were foreign to the usage of the Greek Church, before the introduction of printed editions, in which the Latin chapters were adopted, as well for the Greek as for the Latin Testament. The Dublin MS. therefore, if not written for the purpose to which it was applied in the third edition of Erasmus, could hardly have been written more than fifty years before. And how widely those critics have erred in their conjectures, who have supposed that it was written so early as the twelfth century, appears from the fact, that the Latin chapters were not invented till the thirteenth century. "But the influence of the Church of Rome in the composition of the Dublin MS. is most conspicuous in the text of that manuscript, which is a servile imitation of the Latin Vulgate. It will be sufficient to mention how it follows the Vulgate in the place in question. It not only agrees with the Vulgate in the insertion of the seventh verse: it follows the Vulgate also at the end of the sixth verse, having Xporos, where all other Greek manuscripts have TVеvμa and in the eighth verse it omits the final clause, which had never been omitted in the Greek manuscripts, and was not omitted even in the Latin manuscripts before the thirteenth century. Such is the character of that solitary manuscript, which is opposed to the united evidence of all former manuscripts, including the Codex Vaticanus, and the Codex Alexandrinus." A singular work, in which this controversy is introduced, appeared in 1822, under the technical title of " Palæoromaica; or Historical and Philological Disquisitions; inquiring whether the Lect. xxvii. pp. 19-26. Hellenistic style is not Latin Greek; whether the many new words in the Elzivir Greek Testament are not formed from the Latin; and whether the hypothesis that the Greek Text of many MSS. of the New Testament is a translation or re-translation from the Latin, seems not to elucidate numerous passages, to account for the different Recensions, and to explain many Phænomena hitherto inexplicable to Biblical Critics. The author of this volume, who was long concealed, and is not yet I believe generally known, was the Rev. John Black, Minister of Coylton, in the South of Scotland, and Author of the Life and Translation of Tasso. It would scarcely be supposed that the Clergyman of a small and obscure parish north of the Tweed, would be the author of a work which has troubled both the Universities of England. But the translator of Tasso was no ordinary man both in genius and learning. In this singular volume, the author endeavours to revive something like the wild and exploded hypothesis of the Jesuit Hardouin, who maintained that our Lord and his Apostles spoke Latin, and that the Latin Vulgate was the original of the New Testament. The anonymous author of the Palæoromaica contends, that the Greek New Testament is a translation of a Latin original, the text of which is not preserved in the Vulgate, or any Latin version in being. He also maintains that it is a translation by an unknown writer, imperfectly acquainted both with Latin and Greek. The proofs of these fanciful and extravagant notions, the reader will easily suppose, must be very extraordinary. The writer is by no means deficient in ingenuity, and has evidently spared no pains to bolster up his theory. He original; and that the Elzevir "The Author in the fifth Disquisition, after attempting a solution of some apparent objections to, or difficulties in his hypothesis, proceeds to show how much it seems to be supported by the sentiments and statements of some of the most distinguished Editors of the New Testament. It will be found that of these some have proceeded on the assumption that even the Latin Vulgate (itself a version from the Greek) is of greater authority than the modern Greek text; while others accuse the most venerable Greek MSS. of the New Testament, and, indeed, in proportion to their antiquity of Latinizing. In the sixth and last Disquisition, the author applies his hypothesis to an elucidation of the German theory of different families or recensions of the MSS. of the New Testament; and here, as all along, he illustrates (if he mistakes not) nume rous passages, and many various readings, which have hitherto resisted the efforts of all critics to explain them."