vity to the birth of Chrift; 2dly, on the Perfecutions fuffered by the Jews; 3diy, on their prefent State; 4thly, on their religions Tenets; 5thly, on the Appellation of their Doctors and Teachers; 6thly, on the Cabbala; 7thly, on their Wri ters against the Chriftian Religion; and, 8thly, on their Principles refpecting religious Toleration. In Chap. VIII, we find fome obfervations on the nature of the Hebrew manufcrip's, and the principal editions of the Hebrew Bible. The remarks on the Hebrew manufcripts are, of course, only general and popular: hey, who would examine the fubject more minutely, must have recourfe to Kennicott and De Roffi. The account of the principal editions of the Hebrew Bible is very correct it inay be obferved only of the edition of Van der Hoogt, that it is not a bare reimpreffion of that of Athias. In the edition of the Hebrew Bible, which was begun by Doederlein, continued by Meifner, and publifhed at Leipzig, in 1793, one grand defect mult be noticed; namely, though the Hebrew manufcripts are quoted in it, according to the numbers affixed to them in Kennicott's edition, the editor has omitted to give a catalogue of the manufcripts, fo that they, who are not in poffeffion of Kennicort's edition, cannot poffibly know what manufcript is meant by each figure, and therefore cannot form a proper eftinate of the value of the various readings.

In Chap. IX, the account given of Greek MSS. of the New Teftament, is very fhort. Indeed this fubject is fo extenfive, that it was impoffible in a compendium to do, more than mention fome of the most celebrated.: further information, therefore must be fought in the writings of Simon, Mill, Wetstein, Griefbach, and Michaelis. In the fecond fection of this chapter, Mr. B. very properly fays,

"The curious and extenfive collections, which have been made of manufcripes within this century, have fhewn that certain manufcripts have an affinity to each other, and that their text is diftinguished from others by characteristic marks. This has enabled the writers on the fubject to arrange them under certain general claffes. They have obferved that, as different countries had different verfions, according to their refpective languages, their manufcrip's naturally refembled their refpective verfions, as the verfions, generally fpeaking, were made from the manufcripts in common use."

In the first edition of the Hora Biblicæ, Mr. B. then added, "Pursuing this idea, they have fuppofed four principal editions; ift, the western edition, or that ufed in the countries where the Latin language was fpoken; with this the Latin verfions coincide: 2dly, the Alexandrine edition; with this the quotations of Origen coincide: 3dly, the Edeffene edition, from which the Syriac verfion was made: and, 4thly, the Byzantine, or Conftantinopolitan edition; the greatest

number

number of the MSS. written by the monks of Mount Athos, the Mofcow MSS. the Slavonian or Ruffian verfion, and the quotations of Chryfoftom, and Theophylact, bishop of Bulgaria, are referrible to this edition."

But Mr. B. has now fubftituted, throughout this whole fentence, the word exemplar in the place of edition. Now the term, which Mr. B. had at first adopted, was certainly preferable for, when we intend to denote a whole class of manufcripts, it is neceffary to ufe a collective term, whereas the word "exemplar" is neceffarily confined to a single copy. The term edition," as applied to a particular clafs of Greek manufcripts, has received the fanction of Michaelis, and of other eminent critics e nor can any confufion arise from the use of it, as every one muft inftantly perceive, that the queftion does not relate to a printed edition, and that a clafs of Greek manufcripts, which are faid to belong to the fame edition, cannot be fuppofed to agree every where, word for word, like copies of the fame work, which are delivered from a printing-office. When we speak of written editions, characteristic readings form our criterion. In Latin, Griefbach uses the term “recenfio," which is ftill preferable to that of "editio:" if, therefore, we reject the term "edition," we must adopt the term "recenfion." On the critical ufe to be made of the feveral recenfions of the Greek text of the New Teftament, fee Griefbach's admirable obfervations, in the Prolegomena to his fecond edition of the Greek Teftament, p. lxxiii—lxxxi.

