had just been saying, "Fuit igitur et Deus et homo, inter Deum atque hominem medius constitutus, ut hominem perducere ad Deum posset;quia si Deus tantum fuisset, exempla virtutis homini præbere non posset; si homo tantum, non posset homines ad justitiam cogere, &c. After two sentences of further explanation, he adds, "Idcirco Mediator advenit, id est, Deus in carne." For the sake of the English reader we translate the passage: "He was, therefore, both God and man, a constituted medium between God and man, that he might bring man to God; for if he had been God only, he could not have exhibited examples of virtue to man; if he had been man only, he could not have brought men to a state of justification, &c. Therefore he came as Mediator, that is, God in the flesh."

We believe, that Lactantius clearly referred here to the form of expression in 1 Tim. iii, 6; the Reviewers do not; let the reader judge.

The next proof, that we have made "about as many mistakes,or misrepresentations as there are lines," is thus brought forward:

"He says, that Gregory Nyssen quotes os "very clearly," Griesbach asserts the very contrary. "Atque huc referendus (that is, to the class of those who have been improp erly or doubtfully quoted for sos) esse videtur Gregorius Nyss. cui editores quidem attribuunt eos epavepon, qui vero, &c. Itaque i legisse videtur, aut etium is." p. 411.

Let us consider the testimony. We have not the original at hand; but give the exact translation of it from the Christian Ob

VOL. IV. New Series.

Eunomius, Gregory Nyssen says of Paul; "He not only calls Christ God, but also the great God, and God over all; saying in his Epistle to the Romans, "Whose are the fathers, and of whom Christ came according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed for ever;' and to Titus, "Waiting for the blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ'; and to Timothy expressly, 'God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit!' This we all call a very clear quotation by Gregory Nyssen.

What, then, if "Griesbach does assert the very contrary?' It only furnishes an additional demonstrative proof of the charges we have brought against him. For we presume, that no man who reads the above quotation will doubt, that Gregory quotes the passage in question. There is not a more decisive quotation, in all the Fathers from Clemens Romanus down to Theophylact.

From the representation of the Reviewers, it would appear that Griesbach had made his assertion, with regard to the same passage in Gregory which is brought forward in the Christian Observer. It escaped our censors, however, that Griesbach pronounces his judgment on a his Antirrhet. adv. Apollinar. sentence of Gregory quoted from P. 138; which passage is μυστηριον εν σαρκι εφανερωθή; and that the Christian Observer quotes Gregory's tenth book against Eunomius. We say it escaped them; for if it did not, there is a dishonesty in what they have done, which it is not necessary for us to characterize.

17

τα

But what becomes of the acéuracy of Griesbach, in this view of the matter? He has placed Gregory Nyssen, and that without the least notice that his works any where contain any thing decided on the subject, among that class of writers, whose reference to the passage in question is doubtful. The fact is altogether the reverse. Thus much for this "misrepresentation." The remaining proofs of "misrepresentation" are thus expressed:

"The reviewer then proceeds to mention Ignatius, Hyppolitus, and Basil, as having "probably" quoted eos in this controverted text; a representation which is not justified even by the statements of his great authority, the Christian Observer." p. 411.

The quotations are these: Ignatius, Epist. ad Ephes. §19, says, Θε8 ανθρωπίνως φανερόμεν8 εἰς καινοτητα αιδια ζωης—God being manifested in the human form for the renovation of everlasting life."

Hyppolitus, c. Noet. 17, "OUTOS προελθών εις κόσμον, Θεος εν σωματι Фахеров Не who came into the world was manifested God in a body."

Basil, Epist. 65. "T8 μeyaλ8 μυστηριε, ὅτι ὁ Κύριος εφανερώθη εν Gapx-Of the great mystery, that the Lord was manifested in the flesh."

Our readers will see, that, with respect to Basil, we were mistak

en.

From his quotation it cannot be determined how he read the passage. The mistake occurred in the haste of compilation; and we gladly correct it. Our opinion of the two former quotations has by no means changed.

The Reviewers say, that we do not seem to "understand the difference between a clear quotation of a passage, and the use of some of the words contained in a passage." If this means, that we do not in every instance judge as they do, we have nothing to reply.

With respect to the use we made of the Christian Observer, it is only necessary to add to what has been said above, that we made no professions of following it in every, the minutest, particular; nor can any thing be produced, in which we did not act agreeably to our professions, and to the practice of respectable writers, when they are professedly abridging and compiling from the materials of others.

We have read "even the preface to the manual edition," (Anthol. p. 414) and carefully examined the attempt made by the Reviewers to explain away difficulties; but are not yet satisfied respecting the manner of printing

os in this edition.

We stated in our number for April, that the American edition had no mark prefixed to cos indicating the value of that reading. This raised a doubt whether it were accurate here; for Griesbach had, in 1806, published his critical edition, in which he has prefixed a mark to this word shewing that it is a probable reading; whereas the manual, from which the Cambridge edition is copied, bears date in 1805. The conclusion we drew from these circumstances, was, either that an important mark had been omitted in reprinting the manual edition, or that Griesbach himself had been in a vacillating state, deciding one year in one

way, and the next year another.

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 inclines 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 val

'ue.

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 Daillè 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 Os, 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. 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 în 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 censure 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

It

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 designated 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." 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!