* On these grounds chiefly he raises his visionary structure, which, if true, would go far to endanger the whole fabric of Christianity. His learning is evidently considerable, but his love of paradox would seem to be still greater. The work was regarded, on its first appearance, as dangerous, and immediately occasioned a considerable controversy. In the British Critic for January, February, and April, a long and able article combated the main positions of the Palæoromaica. In the course of the same year, it was attacked by Bishop Burgess, in the Postscript to his Vindication of 1 John v. 7.; by the Rev. J. T. Conybeare, in his " Examination of certain arguments in Palæoromaica ;" by Dr. Falconer, in the "Second Part of the Case of Eusebius ; "and by the Rev. W. G. Broughton, in his "Examination of the Hypothesis advanced in a recent publication, entitled Palæoromaica." The last is the ablest and fullest exposure of the fallacy and absurdity of the whole scheme. The author, however, far from being discouraged by the number and weight of his opponents, again took the field against them all, in a " Supplement to Palæoromaica, with Remarks on the Strictures made on that work, by the Bishop of St. David's, the Rev. J. J. Conybeare, the British Critic; also by the Rev. W. G. Broughton, and Dr. Falconer." 1824. To the second "" Postscript" in this publication, Mr. Broughton replied in 1825. And the whole * Pref. pp. viii—xi. subject was again brought into review by Dr. Maltby, in a visitation sermon, entitled, "The Original Greek of the New Testament asserted and vindicated." Such is the present state of the Palæoromaican Controversy. It is very curious as a display of ingenuity, and as affording another proof that the text of the New Testament is capable of bearing any ordeal to which it is possible for the learning or genius of man to put it. Having noticed the work itself, and the discussion which it occasioned, I must state how it came to be connected with the dispute about the Heavenly Wit nesses. The author considers the disputed verse a specimen of translation from Latin, and therefore one of the supports of his argument for the Latin origin of the New Testament. The following passage contains the substance of his theory on this part of his subject. ، A still more appropriate example of the origin of recensions, arising from a diversity of versions from the Latin, may be given from an interpolation in the Greek New Testament itself. In his two first editions of the New Testament, Erasmus omitted the famous verse, 1 John v. 7, concerning the three heavenly witnesses, but inserted it in his later editions on the authority of a Codex Britannicus. This Cod. Brit. is supposed to be the Cod. Montfortianus or Dublinensis, one proof of which is, that the text of the third edition of Erasmus, printed in 1522, agrees verbatim in this interpolated passage with the Dublin MS., while it differs from all other editions, except such as were copied from itself. Nor does it differ only from the usual text, but (as Michaelis observes)" is written in such Greek as manifestly betrays a translation Και τρεις εισιν from the Latin." I shall transcribe rpels es To ÈV ELOL. Erasmi tertia, anni 1522. 66 Edit. εν τῷ ουρανῳ, πατηρ, λογος, και πνευμα ἅγιον, και ουτοι oi τρεις ἓν εισι. Και τρεις εισιν δι μαρτυρούντες εν τη γη. "Here (says Michaelis, ii. 286), the article is omitted before the words expressive of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, because there is no article in the Latin, and it occurred not to the translator, that the usual Greek was o πατηρ, ὁ λογος, το πνευμα. He has also ev τn yn, which is false Greek for επι της γης, because he found in the Latin in terrâ.' "Editio Stephani tertia, anni 1550. 66 εν τῷ ουραν ¿ πατηρ, ὁ λογος, ¿ και το ἅγιον πνευμα, και οὗτοι δι τρεις Ev εισι. Και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρούντες εν τῇ γῇ· δι μαρτυρουντες επι της γης. "In the above text, translated from Latin into Greek, we have a specimen of three different recensions arising from thre e different versions from the Latin; or, at least, from two immediate versions from that language, and an improvement upon one of them by modelling it into better Greek. This improvement is produced, in the first place, by an insertion of the articles. I formerly [p. 297] endeavoured to account for the non-existence of the dual number in the Greek Scriptures, from the circumstance of its non-existence in the Latin, whence our Vulgate Greek copies may have been translated; and, in like manner, as the articles are wanting in the Latin language, there is usually a deficiency in this respect in every literal Greek version from the Latin. Thus, as we have seen above, we have in the Dublin MS., and in