Chap. X, contains a description of the Polyglots: and in Chap. XI, is given an account of the principal editions of the Greek Teftament. This account is drawn up with great corTecnefs. In Chap. XII, we find fome ufeful information on the prefent ftate of the Greek Church, and the modern Greek verfions. Chap. XIII, relates to the Oriental versions, and the principal editions of them." In this chapter, if we underftand Mr. B. rightly (pp. 162, 163) he reprefents the Marcnites as Greek Chriftians inhabiting Syria. If fo, it must be an overfight, because the Maronites are Syrian Chriftians, and their fervice is performed in Syriac, as Mr. B. himself rightly obferves, p. 164. Speaking of the old Syriac verfion, or the Pethito, Mr. B. fays, p. 165,." It was printed at Vienna, in 1555. It has been lince reprinted; the best edition is that of Leyden, 1709, reprinted in 1717." Now it is perfectly true, that the first edition of the old Syriac verfion was printed at Vienna in 1555, and that the Leyden edition is the beft. But critical accuracy requires that the term "reprinted" fhould not be applied to the Vienna edition: for, though the

Leyden

Leyden edition contains the fame verfion, it does not contain precifely the fame text, the readings in many places being very different. Befides, the Vienna edition has the old Syriac verfion only, in which the fecond Epile of St. Peter, the fecond and third of St. John, the Epiftle of St. Jude, and the Apocalypfe are not contained, whereas in later editions, and in that of Leyden in particular, thefe books have been inferted from other Syriac tranflations. P. 163; "Melek" fhould rather be called Hebrew than Arabic: it is, however, of no great importance, as the Arabic word, without the nunnati 'n, which is never used in speaking, differs only in the points. In the fame page, the name of the Copts, the Chriftians of Egypt, thould rather be derived from Copios, a town in the upper Egypt, or from the word Ayures itself. Speaking of the Armenian verfion, and the (written) edition, or recenfion of it, by Haitho, king of Armenia, in the thirteenth century, Mr. B. obferves, P. 74: "It is afferted, that he made the ancient text conform throughout to the Latin Vulgate." Now it is true that this has been afferted, and very generally afferted; but the grand argument for this opinion, namely, that Haitho inferted 1 John v, 7, from the Vulgate, is devoid of foundation. Haitho did not infert this verfe; for though it is contained in Ufcan's printed edition, it is wanting, as appears from the unquestionable teftimony of Zohrab, in all the Armenian manu fcripts, most of which are undoubtedly pofterior to the time of Haitho.

Chap. XIV, contains a good account of the Latin Vulgate; and, in Chap. XV, mention is made of fome English verfions, Of thefe the defcription is very concife, for which Mr. B. (p. 263) afligns, as we think, a fufficient reafon," that as thefe verfions throw no light on the state of the (Greek) text, the mention of them did not enter into the plan of his work." Chap. XVI, relates to the divifion of the Bible into chapter's and verfes, and other marks of diftinction. Here Mr. B. fays, "the divifion of the Hebrew text into chapters was made by the Jews in imitation of the divifion of the New Teltament into chapters." To prevent mistakes, it is neceffary to obferve, that the word "chapter" must be here understood as denoting po, not, the latter being a very ancient divifion. which is still retained in the rolls of the Synagogue. When Mr. B. fays, at the end of this chapter, the fpirits and the accents are not earlier, in the opinions of moft writers, than the feventh century," he must be fuppofed to mean, not that the marks, called fpirits and accents, did not exist before the feventh century, for they were introduced by Aristophanes of Byzantium before the Chriftian æra, but that thefe marks are

not

not found in Greek manufcripts, which were written before the feventh century. However, if the celebrated Codex Vaticanus be more ancient than the feventh century, as many critics fuppofe, an exception must be made, fince this manu fcript has accents and spirits even a primá manu. The Codex Coiflinianus 1. which Montfaucon refers to the fixth century, has likewife accents and spirits, but not throughout.

