ism in this country, may then be fairly cited as causes tending to increase religious sentimentalism.

Far be it from us to condemn every approach to feeling on every occasion. The pen of Wilson has shown its use in adorning literary productions, and that without it they could not "hold the mirror up to nature." Still farther be it from us to object to refinement of taste and gentleness of manners. These are altogether distinct from that affected sensibility and contemptible fastidiousness which some cherish, under the idea that it renders them very engaging. But let nothing of this sort be mistaken for religion. And while we seek not to subdue, but to guide aright, the gentler feelings of our nature, let us beware of supposing that any of these feelings, whether under the direction of good taste or not, can ever sanctify the heart. Let the lover of nature go forth, if he will, into the forest, and listen to its varied melodies, and feel his spirit elevated and refined by the influences which nature is pouring around him. Let him find sentiment and poetry in the majestic oak or the graceful vine; let him see beauty and loveliness in the flowers that bloom before his eye, and the rivulet that meanders at his feet. It is well. It should be so. God has made us susceptible of this class of emotions, and has adorned the earth with objects adapted to call them into exercise. But let not any one imagine that there is necessarily any religion in all this. If this is all that he feels, his emotions, however deep they may be, belong not to religion, but to taste; and there is no more holiness in them than there is in the thoughts of the man who walks through the forest merely to calculate how many cords of wood it will yield. If the man who reckons his wealth by millions, can think of no more desirable use for his money than to spend it in erecting an elegant church, and furnishing it with every kind of costly decoration, let him do so; we will not complain, though we may perhaps be allowed to wish that he had chosen to employ a portion of it in feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and shedding over darkened nations the light of eternal truth. But if, as he enters the splendid edifice, and surveys its beautiful architecture, and feels a glow of delight as he gazes on its varied forms of beauty or of grandeur, and finds a yet deeper emotion awakened as the soft and mellow tones of the organ pour their melody

upon his ear, he deems that all this is religious feelingwe must warn him of his danger. We must assure him that feeling and holiness are different things; and that every emotion which such influences can awaken may exist in a heart utterly alienated from God, and exposed to all the fearful consequences of his holy displeasure. Let the journalist, who records the completion of such an edifice, give all due credit to the taste and skill of the architect who planned it, and to the generosity of those who furnished the means of erecting it. But let him not misguide the minds, and perhaps ruin the souls of his readers, by representing such a building as a means of exciting devotional feeling in the otherwise undevotional. Alas, the depravity of man is not subdued by such influences. The renovation of the heart is effected by far other agencies than this. Who, that knows any thing of the nature of true religion, can doubt that more sincere devotion has been felt, and more acceptable worship rendered in many a lonely and unadorned sanctuary in the forest, than the dome of St. Peter's could ever inspire, or has ever wit

nessed?

It is true beyond a doubt, that architectural taste has, in many instances, been far too much neglected in the construction of houses of public worship. In many of these houses the eye of taste is pained by the rudeness every where apparent. It is right-nay, it is our duty to make our houses of public worship pleasant and comfortable to those who resort to them. It is probable that by so doing, a more general attendance is secured, and greater good accomplished. We have no right to say, as some have done, "If people do not love the worship of God well enough to attend upon it in an uncomfortable building, let them stay away." It is our duty to induce as many as we can, by proper means, to attend on the preaching of the gospel; for it may prove "the power of God and the wisdom of God" to their salvation. Simplicity and neatness should ever characterize the edifices appropriated to the worship of God. It may be elegant simplicity and tasteful neatness; and when the resources of the occupants allow, it is well that it should be so. But the more showy class of decorations, and even those imposing forms which are so attractive to the eye of the sentimentalist, are, if not out of place, at least unnecessary. Nor

are they wholly unexposed to a more serious charge. If they tend, in any degree, to lead the mind to mistake sentimental feeling for true devotion, then is their influence positively injurious. While, therefore, we call in architectural skill, and taste, and genius to render our houses of public worship neat, commodious and attractive, it becomes us to guard against introducing into them any thing which will tend to divert attention from the truth, or lead to erroneous impressions in respect to the nature of religion. And while we carefully guard against such rudeness and repulsiveness in our sacred edifices as may create the impression that religion is at war with taste, let us guard no less carefully against encouraging the idea that any thing merely external can sanctify the heart, or awaken genuine devotional feeling.