the edition of Erasmus which was derived from it, πατηρ and λογος and πνευμα without any article. It is stated by Erasmus, in one of his Apologies, in speaking of his first edition,' In calce Apocalypsis in exemplari, quod tum nobis erat unicum, nam is liber apud Græcos rarus est inventu, deerat unus atque alter versus. "Here Stephens, or rather, as Dr. Marsh observes, Erasmus himself, in his two last editions, has modelled the verse into better Greek by the insertion of the article.' Still, however, we have the Latinism Ev Tn yn. It has been proved irrefragably by several critics, that the Complutensian editors translated also the above verse from the Latin, and interpolated it into their Greek text. And it is no more than justice (says Porson) to allow that they at least did their work like workmen. They made good Greek of their Latin-a task to which the translator of the Lateran Decrees, and the writer of the Dublin MS. were unequal.' This Complutensian text is as follows::"Editio Complutensis, anni obscurum sit ex Latinis fuisse 1514. 66 εν τω ουρανῳ, 8 πατηρ, Kaι λόγος, και το πνευμα ἅγιον, καί δι Eos nos addidimus secuti Latinos Codices." Wetstein, who quotes this passage, remarks, 'Accuratius tamen omnia rimanti satis constat, non, ut Erasmus scribit, perpauca fuisse, quæ ipse ex Latinis utcunque et festinanter Græce reddidit, sed a vers. 16 ad finem libri sex integros versus. In istis enim omnibus Erasmi editio abit a Codicibus MSS. et ita quidem, ut Græca ipsius non conversa. Hinc enim profecta est perpetua illa omissio articulorum vers. 16, ριζα pro ή ρίζα, λαμπρος pro ὁ λαμπρος ; vers. 18, προφητειας βιβλιου pro της προφητειας του βιβλίου, εν βιβλιῳ pro εν τῳ Bißi bis; vers. 19, Bißlov pro του βιβλιου ; ζωης pro της ζωης ; πολεως ἁγιας pro της πολεως της ἅγιας.” This, it must be confessed, is ingenious; but though it should be proved that the disputed passage was first translated into Greek by the Complutensian Editors, or the writer of the Dublin manuscript, the argument Pp. 411-415. of the Palæoromaica in favour of the Latin origin of the New Testament would by no means follow, as I suppose the disputed verse is the only passage in this peculiar situation, The author is aware of this, and therefore supports his hypothesis by other arguments, which it is no part of my business to answer. Those who wish to enter fully into this curious, and not uninteresting controversy, must consult the works on both sides which have been enumerated. ON THE PECULIAR TEMPTATIONS TO WHICH CONGREGATIONAL DISSENTERS ARE EXPOSED. PERFECTION and excellence are no other. But if it be ever realized only relative terms. When we apply these words to any individuals or circumstances, we speak of them in comparison with what they once were, or with what others are now. In this world, no situation, and no character, is absolutely perfect. This fact is so well known, that the statement of it is a mere truism. But the principles whence it arises are not, by many, distinctly understood. It is usual to account for imperfection by something negative-some defect or weakness. There are, however, other causes. Human circumstances may here attain all the perfection of which their nature admits. But, as the necessary consequence of man's state and character in this world, that perfection may generate something within itself, which, if not rooted out, may prove its destruction. Although this kind of perfection is not only possible, but does actually exist, yet it is very rarely to be found. Except the case we have in view, we know of at all, we think it is the property of that system which seeks to guide the feelings and the conduct of those who receive it by the Word of God, and by that alone. Or rather we ought to say, it is so, as far as it has been successful in actually bringing their hearts and lives under the sole and complete guidance of the principles of the Gospel. Allowing that a man, or any body of men, have become the subjects of its influence; that they discovered and sought to obey all the laws of Christ; and that they fully and completely understood his holy Word: even then they would be exposed to danger. And that danger might arise in those very things, in regard to which they had got the better of that imperfection which marks all human conduct. This situation, so happy and so excellent, exposes to trials unknown in others. Here there is no exercise for those virtues and graces, which more untoward circumstances, and less clear perceptions, require. And if the Chris |