In Chap. XVII, we find fome general obfervations on the nature of the various readings of the facred text. The first object of Mr. B. is, to afcertain what notion ought to be conveyed by the term "various readings," and for this purpose he endeavours previoully to determine, what are mat various readings. Of thefe latter he enumerates feven claffes, and then adds: From the general mafs of various readings we muft fubtract therefore thofe, which are included in the claffes above-mentioned." The two firft of thefe claffes contain wil ful alterations of the text, and inadvertent mistakes of tranfcribers, which Mr. B. fays are not various readings. He uses therefore the term "various reading" in a different sense from that, in which it is ufed by other critics, which must neceffarily create confufion. In the editions of Mill and Wetstein, for inftance, every reading printed under the text, which varies from the text, is a various reading: but whatever reading, whether printed among the variæ lectiones, or in the text it felf, is either a wilful corruption or an inadvertent mistake, is a fpurious reading. In refpect to the third class, Mr. B. very justly obferves, that "where two or more copies are made from the fame exemplar, they form together but one evidence:" but when he adds, that when two manufcripts, which were copied from the fame more ancient manufcript, differ from each other in any particular reading, and from the want of their common original, it cannot be afcertained which is the true copy, the reading of only one of them in that place can be confidered as a various reading, he again ufes the term “ various reading" in a different fenfe from the common one. Both readings are various readings, though both cannot be geguine. Nor can this latter queftion be always determined from knowing, which of the two tranfcribers in a given place adhered to the common original. Let us fuppofe that two MSS. C and D, are both of them tranfcripts from the fame MS. B; that, in a given place, the MS. C. exhibits a true copy of the MS. B, but that the MS. D. in this place deviates from it, and exhibits the reading y, where the other exhibits x. In this cafe, y is not only as ftrictly a various reading as x, but may be even the genuine reading, and deferve therefore to be taken into the text. For the reading of the MS. B to which the

writer of the MS. C clofely adhered, may in the given place have been fpurious, and the writer of the MS. D may have fubftituted from a ftill more ancient MS. A, the genuine reading. The examination of various readings is, and must be, an analytical operation; and, if we treat them fynthetically, we expofe ourselves to the danger of mistakes. The readings enumerated in the fourth, fifth, and fixth claffes, may be readily admitted to be unimportant readings, if fupported by no other authority than that which is there mentioned; but they are ftill various readings. Befides, if a reading, found either in a manufcript, or in a verfion, which upon the whole is of no great value, be at the fame time fupported by refpectable authority, even the lefs refpectable authority, though alone it would be of no importance, must be quoted at least as acceffory evidence. The feventh, and laft clafs, contains readings, which are not only strictly entitled to the name of various readings, wherever they vary from the common text, but are really various readings of the greatest importance, namely, quotations from the Greek Teftament found in the writings of the Fathers. No manufcript of the Greek Teftament now extant is (in the opinion of fome critics) prior to the fifth century: but, in paffages of the Greek Teftament preferved in the writings of Clement of Alexandria, and of Origen, we find quotations from Greek manufcripts of the third, and even of the fecond century. The fecond volume, therefore, of Griefbach's Symbola Criticæ, which contains a complete and very judiciously arranged collection of extracts from the writ ings of these two Greek Fathers, is of more value than a collation of an hundred modern manufcripts. On the opinion, that the quotations of the Greek Fathers form no certain ftandard for judging of the text of their Greek manufcripts, because they may have been quoted from memory, we beg leave to transcribe a paffage from the writings of a critic, whofe long experience on this fubject, and whofe critical acumen, is univerfally known.

"Radicitus ex animo evellenda eft præjudicata multorum opinio, qui è patrum allegationibus certò cognofci poffe negant, quid in fuis codicibus fcriptores illi legerint, nec ne. Eifi enim lubentiffime concedo, fcripturæ facræ loca a patribus fæpe excitari negligenter, nec codicibus infpeétis, fed memoriter atque confufè, extant criteria fat multa atque luculenta, quorum ope discerni poffunt alligationes fideliter è codicibus depromte a vagis ad ditta fcripturæ provocationibus."

Griefbach, Hift. text, epift. Paulinarum, Sect. i. 913

In what manner these criteria are to be applied, may be best learnt from a critical study of the fecond volume of the Sym

bole