestants already do) to the sermon as the chief thing, but turn away even from the sermon itself, unless it is amusing, stimulating, exciting? This is the very thing which, in fact, the letter writer recommends; for this power of amusing by relating incidents, is the only advantage which the itinerant or missionary has over the regular teacher. Qua itinerant, or missionary, he is not a man of higher endowments or genius than that teacher; but he has been where the parish priest has not, and can make an amusing narration of things which he has actually seen, and of which he has been a great part. He becomes almost an actor, and the church a theatre, resorted to for the same purposes and with the same feelings. Again, amusing books should be spread, it is said, and amusing meetings ought to be held constantly. This fully explains the demand which, as it is stated, is so loudly made in all quarters for amusing and interesting books of religious instruction. How, in truth, can we expect men to read any others, when we are thus daily and weekly feeding a morbid appetite, nay, feeding it in that very place where so unwholesome a state of the moral frame should be checked and corrected? Can we justify this practice before God and man? Is it right to make the pulpit so constantly, not a place of instruction, but of obtaining money? Is it right to obtain that money, not by solemn, plain statements of duty, but by amusing and affecting stories?

This last is, on every account, a very serious matter for reflection. It is, probably, very true that the society, which will not thus minister to the bad tastes and feelings of mankind, will not succeed in gaining so much money. But have we no belief in principles-no belief that it is our duty to rest everything upon them-no belief that they, and they alone, are the basis upon which ultimately everything can be safely rested? The heathen knew that nothing which was not real and sound, even in morals, could be lasting. Alas! for us, if we persevere in believing that what is unsound in religion can last-that we can safely pray for a blessing on it-that that

to benefit the society by exciting the committee to greater energy, and to enlarge their board.

Yours,

A SUBSCRIBER TO THE S. P. G. F. P.

SIR,-The injustice of Government in withdrawing any part of the annual grant to the Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts, has been most ably canvassed in your valuable Magazine. Now that an arrangement has been made to support the present missionaries during their lives, it becomes the society to use the respite given them before it be too late, and exert themselves to enlarge their funds, as well to increase the number of their missionaries as to provide for new ones as the present set die off. The Committee of the Society for Propagating the Gospel are, in my opinion, very likely to say, "Before our present missionaries die off, another administration may again sanction a continuance of the annual parliamentary grant to the society;" but such reasoning is unwise, if not idle and fallacious. I have a great personal respect for the committee of the society; but I hesitate not to affirm, from a most intimate knowledge of their proceedings, that they are not sufficiently active and alive to the feelings of the day. It is the committee I blame for the smallness of the society's funds. Its annual income might be easily doubled; but the society is not sufficiently known, and the committee do not take sufficient pains or go the right way to work to make it known. When their missionaries visit England, they make no use of them. It is not so with the Church Missionary and Wesleyan Societies; they know that a sermon preached by a missionary from foreign parts will attract much greater numbers than a parish priest can do, and thus their societies become known. It is impossible to travel through six towns in England without seeing sermons advertized for charitable societies; but who ever heard of sermons being preached for the Society for Propagating the Gospel, except from the king's letter? In the year 1832, three thousand sermons were preached in England alone for the Church Missionary Society; and they have delegates from the society continually travelling to increase their funds, and, at the same time, to interest persons in the proceedings of the society. But I speak within compass when I say that two-thirds-I believe nine-tenths of the people in England calling themselves churchmen, do not know of the existence of the Society for Propagating the Gospel; and the remaining third, or tenth, do not know what that society is doing. They cannot, for they put their candle under a bushel, and expect churchmen to find it out. Again, the Committee of the Society for Propagating the Gospel do not keep up a sufficiently frequent correspondence with their missionaries. They ought to publish

blessing will come-or that success is to be the only arbiter whether a scheme shall be resorted to or not.

The managers of the Society for Propagating the Gospel will hardly notice this letter. In as far as their want of equal success with other societies arises from their not resorting to means which are so objectionable they deserve not censure, but warm thanks. It would, on the whole, be a great good if there were no charity sermons but those publicly authorized, or those for parochial purposes. They seldom do more than amuse, and, by so doing, do real harm.-ED.

VOL. VII.-Jan. 1835.

K