But

Numerous have been the plans devised by our apostate race to secure the favor of God, in the absence of that humility and that self-renunciation which the gospel requires. The Pharisee, the monk, the legalist, the antinomian, and the sentimentalist, have all aimed at this one object. flattering as their systems are to the natural pride of man, attractive as they may seem to him who has never seen "the plague of his own heart," the awakened conscience. will still deeply feel the insufficiency of them all. And the humble believer, finding in the atonement of Christ a perfect adaptation to his condition and his wants, will turn away from all these schemes of man's invention to "the wondrous cross," and rest his hopes of eternal life there and there alone.

R. A. C.

ARTICLE VI.

HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

1. PRINTED EDITIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

IN giving an account of the printed editions of the New Testament, it will be most interesting to learn the manner in which the common text was formed. By the common text, we mean that which appears in common editions, and which was the basis of our present English translation, and which is called, for distinction's sake, Textus Receptus.

The first printed edition of any part of the Greek Testament, is one by Aldus Manutius, who printed the first six chapters of the Gospel by John, at Venice, in 1504; and, in 1514, the whole of this gospel was printed at Tübingen, in Suabia. These had no influence on subsequent editions.

The first printed edition of the whole Greek Testament, is that which is contained in the Complutensian Polyglott, so called from Complutum, or Alcala, in Spain, where it was printed. The volume containing the Greek Testament, which is accompanied with the Latin Vulgate in a parallel column, is dated 10th January, 1514. For the Complutensian Polyglott, Cardinal Ximenes made great exertions in procuring Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. The editors describe their manuscripts, the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament among the rest, as being very ancient. This statement must be received with much limitation;-and in so receiving it, we do not impeach the motives of the editors; for the criticism. of manuscripts was then in its infancy. There are now no means of determining the quality of the manuscripts from which their New Testament text was taken, except the text itself; and this is considered, by good judges, as not warranting the claim to high antiquity. For wherever Greek manuscripts of the thirteenth, fourteenth, or fifteenth

century differ from the most ancient Greek manuscripts, and from the quotations of the early Greek fathers, the Complutensian almost invariably agrees with the modern, in opposition to the ancient manuscripts.

The editors speak also of having received manuscripts from the Vatican Library, sent by Pope Leo the Tenth. But we are at a loss how to reconcile this declaration with the facts, that the New Testament was commenced in 1502, and Leo X was not Pope before 1513. It is also said, that a comparison of the Complutensian New Testament with the Codex Vaticanus shows, there is not in the Complutensian edition a reading peculiar to the manuscript called Vaticanus.

The importance of ascertaining the quality of the manuscripts from which the Complutensian edition was made, induced Professor Moldenhawer to visit Alcala in 1784, in order to examine the manuscripts. After many fruitless attempts, he discovered that an illiterate librarian, who wanted room for some new books, had, about thirty-five years before, sold the manuscripts to a dealer in fireworks as materials for making rockets. In relating this circumstance, Michaelis indignantly exclaims, "O that I had it in my power to immortalize both librarian and rocket-maker! The author of this inexcusable act was the greatest barbarian of the present age, and happy only in being unknown." As an offset to this burst of generous indignation, Bishop Marsh observes, "This very circumstance may console us for their loss; for as rockets are not made of vellum, it is a certain proof that the manuscripts were written on paper, and therefore were of no great antiquity."

The Complutensian edition, we have said, was the first printed edition of the whole New Testament; it was not, however, the first published edition. For it was not before the 22d March, A. D. 1520, that Leo X gave permission for its being published; and copies were not distributed to the world at large before the year 1522.

It is to Erasmus, that the world was indebted for the first published edition of the whole Greek Testament. This was printed at Basel, or Bâle, in Switzerland, A. D. 1516. In preparing this edition, he used four manuscripts; besides a manuscript of Theophylact, a Greek father who lived at the end of the eleventh century, containing